UKC

Have the Labour party NEC done the right thing by charging £25 to allow people a vote in the leadership ballot?

In reply to krikoman:

No.

In reply to krikoman:

Yes, unless they wanted to see the same farce as last time where thousands of votes were thrown out "as they were from members who didn't reflect the party values"

In reply to balmybaldwin:


And your evidence for this?

And you think the ability to pay should grant you the opportunity of voting?

In reply to krikoman:

No.

In reply to krikoman:

They can charge whatever they like, but arbitrarily changing the rules/fees would seem a bit off.

In reply to krikoman:


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34047788 -

There's plenty more new stories from the time.


No. but neither should it be a free for all allowing as we saw before (or was suspected) that non labour voters could possibly sway the vote.

In reply to Sir Chasm:


Yes, it would, but it could also be seen as correcting the mistakes last time someone arbitrarily changed the rules

In reply to balmybaldwin:


And money is the solution for this "mistake"?

In reply to krikoman:

We call it general election when it is free for everyone.

In reply to balmybaldwin:


Well, maybe. But if people have paid their money and then the rules get changed I can see they might be a bit miffed.

In reply to krikoman:


Surely you pay to become a member of the party rather than to vote?

If someone is dedicated to the idea of being an active party member then maybe there should be some form of discount for those who are less well off. However, if you view it as merely paying for a vote then it stinks regardless of how much you are paying IMO.

In reply to krikoman:

I don't agree with paying but to be eligible to vote you should be a registered member of the party with a given period of time involved.
A 1 year minimum would be good.

In reply to timjones:


There is: it's half price for those who are retired, unemployed or working less than 16 hours a week.

https://join.labour.org.uk/

In reply to Martin W:



Now I'm really confused ;(

None of those monthly membership rates work out at either £25 per year or £3 per year?

In reply to krikoman:

£1.96 per month for various groups.

I think most people could afford that.

In reply to climbwhenready:



I think a lot of people are trying to make ends meet, and can't afford to feed themselves properly, hence the increase in food banks.

In reply to timjones:



It's not to do with that, it's for people who signed up for the £3 associate membership, or whatever it's called, only to be now told it £25 and they need to register and pay over a two day period (Christ knows who thought this would be a good idea, it smacks of obfuscation if nothing else!)

In reply to krikoman:

Is that £25 only if you are not already a party member? If so, no problem.

In reply to The New NickB:

Of course it's a problem, because it affects anyone who joined in the last six months. The period when people might like to have a say on who's the leader.

"Labour are supposed to be the party of the working class, the working poor and those on benefits. Take, for example, a young person, aged between 18 and 24 on Job Seekers Allowance. They receive just £57.90 a week to live off, to pay bills and to eat. They simply can not afford to pay nearly half their weekly income to vote in the leadership elections. Even if they could save up the money over time, with the 48 hour window being next week, there isn£t time to do so."

On top of that this decision was not on the agenda, and was voted on when JC and some of his supporters had already left the meeting.

Once again!!! This doesn't seem very democratic to me.

In reply to Dax H:

Completely in agreement.
With a fee which is virtually nothing (in this case less than the price of a pint of beer), then just about anyone, with whatever axe to grind or from whatever political point of view can join in - and hence completely skew the result.
Due to the sudden influx of new "supporters" last time there was a strong suspicion that both far left and far right extremists were getting involved, one group to swing Labour far to the left, the other to bring it to its' knees.
That was the complaint about the "election" won by Corbyn in the first place.
At present we have a Labour "leader" pulling the party further to the left than the electorate are likely to accept, and the Labour party so damaged that if Theresa May were to call a snap election as soon as she takes office it would lose its deposits in many constituencies, let alone fair badly.

In reply to krikoman:

Should people who aren't members of the Labour Party have a say in the leadership election?

If so, should they not be expected to make a financial commitment at least equivelant to the cheapest party membership.

Should Trade Union membership be free, my Corbyn supporting Union charge me £300 a year.

In reply to krikoman:


Sure. I just think that £1.96 per month is probably at the level where even people who struggle to make ends meet can find one thing to sacrifice if they want to be a political party member.

If you smoke, it's one less cigarette per week, for example.

There will be some people who have made every efficiency they possibly can in their lives, but this is rare.

In reply to krikoman:

"No representation without taxation"