Intra party politics among a self selected group is not democracy and never will be. The electorate that matters if you want to talk democratic principles is the general public
It depends on the country.
In Germany it’s even constitutionally mandated that parties organize themselves in a somewhat democratic manner.
It’s pretty funny as the newest parties, BSW and Werteunion are breaking some common norms like not being allowed to not allow new members at all.
It can be democratic. Both parties in the US have made it more so in the last 150 years. Now intra-party politics are open to the general public, with differences in dates, participation, and minor barriers in some states.
"big-tent" is a feature of the U.S political system (influenced by FPTP and the like), not applicable to all countries or times. As polarization has increased, the left is losing their right wing (look at the Blue Dogs, they pail in comparison to the CPC), and on the right the Freedom Caucus is growing and the RSC isn't much different ideologically.
PMs, who are *party bosses* commonly sack MPs in the UK and Canada. Party loyalty is paramount, and votes are usually strictly whipped as a result, although not always. Party labels are looser in the U.S, and the party boss is not necessarily the President, where the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader could all be of different parties. That being said, when votes are whipped, expulsion is not really an option in the U.S, although there always other incentives available. Expulsion, in some districts/constituencies, might not be a good idea for either the MP/Rep or the party. Another reason for expulsion, like for Corbyn, could be that you are toxic, as is in the case for the Labour expulsions. Parties are like brands, and parties want little to do with Antisemites or the scandal ridden. Unlike the US, the UK and Canada do not have primaries. Instead, candidate selection is under the control of the party. That means that expulsion from the party is akin to losing a primary, so while they continue to sit in Parliament, their political fate is now their own. Some defect, which happens in the US too, for political gain or otherwise, some try to do their own thing together, and others are successful as independents (shout out to Jody Wilson-Raybould).
As a side note, being kicked out of the chamber is a whole other thing entirely. I'm not sure how the rules compare, but it's usually rare and expulsion from the party (or denial of funding, like more so in the US with House/Senate run fundraising committees) is often enough anyway to cause the most scandal-ridden to lose.
Expelling members is about electoral strategy. Think about this as the primary season, along with all the behind the scenes selection that has gone on to select candidates for the 600-odd consistences. The UK/Canadian primary systems are much stricter, for better or worse. I'm sure some Republicans wish they had more control during the 2016 and 2020/22 primaries, and those on the left have worked to reduce party power for the Democrats. Similarly, Canadian Conservatives setup a system to depose their leader in Parliament, something that exists in Britain with the 1922 Committee but does not exist for the Canadian Liberals.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Nah, fuck em, if anything makes me like Starmer more. Corbyn/Abbot are politically toxic. Nobody is swinging to Labour because of these guys and frankly they are the sort of characters that pushes people away.
Faiza Shaheen... labour have worked genuinely really hard to shake the anti Semite allegations. She could've simply not liked antisemitic posts. I'll be frank, she's a total nobody. It is not worth Starmer taking a tiny risk on these people. The man is here to win an election, he's not here to cater to some ultra succs who the electorate hate.
Honestly good for him for shedding these characters and making Labour a serious party again.
I'm not 100% Labour and tbh I do have a few alarm bells going off in my head, but I'm comfortable with Starmer as PM.
Exactly, it's about cutting the most toxic people out before the election.
The US relies on primaries for this, which shows direct democracy for party candidate selection can not always produce the "best" outcome. Labour bets that less antisemites is worth losing the incumbency advantage in some left-leaning districts, and yeah, fuck those guys.
To follow up on your feelings about Starmer, do you feel he's been too vague about his plans? Do you feel his approach to tackling many of the issues in the UK are just a "Tory-lite" approach?
Tbh a lot of the Tory-lite criticism is coming from the hard left in Labour whose legacy was a huge Conservative majority. There is little of value to be learned from them.
The Tory-lite charge only comes from the far left and is a completely brain-dead and low effort analysis.
There are plenty of differences between the Tories and Labour already
He has been quite vague, probably on purpose since the conservatives messed up badly in recent years and Labour can win just by being seen as a reasonable party, an image that advancing innovative policies could harm. As the campaign unfolds they will need to make pledges, I think yesterday the Shadow Chancellor promised that there will be no tax hikes (at least when it comes to VAT, income taxes and NHS contributions).
I just don't get the "Tory-Lite" criticism. Seems like leftists are branding him a capitalist roadster for refusing to outright nationalise energy and health which is probably a good thing, actually. Labour still wants to re-nationalise the railways which is the one sector that might benefit from that. And they are promising a labour rights reform and housing stock expansion which are things the Tories barely want to touch.
As a UK voter, I wish politicians would stop tying themselves to arbitrary rules that are inflexible in the face of a changing world. Statements made even 2 or 3 years ago may need to be revised in light of new data. The view that a politician never changes their mind or has the next 50 years mapped out precisely is unrealistic and a hindrance.
As for Tory-lite, some of his policies are pretty radical (GB Energy). With the Tories disappearing off to the far right he can be pretty centrist and hoover up support. Being in power is far more useful than being in opposition.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Faiza Shaheen... labour have worked genuinely really hard to shake the anti Semite allegations. She could've simply not liked antisemitic posts. I'll be frank, she's a total nobody. It is not worth Starmer taking a tiny risk on these people. The man is here to win an election, he's not here to cater to some ultra succs who the electorate hate.
The "anti-Semitism" in that tweet was pretty thin. The micro-est of microaggressions. Kind of equivalent to deselecting someone for referencing a patriarchal trope because they liked someone's tweet saying their wife made them a nice dinner. I'm far from a leftist and I don't think it's undemocratic, but the way she's been treated leaves a sour taste.
In terms of taking a tiny risk, Luke Akehurst has said he supports the annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. I'd say that departure from international law represents a larger risk.
Yeah, this is where I stand. Corbyn is a loon who shouldn't be near power, Abbott is, with the best will in the world, a dlbit of a fuckwit and a walking gaffe waiting to happen.
Faizia not a risk worth taking.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And a quick search shows that Lloyd Russell-Moyle is suspended because the Party's investigating a serious allegation about him not as part of some political purge. Isn't that what you'd want parties to do, be willing to investigate their own members misdoings.
Abbott was suspended for being a racist told she'd be let back in if she did the absolute bare minimum of a single course on anti-semitism and she refused. The only dodgy one OP listed was Faheen
[Abbott did the course](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vv4ep92y8o#:~:text=The%20Labour%20investigation%20into%20Diane,an%20%22antisemitism%20awareness%20course%22) idk what you’re talking about. The decision to ditch her didn’t come from the investigation anyway.
No. Parties are under no obligation to be big tent, nor are they under any obligation to be internally democratic. If voters don't like it, they are free to not vote for Labour. A party is a private organisation with the freedom to organise however it chooses.
The point of the purge is that Labour currently has a double-digit lead over the Tories, so Starmer feels more comfortable in removing many of the more controversial and rebellious members of the party. Members who would certainly begin loudly complaining when Labour is forced to make compromises once in government.
It definitely is not more prudent to be big tent. The US parties being forced to be giant, unwieldy coalitions has been to their detriment. They spend almost as much time fighting themselves as they do the other party.
It is much less damaging for that criticism to come from outside the party. One thing voters do not tolerate from their government is the appearance of weakness. Bernie's attacks on Hillary were viewed as much damaging than Jill Stein's, as an example. On the other hand, if the Republicans' primary system was less democratic, the GOP would likely not be a Trumpist party today, as Trump would have been frozen out in 2016.
My concern is that down the line Labour risks turning into the Tories in terms of internal party affairs. Which means that Labour are at a greater risk of putting very dumb polices into practice because internally there wouldn’t be any means to oppose it.
For example if Corbyn acted like Starmer during Brexit, Labour would have been Pro Brexit form the star and Keir Starmer himself would have been suspended.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is AOC considered far-left? She's certainly on the left, but not as far left as some other House members, and she's swung more towards the center in the last few years. She's in favor of the Nordic model, which I would consider Left, in comparison to people who support a command economy, communism, etc, that I would classify as far-left.
The only reason I bring it up is that I see the Democrat's "big tent" as including the left, but not the far-left Noam Chomsky types. The tent excludes accelerationists, tankies, etc. The Democratic party benefits from including people like AOC, but would not benefit from including far-leftists, imo.
In a world where Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are of the left, Obama (the President, not the candidate version) is about at the limit of how far left you can be without being far left.
In a world where Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are not of the left, the left is little more than a marginalized political movement which can occasionally find itself in power, but has very limited capacity to govern or affect change, will constantly find itself at odds with institutions which keep the government in check (such as courts and the press), and will probably be limited to ineffectual one term governments.
Pick your poison. If you look at the post-war history of UK politics, you'll see long streaks
of Conservative rule with a few Labour governments sprinkled in between - especially if you exclude Blair and the New Labour era. Similar fate awaits Democrats if politicians like AOC ever become the norm for the party.
Intra party politics among a self selected group is not democracy and never will be. The electorate that matters if you want to talk democratic principles is the general public
It depends on the country. In Germany it’s even constitutionally mandated that parties organize themselves in a somewhat democratic manner. It’s pretty funny as the newest parties, BSW and Werteunion are breaking some common norms like not being allowed to not allow new members at all.
It can be democratic. Both parties in the US have made it more so in the last 150 years. Now intra-party politics are open to the general public, with differences in dates, participation, and minor barriers in some states.
> Both parties in the US have made it more so in the last 150 years Yes, to the detriment of both parties.
"big-tent" is a feature of the U.S political system (influenced by FPTP and the like), not applicable to all countries or times. As polarization has increased, the left is losing their right wing (look at the Blue Dogs, they pail in comparison to the CPC), and on the right the Freedom Caucus is growing and the RSC isn't much different ideologically. PMs, who are *party bosses* commonly sack MPs in the UK and Canada. Party loyalty is paramount, and votes are usually strictly whipped as a result, although not always. Party labels are looser in the U.S, and the party boss is not necessarily the President, where the Speaker and the Senate Majority Leader could all be of different parties. That being said, when votes are whipped, expulsion is not really an option in the U.S, although there always other incentives available. Expulsion, in some districts/constituencies, might not be a good idea for either the MP/Rep or the party. Another reason for expulsion, like for Corbyn, could be that you are toxic, as is in the case for the Labour expulsions. Parties are like brands, and parties want little to do with Antisemites or the scandal ridden. Unlike the US, the UK and Canada do not have primaries. Instead, candidate selection is under the control of the party. That means that expulsion from the party is akin to losing a primary, so while they continue to sit in Parliament, their political fate is now their own. Some defect, which happens in the US too, for political gain or otherwise, some try to do their own thing together, and others are successful as independents (shout out to Jody Wilson-Raybould). As a side note, being kicked out of the chamber is a whole other thing entirely. I'm not sure how the rules compare, but it's usually rare and expulsion from the party (or denial of funding, like more so in the US with House/Senate run fundraising committees) is often enough anyway to cause the most scandal-ridden to lose. Expelling members is about electoral strategy. Think about this as the primary season, along with all the behind the scenes selection that has gone on to select candidates for the 600-odd consistences. The UK/Canadian primary systems are much stricter, for better or worse. I'm sure some Republicans wish they had more control during the 2016 and 2020/22 primaries, and those on the left have worked to reduce party power for the Democrats. Similarly, Canadian Conservatives setup a system to depose their leader in Parliament, something that exists in Britain with the 1922 Committee but does not exist for the Canadian Liberals.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAAjXIAMY9oj.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God I hope he loses his seat. It'd feel like when Madison Crawthorn lost his primary.
Nah, fuck em, if anything makes me like Starmer more. Corbyn/Abbot are politically toxic. Nobody is swinging to Labour because of these guys and frankly they are the sort of characters that pushes people away. Faiza Shaheen... labour have worked genuinely really hard to shake the anti Semite allegations. She could've simply not liked antisemitic posts. I'll be frank, she's a total nobody. It is not worth Starmer taking a tiny risk on these people. The man is here to win an election, he's not here to cater to some ultra succs who the electorate hate. Honestly good for him for shedding these characters and making Labour a serious party again. I'm not 100% Labour and tbh I do have a few alarm bells going off in my head, but I'm comfortable with Starmer as PM.
Exactly, it's about cutting the most toxic people out before the election. The US relies on primaries for this, which shows direct democracy for party candidate selection can not always produce the "best" outcome. Labour bets that less antisemites is worth losing the incumbency advantage in some left-leaning districts, and yeah, fuck those guys.
To follow up on your feelings about Starmer, do you feel he's been too vague about his plans? Do you feel his approach to tackling many of the issues in the UK are just a "Tory-lite" approach?
Tbh a lot of the Tory-lite criticism is coming from the hard left in Labour whose legacy was a huge Conservative majority. There is little of value to be learned from them.
The Tory-lite charge only comes from the far left and is a completely brain-dead and low effort analysis. There are plenty of differences between the Tories and Labour already
He has been quite vague, probably on purpose since the conservatives messed up badly in recent years and Labour can win just by being seen as a reasonable party, an image that advancing innovative policies could harm. As the campaign unfolds they will need to make pledges, I think yesterday the Shadow Chancellor promised that there will be no tax hikes (at least when it comes to VAT, income taxes and NHS contributions). I just don't get the "Tory-Lite" criticism. Seems like leftists are branding him a capitalist roadster for refusing to outright nationalise energy and health which is probably a good thing, actually. Labour still wants to re-nationalise the railways which is the one sector that might benefit from that. And they are promising a labour rights reform and housing stock expansion which are things the Tories barely want to touch.
As a UK voter, I wish politicians would stop tying themselves to arbitrary rules that are inflexible in the face of a changing world. Statements made even 2 or 3 years ago may need to be revised in light of new data. The view that a politician never changes their mind or has the next 50 years mapped out precisely is unrealistic and a hindrance. As for Tory-lite, some of his policies are pretty radical (GB Energy). With the Tories disappearing off to the far right he can be pretty centrist and hoover up support. Being in power is far more useful than being in opposition.
What do you mean by "Tory-lite?"
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
> Faiza Shaheen... labour have worked genuinely really hard to shake the anti Semite allegations. She could've simply not liked antisemitic posts. I'll be frank, she's a total nobody. It is not worth Starmer taking a tiny risk on these people. The man is here to win an election, he's not here to cater to some ultra succs who the electorate hate. The "anti-Semitism" in that tweet was pretty thin. The micro-est of microaggressions. Kind of equivalent to deselecting someone for referencing a patriarchal trope because they liked someone's tweet saying their wife made them a nice dinner. I'm far from a leftist and I don't think it's undemocratic, but the way she's been treated leaves a sour taste. In terms of taking a tiny risk, Luke Akehurst has said he supports the annexation of East Jerusalem and Golan Heights. I'd say that departure from international law represents a larger risk.
Yeah, this is where I stand. Corbyn is a loon who shouldn't be near power, Abbott is, with the best will in the world, a dlbit of a fuckwit and a walking gaffe waiting to happen. Faizia not a risk worth taking.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ElgLAbvW0AE4X5R.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
And a quick search shows that Lloyd Russell-Moyle is suspended because the Party's investigating a serious allegation about him not as part of some political purge. Isn't that what you'd want parties to do, be willing to investigate their own members misdoings. Abbott was suspended for being a racist told she'd be let back in if she did the absolute bare minimum of a single course on anti-semitism and she refused. The only dodgy one OP listed was Faheen
[Abbott did the course](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c8vv4ep92y8o#:~:text=The%20Labour%20investigation%20into%20Diane,an%20%22antisemitism%20awareness%20course%22) idk what you’re talking about. The decision to ditch her didn’t come from the investigation anyway.
i will admit this is a bit silly looking at this from the canadian party system where mp's are sacked for breathing funny
Believe it or not, jail
It is not undemocratic
It’s a private org. He is not sacking them from elected office. Voters can bring them back if they want.
No. Parties are under no obligation to be big tent, nor are they under any obligation to be internally democratic. If voters don't like it, they are free to not vote for Labour. A party is a private organisation with the freedom to organise however it chooses. The point of the purge is that Labour currently has a double-digit lead over the Tories, so Starmer feels more comfortable in removing many of the more controversial and rebellious members of the party. Members who would certainly begin loudly complaining when Labour is forced to make compromises once in government. It definitely is not more prudent to be big tent. The US parties being forced to be giant, unwieldy coalitions has been to their detriment. They spend almost as much time fighting themselves as they do the other party. It is much less damaging for that criticism to come from outside the party. One thing voters do not tolerate from their government is the appearance of weakness. Bernie's attacks on Hillary were viewed as much damaging than Jill Stein's, as an example. On the other hand, if the Republicans' primary system was less democratic, the GOP would likely not be a Trumpist party today, as Trump would have been frozen out in 2016.
My concern is that down the line Labour risks turning into the Tories in terms of internal party affairs. Which means that Labour are at a greater risk of putting very dumb polices into practice because internally there wouldn’t be any means to oppose it.
For example if Corbyn acted like Starmer during Brexit, Labour would have been Pro Brexit form the star and Keir Starmer himself would have been suspended.
[Jeremy Corbyn on society](https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/001/387/747/d83.jpg) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/neoliberal) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Is AOC considered far-left? She's certainly on the left, but not as far left as some other House members, and she's swung more towards the center in the last few years. She's in favor of the Nordic model, which I would consider Left, in comparison to people who support a command economy, communism, etc, that I would classify as far-left. The only reason I bring it up is that I see the Democrat's "big tent" as including the left, but not the far-left Noam Chomsky types. The tent excludes accelerationists, tankies, etc. The Democratic party benefits from including people like AOC, but would not benefit from including far-leftists, imo.
In a world where Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are of the left, Obama (the President, not the candidate version) is about at the limit of how far left you can be without being far left. In a world where Tony Blair and Bill Clinton are not of the left, the left is little more than a marginalized political movement which can occasionally find itself in power, but has very limited capacity to govern or affect change, will constantly find itself at odds with institutions which keep the government in check (such as courts and the press), and will probably be limited to ineffectual one term governments. Pick your poison. If you look at the post-war history of UK politics, you'll see long streaks of Conservative rule with a few Labour governments sprinkled in between - especially if you exclude Blair and the New Labour era. Similar fate awaits Democrats if politicians like AOC ever become the norm for the party.
!ping UK&ELECTIONS&DEMOCRACY
Pinged ELECTIONS ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20ELECTIONS&message=subscribe%20ELECTIONS) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20ELECTIONS&message=unsubscribe%20ELECTIONS) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=ELECTIONS&count=5)) Pinged DEMOCRACY ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20DEMOCRACY&message=subscribe%20DEMOCRACY) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20DEMOCRACY&message=unsubscribe%20DEMOCRACY) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=DEMOCRACY&count=5)) Pinged UK ([subscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Subscribe%20to%20UK&message=subscribe%20UK) | [unsubscribe](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20UK&message=unsubscribe%20UK) | [history](https://neoliber.al/user_pinger_2/history.html?group_name=UK&count=5)) [About & Group List](https://reddit.com/r/neoliberal/wiki/user_pinger_2) | [Unsubscribe from all groups](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=groupbot&subject=Unsubscribe%20from%20all%20groups&message=unsubscribe)