The Chilcot Inquiry

We're going around in circles here. The Police have authority, and it is based on consent.

The police don't have any authority over states. (Their authority is not based on consent, either.)

Er... yes it is. In fact, its a fundamental principle of policing in the UK especially. How else does a police force of (normally) thousands of people police populations numbering in the millions?

droid said:

Er... yes it is. In fact, its a fundamental principle of policing in the UK especially. How else does a police force of (normally) thousands of people police populations numbering in the millions?

Click to expand...

You cannot withdraw your consent from the police or from the government more generally.

Basically, you want to outlaw certain behaviour by states. Who can do this? It can only be other states. Then you want to provide a forum where states can accuse one another of breaking the rules. Again, only states can provide this. Then you want to somehow enforce its judgements, where again, the only possible actors are states (or collections of states).

vimothy said:

Basically, you want to outlaw certain behaviour by states. Who can do this? It can only be other states. Then you want to provide a forum where states can accuse one another of breaking the rules. Again, only states can provide this. Then you want to somehow enforce its judgements, where again, the only possible actors are states (or collections of states).

Click to expand...

I suppose one answer is that supranational organizations such as the League Of Nations and later the UN (perhaps also NATO, the EU, whatever) have greater authority than a single state, or even a 'collection of states', in saying to an offending state "Stop behaving like that".

Labour NEC was a close one yesterday. Friedland has another hatchet job in the Guardian today fulminating at the failure to exclude Corbyn from the leadership ballot... seemingly without considering the obvious repercussions of such an anti-democratic course of action.

Still, I guess the Blairites got 125,000 new members kicked out of the leadership vote, and increased the support fee to £25, thereby keeping out all of those poor tory entryists who've been rigging things in favour of Corbyn.

Is Freedland one of the worst journalists of all time? Exhibit 1:

"How can these MPs ignore the will of the party members? The answer is simple. The rebel MPs and their backers don’t consider hardcore Corbyn supporters to be Labour people at all. They believe they are no more Labour than the entryists of Militant a generation ago. They are the hard left, who have always lurked on the fringes of British politics but who have now taken up residence in the Labour home. They are squatters, who in the last year have taken to telling the longterm, rightful owners of the Labour building how things should be run – even having the nerve to tell people who have lived there for 50 years that they no longer belong in their own house."

Goes seamlessly from talking about the views of the rebel MPs to effectively asserting these views as fact, and then making crazy assertions which are the diametric opposite of the historical truth ("longterm, rightful owners of the Labour building"? Like, longterm since 1994?). Abysmal from any standpoint, and whatever you believe.

PS Apparently joining a union costs way less than that £25, and it's in black and white that a vote in the leadership eleciton is guaranteed to union members. No doubt this 'loophole' will be challenged

Gary Younge deviating from the Guardian editorial stance.

If Corbyn resigned tomorrow, the issues that he raised would still stand, and the Parliamentary Labour party would still have no coherent response to them. He did not create the dislocation between the PLP and the membership, he merely illustrates it. His critics say they want their party back. Their party may well say it wants Corbyn back. In the absence of any reckoning as to how that discrepancy came about and any idea what to do about it, his critics are going to destroy the party they claim they love to save it from a leader it prefers.

Click to expand...

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...troying-labour-party-members?CMP=share_btn_tw

baboon2004 said:

PS Apparently joining a union costs way less than that £25, and it's in black and white that a vote in the leadership eleciton is guaranteed to union members. No doubt this 'loophole' will be challenged

Click to expand...

It's not as simple as that. It depends on the union. Not all are Labour affiliated.

Some of the ones that are will charge you more than £25 (Unison has a sliding scale of monthly fees for example).

You will also need to opt in to the political fund.

There is some suggestion that there is also a time delay for new joiners being able to vote in the leadership election.

But definitely join a union anyway. It will probably be of more use to you in the short to medium term than a vote in the Labour leadership.

Unite: http://www.unitetheunion.org/campaigning/unitepolitics/

Also I think it's a bit dodgy joining a political organisation purely so you can vote in a leadership contest?

Even if you would vote for that leader and you think he is the best hope for the future of the country?

Isnt that what good leaders are supposed to do? Inspire people to support them and their party?

john eden said:

Also I think it's a bit dodgy joining a political organisation purely so you can vote in a leadership contest?

Click to expand...

Yes, I suppose some might be tempted to say "Well if you were that invested in it, why weren't you a member already?".

Having said that, a counter-argument could be that these days, many younger voters have deeply held political convictions but don't identify with any one particular established party, so it's only natural that those on the left would gravitate towards Labour with a real socialist in charge of the party for the first time in over two decades.

Edit: this chat should probably be continued in the Corbyn thread, if we want to keep this one just about Chilcot/Blair/Iraq.

droid said:

Even if you would vote for that leader and you think he is the best hope for the future of the country?

Isnt that what good leaders are supposed to do? Inspire people to support them and their party?

Click to expand...

EDIT, sorry.

No, because we don't have a presidential system in this country. So people (as in the public) don't vote for leaders. They vote for parties. So probably the best thing would be if people joined a political party they believed in, or didn't.

Same as all this stuff about May not having a mandate. Nobody in the general election actually voted for David Cameron to be prime minister, so it shouldn't matter.

But it's not really a big deal for me, I guess.

john eden said:

They vote for parties. So probably the best thing would be if people joined a political party they believed in, or didn't.

Click to expand...

Ah, but isnt the point that many of those who've joined could say they believe in a Labour party under Corbyn?

john eden said:

Also I think it's a bit dodgy joining a political organisation purely so you can vote in a leadership contest?

Click to expand...

I see your point, but disagree in the current configuration of things. I want there to be a mainstream alternative to what the Tories are proposing, and a mainstream party espousing a left-wing viewpoint. To me, that's the Labour party's raison d'etre, and a system without a major party giving a left wing viewpoint is broken imo. It's a question about the whole political system, not just about the LP, so I think it's fine to 'interfere' in this case. Especially cos I voted for Corbyn in September, and don't appreciate him being ousted under false pretences.

PS Thanks for the info, and agree that joining a union is v necessary anyways and sth I should've done a long time ago.

droid said:

Ah, but isnt the point that many of those who've joined could say they believe in a Labour party under Corbyn?

Click to expand...

Well exactly. How is it possible to believe in the Labour Party per se any longer- that'd be mad given the different things it can mean in any given year or leadership configuration.

I don't think it's fair to state that the current system is so very different from a presidential one, when clearly all general elections these days are fought on the battleground of personality over policy (not something I like, but that'st the truth of it). People do vote for leaders, not parties, and that's especially true when it's v unclear what a given party 'stands for' (obviously the massive problem of the LP since the 1990s, which has now reached crisis point, with a split on the cards)

Sorry for derailment. Let's go back to Blair

I think what John is arguing for is blind loyalty to the party.. exactly what you'd expect from a Bolshevik.

droid said:

I think what John is arguing for is blind loyalty to the party.. exactly what you'd expect from a Bolshevik.

Click to expand...

LOL.

I'm not even that bothered about joining political parties. My brief membership of one ended in acrimony because my branch wanted to do things differently to the rest.

I do know people who are members of the Greens who have now also joined the Labour Party and are going door knocking for them though. That is out of order.

And I like Corbyn, of course. And would like the Labour Party to be left wing again. But there are reasons why some organisations have a probationary membership or a time delay between signing up and getting a vote..