Could the Tory Grassroots Follow Labour's?

[Jack Knave]

With people fed up with politics as usual could the Tory grassroots follow what the Labour grassroots have done, at some time in the future, and go for something different, asking also for things like primaries, and so on, so they get the people they want?

[Hope]

With people fed up with politics as usual could the Tory grassroots follow what the Labour grassroots have done, at some time in the future, and go for something different, asking also for things like primaries, and so on, so they get the people they want?

Do you have evidence that they don't get who they want?

[Nearly Sane]

Pigs will fly... and possibly do other things first.

[Hope]

Jack,

If I understand the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem processes correctly, each constitency branch of the party chooses its own candidate for General and By-elections through balloting its local members.  The national party can propose a candidate but the final say remains with the grassroots.

I assume that the SNP and Palid Cymru and the N. Ireland parties work in the same  way. 

You may, on the other hand, be referring to the way the party leader is chosen.  Again, in the main, each party uses a variation of the same process in which the members of the party get the final say in that choice.    I believe that for the Tories, if they have 3 or more candidates for leadership (as was the case for Labout this time), their Mps will vote on which 2 candidates should be included on the final ballot; we've seen how Labour works recently (though whether allowing people to join up until the last minute and still be allowed to vote will continue is, I think, open to discussion).  The Lib. Dems use a transferable vote system if they require an election.

[Nearly Sane]

Of course it will depend on whether they have a real lardon to make it happen, or whether like pulled pork this is just a flash in the pan.

[Nearly Sane]

And there is the worry that they might end up with a pig in a poke, or possibly worse vice versa, and then whether that person was worthy of their baconfidence even though they might just be casting pearls before or even over swine.

[Nearly Sane]

Could be worse, he could sell arms to Saudi Arabia

http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/britons-wearily-accept-that-their-prime-minister-put-his-cock-in-a-pigs-mouth-20150921102114

[Jack Knave]

With people fed up with politics as usual could the Tory grassroots follow what the Labour grassroots have done, at some time in the future, and go for something different, asking also for things like primaries, and so on, so they get the people they want?

Do you have evidence that they don't get who they want?

Not really, but with the EU referendum coming up and Cameron not standing for 2020, so there's going to be a leadership contest, and with all the dissatisfaction with Westminster politics, and all that, I just wondered whether this could inspire the grassroots to finally stand their ground. Many of the 2010 Tory intake didn't stand again because they come up against the party machine and were disillusioned by the who thing. Just may be things are changing....?

[Nearly Sane]

A reasonable number of the 2010 intake didn't stand again, mainly marginals that when they chose not to stand they looked like losing.

[Jack Knave]

Jack,

If I understand the Tory, Labour and Lib Dem processes correctly, each constitency branch of the party chooses its own candidate for General and By-elections through balloting its local members.  The national party can propose a candidate but the final say remains with the grassroots.

I assume that the SNP and Palid Cymru and the N. Ireland parties work in the same  way. 

You may, on the other hand, be referring to the way the party leader is chosen.  Again, in the main, each party uses a variation of the same process in which the members of the party get the final say in that choice.    I believe that for the Tories, if they have 3 or more candidates for leadership (as was the case for Labout this time), their Mps will vote on which 2 candidates should be included on the final ballot; we've seen how Labour works recently (though whether allowing people to join up until the last minute and still be allowed to vote will continue is, I think, open to discussion).  The Lib. Dems use a transferable vote system if they require an election.

From what I understand  many of the party machines parachute candidates into seats and the local members' wishes are ignored - like one time special advisers or 'friends'.

As for voting for a leader, you can only vote for those that stand, and again the party machine plays a part in restricting that to, what they want within certain bounds, by parachuting in candidates in the first place.

If Labour had played their game correctly Corbyn would never have been nominated in the first place. It was only because they took their eye off the ball and allowed nerdy boy to play that they now find themselves in this mess. If they had played the game correctly then the choice would not have been a proper choice but a restricted one to manipulate the outcome, which is what all party machines do.

[Jack Knave]

A reasonable number of the 2010 intake didn't stand again, mainly marginals that when they chose not to stand they looked like losing.

That's not what many were saying before the election and many sounded grieved about how the whole system worked and kept them in the background.

[Nearly Sane]

A reasonable number of the 2010 intake didn't stand again, mainly marginals that when they chose not to stand they looked like losing.

That's not what many were saying before the election and many sounded grieved about how the whole system worked and kept them in the background.

I know of Louise Mensch;s comments. And even if we extend it to the other 8? who did this that doesn't mean my point is invalid. It is a crap job and if they thought it worked that differently how do I judge about whether they had actually looked at it? Btw what relevance does this have to electing a leader?

[Jack Knave]

A reasonable number of the 2010 intake didn't stand again, mainly marginals that when they chose not to stand they looked like losing.

That's not what many were saying before the election and many sounded grieved about how the whole system worked and kept them in the background.

I know of Louise Mensch;s comments. And even if we extend it to the other 8? who did this that doesn't mean my point is invalid. It is a crap job and if they thought it worked that differently how do I judge about whether they had actually looked at it? Btw what relevance does this have to electing a leader?

They went in there to change things but found that even their merger attempts were closed down and that the party machine, the big wigs, didn't even want to listen to them except in a down their noses patronising way. So the pertinence here is that they felt that things needed to change and a new politics was required prior to 2010. With the mood for change here and in the EU things seem to be stacking up to boiling point.

[Nearly Sane]

They seem a tad confused. They went in to be members of one party trying to merge with another party? And they found this difficult when their party was in a coalition govt? Had they read anything about history in the UK?


BTW could you cite them and what they actually said?

[Jack Knave]

They seem a tad confused. They went in to be members of one party trying to merge with another party? And they found this difficult when their party was in a coalition govt? Had they read anything about history in the UK?


BTW could you cite them and what they actually said?

It is what I heard some of them say on TV in the run up year to the election. Most I hadn't really heard of before so I can't remember any names. The coalition wasn't the real problem it was the 'brick wall' of the party machine.