UK Politics Thread VII: Wake me DUP inside [can't wake UUP]

[Imperializt Russia]

Is it possible to be a member of two political parties at the same time?

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Labour Party rules stipulate you must adhere to "Labour values", which has been used to suggest that persons active in other political parties are not properly eligible for membership, UKIP was very proud of not officially permitting BNP/FN members and ex-members from joining.

I wouldn't imagine this is "against" the freedom of association, since you're still permitted to associate freely - obviously, who you associate with is considered mutually exclusive from each group.

[Minoa]

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Labour Party rules stipulate you must adhere to "Labour values", which has been used to suggest that persons active in other political parties are not properly eligible for membership, UKIP was very proud of not officially permitting BNP/FN members and ex-members from joining.

I wouldn't imagine this is "against" the freedom of association, since you're still permitted to associate freely - obviously, who you associate with is considered mutually exclusive from each group.

I was curious to how would labour react to members wanting to build bridges between the Lib Dems and Labour to reverse the Brexit.

[The Blaatschapen]

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Labour Party rules stipulate you must adhere to "Labour values", which has been used to suggest that persons active in other political parties are not properly eligible for membership, UKIP was very proud of not officially permitting BNP/FN members and ex-members from joining.

I wouldn't imagine this is "against" the freedom of association, since you're still permitted to associate freely - obviously, who you associate with is considered mutually exclusive from each group.

Ah, yes, legally it is technically possible, so I went with that. In practice various parties might have issues with it.

[Minoa]

I can confirm Islington Council has already started the canvas for compiling the next register for 1 December 2017 onwards.

[Vassenor]

Some commentary on the hypocrisy of the Daily Mail.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Go on my fellow graduates!

[Ostroeuropa]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

[Peasants Republic of Dithmarschen]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

I think they all need to be seperated into their own groups before we shut down this rump parliament of whatever it is and install an absolute monarchy.

[Ostroeuropa]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

I think they all need to be seperated into their own groups before we shut down this rump parliament of whatever it is and install an absolute monarchy.

Under the Windsors? I'm not sure they'll agree. Besides which, our Monarch is selected by parliamentary act. We got all hard over our historical mythologized understanding of the Witenagemot and made it for realz. It's Unbritish to propose a king without a parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witenagemot

a parliament without a king is more in line with our values, and the values we've long chosen to pretend were always ours.

Victorian notions of a national 'witan' are crazy dreams without foundation, myths of a 'democratic parliament' that never was.

(Nonetheless, those myths form part of the national myth, and are solidified by the glorious revolution.)

The witan was noted by contemporary sources as having the singular power to ceosan to cyninge, 'to choose the king' from amongst the (extended) royal family.

+

No man can make himself king, but the people has the choice to choose as king whom they please; but after he is consecrated as king, he then has dominion over the people, and they cannot shake his yoke off their necks.

[Vassenor]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

I think they all need to be seperated into their own groups before we shut down this rump parliament of whatever it is and install an absolute monarchy.

Because that's worked so well in the past and no-one ever had any objections to it ever.

[Risottia]

Is it possible to be a member of two political parties at the same time?

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Doesn't apply to organizations lacking official recognition such as parties. Parties can expel whomever they want for whatever reason and no branch of the government can say aught about it. So a party could perfectly ban dual membership (afaik, most do) and another one could allow it.
Freedom of association means that you can't prevent two or more people from associating and meeting if all of them are willing. But if some of them are unwilling to accept another member they can't be forced to do so.
The thing is different with associations having sone sort of official recognition, such as parliamentary groups - but I doubt any parliament allows for dual affiliation.

[HMS Queen Elizabeth]

Is it possible to be a member of two political parties at the same time?

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Mmm, so freedom of association requires Labour members to associate with people they don't want to associate with?

[Souseiseki]

Yes? Freedom of association, article 11 of the ECHR.

Mmm, so freedom of association requires Labour members to associate with people they don't want to associate with?

this was already covered in the rest of the conversation

[Calladan]

I think they all need to be seperated into their own groups before we shut down this rump parliament of whatever it is and install an absolute monarchy.

Because that's worked so well in the past and no-one ever had any objections to it ever.

(grin) To be fair, the ones that did object didn't object for very long. (I was trying to work in a joke about the objections being so annoying that Charles lost his head, but I couldn't get the wording right......)

[Vassenor]

Because that's worked so well in the past and no-one ever had any objections to it ever.

(grin) To be fair, the ones that did object didn't object for very long. (I was trying to work in a joke about the objections being so annoying that Charles lost his head, but I couldn't get the wording right......)

So I guess the February Revolution was a myth then?

[Calladan]

(grin) To be fair, the ones that did object didn't object for very long. (I was trying to work in a joke about the objections being so annoying that Charles lost his head, but I couldn't get the wording right......)

So I guess the February Revolution was a myth then?

I was reflecting more on the fact that the ones who objected were generally killed in all sorts of horrible and blecky ways. Or died in wars they fought to mark their objections. There is a whole big dying theme going on here.

[Imperializt Russia]

Labour Party rules stipulate you must adhere to "Labour values", which has been used to suggest that persons active in other political parties are not properly eligible for membership, UKIP was very proud of not officially permitting BNP/FN members and ex-members from joining.

I wouldn't imagine this is "against" the freedom of association, since you're still permitted to associate freely - obviously, who you associate with is considered mutually exclusive from each group.

I was curious to how would labour react to members wanting to build bridges between the Lib Dems and Labour to reverse the Brexit.

I'm hardly an authority figure but that cannot be reasonably questioned.

In the run up to the election there was an internal furore in Labour where local campaign members were suspended because they were working with other parties in a specific constituency to stand aside for a "third-party" candidate (I can't remember the party, NHS Action perhaps?), to unseat Jeremy Hunt for an actual GP as MP.
Labour Central didn't take too kindly for whatever reason, sectarian or pragmatic, and suspended those involved.

[Imperializt Russia]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

How do you mean? It wouldn't be particularly mainstream and would - technically - contradict Labour's core aim of being a "democratic socialist" party (since this would, inherently, reduce the input of the average citizen in decisionmaking process). They could certainly exist as a Labour faction as trade union syndicalism can't be considered particularly out of league with any of Labour's current Social Democratic aims.

[MERIZoC]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

How do you mean? It wouldn't be particularly mainstream and would - technically - contradict Labour's core aim of being a "democratic socialist" party (since this would, inherently, reduce the input of the average citizen in decisionmaking process). They could certainly exist as a Labour faction as trade union syndicalism can't be considered particularly out of league with any of Labour's current Social Democratic aims.

Not if everyone was unionized.

[Hydesland]

How do you mean? It wouldn't be particularly mainstream and would - technically - contradict Labour's core aim of being a "democratic socialist" party (since this would, inherently, reduce the input of the average citizen in decisionmaking process). They could certainly exist as a Labour faction as trade union syndicalism can't be considered particularly out of league with any of Labour's current Social Democratic aims.

Not if everyone was unionized.

[Fartsniffage]

How do you mean? It wouldn't be particularly mainstream and would - technically - contradict Labour's core aim of being a "democratic socialist" party (since this would, inherently, reduce the input of the average citizen in decisionmaking process). They could certainly exist as a Labour faction as trade union syndicalism can't be considered particularly out of league with any of Labour's current Social Democratic aims.

Not if everyone was unionized.

No thank you.

[Imperializt Russia]

How do you mean? It wouldn't be particularly mainstream and would - technically - contradict Labour's core aim of being a "democratic socialist" party (since this would, inherently, reduce the input of the average citizen in decisionmaking process). They could certainly exist as a Labour faction as trade union syndicalism can't be considered particularly out of league with any of Labour's current Social Democratic aims.

Not if everyone was unionized.

Gods no, how trade unions already interact with the party is damn complicated enough.

[Nazbol Pudding Club]

D'ya reckon a syndicalist wing of the Labour party would be allowed a sub-group, or would there need to be a separate party? Presumably "Put the trade unions in charge of the economy." couldn't really be opposed without a massive loss of face for the LP.

Sure, they'd not have enough numbers to have much influence, but the more the merrier in the big tent. They can join Blue Labour in the corner of people who kind of have a point but don't have the numbers to get a candidate into the leadership.

[MERIZoC]

Jezza gonna bring us a syndicalist state in which the only parties are individual unions.

[Questers]

For very obvious reasons, Labour does NOT like working with other parties. *as far as I can tell* Labour members views on every other centre or left of centre party is "yes you might have some nice policies but you are getting in the way of us winning so no we arent going to help you in any way at all."

Like all EU "rights", freedom of association is limited and not absolute. Political parties can insist on standards of association and government agencies can refuse employment to people of particular ideologies. This is because when liberals say "freedom of association" what they really mean is "centrist views are legally secured."