Does the party have a fixing problem? Have your say – State of the Party, May 2012

No real relevant place to put this but Warsi apologies and Cameron refers her to Allan 

http://www.itv.com/news/2012-06-04/full-text-of-baroness-warsis-written-apology-to-the-prime-minister-and-his-reply/ 

And of course nothing about Hunt on a day the media obsesses with the Jubilee and the breaking news of the Duke’s ill health.

Well played Dave !

To Amber Star: Warsi’s conduct has nothing to do with diversity, but with corruption If what the media is right about what she has been doing and others MPs then they should be taken to justice.  The British public wants answers and will not tolerate corruption in times where people are struggling for their way of living. Corruption is unacceptable.on any grounds.

I like Warsi. She looks juicy. I bet if you sank your teeth into her fleshy shoulders gravy would run down your chin.

Atos, the work capability assessment and workfare need to go. Someone needs to stand up for the most vulnerable members of society, we were once civilised, insofar as we looked after our most needy. Now we demonise them, thanks to the right wing ideologue and press.  As Li says, we disabled vote too. So do our kith and kin. I supported Labour all of my adult life, but it is on these issues I will decide if I will continue to do so. This current Government is an authoritarian one, with a psychopathic leader. It’s about time the opposition challenged his fitness for his role, by the way.

“Michels’s grim conclusion was that it was impossible for any party, no matter its belief system, to bring about democracy in practice. Oligarchy was inevitable. For any kind of institution with a democratic base to consolidate the legitimacy it needs to exist, it must have an organization that delegates tasks. The rank and file will not have the time, energy, wherewithal or inclination to participate in the many, often minute decisions necessary to keep the institution functioning. In fact, effectiveness, Michels argues convincingly, requires that these tasks be delegated to a small group of people with enough power to make decisions of consequence for the entire membership. Over time, this bureaucracy becomes a kind of permanent, full-time cadre of leadership. “Without wishing it,” Michels says, there grows up a great “gulf which divides the leaders from the masses.” The leaders now control the tools with which to manipulate the opinion of the masses and subvert the organization’s democratic process. “Thus the leaders, who were at first no more than the executive organs of the collective, will soon emancipate themselves from the mass and become independent of its control.”
All this flows inexorably from the nature of organization itself, Michels concludes, and he calls it “The Iron Law of Oligarchy”: “It is organization which gives birth to the dominion of the elected over the electors, of the mandataries over the mandators, of the delegates over the delegators. Who says organization says oligarchy.””http://www.thenation.com/article/168265/why-elites-fail?wpisrc=nl_wonk