Did he? I am not so sure. I am sure i saw figures showing that long term members voted against him and newer members voted for him. Obviously that is very general. The point is that the £3 army were given voting rights despite not paying full subs or doing the hard yards.
Yes, he absolutely did.
I am willing to agree that the momentum (pun not intended) that the "£3 army" gave him may have helped him over the line (with some ordinary members voting for him due to being convinced or otherwise by them), but it is beyond any argument (look at the numbers if you want) that at least according to the actual votes, he didn't need the "£3 army votes" to win. It is also important to remember that a large number of those people did then join the party as full members (and Corbyn won a clear majority just among party members in 2016).
maybe - but the views of Momentum do not represent my views or the views of the Labour party I joined.
And they may well say the same of you - doesn't mean either of you are right or wrong.
I assume your logic is that because you have been a member longest, your views are more important? You may want to consider that people like Corbyn have been in Labour for years and years (indeed one of the things used to attack him and his supporters is saying they want to take Britain back to the 70's / 80's).
Corbyn facilitates long term Tory rule. Surely you see that? That is what I find so annoying. There is no interest in actually gaining power and helping people. To do that requires compromise and consensus rather than dogma. Compromise is Blairist therefore evil.
This is probably the one bit I do partly agree with, but I think you are missing the mark a little.
There is a massive issue with compromise, not just with the left half of the Labour party, but within politics in general. We are seeing that with Brexit, and in the Tory party. I don't think it is limited to Corbyn supporters, Labour (and you could say that you voting against anything to do with Momentum regardless of policy is an example of it too!).
As for Corbyn "facilitating long term Tory rule", tbh if you remove Brexit I really don't think he would have been so much. A lot of the policies Labour stood on in the 2017 election thanks to the shift further to the left are popular with the public, and he did win more seats than Miliband did. Obviously this is impossible to know, but I suspect the 2017 election would have been even closer to a Labour win had it not been for Brexit (and yes, I know "what if's are somewhat pointless - still fun to think about though!).
I do think he is toxic to some voters however, and that is partly down to his stance on Brexit (which I don't agree with either, though it would take a brave politician to set out an anti Brexit stance considering the Brexit views of a lot of old working class Labour heartlands), partly down to things from the past coming back to haunt him (I'm not being naive here - he has said and done some stuff in the past that , though at the same time I wonder if the media spent as much effort digging out stuff like this for all politicians, I wonder what we would dig up!) and partly down to how the media has attacked him (often with false or exaggerated stories).
As to if he should go or not, I do have to agree that he should, but only really because of his stance on Brexit.
Indeed - however I would prefer they paid the same subs as me for the same voting rights!
As far as I am aware, they don't get the same rights though. Wasn't the £3 thing just giving you rights for that leadership election? For 2016 you had to pay £25. And that is all you get from it - the right to vote in the leadership election. For all other activities with the party I was under the impression someone would have had to become a full member. Apologies if I am wrong there though, but in any case, since when is what you pay linked to what voting rights you get? Those who pay a reduced membership fee (e.g. 20-16 year olds, or armed forces personnel, etc) get the same rights as a full fee payer!