The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[gordoncharles]

4 hours ago, TrentVilla said:

To be honest I think blaming a press witch hunt is a little weak as an excuse for what has been going on.

A sensible response like that is wasted on the people who need to wake up to it. Throughout my lifetime there has been a grand delusion amongst the hard-left that the only reason they don't sweep to power is because of a Tory-press conspiracy against them. No matter that there are mainstream Labour-supporting titles out there, and that the news agenda in the UK is dominated by the BBC, it gives the population no credit for being able to form their own opinions.

Those people should take a look at the clip I posted yesterday, dating back over 30 years. That was immediately prior to Michael Foot's crushing election defeat. The British public had no taste for hard left policies back then, and I seriously doubt they are any more inclined to them now, save for the rump of true believers who think that if we could only hear the message then we'd be sure to convert. Well, most of us are only too aware of the message and by-and-large we don't much care for it. 

Nor do most Labour MPs by the look of it (and they don't need the press to tell them what to think), so it's eerily reminscent of the early 80s.

Edited November 20, 2015 by gordoncharles

[CarewsEyebrowDesigner]

Corbyn isn't hard left.

[Davkaus]

Not at his age, anyway.

[bickster]

7 minutes ago, CarewsEyebrowDesigner said:

Corbyn isn't hard left.

Its been that long since there has been any politician in the mainstream that has been remotely left wing that those people with rather right leaning agendas not only think that they are middle of the road but that anyone remotely left of centre is Vladimir Illych Lenin

[Jon]

On ‎20‎/‎11‎/‎2015‎ ‎13‎:‎51‎:‎21, blandy said:

The press are definitely out to get Corbyn (well, most of them are). Mail, Sun, Torygraph, the UKIP one..., 

 

 

Not just the press Pete. Certainly 'most' tabloid press are rabidly after him, but even the 'impartial' (yeah, right) Beeb have not been overly balanced when it comes to down to our Jez.

Get Corbyn

That from the fairly right wing Nick Robinson.

Edited November 24, 2015 by Jon

[blandy]

I watched the telly last night because of the SDSR. On bbc 2 at half 10 they had the labour man for defence and another bod on to discuss what had been announced. The interview started off with questions (to whoever the tory bod was) about the  nimrod replacement and how stupid the tories had been 5 years ago. Then a question to the labour man about trident. The labour man then gave the interviewer so much stuff that will be used to hang labour and corbyn over the next 5 minutes. He was honest. He laid bare the complete problems they have. Whether you agree with the bloke off the telly, or corbyn there is zero way they will get in with corbyn in charge. They are so divided no one knows what "labour" stands for. There is no message and they are failing to oppose the government's many many errors and flaws.

[Jon]

18 minutes ago, blandy said:

 There is no message

Well, there clearly is. It's just that the PLP don't want to run with Jez's message, a message that, within the party membership itself, he has a clear ands massive mandate for. So, the message (party line) that the leader, and his leadership team, want to put forward, is not one shared by many of the PLP. What should one do in that situation. Jez has been elected, and has a clear mandate to put forward his anti nuclear weapons stance as party policy. Loads of PLPs don't agree.

I think he has to start to crack the whip. If some don't agree, then they can leave, or keep quiet and tow the line. That's the only way forward IMO. I don't see why Jez has to cave in on this important issue. He's representing what the majority of his party members want.

[chrisp65]

I wanted to post something similar but I was worried about my lack of references and sources.

To set the scene, John McDonnell had been on the radio earlier saying he was in favour of a free vote on Syria, as although they were the 'labour party' he believed you represented your constituents first and that parliament was more important than party politics. So his over riding idea was, join the labour party or grouping, but think for yourself and represent your people. Radical nutjob.

They then went to a female Labour MP as part of a general discussion with a couple of other MP's on how the vote should pan out. The tory was happy to accept whatever Cameron and Osbourne told him to do, i.e., he didn't know what the plan was, he didn't know what the strategy might be, but he was voting for bombing. Now that to me, is either insane or criminal. 

The Labour MP, having been offered the chance of a free vote didn't want one. She wanted to vote for bombing, but wanted it to be as a party block under instruction 'to show leadership, to show strength'. What a pile of crap. She wants to be told to vote for bombing so the leader looks strong. 

It made me both angry and sad. There might well be a really good case for bombing, but let's hear it. Let's find out what the whole plan is - I'd really like to think it's a bit more thought through than just 'we need to join in because the others are all doing it'. 

To think that after all these years of bombing all these countries with all the mess we've contributed to, some of those £65k a year MP's would be beginning to do their job and actually question this shit. I'm not saying surrender or retreat or go all hippy. I'm just asking our politicians to explain what the plan is, beyond a little bit more bombing and then seeing what happens. Hundreds of MP's in parliament employed by us are failing us in a truly criminal way.

[blandy]

The labour man I think pointed out that "labour's policy on trident as agreed and voted on at their conference is.... Corbyns opinion on it is different, but..."

So you have a democratically chosen policy v the democratically chosen leader's view. That's the pigging problem, there in a nutshell, for the electorate  generally.  Conflict.

[Jon]

5 minutes ago, blandy said:

The labour man I think pointed out that "labour's policy on trident as agreed and voted on at their conference is.... Corbyns opinion on it is different, but..."

So you have a democratically chosen policy v the democratically chosen leader's view. That's the pigging problem, there in a nutshell, for the electorate  generally.  Conflict.

Well yes, that does seem somewhat nonsensical. Although who votes on policy at conference? It's not the full party membership, obvs. They have to resolve this (and 1 or 2 other, but this is the main one) issue ASAP, and have to oppose the tories as a united party.

[Eames]

The problem Corbyn has got is that the Labour Party vote who put him in the leadership seat ALSO put the less left wing MPs in place less than 6 months before. Corbyn's mandate comes from the rejection of the more centrist Miliband approach after an electoral humiliation. (Not in terms of scale but the political equivalent of missing an open goal)  

 

The views of the wider Labour party and the grass roots now don't matter one jot for another 4.5 years or until the PLP break Corbyn. He's got to work with what he has and he's making a total horlicks of it at the moment. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Jon said:

Well yes, that does seem somewhat nonsensical. Although who votes on policy at conference? It's not the full party membership, obvs. They have to resolve this (and 1 or 2 other, but this is the main one) issue ASAP, and have to oppose the tories as a united party.

Exactly. In commenting on all this, I am trying mostly to comment as an observer, rather than arguing for "my" outlook or identification of what is right or wrong. That said, I think the conference votes are from delegates, which are a mix of Union and individual constituency labour party votes, so it's not necessarily the same balance of votes as is the case for the leader, where anyone who paid 3 quid could have a vote.  I could have voted as a Union member (my Union urged me to vote for Burnham. I didn't vote). I'm not a Labour supporter (nor am I wholly against them).

I think a difficulty is that the Labour party members, or the Labour party conference, or both, will vote for what is in their view "right" or what they think is best for them. That is not the same thing as applies (or should apply, at least) to Labour MPs. They should vote for what they believe is best for the whole country not just the Labour Party or Labour Party members or Unions. Often these things might overlap and at other times they will not.

So with Trident, say, Corbyn or you might say "well Labour members voted for Corbyn's leadership and he has always clearly been against Nukes, so Labour must adopt that - that's democracy". But it isn't the full picture, because constitutionally Labour should (must) adopt policies that are in the best interests of the nation. Now there's an argument as to whether Trident is or isn't in the nations best interests. But most reasonable people can see there are two sides to that debate and can accept that the other side has its merits. Each side will think their arguments are the stronger, obviously. It's a shame, as an aside, that Cameron's level of argument is (yesterday to Salmond) that holding cancel trident views makes him unfit to be a leader. That's just idiocy from Cameron, but anyway. I am (just) against it, myself, but there are many valid arguments to keep it.

On your bigger comment that trident is Labour's main problem. I don't think it is. I think it's just a symptom. They have a leader and they have MPs and the two are not aligned in viewpoint on most stuff. That's their party political big problem. And for as long as that remains the case, they will be unelectable.

[Jon]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

They have a leader and they have MPs and the two are not aligned in viewpoint on most stuff. That's their party political big problem. And for as long as that remains the case, they will be unelectable.

If there are Labour MPs who feel that is in the interests of the country to resign the Labour Whip, they should do so IMO. Whether they crops the floor to their more natural home (Kendall, Hunt etc), or stand as Indys or whatever. I also think the ones that do that should have the decency to call a By Election (if they are allowed, I'm not sure of the constitution/practice on this one), and then we could see what the people, and Labour voters, think.

I think the vast majority of Labour MPs still can't get their head around the fact that Jez won, and won so commandingly. They're struggling to adjust to the new Labour order. I don't think they'd be doing themselves any favours if they tried to oust him TBH. The strength of feeling (Momentum ;-) ) behind Jez is certainly there. 

[blandy]

27 minutes ago, Jon said:

If there are Labour MPs who feel that is in the interests of the country to resign the Labour Whip, they should do so IMO

True. I don't think they do and I doubt they would, seeing as they are very well paid. For the sake of devil's advocacy, the same should apply to Corbyn. The MPs have just recently been selected by their CLPs and elected on the last manifesto by their voters, so they can claim democratic right to defend and stand for those policies - that's what they promised to do.

This is why it's so complicated to resolve. The leadership election is not the overriding trump card that some people seem to think it is. That's the reality, IMO.

[blandy]

47 minutes ago, Jon said:

I think the vast majority of Labour MPs still can't get their head around the fact that Jez won, and won so commandingly. They're struggling to adjust to the new Labour order. I don't think they'd be doing themselves any favours if they tried to oust him TBH. The strength of feeling (Momentum ;-) ) behind Jez is certainly there. 

That's spot on, by the way.

[Jon]

9 minutes ago, blandy said:

True. I don't think they do and I doubt they would, seeing as they are very well paid. For the sake of devil's advocacy, the same should apply to Corbyn. The MPs have just recently been selected by their CLPs and elected on the last manifesto by their voters, so they can claim democratic right to defend and stand for those policies - that's what they promised to do.

This is why it's so complicated to resolve. The leadership election is not the overriding trump card that some people seem to think it is. That's the reality, IMO.

Interesting point that Pete. The mandate of Jez vs the mandate of the MP's who were elected just 6 months ago. I would argue that the level of political interest and knowledge would be far greater amongst the membership of a political party than they would be for the vast majoprity of those turning up to vote at a polling booth, who oiften don't really know what exact policies or political stance they are voting for. "I vote Labour cuz I always vote Labour", "I hate the tories", "that Miliband is a bit of a goon so I'm not voting for him" type sentiments will often affect GE voting behaviour. Members of a political party would tend to be more clued up on policy and party politics, IMO.

Having said that, a strong constituency mandate is exactly that, and an MP with a strong mandate at the GE may feel they have the backing of their voters to do what they see as the right thing, in their eyes, irrespective of a new party direction.

So, yes, tricky.  

[blandy]

I guess the people who voted in the leadership election are more engaged, maybe than the GE voters (on average). Equally there will be plenty who signed up for their 3 quid and don't really know all of Jez's policies and views, but liked the anti-cuts part of his appeal - i.e. they might not all have given a monkeys about his views on policing, defence, NATO, or whatever.

I think (and it's just a guess) they would have liked his anti cuts, anti tory, greenish, no to trident message, and not thought about his outlook on terrorism, the IRA, and some of the other stuff. But anyway now he is leader, he has to appeal to enough of the country to get elected as PM and get a Labour Gov't. I'd guess the mix needed is more along the lines of some of the other Labour people, with some of Jez's other stuff. But I don't think he will compromise his own views, despite al the stuff about a more open debating style approach and allowing different opinions to be voiced, ultimately he will want his views to win out, and when they don't there's a kind of warfare and sniping and manoeuvring going on, which renders them unfit to govern to people looking in.

[TrentVilla]

3 hours ago, Jon said:

They're struggling to adjust to the new Labour order. 

I'm not sure I'd have used that phrase.

I have to say I agree with Blandy's point. I don't really see why MP's should be expected to leave the party and stand for a by-election just because they don't share their leaders position on something, neither do I agree with party lines and political whips but that is a wider issue.

Personally I think MP's should be allowed to hold, express and vote upon their own opinions not be forced to follow party lines through threat of explusion which is almost what you are advocating.

Surely as leader of the party its Jez's job to lead, to build consensus or build a shadow bench that shares his convictions. Or if it doesn't that still follows his leadership.

I accept as Blandy says he has a complicated and difficult job which has just started, his election was but the pre-cursor, but at the moment I just seem to be hearing a lot of excuses for him or in defense of what I think often (but not always) are valid criticisms.

 

 

[snowychap]

44 minutes ago, blandy said:

For the sake of devil's advocacy, the same should apply to Corbyn.

Not meaning to pick at what you've said but what should also apply to Corbyn?

Edited November 24, 2015 by snowychap

[blandy]

1 hour ago, Jon said:

If there are Labour MPs who feel that is in the interests of the country to resign the Labour Whip, they should do so IMO

@snowychap