snowychap Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 Sorry, I still don't get it but it might just be me. Jon was talking about Labour MPs who feel that it's in the best interests of the country to resign the party whip - presumably as they think the party is going in the wrong direction because of their issues with the opinions and policies of the leadership. I'm not sure how that would apply to the leader of that party? Unless you're suggesting that he might think that the party is going in the wrong direction because he has issues with his own opinions and policies? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 My comment was that Corbyn is an MP (obviously) and if any MP feels things are not going in a way which is best for the country, and that he/she is a part of the reason (the conflict causing ineffective opposition, in this instance, or perhaps that if he felt that his being leader were to be damaging to the hopes of election) then they (any of them) should resign. Basic;ally if things keep going badly for Labour either all the other MPs or Corbyn will have to change, is my point. One of the two groups will have to either change their behaviours, step down or they're goosed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: 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 explosion which is almost what you are advocating. every single Tory MP , apart from May of course as she's proposing it , should be voting against the snoopers charter ... that they wont to protect their careers is shameful and a sad day for politics 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 14 minutes ago, blandy said: My comment was that Corbyn is an MP (obviously) and if any MP feels things are not going in a way which is best for the country, and that he/she is a part of the reason (the conflict causing ineffective opposition, in this instance, or perhaps that if he felt that his being leader were to be damaging to the hopes of election) then they (any of them) should resign. Basic;ally if things keep going badly for Labour either all the other MPs or Corbyn will have to change, is my point. One of the two groups will have to either change their behaviours, step down or they're goosed. Right, I think I've got you. You mean MPs resign the party whip versus Corbyn resign as leader? I suppose that's valid but that brings you on to the question about mandates and the substance of each election. I'd suggest that Corbyn's mandate from the leadership election is (at least for now) stronger than most/any individual MPs amongst their constituents (unless it's a red rosette on a pig place). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HanoiVillan Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 6 hours ago, chrisp65 said: 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. A relevant tweet re: Maria Eagle's appearance on Radio 4 the other day: It would be really nice if the gov't needed to tell us what they were planning to do (and address the fact that we seem to likely to be bombing the opposite side to the one we proposed to bomb 3/4 years ago), but Westminster is in 'something must be done' mode and common sense and deliberation and coming up with military aims and targets is out, emoting, discussing 'moral seriousness' and a hard-on for hardware is in. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 17 minutes ago, snowychap said: I'd suggest that Corbyn's mandate from the leadership election is (at least for now) stronger than most/any individual MPs amongst their constituents (unless it's a red rosette on a pig place). Got there in the end My bad writing I guess. I agree his mandate for leader is strong. He rightly thinks he has a strong backing to do the things he stood for. I think it's equally valid and equally incumbent on the MPs to actually stand up for the things they, er, stood for - i.e. the promises they made in their manifesto. Their system is flawed, but. It exposes the weakness of party politics. Other parties have different systems which hide the weakness of the party system. Like I said earlier, mostly I've tried to write from the perspective of how it looks from the outside, rather than my personal views on whether I agree with Corbyn's politics or not and to take sides.. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 1 hour ago, TrentVilla said: 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. Zackly. His problem is his MPs or a whole bunch of them basically refuse to co-operate with him. A hard task then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) 16 minutes ago, blandy said: Got there in the end My bad writing I guess. I don't think so - I think it was me being slow and being rather caught up in and distracted by the comedic potential of the absurdist vision I had conjured up in my head of a leader resigning the party whip saying that he couldn't get on with the party leadership. Edited November 24, 2015 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 3 minutes ago, snowychap said: the comedic potential of the absurdist vision I had conjured up in my head of a leader resigning the party whip saying that he couldn't get on with the party leadership. Well ham face did write to the tory council in oxfordshire to complain about the cuts that he forced them to make. It's not that far fetched 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tonyh29 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 47 minutes ago, blandy said: Got there in the end My bad writing I guess. I agree his mandate for leader is strong. He rightly thinks he has a strong backing to do the things he stood for. I think it's equally valid and equally incumbent on the MPs to actually stand up for the things they, er, stood for - i.e. the promises they made in their manifesto. Their system is flawed, but. It exposes the weakness of party politics. Other parties have different systems which hide the weakness of the party system. Like I said earlier, mostly I've tried to write from the perspective of how it looks from the outside, rather than my personal views on whether I agree with Corbyn's politics or not and to take sides.. he possibly does from (some of ) the people ... but not his party it's kind of funny / tragic in a way that his party may oust him because he doesn't serve their interests I think he'd be a terrible PM FWIW .. but it should be that the people that voted him as leader get to remove him , not MP's worried that they may lose their seat because he won't press the button if it came down to it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 31 minutes ago, tonyh29 said: he possibly does from (some of ) the people ... but not his party it's kind of funny / tragic in a way that his party may oust him because he doesn't serve their interests Dunno really Tony. I mean in the end the party kind of is the members in large part. But the part of it with (some) power to effect change in the country is the MPs. They know they can't oust him via a challenge. They can only try and get him to resign. But doing that will be a harmful process. They're all caught, the lot of 'em, between the devil and the deep blue sea, from their perspectives. Like I said the whole thing just shows up the flaws of party politics and in the mechanics of it . Other parties hide it better, but they have the same potential problem, although possibly in reverse - for example the tories system has the MPs chose the final 2 candidates for leader, then the members get to vote who wins. They could therefore end up with a choice of MPs that the members don't actually rate and so on... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 With Corbyn isn't the issue around how you define the party? It appears currently that on one side there is the party leader and about 80% of the party membership and on the other side about half of his MP's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 (edited) If I were a Labour backbencher I wouldn't be that bothered about showing Corbyn loyalty given that he was one of if not the most rebellious Labour MPs prior to becoming leader. Edited November 24, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TrentVilla Posted November 24, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 24, 2015 9 minutes ago, Mantis said: If I were a Labour backbencher I wouldn't be that bothered about showing Corbyn loyalty given that he was one of if not the most rebellious Labour MPs prior to becoming leader. Quite. Do as I say not as I did isn't going to wash. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chrisp65 Posted November 24, 2015 Share Posted November 24, 2015 The worry for the light blue Labour brigade is de-selection. As a really crude estimate, there are usually around 400 Labour Party members in each and every constituency. Of those, typically, less than 50 will be active. The Corbyn election period saw about 20% added to Labour's membership. Or to put it another way, about 60 to 80 new members per constituency. Sixty new members helping decide who will be the MP at the next election, when you usually deal with the same dozen students and group of pensioners is a concern for some of these MP's. All those figures are my rough n ready estimates from total membership stats etc., It's also what I hear locally, the candidate in waiting here as openly moaned and groaned about Corbyn. He's lost the last two elections in a very uninspiring manner. There has been a spike in membership locally. Best of luck! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted November 25, 2015 Moderator Share Posted November 25, 2015 10 hours ago, Mantis said: If I were a Labour backbencher I wouldn't be that bothered about showing Corbyn loyalty given that he was one of if not the most rebellious Labour MPs prior to becoming leader. The flip side is also true. All those ones who were telling corbyn off for rebelling in the past are now rebelling themselves...hypocrisy on both sides. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 8 minutes ago, blandy said: The flip side is also true. All those ones who were telling corbyn off for rebelling in the past are now rebelling themselves...hypocrisy on both sides. and crucially, Jez was never in the cabinet, or shadow cabinet. He did, to a good degree, have licence to rebel (given his successive GE constituency wins). If Blair had tried to deselect him, one could assume that Jez could have stood independently, and won. However, at the moment, he can't even get his shadow cabinet 'on message' (probably because he hasn't stacked it with Corbynites). But it would at least be a start, to have your cabinet all signing from the same hymn sheet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mantis Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) Shadow chancellor just quoted Mao - what a joke Corbyn's Labour are and how prophetic the thread title turned out to be 5 hours ago, blandy said: The flip side is also true. All those ones who were telling corbyn off for rebelling in the past are now rebelling themselves...hypocrisy on both sides. Even now nobody is rebelling anywhere near as often as Corbyn used to. Edited November 25, 2015 by Mantis Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Davkaus Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 (edited) McDonnell's weekly gaffes are unbelievable, but not quite so unbelievable as Corbyn keeping him on. I can just picture the two of them sat in a private room giggling to themselves, "do it John, it'll be hilarious, this can't possibly backfire". Edited November 25, 2015 by Davkaus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eames Posted November 25, 2015 Share Posted November 25, 2015 15 minutes ago, Davkaus said: McDonnell's weekly gaffes are unbelievable, but not quite so unbelievable as Corbyn keeping him on. I can just picture the two of them sat in a private room giggling to themselves, "do it John, it'll be hilarious, this can't possibly backfire". To paraphrase the great Malcolm Tucker "sacked after a week he's [the PM] **** up. Sacked after a year you've **** up." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts