• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

If Jeremy Corbyn Resigned, does this prove the total disconnect MP's have? (UK)

Status
Not open for further replies.

Mr. Sam

Member
The Conservatives' "lurch to the centre" has been a lurch to the right, accompanied by them finishing every sentence with "because we're the party of the middle ground/working person/mainstream." It's bollocks.

"Refugees threaten the cohesion of British society. Look how mainstream we are! We're making historic cuts to the welfare state. How moderate!"
 
Labour sued to be a left of centre fairly common sense party who favoured public sector and the armed forces.

That's what it is. Which is why he doesn't want to send men to risk death for no reason.

Favouring the armed forces means that you care about them, not that you're willing to throw them into a meat grinder for no reason or gain.
 
The Conservatives' "lurch to the centre" has been a lurch to the right, accompanied by them finishing every sentence with "because we're the party of the middle ground/working person/mainstream." It's bollocks.

"Refugees threaten the cohesion of British society. Look how mainstream we are! We're making historic cuts to the welfare state. How moderate!"

On that issue they've lurched right (*), but on others such as welfare and tax breaks they have effectively stolen former labour policies to appeal to more of the electorate and lurch centre

*in your own quote you acknowledge the reason for that though, the main stream public want more control over immigration, which isn't necessarily a right wing view, sure a lot of people have taken a right wing view, media outlets too. There is discussions to be had over the handling of immigration, which hasn't been handled well.

Council's have placed refugees in specific areas creating gheto's and ill feeling amongst those in them and those around them over the situation, they've encouraged isolation and not integration. Refugees should be taken but not laced specifically in isolated areas, they should be evenly placed so as to integrate into areas and allow the existing populace to integrate with them.

Equally the idealistic lack of border controls has led to criticisms and situations including that of Paris. Immigration control does not and should not see an end to free movement of EU citizens and/or accepting refugees, it is only recording, best placing and policing the border

Though i will certainly concede the Conservative policies are right wing, the unfortunate issue there is until recently a lot of the other parties have denied any issues at all, which has indirectly fed into the media portrayal and allowed right wing views to foster.

right now the UK is utterly devoid of a centrally aligned party, as such it is polarising the political nature of the country, effectively forcing the populace to choose a side, with no middle ground - which on big issues like Syria is playing into the hands of the conservatives who are undeniably the masters of spin and popularist policies.
further increasing the political gulf by lurching labour further left is not aiding us, its aiding conservatives, UKIP and other right wing parties across europe

That's what it is. Which is why he doesn't want to send men to risk death for no reason.

Favouring the armed forces means that you care about them, not that you're willing to throw them into a meat grinder for no reason or gain.

That might be so, but he is not articulating that, and his utter refusal to challenge the press who twist statement to be anti armed forces play into opposition hands.
Corbyn might have the right lofty ideals, idealistically speaking, but realistically he should not be leader, a deputy at best
 
That might be so, but he is not articulating that, and his utter refusal to challenge the press who twist statement to be anti armed forces play into opposition hands.
Corbyn might have the right lofty ideals, idealistically speaking, but realistically he should not be leader, a deputy at best

What, pray tell, do you think would happen if Corbyn started directly challenging the press?

Come on, mate.
 
I can't see how bombing isis means Britain is any safer. Don't get me wrong, they deserve to be bombed until they are dust, but I'd rather we stay out of this.
 

danowat

Banned
I can't see how bombing isis means Britain is any safer. Don't get me wrong, they deserve to be bombed until they are dust, but I'd rather we stay out of this.

It's a different subject, but I am not convinced bombing is the best way to go about it, it serves a purpose, but I don't think it's (on it's own) is a pathway to eradicating ISIL.
 
There's no place for the Labour Party as it was, does no one remember when the SNP turned up and asked if they were the only ones going to vote against fucking over the working-class and poor?

The only difference between Tories and Labour since Tony Blair is that only one of them isn't called Tories, and that should never be enough for someone to vote for them.
 

MrChom

Member
Any Labour MP not willing to support the elected leader of the PLP can walk as far as I'm concerned. I'm sorry, but the party was polled and he won....not by a small margin either.

I'm very glad that for once there's a genuine lefty able to give a different point of view to the Tories rather than just quibble over a percentage or two.

Right now all that's happening is a media cycle of undermining Corbyn to get rid of someonw who, if fully understood by the public, represents a huge threat to their grasp on the public mood.

Ask the public about renationalising railways and such and they're generally positive, but the news spins this into a red scare that comes nearly 30 years too late.
 
It would be nice if they took that money they spent on bombs and donated it to the thousands of food banks people are having to resort going to because our country is so royally fucked.
 

nib95

Banned
Because he pretty much is, he just needs to stand fast to stick to his (no pun intended) guns.

Pretty much. He's an anti-establishment leader, but the one the overwhelming majority of Labour supporters voted in. This is what the people voted for. If he gets forced out, I think Labour are even more fucked.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
Good to see the 'they should just join the tories' nonsense is not just confined to twitter but is also on GAF too. Why the hell should life long Labour members who have given their all for the party leave because they don't agree with the new leader? I thought he was all about building a broad church, does that not include those who disagree with him?

I mean we're currently in a position where the PLP seems to agree more with the Tories than they do with a left-leaning leader of the Labour party--in what sense are they not at this point in time, essentially Tories?
 

Maledict

Member
There's no place for the Labour Party as it was, does no one remember when the SNP turned up and asked if they were the only ones going to vote against fucking over the working-class and poor?

The only difference between Tories and Labour since Tony Blair is that only one of them isn't called Tories, and that should never be enough for someone to vote for them.

This is ridiculously wrong. Sorry, but it's utter twaddle.

Just because Blair and Brown were centre left rather than left doesn't make them tories. Gay rights. Sure start. Massive NHs investment. Working Tax credits. Children's centres. The list goes on and on.

People on the left need to stop making perfect the enemy of good. Blair was by no means perfect, and the Iraq war and his subsequent insanity over it has really ruined any hopes of a legacy he had, but Blair wasn't a tory and isn't a tory. Christ, compare the manifesto's from when both parties were competing to be elected. As someone whose life was directly improved by Labour ejecting the tories in 1997, the idea that both parties were the same is just not true.
 

Go_Ly_Dow

Member
No matter what people say, the current Labour party would do better for the people of this country and for the people outside of this country than a Tory Government ever will.

They are a an out of touch evil that people and anyone who can see that should be uniting behind the opposition.

The Tories have been spouting nonsense about controlling Immigration from the start- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34931725

They pushed the NHS to breaking point and are continuing down that part.

Austerity has absolutely crippled the growth of the economy.

And now they wish to bomb another country and have learned no lessons from the past.

They are an evil who like to weed out the vulnerable to fuel their own selfish motives and vision.
 
What, pray tell, do you think would happen if Corbyn started directly challenging the press?

Come on, mate.

I'm not really sure what you want me to prove? (i'm now questioning if you are for or against Corbyn) my understanding was that you were saying his reasoning (for opposition to military action) was not sending men to their death, which seems to suggest you favour Corbyn, i however do not think he's the right man to be Leader.

He's said in the past he won't dignify bullshit with a response, which i'm saying plays into opposition hands- surely the onus is on Him and his supporters to articulate his hidden meaning and that means challenging anything they see as untrue in the press.

To play devil's advocate and answer from the corbyn side of this, he'd be challenging some of the bullshit and get across his actual point
 
I mean whatever you think about the guy he was HEAVILY the favourite of the party. If they want to go back to the time when labour membership was rapidly dwindling, then yes, continue to undermine him.

I don't think any comparisons to IDS (selected by the party, disliked by the parliamentary party)are legit either. IDS was replaced because he couldn't get out the message well. Howard policy-wise was barely different. Corbyn, if replaced, will be replaced by someone with radiclally different policies, which is pretty much a slap to the face of the rank & file.

imo, labour plp need to help him instead of stab him in the back. Yes the guy has edges to round off in foreign policy, but this incessant briefing against him is not the way forward for them
 

Jezbollah

Member
Genuine question:

If Corbyn is a hypocrite for expecting loyalty from previously loyal MPs, are said MPs not hypocrites for being disloyal?

Ooooh dont suggest that. You'll be called a Blairite :)


At the end of the day, Labour supporters really have to think of the core choice at hand here. Do you:

1) Want the party to go in a direction that appeals to the most hardened supporters (the Labour party membership) by relating to their core values (whatever they are, it's still a wide spectrum)
or
2) Do you want the party to actually win the election and go after the voter base who dont share the same values as those most hardened supporters. You know, those who didnt vote Labour in the last election (Scotland aside).

That's never changed, Syria vote or not.
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
I think all parties here are being consistent, so I don't really think anyone is being a hypocrite tbh.

I think the only people who are hypocrites are those in the shadow cabinet. It's acceptable to rebel if you're in the backbench, and in fact given the strong links between the UK's legislature and executive it is almost necessary that backbenchers to rebel for there to be any real balance of power. However, the cabinet and by extension the shadow cabinet are reflections of the executive and you can't have a divided executive; that's why we have cabinet responsibility. I don't mind if Labour MPs vote for the Syrian bombing runs in the sense I wouldn't want them kicked from the party, but I would want any shadow cabinet member to resign from said shadow cabinet immediately. Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, which means he sets the direction of a Labour government. You can disagree with it, but that needs to happen from the backbenches.
 

twobear

sputum-flecked apoplexy
I also think it's hypocritical to make doom-filled proclamations that electing Corbyn would relegate Labour to the sidelines for a generation, or whatever, and then to spend your time in the PLP under his leadership trying your damn hardest to make sure that happens.
 

Jezbollah

Member
..Corbyn was elected leader of the Labour Party, which means he sets the direction of a Labour government. You can disagree with it, but that needs to happen from the backbenches.

Is he going to set a direction or completely define policy without considering feedback from the PLP (like he did with the tax credit u-turn)?

I'm pretty sure he said that policy determination would be a Party thing?

Perhaps the question should include: Is Corbyn out of touch with his own MPs too?
 
Pretty much. He's an anti-establishment leader, but the one the overwhelming majority of Labour MEMBERS voted in. This is what the MEMBERS voted for. If he gets forced out, I think Labour are even more fucked.

See the corrections, it was paid up labour members, whilst there may be thousands they are not entirely representative of Labour voters aka members of the public at large

Doesn't that describe Corbyn for the last 20 years though?

Touché

Genuine question:

If Corbyn is a hypocrite for expecting loyalty from previously loyal MPs, are said MPs not hypocrites for being disloyal?

Again Touché

still an interesting debate, he consistently did not tow the party line and now is demanding the entire elected labour members tow with the party line made off his views
However his deputy has repeatedly said not to take democratic discussions in the party as divisions - so this works in the flip side too! if the vast majority of his cabinet, and it seems the wider MP''s are wanting a free vote (and/or wanting to vote for strikes), is it Democratic to impose his views as a pacifist as the party's policy and demand they do as they are told? not exactly democratic to me

No matter what people say, the current Labour party would do better for the people of this country and for the people outside of this country than a Tory Government ever will.

They are a an out of touch evil that people and anyone who can see that should be uniting behind the opposition.

The Tories have been spouting nonsense about controlling Immigration from the start- http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34931725

They pushed the NHS to breaking point and are continuing down that part.

Austerity has absolutely crippled the growth of the economy.

And now they wish to bomb another country and have learned no lessons from the past.

They are an evil who like to weed out the vulnerable to fuel their own selfish motives and vision.

Undeniably accurate, however i'd call question to calling them Evil, they just have a differing view.

As i said above the reason i feel they are winning in polls, is because of the ever increasing gulf between the political parties, effectively forcing people to vote solely on the policies - which as masters of Spin the conservatives wheel out similar(stolen) policies from other parties and/or popularist policies fitting the mass public appeal and win the votes (even if policies never materialise and are watered down)
We are electing politicians for the people to run the government, and if the parties are choosing to polarise themselves, then at some point they will then represent less and less of the people.
I'm a Blairite, its not an insult to me, and the Labour party should not shun the entire era because they did very good things, look how they were reelected! The war in Iraq was wrong, but this desire to distance from it and the entirety of that government dismisses all the good that got Labour in power and kept them there
 
D

Deleted member 231381

Unconfirmed Member
See the corrections, it was paid up labour members, whilst there may be thousands they are not entirely representative of Labour voters aka members of the public at large

They aren't representative of Labour voters in that Labour members support him by 65% and Labour voters by only 56%; but 56% is still enough e.g. larger than the margin of Blair's victory in 1994. Corbyn is popular with people who presently intend to vote Labour. I mean, that's almost truistic because people he's unpopular with will probably not intend to vote Labour, but it does mean that the shadow shadow opposition have no ground to stand on.
 

Kuros

Member
I don't think everything that's happened in the last week can be blamed on the press/PLP.

1. McDonnell and Mao's little red book. (FFS) and the pathetic rebuttal at the spending review.
2. McDonnell and signing the letter calling for the aboltion of Mi5 and then denying it.
3. Shoot to Kill
4. Jihadi John
5. Appointing Ken Livingstone and having to apologise everytime he opens his mouth.

It's been and absolute circus of failure from people thrust from the backbenches to the front.

Now some of that list may have played well amongst the 400k members of the Labour Party. But how about the 9million or so that voted Labour at the last election (from whom the PLP can draw their mandate)

They must be facepalming with every new story. The Oldham by election will be incredibly telling. If they some how manage to lose to UKIP there in a constituency with a 25% Asian population i think he should resign before he takes the party into oblivion.

The country needs a fucking opposition and doesn't have one right now. As uneasy as an unelected Lords stepping in to stop the tax credits bill made me feel i am glad that just this once they did.
 
He may be a great representative for the people of Islington but he's an awful party leader for a bunch of reasons, none of which are somehow made irrelevant by his mandate:

- The parliamentary Labour party (ie the Labour MPs) don't like or agree with him on a lot of policy areas. This is a problem because the *main* area of leadership is amongst the PLP; to be an effective opposition in parliament, you need the support of the MPs to abide by the whip.

- Because Corbyn spent ~30 years voting against his own party, many MPs don't feel like they need to suck it up and vote against their own desires. Corbyn never let party loyalty get in the way of voting how he thought was right; why should any of the rest?

- His more open, grass roots approach to policy within the party is a de facto abdication of responsibility under the guide of democratising decision making. You can't *lead* if you ask your party members what they think before significant policy decisions are made. Whatever other virtues this process may have, enhancing Corbyn's leadership ability is not one of them.

Political leadership is tremendously difficult because it requires you to simultaneously inspire and direct your party whilst still requiring that you be able to compromise with the MPs to ensure a coherent and united position. Corbyn lacks both of these crucial elements, and he hasn't helped himself (though arbuably his choices were limited, not that that changes the outcome) by having a front bench mostly comprising of people like him. Even Blair had Prescott as DPM - when people aren't liking Corbyn's voice or stance on an issue, who does he have to send out for the next innings? McDonnell, Abbott and Livingstone? Wooo de doo.

Mandate or no, the guy's gonna get fucked one way or the other.
 

Goodlife

Member
I don't think everything that's happened in the last week can be blamed on the press/PLP.

1. McDonnell and Mao's little red book. (FFS) and the pathetic rebuttal at the spending review.
2. McDonnell and signing the letter calling for the aboltion of Mi5 and then denying it.
3. Shoot to Kill
4. Jihadi John
5. Appointing Ken Livingstone and having to apologise everytime he opens his mouth.

It's been and absolute circus of failure from people thrust from the backbenches to the front.

Now some of that list may have played well amongst the 400k members of the Labour Party. But how about the 9million or so that voted Labour at the last election (from whom the PLP can draw their mandate)

They must be facepalming with every new story. The Oldham by election will be incredibly telling. If they some how manage to lose to UKIP there in a constituency with a 25% Asian population i think he should resign before he takes the party into oblivion.

The country needs a fucking opposition and doesn't have one right now. As uneasy as an unelected Lords stepping in to stop the tax credits bill made me feel i am glad that just this once they did.

3 and 4 were very valid points to bring up though and I'm glad they were.

The red book was a bit shit, but his reply, up to that point, was good.

He'll walk Oldham.


Oh and the opposition stuff is nonsense. Its no coincidence that the tories have spent the last few weeks U turning every 5 mins and are actually having to put some effort into debates (I.e. Syria)
 
3 and 4 were very valid points to bring up though and I'm glad they were.

The red book was a bit shit, but his reply, up to that point, was good.

He'll walk Oldham.

I don't think shoot to kill was. There's misquoting and intentionally misunderstanding something but Corbyn's team have a habbit of saying things and then the next day saying "but what I reallllly meant was..." Corbyn wasn't misunderstood on Shoot to Kill - what he said is pretty unequivocal.
 

Empty

Member
i don't really understand how the views of mp's democratically elected to represent the 9.3 million labour voters in the last election are somehow illegitimate voices suppressing true democracy

then again the corbyn narrative is just to pretend the last election never happened
 

Mr. Sam

Member
i don't really understand how the views of mp's democratically elected to represent the 9.3 million labour voters in the last election are somehow illegitimate voices suppressing true democracy

then again the corbyn narrative is just to pretend the last election never happened

I think both paragraphs are gross oversimplifications.
 

Goodlife

Member
I don't think shoot to kill was. There's misquoting and intentionally misunderstanding something but Corbyn's team have a habbit of saying things and then the next day saying "but what I reallllly meant was..." Corbyn wasn't misunderstood on Shoot to Kill - what he said is pretty unequivocal.

Did you hear the interview?
He said he wasn't comfortable with the shoot to kik policy in most circumstances but sometimes it's needed.

What's wrong with that? It's a very valid point... Otherwise innocents will end up dead
 
What's the Jihadi John point?
That it would be better if he were brought to trial. But it's a ludicrous point to make from someone who would veto sending ground troops in and when John was in an area where neither the Syrian nor Iraqi government had control. That eliminates all options except inaction.
 

kmag

Member
I don't think shoot to kill was. There's misquoting and intentionally misunderstanding something but Corbyn's team have a habbit of saying things and then the next day saying "but what I reallllly meant was..." Corbyn wasn't misunderstood on Shoot to Kill - what he said is pretty unequivocal.

No one actually seems to know what Shoot to Kill means. Shoot to kill brought you the Menezes murder. In the UK context, it's the immediate shooting (typically in the head) without prior warning of suspected suicide bombers and/or armed terrorists. Armed police can already choose to do this under their normal operating guidelines if they are convinced that there is an immediate threat to themselves or others. The only proviso is that in normal situations (non Kratos contingency) they are required to aim at the centre mass and not a head shot.

The UK has a long and storied history of shooting unarmed persons suspected of terrorism.
 

Ghost

Chili Con Carnage!
Strange thing about that shoot to kill story was that 1 week earlier someone walked into Gatwick with a gun, was pursued by armed police and was apprehended alive.

The gun turned out to be an air rifle, presumably if there ever was any kind of shoot to kill policy in the UK that man would now be dead. That seems like a perfect case to highlight Corbyns stance but it's never been mentioned, he could have praised the police response, said that it proved we have the right protections in place, anything. It's great that he's principled, but if he can't even play politics with good news then he's never going to win round the party and the public to his way of thinking.
 
Did you hear the interview?
He said he wasn't comfortable with the shoot to kik policy in most circumstances but sometimes it's needed.

What's wrong with that? It's a very valid point... Otherwise innocents will end up dead
Well firstly this is another example of his "but what I meant was..." Tendency. In the original BBC interview he didn't say "sometimes it's necessary" - that came in the inevitable post-interview briefing. Secondly, who *doesn't* agree with what his position was eventually revealed to be? Saying "I don't like the state executing people on the streets but sometimes they have to"? Who's on the other side of that debate?
 

Guileless

Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
Considering the Syrian civil war has been going on for five years, and Assad is still killing people, Russia is helping him attack the rebels, and the Western coalition is attacking ISIS via airstrikes only, Iran & co. support Assad while Saudi Arabia & co. support the rebels, what is the argument that UK participation against ISIS would make things worse? What would worse conditions than this even look like?
 
When's he said that

The Labour barriers to intervening in Syria make clear that he would never send in troops - say, special forces - to arrest a single man. Literally every single point of it - requiring a UN resolution, requiring any military intervention to be part of a political process towards peace etc - would inhibit his ability to send in the SAS to kidnap him - even if that were possible from a practical POV.

No one actually seems to know what Shoot to Kill means. Shoot to kill brought you the Menezes murder. In the UK context, it's the immediate shooting (typically in the head) without prior warning of suspected suicide bombers and/or armed terrorists. Armed police can already choose to do this under their normal operating guidelines if they are convinced that there is an immediate threat to themselves or others.

The UK has a long and storied history of shooting unarmed persons suspected of terrorism.

Surely *he* knows what it means though, no? We have an existing policy on this issue as you've outlined - why else could he have been referring to?
 

Condom

Member
Considering the Syrian civil war has been going on for five years, and Assad is still killing people, Russia is helping him attack the rebels, and the Western coalition is attacking ISIS via airstrikes only, Iran & co. support Assad while Saudi Arabia & co. support the rebels, what is the argument that UK participation against ISIS would make things worse? What would worse conditions than this even look like?
Bombing IS makes you a higher priority target for terrorist attacks.
 

Kuros

Member
Strange thing about that shoot to kill story was that 1 week earlier someone walked into Gatwick with a gun, was pursued by armed police and was apprehended alive.

The gun turned out to be an air rifle, presumably if there ever was any kind of shoot to kill policy in the UK that man would now be dead. That seems like a perfect case to highlight Corbyns stance but it's never been mentioned, he could have praised the police response, said that it proved we have the right protections in place, anything. It's great that he's principled, but if he can't even play politics with good news then he's never going to win round the party and the public to his way of thinking.

Agree with this. Almost every day we're getting a "well he said this but he really meant to say this" he is aa backbencher used to saying what he wants thrust into the limelight. I think if comes back to whether he wants to appeal behind his party members. Hes utterly failing at that at the moment.
 

Mr. Sam

Member
Considering the Syrian civil war has been going on for five years, and Assad is still killing people, Russia is helping him attack the rebels, and the Western coalition is attacking ISIS via airstrikes only, Iran & co. support Assad while Saudi Arabia & co. support the rebels, what is the argument that UK participation against ISIS would make things worse? What would worse conditions than this even look like?

I think (and quite rightly considering the situation just described) the onus is on people to prove that UK involvement would be beneficial, both to the people of Syria and the UK. "How can we fuck it up worse than it already is?" isn't really a compelling argument on that front.
 
I'm a Corbynista and I fully agree with his stance on Syria. However I understand many do not. I wish for a united Labour party but as a life long voter watching the sniping from the back benches it's making me just want to stop supporting the party.

In my opinion there is no credible replacement for Corbyn at the moment.

Also Corbyn and Eds problem before him was taking on the Press. You have them on your side and you win elections.
 

kmag

Member
The Labour barriers to intervening in Syria make clear that he would never send in troops - say, special forces - to arrest a single man. Literally every single point of it - requiring a UN resolution, requiring any military intervention to be part of a political process towards peace etc - would inhibit his ability to send in the SAS to kidnap him - even if that were possible from a practical POV.



Surely *he* knows what it means though, no? We have an existing policy on this issue as you've outlined - why else could he have been referring to?

The shoot to kill issue is whether you let police operate under Kratos guidelines. Shoot without warning aiming for the head. Last time we did that in a panic following a terrorist incident an unarmed Brazilian electrician ended up dead, so it's not exactly a cut and dry thing in my mind.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom