Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[magicjuan]

The people he calls friends like Diane Abbott would be one reason. His complete lack of strong leadership being another. The Conservatives have been their for the taking for a long time now and he's done nothing. He's not once impressed me during his time as leader and believe it or not I wanted him to be a success. I simply don't believe he will and in the process he Will set the Labour party back generation's.

And friends like Blair, Mandelson, Kinnock?

 

[Tubey]

And those rebels now are they, en masse not doing the same?

There's a broad consensus of the membership support his policies now, should they withdraw ?

He won over a large support during his term so far, was he right to hang around to temper the shift away from labour principles to the tory lite stance they had, fighting for and defending the most vulnerable and most affected by tory policies?

This ideal to get elected with whatever it takes is nonsense the public will see through.
A right leaning labour party is no alternative to tory austerity and people want change.

Seriously why would you want a labour government carrying out tory policies?

Nobody is asking for Tory Lite - what they're saying is that Labour can't be so left wing as to be completely unelectable.

The point of politics is to represent the broadest amount of people possible whilst in power. Corbyn represents hardly anyone.

You can be a socialist without being as extreme as Corbyn.

 

[hullefc]

I've seen with my own eyes a good number of people who've never taken an interest with politics in their life decide to buy the £3 membership purely to vote in Corbyn, "cos he's a good socialist, ya know". I think a lot of the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn would feel much more at home in the TUSC Party (a fine party that I have a lot of time for, incidentally).

But isn't that the way parties are built? You can't deny someone membership because they agree with the leader.

 

[Tubey]

But isn't that the way parties are built? You can't deny someone membership because they agree with the leader.

But it's a terrible way to have a leader who represents the country, instead of a small subset of people.

People keep banging on about the Labour PLP not being representative of the membership - but in turn, the Labour membership is completely out of sync with the overall population who would potentially vote Labour.

 

[magicjuan]

I've seen with my own eyes a good number of people who've never taken an interest with politics in their life decide to buy the £3 membership purely to vote in Corbyn, "cos he's a good socialist, ya know". I think a lot of the supporters of Jeremy Corbyn would feel much more at home in the TUSC Party (a fine party that I have a lot of time for, incidentally).

A good socialist
What a terrible reason to become leader of the labour party.

Is socialism a dirty word these days?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

But isn't that the way parties are built? You can't deny someone membership because they agree with the leader.

No of course you can, and I would never advocate doing so. I'm simply pointing out what you asked. You asked if I'd seen any evidence of people hijacking the party, well there you go, I've seen people who can't even spell politics, much less understand it join for the single purpose of voting for Corbyn.

 

[hullefc]

Un-electablility. Hull with a 65/35 vote to leave. The 3 MPs wanted to remain the people told them to do one. Doesn't that mean they are un-electable and new faces need to be brought in that reflect the views of their constituents. What evidence is there that in places that voted against their MPs wishes that they will now vote for them at a general election. Mass de-selections need to happen.

 

[Milkman]

The people he calls friends like Diane Abbott would be one reason. His complete lack of strong leadership being another. The Conservatives have been their for the taking for a long time now and he's done nothing. He's not once impressed me during his time as leader and believe it or not I wanted him to be a success. I simply don't believe he will and in the process he Will set the Labour party back generation's.

He's never had the support of his own MPs though. How would you fare at your job if you constantly had people trying to get you sacked, or saying someone else would be better? The guy is doomed either way. He sacks Hillary Benn for mouthing off (again!) and is STILL perceived as lacking leadership. It's quite clear the direction he wants to go? I'm not sure why you can't see it?

Say we're playing at Anfield and we're one nil down. The RS are on bad form and their defence is patched up. We've got Romelu Lukaku up front, who's scored a hat trick in each of his last 5 games, and the fans on the whole think he's ace, yet the rest of the team spend the game not passing him the ball, but just keep moving it around themselves instead. Inevitably, the sh*te win again, and Lukaku gets slated in the press. Are you mad at the striker for not scoring, or the rest of the team for not giving him the service?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

A good socialist
What a terrible reason to become leader of the labour party.

Is socialism a dirty word these days?

No, absolutely not! But its hardly a reason to make somebody the leader when that's your single only argument. Interestingly I doubt many people who talk about Socialism really understand what it means.

 

[Tubey]

A good socialist
What a terrible reason to become leader of the labour party.

Is socialism a dirty word these days?

Here's my thoughts on this; feel free to disagree.

I believe it has become so, but for two reasons. First, I believe those who label themselves as socialists have chosen to become protesters against the system, rather than a viable alternative to it. That has resulted in them marginalising themselves politically.

Second, the electorate as a whole sees this, and can't take them seriously, because supporting them feels like it would result in political instability, and what socialists never seem to do is explain how and why they are no threat to peoples jobs, national security and so on. There never seems to be a plan beyond moaning at the status quo.

And that's why Corbyn has set back political socialism so badly in my view. Instead of being a non-stop protest movement, there should be a move towards what I'd call "moderate socialism", where you stick to the ideals, but you make them practical and legible to the electorate over a period of time. Until you make the socialist tag palatable to the mainstream public, it's a dead ideology that will gain no popular support at a GE.

 

[hullefc]

But it's a terrible way to have a leader who represents the country, instead of a small subset of people.

People keep banging on about the Labour PLP not being representative of the membership - but in turn, the Labour membership is completely out of sync with the overall population who would potentially vote Labour.

In an awful lot of areas the Labour party EU inners are out of touch with the electorate.

 

[magicjuan]

Nobody is asking for Tory Lite - what they're saying is that Labour can't be so left wing as to be completely unelectable.

The point of politics is to represent the broadest amount of people possible whilst in power. Corbyn represents hardly anyone.

You can be a socialist without being as extreme as Corbyn.

So who is to represent those with no voice, the ones hit hardest.
People who had given up on the political system suddenly found someone who raised their concerns. Someone with principles, principles that had gone missing for a long time.
Chilcott is about people being lied to. Another in a long, long chain of lies, half-truths and misinformation.
Woe betide the people for seeking integrity from their politicians, all without media spin and influence.

 

[Tubey]

He's never had the support of his own MPs though. How would you fare at your job if you constantly had people trying to get you sacked, or saying someone else would be better? The guy is doomed either way. He sacks Hillary Benn for mouthing off (again!) and is STILL perceived as lacking leadership. It's quite clear the direction he wants to go? I'm not sure why you can't see it?

Say we're playing at Anfield and we're one nil down. The RS are on bad form and their defence is patched up. We've got Romelu Lukaku up front, who's scored a hat trick in each of his last 5 games, and the fans on the whole think he's ace, yet the rest of the team spend the game not passing him the ball, but just keep moving it around themselves instead. Inevitably, the sh*te win again, and Lukaku gets slated in the press. Are you mad at the striker for not scoring, or the rest of the team for not giving him the service?

This is true, but you know what he should have done? He should have tempered himself, brought people in, broadened his ideology and looked to do things pragmatically instead of constantly sticking to a protest ideology.

That's what turned him off to his colleagues. Everything he does never seems to take any heed to becoming electable.

 

[catcherintherye]

All the people in this cabinet are doing are showing that they have more integrity then Jeremy Corbyn ever had. While he sat comfortably in the Blairite government (which I take it you would expect was far for from left wing?!) happily excepting money to be their token socialist and comedy protest vote, he never once threatened to resign. You know why? Because he knew nobody would care if he did, and the only person that would lose out was himself and his own wallet! Basically you want Labour to become a far Left Wing unelectable party, well if you want that I can't understand why you don't just vote for TUSC? It seams like they wou the represent your beliefs much more then the modern Labour party. Corbyn will destroy the Labour party given half the chance, as he's totally unelectable. The only people who would vote for him are his gang of Wolfie Smith left wing activists, and in the process of making them happy he would practically create a one party state for the Conservative's, a truly terrifying prospect of ever there was one!

That's definitely the narrative being built mate. I have to say I do have a lot of sympathy with your argument why didn't he leave! All logic would have dictated that he and a few others should have left and formed a party to the left of Labour which probably would have been bets for all.

However for a variety of reasons there is a tradition of those who are socialist in traditions not only working within the Labour Party but also being quite tied to it. Corbyn is one of those. He will never leave. I have discussed this with him before he was famous and he's very wedded to the Labour Party and a very loyal member. What's remarkable about Labour is that he has won with a huge mandate from the membership. I don't think anyone expected that to happen and least of all him.

As for the rest I am not stupid enough to think Labour should incorporate the policies of a TUSC. It is a broad party that represents views from working class people all the way to more socially minded people in business. I don't think anybody has a right to declare the party belongs to 1 tradition though. It is the Party of Macdonald and Attlee, of Blair and Wilson. It reflects the myriad of views shared by ordinary people.

I think it is fine to be critical of those you don't agree with within the party. I also have sympathy with members who wish him to be gone, or even voters and would urge them to sign up and vote him out if they believe that. That is democracy. However what is not fine for me, is 170 MP's thinking they alone decide what the Labour Party does or doesn't stand for and undermining the vote of the parties membership. I would go one step further, actively sabotaging Corbyn's chances to prove a particularly ideological position they don't agree with is redundant.

The phrase "he's unelectable" has been thrown around a lot. However there is scant evidence to prove this case. He has won every by election he's faced (increasing his majorities). Won several Mayoral elections (winning form previously Tory Mayoral cities in some cases). When he took over Labour were behind by 10 points + in the polls they are now looking as if they are level and in some cases gone into the lead. Local elections showed a 6-7 point swing back to Labour from 2015.


That is not me nitpicking information by the way that is just an objective analysis of the information we have. The "evidence" from the MP's (or former MP's) I have seen seems to be anecdotal at best. Comments about his dress style or picking out a single question from a single poll on Labours 2015 vote seem to be getting used. Finally stuff around sabotaging the Leave Remain campaign is getting thrown out there as well as losing the heartlands.

The reality is, irrespective of how he dresses or how many 2015 votes he keeps his vote share is increasing. That should be the central figure. As for the Remain Stuff Angela Eagle herself described his work as fantastic for Remain just 2 weeks ago. She is one of the key plotters. I think he developed a more nuanced position on Remain, which involved being critical of the EU. Corbyns right, in Labour heartlands they voted out and perhaps he should have gone further in his critique. Lets put it this way, I don’t see us winning those voters back with an even more dogmatic Blairite Europhile.

I have tried to show the myriad of evidence on both sides and can only hope people reach the same conclusion as me which is that he is actually doing a decent job. A decent job in circumstances where his MP’s are looking to undermine him. If members want him out I respect that and my critique is not about ordinary people wanting him out, as I said earlier that’s democracy. However I am very dubious about the motives of the MP’s.

I loosely agree with Paul Mason. I think they are striking now as they simply cannot stand the thought Corbyn may win an early election if it’s called and they are nearly out of time. With the likely splitting of the right wing vote Labour are probably a percentage point or two away from forming a government. Don’t think they are not aware of that. This smacks of sabotage.

If they successfully pull off this coup against Corbyn Labour will be unelectable for a long time to come. I think that’s a price worth paying for the MP’s mate. They are all quite wealthy and will be ok. I think their hatred of Corbyn, principled people and most importantly the membership shines through. They hate us, listen to how they describe us. One day it might be your views they are undermining.

If you want to stop the Tories I would urge you to not join in the sabotage of the Labour Leader to prove a point to those people with a different political ideology within the Labour Party. I would urge you get behind the leader and try to get us the 2-3% swing we probably need to win an election.

 

[hullefc]

No of course you can, and I would never advocate doing so. I'm simply pointing out what you asked. You asked if I'd seen any evidence of people hijacking the party, well there you go, I've seen people who can't even spell politics, much less understand it join for the single purpose of voting for Corbyn.

Oh dear. Maybe, they never joined because of Blair Toryism?