Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[Tubey]

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.

Mate, you know how you represent those with no voice? By keeping your core principles at heart, but doing everything you can to recognise the political playing field and gaining power, so you can act for them.

Corbyn has never, ever done that. It's easy to protest; it's a lot harder to channel that anger and aspiration to help into viable politics.

 

[neil999]

Because Corbyn as leader of the opposition will have a lot of time to stand up, more than he would as a back bencher, and point the finger at those that voted for war on a big weapons of mass destruction lie. The finger will be pointed at Hillary Benn, Burnham, Eagles, Alan Johnson etc. in fact everyone of those that are being proposed as potential leader of the Labour party.

Corbyn has said that if war crimes have been committed Tony Blair should face trial. That will drag those that voted for war into the mire and may mean they are un-electable. In a way they are fighting for their political lives and they hate the fact that Corbyn may reveal things they do not want the public to hear.

thank you, could be i suppose...could be a coincidence

 

[Milkman]

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.

I disagree mate. Why change your skillset if that's what got you the job in the first place?

And a protest ideology is not a bad thing at all. Works pretty well for UKIP, so it could work pretty well for Labour.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

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?

He should never of brought Hillary Benn into the Cabinet in the first place if he was such a decisive figure. I don't doubt he's been given a pretty tough time by the Blairite's, but I doesn't change the fact that he could of been stronger. The referendum campaign was a chance to show what he was capable of doing during an election and he was terrible. The vote to leave was won by working class Northern area's (traditionally working class Labour strongholds) who obviously didn't think Corbyn spoke to them over his campaign. It's my belief that he he been better during the referendum, the UK would of voted to remain by a large amount.

 

[catcherintherye]

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.

But didn't he do this by trying to have a broad cabinet, which most of them refused to serve in? He offered Kendall and Cooper top jobs in the cabinet.

I am nervous of the pragmatism V protest stuff as well. Through holding a popular position he got the Tories to U-turn on school acadamisation and benefits. The Tories actually moved further to the left than what the Labour Party was Proposing 12 months earlier and the 3 other candidates had proposed along the "pragmatic" guise. Through articulating his position, IDS took a more left wing position than most of his own MP's. Do you really think he'd have done that Labour pragmatically supported welfare cuts as it did 12 months previously?

I do agree it can't all be principles but lets be honest the MP's want Labour to remove not just principles but any notion that they try to help ordinary people. Most of his colleagues are very wealthy, ordering on millionaires who are completely out of touch, I am not sure being in opposition to them is such a bad thing. They need to have a long look at themselves.

 

[Bruce Wayne]

Do you have the link/source with the words used by Jo Cox that she didn't want Corbyn as leader?

Not to hand as I'm away from my desk but it was in the obituary for her in the Economist. Sure it's accessible with a quick Google

 

[magicjuan]

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.

Strangely, I and a great deal many others see Corbyn as doing that, but up against a vitriolic media campaign, undermining by the PLP and fighting against 'moderate socialism' i.e. tory policy dressed in red from those with vested interests.

It is difficult enough with left leaning people trying to reinvent socialism, you either care about all of society or go full on thatcher I'm alright jack, you can't be selective and can't decide which parts of society are more important than others. I'm sure you've read animal farm...

 

[Tubey]

I disagree mate. Why change your skillset if that's what got you the job in the first place?

And a protest ideology is not a bad thing at all. Works pretty well for UKIP, so it could work pretty well for Labour.

Protest is fine when holding something to account from the backbenchers - it doesn't work as a sole strategy for an entire party.

The majority of the electorate, after seeing it over and over again, just see it as rabble rousing with no coherent strategy.

As to why he had to change his skillset, it's simple - he was a backbencher protest leader, but the actual leadership job doesn't require that same role. In fact, you need the opposite - you need to come across as temperate to all views, reasonable and able to filter the crap and advance with the good ideas and people to be the best overall party you can. That's called leadership, and frankly Corbyn obviously has none of those qualities whatsoever.

 

[Milkman]

He should never of brought Hillary Benn into the Cabinet in the first place if he was such a decisive figure. I don't doubt he's been given a pretty tough time by the Blairite's, but I doesn't change the fact that he could of been stronger. The referendum campaign was a chance to show what he was capable of doing during an election and he was terrible. The vote to leave was won by working class Northern area's (traditionally working class Labour strongholds) who obviously didn't think Corbyn spoke to them over his campaign. It's my belief that he he been better during the referendum, the UK would of voted to remain by a large amount.

He's tried to make it more inclusive then, surely? He would've been pilloried for it if he hadn't.

 

[neil999]

I disagree mate. Why change your skillset if that's what got you the job in the first place?

And a protest ideology is not a bad thing at all. Works pretty well for UKIP, so it could work pretty well for Labour.

ukip have one seat, its worked well on their single issue...but they are million miles from government

 

[Tubey]

Strangely, I and a great deal many others see Corbyn as doing that, but up against a vitriolic media campaign, undermining by the PLP and fighting against 'moderate socialism' i.e. tory policy dressed in red from those with vested interests.

It is difficult enough with left leaning people trying to reinvent socialism, you either care about all of society or go full on thatcher I'm alright jack, you can't be selective and can't decide which parts of society are more important than others. I'm sure you've read animal farm...

So in your view, you're either extreme left, or not left at all.

That's why you like Corbyn, and why you'll never see an elected government you personally like, as you have a snowballs chance in hell of getting it.

I'm a socialist, but I'm one with common sense. I know that to help those who need it, you have to be pragmatic.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

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

I'm not looking down my nose at them, I'm simply saying that that people really should TRY to take an interest politics before they decided to become a member of a party or vote for anything.

 

[neil999]

good lord, from the guardian -

Jeremy Corbyn may have lost the support of his parliamentary party but, according to a press notice from his supporters, he still holds Facebook and Twitter. As of last night, there had been 48,000 ‘likes’ on his Facebook status, and a graphic supporting him had been shared by 26,000 people and viewed by 5m. Marshajane Thompson, who helps to run the Jeremy Corbyn for PM social media operation (JC4PM) said

 

[Milkman]

Protest is fine when holding something to account from the backbenchers - it doesn't work as a sole strategy for an entire party.

The majority of the electorate, after seeing it over and over again, just see it as rabble rousing with no coherent strategy.

As to why he had to change his skillset, it's simple - he was a backbencher protest leader, but the actual leadership job doesn't require that same role. In fact, you need the opposite - you need to come across as temperate to all views, reasonable and able to filter the crap and advance with the good ideas and people to be the best overall party you can. That's called leadership, and frankly Corbyn obviously has none of those qualities whatsoever.

Again though, look at UKIP. You're telling me protest doesn't work on a larger scale?

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

He's tried to make it more inclusive then, surely? He would've been pilloried for it if he hadn't.

I doubt it, I for one certainly wouldn't of cared. Indeed I would of respected him more for showing strong leadership.