Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[hullefc]

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.

So it has to be a test. You can only join when you can ...Maybe people join a party because they hear something about them - the try- and they want to find out more.

 

[neil999]

Maybe a million miles from government but they've just brought down a prime minister, thrown the country into constitutional crisis and threaten the foundations of the EU.

they are protest party, this isnt what labour is...surely thats for TUSC/SWP??

 

[magicjuan]

No, not for the sake of power - for the sake of helping the most vulnerable in society. They go hand in hand.

So it's a choice between being able to take practical action, or screaming pointlessly from the sidelines.

We differ hugely. Pointlessly isn't becoming leader of the current opposition. Pointlessly is when media attacks are orchestrated, little to no support from own PLP and being undermined at every opportunity. The only thing missingvfrom the list by some labour apparatchiks is his dress sense and singing the national anthem, but the tories got there first that's all

 

[hullefc]

At the moment Corbyn is showing he is made of stern stuff than the bottlers who couldn't/wouldn't even talk to their constituents and convince them with their arguments about the EU.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

So it has to be a test. You can only join when you can ...Maybe people join a party because they hear something about them - the try- and they want to find out more.

Maybe so but in my experience it tends to be the people who pose as socialist's and show off their membership card only to be shocked when they get told there's a general election coming up!

 

[magicjuan]

they are protest party, this isnt what labour is...surely thats for TUSC/SWP??

What was the labour party from its inception if not a protest party? Am I missing something?
If people aren't happy they can crwate a new center leftish party like the SDP tried to, not hijack an existing one and usurp its beliefs, that was done recently and imploded leaving this split behind.
Why should the labour movement change its beliefs?

 

[hullefc]

Maybe so but in my experience it tends to be the people who pose as socialist's and show off their membership card only to be shocked when they get told there's a general election coming up!

Sounds like the vast majority of the Labour Parliamentary Party.

 

[Tubey]

We differ hugely. Pointlessly isn't becoming leader of the current opposition. Pointlessly is when media attacks are orchestrated, little to no support from own PLP and being undermined at every opportunity. The only thing missingvfrom the list by some labour apparatchiks is his dress sense and singing the national anthem, but the tories got there first that's all

OK, simple question.

How will Corbyn help the most vulnerable in society?

 

[neil999]

What was the labour party from its inception if not a protest party? Am I missing something?
If people aren't happy they can crwate a new center leftish party like the SDP tried to, not hijack an existing one and usurp its beliefs, that was done recently and imploded leaving this split behind.
Why should the labour movement change its beliefs?

when i say protest party i mean single/a few issues, the party has changed massively it hasnt been a 'protest' party for decades

i suppose it comes down to what are labours primary beliefs/policies and who has ownership of them

why should the centerists split off and not the far left?

 

[catcherintherye]

Token gestures aren't the same thing as incorporation. He put people in the cabinet, then expected them to bend to his will. That is a stupid thing to do.

He came into the role and immediately did stupid things like advocate scrapping Trident, in one sweep making himself unelectable. He didn't consider the party as a whole; he simply took one issue he thought was important, and went with it no matter what.

Take the referendum as well. He bent over a bit and 'campaigned' for Remain, as he recognised he'd be screwed if he didn't. But he didn't take those views on, understand them and fundamentally alter his position - instead, he deliberately half-arsed it.

Compare that to Cameron - a natural Eurosceptic, but he understood the broader landscape, chose to alter his stance and campaign wholeheartedly for Remain. As much as I dislike Cameron, they are the actions of a leader of a political party. Being a leader extends beyond right and left politics - it's a role, and Corbyn would have done well to learn it.

There is definitely something in that. Do you think the Labour MP's have been willing to shift their position enough either though? Should it be a two way process?

The information I get from people close to it is that he is not someone who expects people to bend to his will. The frustration comes from the fact he won't have a polemic with people. He wouldn't allow anything to become a disagreement that would be debated. He'd allow everyone their view but always be looking for consensus. To put it bluntly I don't think Labour can have a consensus, the MP's and the ordinary experiences of members are too far apart.

The issue of Trident reflects the issue above. A large section of his membership wanted one thing and his MP's wanted another. I am not sure it made him unelectable though, the biggest and most successful party in the UK today the SNP have won elections in opposition to Trident. What I would say tactically though he did pick fights that he didn't need to have and probably could have parked Trident a bit better in his early days.

As for the Referenda I simply don't think that's the case. Even Eagle who is looking likely to be his opponent congratulated him on his outstanding work just 2 weeks ago. Either she was lying then or she is lying now? I think Corbyn did as he generally always does, which is he didn't make a clear decision on the issue and tried to please everyone. He is an opponent of the EU but recognises his party is generally supportive of it so took a consensus decision on it. I do think this is a weakness overall but not sure it's that much so in the Referendum. The blunt reality is lots of Labour's heartlands wanted to vote out, would a more dogmatic EU enthusiast have won those people round or just widened the divide between them and Labour?

You are pulling apart his performance which I think is fair enough. This is different to saying he hasn't tried to include people though. I don't think many leaders would have tried as hard to include people as Corbyn. His big mistake for me is probably trying to hard to fit in instead of saying what he thinks and going for it.

 

[catcherintherye]

OK, simple question.

How will Corbyn help the most vulnerable in society?

Simple answer. The Tories have reversed welfare cuts on the back of an internal revolt. Previous to Corbyn Labour wouldn't even vote against welfare cuts (and abstained). 1) Do you think IDS would ever have revolted if he didn't know Labour were in opposition. 2) Does reversal of welfare cuts not economically help the poorest?

 

[catcherintherye]

The three thoroughly vile people you mention above were all within the Labour party (and indeed the power of the Labour party) at the same time as Corbyn was a backbencher, correct? Yet not once did he offer his resignation and refuse to be associated with such people. If he's such a fine upstanding person of honestly and integrity why did he not leave the Labour party then? Could it possibly be that, he didn't want to risk losing his MP's wages? Hardly something I'd criticize him for BTW, but I simply can't abide this pedestal he's been put on by his supporters, who seam to think he's one of the disciples of Jesus!

This is a much longer discussion. Unfortunately there are a section of left wing MP's who are very tied to the Labour project mate. He didn't stay in for reasons of greed but that of tactical stupidity.

 

[Tubey]

There is definitely something in that. Do you think the Labour MP's have been willing to shift their position enough either though? Should it be a two way process?

The information I get from people close to it is that he is not someone who expects people to bend to his will. The frustration comes from the fact he won't have a polemic with people. He wouldn't allow anything to become a disagreement that would be debated. He'd allow everyone their view but always be looking for consensus. To put it bluntly I don't think Labour can have a consensus, the MP's and the ordinary experiences of members are too far apart.

The issue of Trident reflects the issue above. A large section of his membership wanted one thing and his MP's wanted another. I am not sure it made him unelectable though, the biggest and most successful party in the UK today the SNP have won elections in opposition to Trident. What I would say tactically though he did pick fights that he didn't need to have and probably could have parked Trident a bit better in his early days.

As for the Referenda I simply don't think that's the case. Even Eagle who is looking likely to be his opponent congratulated him on his outstanding work just 2 weeks ago. Either she was lying then or she is lying now? I think Corbyn did as he generally always does, which is he didn't make a clear decision on the issue and tried to please everyone. He is an opponent of the EU but recognises his party is generally supportive of it so took a consensus decision on it. I do think this is a weakness overall but not sure it's that much so in the Referendum. The blunt reality is lots of Labour's heartlands wanted to vote out, would a more dogmatic EU enthusiast have won those people round or just widened the divide between them and Labour?

You are pulling apart his performance which I think is fair enough. This is different to saying he hasn't tried to include people though. I don't think many leaders would have tried as hard to include people as Corbyn. His big mistake for me is probably trying to hard to fit in instead of saying what he thinks and going for it.

Few things (hate doing lists but easiest way):

1 - Definitely should be a two way thing. However, if the leader is stonewalling progress, that two way system falls on its' arse immediately.

2 - Agree he was looking for consensus, and never getting it. That's one of my problems with him - he never leads. He should be able to take views and rationally come to a decision based on them and lead. His party represents their constituents, so when he's in the job, the party should be the priority, not the membership. With Trident and a myriad of other things, he failed in that task.

3 - Trident makes him unelectable as it's an easy thing to hit him with for the opposition, and a red line for many people in the country. It'd be tossing the Tories a light ball to bat out the park. That's one of the reasons any Tory will demolish him in an election, and most core Labour voters over the last 25 years are unable to vote for Corbyn. I'd have to abstain from the GE, for example.

4 - The SNP are a protest party in the system we have - indeed, a one issue protest party in terms of independence. If they ran for Westminster and had Trident as an issue, that support would slip (and indeed they'd get hardly any votes in England whatsoever). So not really a comparison.

5 - I disagree with your last paragraph. He hasn't tried to represent his party; instead he's represented himself, his best mates and the membership. If that was enough to win an election, then fine, as that's his remit. It isn't though.

6 - Eagle is a liar, yes.

 

[Gwladysstreetlad]

Sounds like the vast majority of the Labour Parliamentary Party.

Well if you want to look at the wider picture of the modern Labour Party and it's MANY failing's I'd agree. But to me, when you join a party it shouldn't be purely to vote on a leadership contest. That's part of it sure but if that's the single reason you joined (and I've seen a fair number who did just that) then I think it's out of order.

 

[Tubey]

Simple answer. The Tories have reversed welfare cuts on the back of an internal revolt. Previous to Corbyn Labour wouldn't even vote against welfare cuts (and abstained). 1) Do you think IDS would ever have revolted if he didn't know Labour were in opposition. 2) Does reversal of welfare cuts not economically help the poorest?

I see, and how is Corbyn going to stop the austerity post-Brexit budget, and any number of things an in power Tory party will kick the poorest with in the future?