The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[Vague_Boy]

What do people think about senior Labour figures resigning from front bench politics?

 

For many of them it would be difficult to serve under a leader whose policies they don't agree with.

 

While in politics it is often necessary to publicly back policies you might personally disagree with, the ideological split here does seem to be very large.

 

For example, Liz Kendall was the furthest to the right of the leadership candidates. How could she help implement Mr. Corbyn's policies without looking like a total hypocrite (something that's not always a problem for politicians I'll admit).

 

In the early 1980s, MPs faced with a far-left Labour party did more than just resign from the front bench, they resigned from the party and set up their own (the "gang of four" and the SDP).

 

 

What do other posters think about Corbyn's plans to

 

1. Apologise for Iraq war

 

2. Refer Tony Blair to the International Criminal Court at the Hague to stand trial for war cimes

 

It's things like that that make me love Jeremy Corbyn and want to have his babies.

 

And no, I'm not being sarcastic.

 

The repellent and illegal Iraq war is a stain on our nation's history.

 

The War Criminal Blair belongs on the end of a rope. Ideally with his hideous shrew of a wife, Lady McBlair, dangling alongside him.

[blake]

it really is funny he's straight away admitted, on day one, that he knows he may not be up to the task of PMQ's and wants other MP's to help him out.

 

perhaps some well-meaning adviser in his inner sanctum has said that despite Corbyn having been in parliament for thirty years, he has no experience, at all, of anything like PMQ's, and that compared to Corbyn, who is an absolute, total novice in front-rank politics, Ian Duncan Smith was an accomplished, majestic veteran.

 

the trouble with Corbyn seeking to get someone else to do the difficult jobs that Leaders of the Opposition usually think of as being part and parcel of the task, like debating in parliament with the guy who has been the Prime Minister for the past five and a half years, is that it is rather cruel and insensitive. Just about all the other Labour MP's with front-bench experience have said they won't serve under him and won't do it. This leaves only a bunch of neophytes with no more front-rank experience than Corbyn has to cover for him.

 

doesn't Corbyn realise how insensitive it is to subject inexperienced MP's to that, when it is a job he should be looking forward to doing himself, day in and day out, and which should be an integral part of trying to make the public think of him as an alternative PM?

[harvey19]

The criticism of others and rhetoric for alternative policies can now be tested against reality and accountability.

[I1L2T3]

it really is funny he's straight away admitted, on day one, that he knows he may not be up to the task of PMQ's and wants other MP's to help him out.

 

perhaps some well-meaning adviser in his inner sanctum has said that despite Corbyn having been in parliament for thirty years, he has no experience, at all, of anything like PMQ's, and that compared to Corbyn, who is an absolute, total novice in front-rank politics, Ian Duncan Smith was an accomplished, majestic veteran.

 

the trouble with Corbyn seeking to get someone else to do the difficult jobs that Leaders of the Opposition usually think of as being part and parcel of the task, like debating in parliament with the guy who has been the Prime Minister for the past five and a half years, is that it is rather cruel and insensitive. Just about all the other Labour MP's with front-bench experience have said they won't serve under him and won't do it. This leaves only a bunch of neophytes with no more front-rank experience than Corbyn has to cover for him.

 

doesn't Corbyn realise how insensitive it is to subject inexperienced MP's to that, when it is a job he should be looking forward to doing himself, day in and day out, and which should be an integral part of trying to make the public think of him as an alternative PM?

 

That isn't what he's saying though is it. He is saying and he is right is that PMQs is boring irrelevant pantomime that turns the public off. He wants to improve it.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 09:17 ----------

 

For many of them it would be difficult to serve under a leader whose policies they don't agree with.

 

While in politics it is often necessary to publicly back policies you might personally disagree with, the ideological split here does seem to be very large.

 

For example, Liz Kendall was the furthest to the right of the leadership candidates. How could she help implement Mr. Corbyn's policies without looking like a total hypocrite (something that's not always a problem for politicians I'll admit).

 

In the early 1980s, MPs faced with a far-left Labour party did more than just resign from the front bench, they resigned from the party and set up their own (the "gang of four" and the SDP).

 

 

Like I said the policies aren't exactly Stalinist. It's all pretty moderate and mainstream. They'd be refusing to follow an essentially social democrat agenda which after all is what Labour is supposed to be about. They'd be eschewing that in favour of neoliberal centre right policy which although New Labour has slavishly pursued has never genuinely infiltrated the core values of the Labour party at large.

 

They could make a new party but it would be indistinguishable from the Conservative neoliberal faction, indistinguishable from Conservative headline policies. What would be the point? They'd be falling into the same sort of trap as Clegg and would be eaten alive by the Conservatives.

 

Incidentally the Conservatives have much the same issues internally. They have a strong neoliberal faction pulling the souln of the party away from its true core values. Cameron and Osborne, the liberals, aren't much liked by the right of the party.

[biotechpete]

That isn't what he's saying though is it. He is saying and he is right is that PMQs is boring irrelevant pantomime that turns the public off. He wants to improve it.

 

---------- Post added 13-09-2015 at 09:17 ----------

 

 

Like I said the policies aren't exactly Stalinist. It's all pretty moderate and mainstream. They'd be refusing to follow an essentially social democrat agenda which after all is what Labour is supposed to be about. They'd be eschewing that in favour of neoliberal centre right policy which although New Labour has slavishly pursued has never genuinely infiltrated the core values of the Labour party at large.

 

They could make a new party but it would be indistinguishable from the Conservative neoliberal faction, indistinguishable from Conservative headline policies. What would be the point? They'd be falling into the same sort of trap as Clegg and would be eaten alive by the Conservatives.

 

Incidentally the Conservatives have much the same issues internally. They have a strong neoliberal faction pulling the souln of the party away from its true core values. Cameron and Osborne, the liberals, aren't much liked by the right of the party.

 

As far as I can see there is almost nothing mainstream about Corbyn's agenda. And it's not a social democrat ideology he mainly espouses, it's a Marxist one. He likes full on socialist, big state, high tax, low competition, state owned monopolies. His politics are straight out of the 1970s and he'd happily take Britain back there.

[drummonds]

Whereas I just got a text from Jeremy Corbyn asking me if there's any question I'd like him to ask David Cameron in next week's prime ministers question time, with a little form to fill in stating said question...

 

Slightly different approach, eh? I know which I prefer.

 

we always knew which you would prefer. so when is jeza going to ask your question?

[I1L2T3]

As far as I can see there is almost nothing mainstream about Corbyn's agenda. And it's not a social democrat ideology he mainly espouses, it's a Marxist one. He likes full on socialist, big state, high tax, low competition, state owned monopolies. His politics are straight out of the 1970s and he'd happily take Britain back there.

 

Ok, start by dropping the Daily Mail style rhetoric, then move on to pointing out which policies are Marxist. I can't see any.

 

Let's discuss sensibly.

[drummonds]

For many of them it would be difficult to serve under a leader whose policies they don't agree with.

 

While in politics it is often necessary to publicly back policies you might personally disagree with, the ideological split here does seem to be very large.

 

For example, Liz Kendall was the furthest to the right of the leadership candidates. How could she help implement Mr. Corbyn's policies without looking like a total hypocrite (something that's not always a problem for politicians I'll admit).

 

In the early 1980s, MPs faced with a far-left Labour party did more than just resign from the front bench, they resigned from the party and set up their own (the "gang of four" and the SDP).

 

 

.

 

it does seem that corbyn has moved from being out of step with the parliamentary labour party to them being out of step with him. it would seem there aren't many within the party who actually agree with his ideas. if the shadow cabinet is picked from them the talent will be very thin on the ground. dennis skinner for minister for the arts anyone?

[I1L2T3]

it does seem that corbyn has moved from being out of step with the parliamentary labour party to them being out of step with him. it would seem there aren't many within the party who actually agree with his ideas. if the shadow cabinet is picked from them the talent will be very thin on the ground. dennis skinner for minister for the arts anyone?

 

There are lots in the party who agree with his ideas. Take out the £3 members who may have voted and there was still an overwhelming Corbyn majority. He is fully connected with the grass roots of the party perhaps like no other leader at the moment.

 

I think you just said it yourself there - a big chunk of the parliamentary party has disengaged from the grass roots. They are showing they won't serve under Corbyn basically because he is not a neoliberal. Oh, and also because uncle Tony told them not to.

[Anna B]

we always knew which you would prefer. so when is jeza going to ask your question?

 

I believe he only gets to ask 6.

 

I would imagine the questions will be sorted and the issues that keep coming up most will be amalgamated into 6 questions.

 

That's how I'd do it anyway.

 

Any urgent individual questions would be passed to backbenchers to ask.