The Labour Party. All discussion here please

[banjodeano]

20 minutes ago, alchresearch said:

The reasons they've cited for no confidence are quite pathetic. 

 

Wavertree CLP would do well to remember another Labour MP who was constantly fighting against his boss and wasn't shy in criticising him.  That MP was Corbyn.

 

I think its high time we had another Labour vote about the confidence in Corbyn.  It didn't do too well last time.

 

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36647458

And the latest polls are out. Don't worry, its not a Yougov one, which puts the Tories in an even better light than this one.

 

 

Labour slump gives Tories biggest lead since general election

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/feb/02/labour-slumps-in-polls-as-tories-open-biggest-lead-since-general-election

 

 

it doesnt matter tho, its the members that matter, not the MP's on the gravy train

[banjodeano]

31 minutes ago, sheffbag said:

Her constituents gave their opinion when the elected her. Now a tiny band of people in comparison to the number of voters who want her to represent their area, feel that, because she supports Remain (as voted for by her constituents) and wants Labour to be stronger on anti semitism, she should be removed because she doesn't kiss Corbyn's backside. 

 

Or is there another reason why she should be subject to deselection or do you have evidence where her constituents are not happy with how she is representing her people. 

i bet you were **** a hoop when Corbyn was challenged over his leadership a second time (in which he won with a bigger majority) but you dont seem as happy when a mere MP is challenged, why is that?

[Robin-H]

31 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

of course there is evidence of that, the evidence is the people themselves complaining that she has let them down..that is the evidence, what more evidence do you need?

to call people Corbynistas and such is just a way to belittle and discredit them, they are labour party members with rights

and if she has received lots of tweets and many people supporting her, then she has nothing to worry about does she?  

perhaps it wont happen whilst we have people like her in the party causing division?

Where is the evidence that she isn’t representing her constituents? Is she failing to hold surgeries, or respond to emails, or not raising local concerns with parliament? 

 

The vote text argues that she should be deselected because she has criticised the leader, not because she is failing to represent her constituents, unless you believe that you aren’t allowed to criticse the leader even when you believe it to be justified and may be echoing concerns of her constituents.. If so, how come Corbyn was allowed to? 

[sheffbag]

37 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

i bet you were **** a hoop when Corbyn was challenged over his leadership a second time (in which he won with a bigger majority) but you dont seem as happy when a mere MP is challenged, why is that?

nice try to deflect away from all the other points (as other posters are supporting))

In answer to your question, not really, Corbyn, as long as he's the trade union puppy, will be leader until they decide he's going nowhere or he suffers that many losses he will quit. I'm speaking as a person who has voted Labour in the past and will never do so as long as he and his cronies are in charge.

 

The difference is this

Corbyn is the leader of a party and was challenged by all the democratically elected representatives of the party who he is meant to represent as their leader. 

In this incident a democratically elected MP is being challenged by a minority of activists who are not elected and are only speaking on their own agenda, not on the party agenda. If it does go to a vote then it will be interesting to see what happens if/when she wins? 

 

Reading your comment on other posts above is Corbyn on the gravy train as well?

 

You say calling "Corbynistas" is belittling, would you not say that using the term "Blair's babe" and "Tory lite" is equally as bad when used by Labour activists trying to discredit MP's? Or even using the term "People like her"?

 

You say Corbyn may not get in because of "people like her causing divison". You seem to forget that because of "People like her" Labour has a higher representation in Parliament then it would have if there a MP for a different party in her place. 

What division is she actually causing by wanting Labour to be clear on its Anti - Semitism stance or being clear in her views on Brexit and supporting the will of her constituents.

 

[sheffbag]

1 hour ago, banjodeano said:

She was elected with  a majority,  but if now her constituents feel she is failing and not representing them, then they have a right to deselect her, if more people want her to stay than go, then she will stay, if not then she should be deselected..... thats democracy ..

so by that reasoning, when Corbyn lost the vote in parliament he should have been deselected? 

[lottiecass]

2 hours ago, banjodeano said:

it doesnt matter tho, its the members that matter, not the MP's on the gravy train

When it comes down to the important factor, it's the voters that matter the most and members should remember that.

[woodview]

Just now, lottiecass said:

When it comes down to the important factor, it's the voters that matter the most and members should remember that.

Good point, and I think that is well forgotten.

 

In my opinion, the Labour party has lost touch with what it is supposed to represent. People vote for them through habit, and because they would never vote Tory. Same and opposite goes for the Tories.

 

I wouldn't be sad if all 650 mps were sacked and replaced with Joe Bloggs from a mix of walks of life. More would get done in a more common sense way.

[banjodeano]

2 hours ago, Robin-H said:

Where is the evidence that she isn’t representing her constituents? Is she failing to hold surgeries, or respond to emails, or not raising local concerns with parliament? 

 

The vote text argues that she should be deselected because she has criticised the leader, not because she is failing to represent her constituents, unless you believe that you aren’t allowed to criticse the leader even when you believe it to be justified and may be echoing concerns of her constituents.. If so, how come Corbyn was allowed to? 

perhaps they may think that if she keeps running to the media to undermine her leader, then she is failing in her duties as a Labour MP

[banjodeano]

1 hour ago, sheffbag said:

nice try to deflect away from all the other points (as other posters are supporting))

In answer to your question, not really, Corbyn, as long as he's the trade union puppy, will be leader until they decide he's going nowhere or he suffers that many losses he will quit. I'm speaking as a person who has voted Labour in the past and will never do so as long as he and his cronies are in charge.

 

The difference is this

Corbyn is the leader of a party and was challenged by all the democratically elected representatives of the party who he is meant to represent as their leader. 

In this incident a democratically elected MP is being challenged by a minority of activists who are not elected and are only speaking on their own agenda, not on the party agenda. If it does go to a vote then it will be interesting to see what happens if/when she wins? 

 

Reading your comment on other posts above is Corbyn on the gravy train as well?

 

You say calling "Corbynistas" is belittling, would you not say that using the term "Blair's babe" and "Tory lite" is equally as bad when used by Labour activists trying to discredit MP's? Or even using the term "People like her"?

 

You say Corbyn may not get in because of "people like her causing divison". You seem to forget that because of "People like her" Labour has a higher representation in Parliament then it would have if there a MP for a different party in her place. 

What division is she actually causing by wanting Labour to be clear on its Anti - Semitism stance or being clear in her views on Brexit and supporting the will of her constituents.

 

they are not minority activists, they are labour party members...they pay into the labour party so THEY should have a say into who represents them...if they feel that their MP is sowing division withing the party, then it is their democratic right to get her replaced with someone that has the party at heart...its a shame you dont like democracy, but hey thats how it goes, 

As for people like her, i wonder if she stood as an independent  if she would get elected, probably not, she only got elected on the back of a labour ticket....

It makes me laugh also about all the labour rebels wanting to leave the party, they all talk about it but never go further than talking about it, like her she woulkd be out of a job, instead they prefer to stay and sow division

 

[Robin-H]

4 minutes ago, banjodeano said:

perhaps they may think that if she keeps running to the media to undermine her leader, then she is failing in her duties as a Labour MP

Funny that wasn’t also true of Corbyn then isn’t it? 

 

I dont think tweeting about antisemitism and the threats she’s recieved and suggesting more can be done to root it out really means she is ‘failing her duties as a Labour MP’. Surely that is exactly what an MP should be doing.

 

The fact an attempt has been made to remove her for doing so is shameful.