MPs quitting Labour & Conservative parties discussion thread

Franz Von Peppercorn

Havockk wrote: »

It's bizarre that none of these 7 who are so concerned about AS criticised teh defilement of Marx's grave, which has now been desecrated twice in as many weeks. Was he not Jewish?

Presumably the Marx grave was attacked because of a dislike of Marxism.

Dyr

Hurrache wrote: »

You're really determined to insist it's all fake aren't you? I'm not at your beck and call, if I come across them when I'm doing something else I'll post it. I've better things to be doing than chasing stuff down to proof someone on the internet wrong.

I determined to see some evidence of institutional antisemitism in the British Labour Party rather than just take the words of MPs who have every reason to sling mud.

If it's institutional then there should be an avalanche of evidence.

Franz Von Peppercorn

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure how such a survey is going to produce valid results. Does it not require people to openly admit to anti-semitism?
The qeustion asked of Jewish people is far more relevant and accurate I would suspect. As others have observed, people who are the brunt of any kind of othering are far more aware of it than those who either do it casually or in ignorance.

The U.K. government is supported by the DUP. Voters for the DUP march every year burning the flag of this country and many others. They also demand that all taigs be killed. This gets very little coverage or concern.

Hurrache

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not the Peter Willsman comments at a NEC meeting is it? That was about six months ago.

Not sure, I only saw it last week but I don't think it was at the NEC, but not 100%.

prawnsambo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The U.K. government is supported by the DUP. Voters for the DUP march every year burning the flag of this country and many others. They also demand that all taigs be killed. This gets very little coverage or concern.

I'm struggling to find the relevance here.

prawnsambo

Hurrache wrote: »

Not sure, I only saw it last week but I don't think it was at the NEC, but not 100%.

Well here's the link to it in The Guardian.

Or it could be this from a few days ago. Although there's no audio on that link. Not sure if there is any.

Havockk

This really is political folly. What if no one else follows them? How did the people's vote movement even get this far? With just over 30 days to go, they think this is the best foot forward? It's been clear for months that the people's vote was never going to work and the only way it was going to work was via a GE. And now even if there is a GE they have hamstrung themselves. For me, this is political seppuku one way or another.

oscarBravo

listermint wrote: »

Corbyn and his merry band of ultra left have been the single worst opposition party in british living history.

2+ years of Tories making mistake after mistake, month on month, week on week and sometimes the same day. And corbyn and his group were utterly useless.

This. I thought Marina Hyde summed it up quite pithily last week:

And yet, the Tories continue to poll ahead of Labour. It’s always encouraging to hear Corbyn boosters honk about how much they’d expect him to put on in a campaign situation. The slightly incredulous response has to be: um, yes?! I should hope so?! I mean, you would hope that anyone might improve on losing to a party that is essentially a gif of someone lighting their own fart and then being consumed by the fireball. Against that sort of competition, you would expect to be able to run one of the more divisive Sesame Street Muppets – ie Elmo – and put on a few points. It’s hardly a kitemark.

It's not at all surprising that seven Labour MPs have decided to jump ship - what's surprising that more haven't, and sooner (even allowing for the electoral travesty that is FPTP).

jm08

Enzokk wrote: »

I know you are referencing a response on Twitter, but what votes is so offensive of hers in the HoC? It would be great if there is a list of them to see if she is actively pursuing a policy that is not shared by the Labour party and her votes are reflecting this. If not, well then all you are left with is that she is liked by Blair and she is Jewish and neither of those are reasons for the abuse she has suffered.

From her twitter feed:

''id have more sympathy if you turned up to vote against the government who successfully ensured thousands of children will no longer have a hot dinner in school.''

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

This. I thought Marina Hyde summed it up quite pithily last week:

It's not at all surprising that seven Labour MPs have decided to jump ship - what's surprising that more haven't, and sooner (even allowing for the electoral travesty that is FPTP).

Ah no, splitting the opposition during a constitutional crisis? Sorry but thats a mad old move to be fair. If the tories don't splinter now what do you think is going to happen?

Havockk

The BBC actually broadcast this....

jm08

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm not sure how such a survey is going to produce valid results. Does it not require people to openly admit to anti-semitism?

No. Questions on attitudes (for example, do you believe that Jews control banking etc). All those people were asked the same questions - more Tories than Labour supporters answered those questions which would indicate that they were more anti-semitic than Labour supporters.

The qeustion asked of Jewish people is far more relevant and accurate I would suspect. As others have observed, people who are the brunt of any kind of othering are far more aware of it than those who either do it casually or in ignorance.

Only if you believe perception is reality!

Dyr

prawnsambo wrote: »

Well here's the link to it in The Guardian.

Well that was quite the bombshell. SNIP. No more snarky comments.

oscarBravo

Havockk wrote: »

Ah no, splitting the opposition during a constitutional crisis? Sorry but thats a mad old move to be fair. If the tories don't splinter now what do you think is going to happen?

That's the problem with catastrophically poor leadership: there are no good options.

These seven - and the rest of their colleagues - were faced with a decision: either keep supporting probably the worst leadership in the history of the party for the sake of trying to avoid fragmentation, or continue to lend tacit support to a combination of what they perceived to be systemic anti-semitism and a ball-achingly incompetent approach to Brexit.

You can criticise the choice they made, but the alternative isn't exactly a no-brainer.

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's the problem with catastrophically poor leadership: there are no good options.

These seven - and the rest of their colleagues - were faced with a decision: either keep supporting probably the worst leadership in the history of the party for the sake of trying to avoid fragmentation, or continue to lend tacit support to a combination of what they perceived to be systemic anti-semitism and a ball-achingly incompetent approach to Brexit.

You can criticise the choice they made, but the alternative isn't exactly a no-brainer.

The alternative of potentially decade long Tory dominance? I'll have to disagree with you on that point OB.

Leroy42

I do find it strange that so many are critical of those leaving. This is what politics should be about. If the party you are with no longer represent your views (whether that is because you or they have changed) should result in people moving.

Why would people continue to support a Labour party that is so different from the one under Blair for example. They are very different parties at this stage.

People constantly complain that politicians are more interested in their career and themselves then the voters, but when politicians actually do make a stand they are criticised for it.

I don't have to agree with their positions to see that split are actually a good thing in politics.

Dyr

Havockk wrote: »

The alternative of potentially decade long Tory dominance? I'll have to disagree with you on that point OB.

There are players on both sides of the Labour party split who will pay the price of a Tory government rather than lose control of the party.

jm08

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm struggling to find the relevance here.

Presumably, that catholics suffer from bigotry in Northern Ireland and no one in GB bats an eyelid.

quokula

Leroy42 wrote: »

I do find it strange that so many are critical of those leaving. This is what politics should be about. If the party you are with no longer represent your views (whether that is because you or they have changed) should result in people moving.

Why would people continue to support a Labour party that is so different from the one under Blair for example. They are very different parties at this stage.

People constantly complain that politicians are more interested in their career and themselves then the voters, but when politicians actually do make a stand they are criticised for it.

I don't have to agree with their positions to see that split are actually a good thing in politics.

Why did they campaign and get themselves elected on a Manifesto 2 years ago that is still entirely consistent with Labour's position now, if they disagree with it so much?

Franz Von Peppercorn

prawnsambo wrote: »

I'm struggling to find the relevance here.

Anti Catholicism is deeply rooted in the UK and in a second partner of government (well a supply and confidence agreemeng) and nobody really cares.

Leroy42

quokula wrote: »

Why did they campaign and get themselves elected on a Manifesto 2 years ago that is still entirely consistent with Labour's position now, if they disagree with it so much?

Multitude of reasons. They didn't fully understand the manifesto. They didn't have the courage at the time. They believed that JC and the leadership would evolve when presented with the facts and the feelings of the membership.

But why even ask. Maybe they simply no longer agree with it. Have you never changed your position on anything? Are people not allowed to evolve their thinking? Why did Man Utd recently get rid of Jose when only a few months before he got a new contract?

Under your reasoning once a act happens that it is for ever.

quokula

Leroy42 wrote: »

Multitude of reasons. They didn't fully understand the manifesto. They didn't have the courage at the time. They believed that JC and the leadership would evolve when presented with the facts and the feelings of the membership.

But why even ask. Maybe they simply no longer agree with it. Have you never changed your position on anything? Are people not allowed to evolve their thinking? Why did Man Utd recently get rid of Jose when only a few months before he got a new contract?

Under your reasoning once a act happens that it is for ever.

But the time to do it is at an election. Not to suddenly turn your back on the ticket you were voted in on.

Havockk

Bambi wrote: »

There are players on both sides of the Labour party split who will pay the price of a Tory government rather than lose control of the party.

To be fair. I also think the Tories are going to fracture, this is the beginning of a lot of political upheaval in the UK in the coming years so it could all be a moot point.

Yer Da sells Avon

Berserker wrote: »

There is and was substance behind the claims of anti-Semitism and the failure of the party and it's supporters to address these issues, coupled with Corbyn's appalling leadership has resulted in the breakup of the party.

Losing seven centre-right MPs is hardly the break-up of the party. The anti-Semitism nonsense exists solely because the 'IRA supporter', 'Russian spy' smears didn't work. The idea that Corbyn, a life-long anti-racism campaigner, is an anti-Semite is absolutely ludicrous. They were right to leave - because they don't support the socialist policies that attracted 12.8 million voters in 2017 - they should be honest and cite those ideological differences as the reason, rather than repeating the same well-rehearsed lies about anti-Semitism.

Dyr

Leroy42 wrote: »

Multitude of reasons. They didn't fully understand the manifesto. They didn't have the courage at the time. They believed that JC and the leadership would evolve when presented with the facts and the feelings of the membership.

But why even ask. Maybe they simply no longer agree with it. Have you never changed your position on anything? Are people not allowed to evolve their thinking? Why did Man Utd recently get rid of Jose when only a few months before he got a new contract?

Under your reasoning once a act happens that it is for ever.

The problem is that if they claim that they changed their minds (despite being four square against it before the election) then the obvious question is why are they still sitting in the house with a mandate they now reject?

They could have made their departure about Corbyns inability to uphold Labours Brexit policy. The question you should ask is, why didn't they?

Bambi

Bambi wrote: »

I determined to see some evidence of institutional antisemitism in the British Labour Party rather than just take the words of MPs who have every reason to sling mud.

If it's institutional then there should be an avalanche of evidence.

I would guess a lot of this comes from Jewish people no longer being the cause celebre of the champagne socialists.

Zionism was a fundamental part of the labour party in its early days, with very close relationships to Poale Zion, but that's not cool anymore, everyone is now worried about the Palestinians and the Muslim votes.

When you have been courting a certain section of society for generations and you decide that supporting them might upset another section of society you want to support, it is never going to be well received.

673 complaints, 96 suspensions and 12 expulsions. It does seem to be an issue and if the leadership aren't dealing with it, then they will face the accusations of it being institutionalised. https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-47203397

LuckyLloyd

Leroy42 wrote: »

Multitude of reasons. They didn't fully understand the manifesto. They didn't have the courage at the time. They believed that JC and the leadership would evolve when presented with the facts and the feelings of the membership.

But why even ask. Maybe they simply no longer agree with it. Have you never changed your position on anything? Are people not allowed to evolve their thinking? Why did Man Utd recently get rid of Jose when only a few months before he got a new contract?

Under your reasoning once a act happens that it is for ever.

Ah here! I could understand that the manifesto had zero remnants of Blairism. Corbyn won 40% of the vote off the back of a great campaign and simple effective core message. He has been challenged twice for leadership and seen it off both times. This is the last desperate throw of the dice to force him to resign.

The MPs that resigned don't care about Brexit or the country. They want to inhabit a centre ground of politics and turn back the clock despite the electorate clearly demonstrating where they are in 2016 - 2017. Nothing is forever, and that certainly includes the policy platform they dream of turning back the clock to. We're only 18 months from the last election too!

They'll lose their seats at the next general election and that will be that, shame on them for detracting focus from a constitutional crisis and existential threat to the UK economy.

Leroy42

quokula wrote: »

But the time to do it is at an election. Not to suddenly turn your back on the ticket you were voted in on.

Suddenly. The last election was in 2017. Hardly can be accused of simply pretending to be Labour to get elected.

So when should they announce it? 2 months before, a week? Is there a perfect time?

Bambi wrote: »

The problem is that if they claim that they changed their minds (despite being four square against it before the election) then the obvious question is why are they still sitting in the house with a mandate they now reject?

They could have made their departure about Corbyns inability to uphold Labours Brexit policy. The question you should ask is, why didn't they?

They haven't claimed that, I was merely offering reasons why they might have chosen to leave. You think that they should resign their seat? They won the seat, it was their name, not the party. It is supposed to be that an MP works for the betterment of his area, not simply whatever her party wants.

What these have shown, unlike the ERG, Davis, Raab etc, is that they are prepared to risk their own careers rather than simply snipe from the sidelines. JRM effectively called for TM to resign even when she won a confidence motion, but the very next day was back giving her his full support.

My point being that regardless of whether you think they are making the right choice, regardless of the timing, I think any democrat should applaud when a politician take such a course of action over the easier option of doing nothing.

prawnsambo

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Anti Catholicism is deeply rooted in the UK and in a second partner of government (well a supply and confidence agreemeng) and nobody really cares.

Because it's waved away as nationalism versus loyalism. And even then, people don't seem to be aware of it. Like Theresa Villiers for example. I think if you were to quote some of those sentiments about taigs etc. to people in the UK, you'd find it hard to get them to believe you. You'd have to go through a fair bit of explanation before they'd twig.

quokula

Aegir wrote: »

I would guess a lot of this comes from Jewish people no longer being the cause celebre of the champagne socialists.

Zionism was a fundamental part of the labour party in its early days, with very close relationships to Poale Zion, but that's not cool anymore, everyone is now worried about the Palestinians and the Muslim votes.

It's not about what's fashionable. Labour, and the left in general, have always been about protecting the oppressed from the oppressors.

Historically, that has certainly involved a lot of solidarity with the Jewish people. In modern Israel however, it is clearly the Palestinians who are oppressed. And in modern UK, British Jews absolutely do suffer from racism, but it is statistically far smaller than that suffered by British Muslims, and immigrants of any creed and colour. This is why Labour have more often campaigned against Islamophobia in recent years.

Not that that means Labour is anti-semitic in any way - all objective evidence and polling has shown anti-semitism to be much less prevalent among Labour members than it is among the general population.