nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

MPs quitting Labour & Conservative parties discussion thread

BobbyBobberson

Looks like its happening. What is the impact in all honesty?

https://twitter.com/bbclaurak/status/1097405369582866434

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

oscarBravo

Havockk wrote: »

What about the labour supporters who elected them, what about them?

Would those be the Labour supporters who overwhelmingly back a second referendum, and who are being pointedly ignored by the party leadership?

Politicians change parties between elections. It happens. If their constituents think it's an unforgivable breach of trust, they won't be re-elected.

Havockk wrote: »

I can barely stomach the argument that it's somehow 'more principled' to risk total tory political dominance than to somehow accept someone of the left to lead a labour movement.

You're reframing this as a rejection of left-wing policy. This isn't about rejecting left-wing leadership of Labour; it's about rejecting an abject failure of leadership of Labour.

quokula

listermint wrote: »

What like shepherding the Tories into a brexit deal which has already killed thousands of labour jobs and will continue to risk thousands more.

Good Shepherding their Jeremy , ace job.

This is ultra Socialism, Its not social democracy which is demonstrated cleanly and clearly by the leadership ignoring their membership.

Labour don't have the numbers in parliament to stop what's happening. What exactly could they have done differently? They've voted against the Tories every step of the way.

And Corbyn's letter last week proposing staying in the Customs Union and Single Market was widely welcomed by people like Tusk and Verhofstadt. It's a blatant mistruth to try and paint Labour's Brexit policy as anything close to the Tories.

But yes, it's true that he hasn't openly campaigned for a second referendum that has no chance of happening and would disillusion many labour voters (but not their membership)

Leroy42

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Are they?

I thought the polls were quite tight? Surely then the Tories wouldn't fear an election then?

Or isn't it the case that once people get to hear what Corbyn has to say, they quite like it?

But if that were true then surely Labour would be riding high in the polls now? He got an uplift during the election for sure, but it should be very worrying that he was not able to hold that, or since the Tories are such a mess, capitalise on it.

All the Labour have left at this stage is hope. Hope that what happened last time (and btw people seem to have forgotten that Labour still lost) will happen again. But people are now very aware of Corbyn and what he stands for and seemingly are no longer feeling like they did in 2017.

listermint

Havockk wrote: »

I can barely stomach the argument that it's somehow 'more principled' to risk total tory political dominance than to somehow accept someone of the left to lead a labour movement. The truth is the collective centre has lost all sense of itself and is now possibly paving the way for something even worse.

What like shepherding the Tories into a brexit deal which has already killed thousands of labour jobs and will continue to risk thousands more.

Good Shepherding their Jeremy , ace job.

This is ultra Socialism, Its not social democracy which is demonstrated cleanly and clearly by the leadership ignoring their membership.

prawnsambo

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Are they?

I thought the polls were quite tight? Surely then the Tories wouldn't fear an election then?

Or isn't it the case that once people get to hear what Corbyn has to say, they quite like it?

On Corbyn specifically, in leadership polls he's consistently finished third behind Theresa May and Don't Know. That could change in an election, but Labour members are now favouring no brexit and he's refused to countenance that. How much that could affect the Labour vote is uncertain, but it has to be a factor in Labour's poor performance in the polls. As OB says, they should be well ahead of the dumpster fire that is the Tories.

Havockk

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Are they?

I thought the polls were quite tight? Surely then the Tories wouldn't fear an election then?

Or isn't it the case that once people get to hear what Corbyn has to say, they quite like it?

I can barely stomach the argument that it's somehow 'more principled' to risk total tory political dominance than to somehow accept someone of the left to lead a labour movement. The truth is the collective centre has lost all sense of itself and is now possibly paving the way for something even worse.

MrMusician18

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a perfectly valid argument - if you subscribe to the belief that the Labour party as it currently stands can win an election.

As it is, Labour are polling well behind the Conservatives.

Think about that for a second. A flaming bag of dog turds should be polling ahead of the current Conservative party.

It's all very well saying "either we unite behind the current leadership or the Tories will win" - but the Tories are winning, which practically defies the laws of physics.

Are they?

I thought the polls were quite tight? Surely then the Tories wouldn't fear an election then?

Or isn't it the case that once people get to hear what Corbyn has to say, they quite like it?

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

A principled stand against a party whose values they no longer recognise as compatible with their own?

What about the labour supporters who elected them, what about them?

Dyr

Leroy42 wrote: »

They won the seat, it was their name, not the party.

You seem to be mixing the UK up with Ireland as far as election goes.

You think the scousers voted for a toffee nosed, carpet bagging southerner for any other reason other than her being the Labour candidate?

You could run a broken toaster in a lot of English constituencies and it would be elected so long as it had the right party badge

listermint

quokula wrote: »

Once an election campaign begins manifestos get published and people start thinking about actual policies and not just media smears, which is why Labour did so much better than polling last time, and likely would again.

Then why did the membership unanimously vote for second referendum?

And Corbyn with his 'ultra' socialist policies is avoiding it with every last bead of sweat he can muster.

He is ignoring the Membership.

oscarBravo

Havockk wrote: »

Actually, this polling data makes the decision from these 7 seem even more insane. If there is no mass defection from Lab, and no one joins from the Tories to fracture them.... what exactly will they achieve?

A principled stand against a party whose values they no longer recognise as compatible with their own?

Havockk

Actually, this polling data makes the decision from these 7 seem even more insane. If there is no mass defection from Lab, and no one joins from the Tories to fracture them.... what exactly will they achieve?

quokula

Once an election campaign begins manifestos get published and people start thinking about actual policies and not just media smears, which is why Labour did so much better than polling last time, and likely would again.

LuckyLloyd

They also were getting hammered in polling in early 2017 and their ultimate performance was a massive leap beyond mean expectations.

Havockk

More
Westminster voting intention:

CON: 37% (-4)
LAB: 37% (+3)
LDEM: 8% (-)
UKIP: 7% (-)

via @OpiniumResearch, 13 - 15 Feb
Chgs. w/ 01 Feb

10:40 AM - 16 Feb 2019

Havockk

oscarBravo wrote: »

That's a perfectly valid argument - if you subscribe to the belief that the Labour party as it currently stands can win an election.

As it is, Labour are polling well behind the Conservatives.

Think about that for a second. A flaming bag of dog turds should be polling ahead of the current Conservative party.

It's all very well saying "either we unite behind the current leadership or the Tories will win" - but the Tories are winning, which practically defies the laws of physics.

They have been neck and neck, and yesterday it was dead even in the latest polling I saw. Worth also pointing out that remain was polling well ahead, until the vote.

oscarBravo

Havockk wrote: »

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

That's a perfectly valid argument - if you subscribe to the belief that the Labour party as it currently stands can win an election.

As it is, Labour are polling well behind the Conservatives.

Think about that for a second. A flaming bag of dog turds should be polling ahead of the current Conservative party.

It's all very well saying "either we unite behind the current leadership or the Tories will win" - but the Tories are winning, which practically defies the laws of physics.

quokula

Leroy42 wrote: »

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?

You announce it during an election campaign. The people of those constituencies are unrepresented now. Even the likes of Douglas Carswell had the decency to go to the people when he switched party from Tory to UKIP.

You don't campaign in support of one party, get voted in because of that, then switch without giving your voters a chance to have their say.

The fact that it took them two years to get organised doesn't change anything - they still have 3 years more of this fixed term (yes, there might be a snap election, but nothing guarantees that) to push an agenda they weren't voted in on, and to actively campaign against the agenda they were voted in on.

A number of them were already being considered by deselection, so they've clearly decided to avoid democratic processes and steal a bunch of parliamentary seats for themselves without a mandate, so they can do as much damage as they can and get as much free publicity as they can before an actual election comes round.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Deleted User]

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

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?