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

Professor Moriarty

Interesting poll out to day. Needless to say, a large majority of Tory voters (68%) thought the seven were right to leave. However, more Labour voters thought they were right to leave (33%) than thought they were wrong (27%). No wonder the tone from McDonell & Co has changed. Too late though.

Havockk

Aegir wrote: »

It is because of people like Hatton that Labour is losing popularity under Corbyn and why they are only popular with the under forties who can't remember the absolute Trotskyite shambles that large elements of Labour used to be.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/derek-hatton-meeting-liverpools-socialist-poster-boy-after-hating-him-for-30-years-a6668916.html

It would also be fair to say that the purging of this wing of the party in the 80's paved the way for Blair. Militant were never going to be the big players but they had their place in the party of labour.

Leroy42

Havockk wrote: »

It would also be fair to say that the purging of this wing of the party in the 80's paved the way for Blair. Militant were never going to be the big players but they had their place in the party of labour.

Labour were unelectable prior to Blair, and in many ways are back to that.

There is only one goal in politics, to get into power so that you can shape society the way you want.

Corbyn failed to get into power at the last GE and is, based on the polls, looking very likely to be unable to deliver Labour into power again. There are no polls that are putting Labour ahead or Corbyn ahead of TM. So all that is left for Corbyn supporters is that he pulls a rabbit out of a hat at election time and somehow comes up with a winning policy agenda.

But they are doing a really good job of hiding it at the moment. Maybe they are trying to lure the Tories into a false sense of security, it certainly worked the last time, but Corbyn is no longer the unknown.

What is his answer to food banks, to police numbers, to the state of investment in the NHS. How will he deal with the investment needed in schools, in the army, in cyber security. What will he do should Russia carry out more attacks on UK soil?

Labour is currently a policy vacuum, trying to be all things to all people but without the message or the charisma to pull it off. At this point, actually well before now, TM should be embarrassed to come to PMQ's yet there are very few examples of Corbyn holding her to account.

And you can rightly point out that Tories, as the party in power, are the ones that should have answers to the above, but Corbyn isn't even asking the question.

Whatever about his politics, whatever about his views on Brexit, by any measure Corbyn is a poor leader. Nothing against the man, some people are leaders others aren't. Corbyn is the second.

Harry Palmr

Corbyn was the unexpected party leader, he was a professional back bencher with the luxury that gave him to rail against the establishment within his own party - now he is the establishment and has singularly failed to expand the base of Labour. Indeed it's clearly shrinking in the Brexit era. That the clusterfeck of Tory government is not being punished in the polls is down to him and him alone.

Havockk

Leroy42 wrote: »

Labour were unelectable prior to Blair, and in many ways are back to that.

There is only one goal in politics, to get into power so that you can shape society the way you want.

Corbyn failed to get into power at the last GE and is, based on the polls, looking very likely to be unable to deliver Labour into power again. There are no polls that are putting Labour ahead or Corbyn ahead of TM. So all that is left for Corbyn supporters is that he pulls a rabbit out of a hat at election time and somehow comes up with a winning policy agenda.

But they are doing a really good job of hiding it at the moment. Maybe they are trying to lure the Tories into a false sense of security, it certainly worked the last time, but Corbyn is no longer the unknown.

What is his answer to food banks, to police numbers, to the state of investment in the NHS. How will he deal with the investment needed in schools, in the army, in cyber security. What will he do should Russia carry out more attacks on UK soil?

Labour is currently a policy vacuum, trying to be all things to all people but without the message or the charisma to pull it off. At this point, actually well before now, TM should be embarrassed to come to PMQ's yet there are very few examples of Corbyn holding her to account.

And you can rightly point out that Tories, as the party in power, are the ones that should have answers to the above, but Corbyn isn't even asking the question.

Whatever about his politics, whatever about his views on Brexit, by any measure Corbyn is a poor leader. Nothing against the man, some people are leaders others aren't. Corbyn is the second.

The roots of the absolute mess we are all in right now go back to 1979. This is Thatcher's legacy, and I accept your point about Blair, all parties have to move with the times. However, Blair doubled down on the neo-liberalism which was to prove fatal. Then to have a Labour government bail out the capitalists at the expense of the workers? Now the prescription is what? More of the same? What was it Einstein said about insanity?

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Some people here are harping back to the days of the 1970's Britan where the ICTU ran the show.
Those days are long long gone.

I still can't believe that there are some who still advocate policies and rhetoric from the old eastern bloc. It makes Trump look progressive.

I can’t believe you call fairly minor socialist ideologies communist, but you did.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

It is because of people like Hatton that Labour is losing popularity under Corbyn and why they are only popular with the under forties who can't remember the absolute Trotskyite shambles that large elements of Labour used to be.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/people/derek-hatton-meeting-liverpools-socialist-poster-boy-after-hating-him-for-30-years-a6668916.html

The under 40s are a big chunk of the electorate.

listermint

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The under 40s are a big chunk of the electorate.

Who strangely enough..... want a second referendum.

Thats mad isnt it

Havockk

If the Independent group fail to succeed and don't go on to topple May or the Conservatives. Will that be Corbyn's fault too?

MrMusician18

listermint wrote: »

Who strangely enough..... want a second referendum.

Thats mad isnt it

Wouldn't it be mad to push for a referendum that you don't have reasonable certainty in winning?

listermint

Havockk wrote: »

If the Independent group fail to succeed and don't go on to topple May or the Conservatives. Will that be Corbyn's fault too?

No, why would it ?

Corbyn will be gone by then anyway. Ousted by his own supporters, so who cares.

listermint

MrMusician18 wrote: »

Wouldn't it be mad to push for a referendum that you don't have reasonable certainty in winning?

Not at all, because all polls indicate that remain has beaten leave. All polls.

So you know, 6 of one and all that...

Havockk

listermint wrote: »

Not at all, because all polls indicate that remain has beaten leave. All polls.

So you know, 6 of one and all that...

I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you that the polls said the very same thing last time. What if you lost again? There would be ZERO coming back from that in any fashion.

listermint

Havockk wrote: »

I'd be remiss if I didn't remind you that the polls said the very same thing last time. What if you lost again? There would be ZERO coming back from that in any fashion.

I lost ?

Im Irish, how can i lose ?

[Deleted User]

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Corbyn was the unexpected party leader, he was a professional back bencher with the luxury that gave him to rail against the establishment within his own party - now he is the establishment and has singularly failed to expand the base of Labour. Indeed it's clearly shrinking in the Brexit era. That the clusterfeck of Tory government is not being punished in the polls is down to him and him alone.

Corbyn became party leader for pretty much the same reason the British Antartic Survey nearly had a ship called Boaty McBoatface, except no one had the option to veto this particular student prank.

Havockk wrote: »

The roots of the absolute mess we are all in right now go back to 1979. This is Thatcher's legacy, and I accept your point about Blair, all parties have to move with the times. However, Blair doubled down on the neo-liberalism which was to prove fatal. Then to have a Labour government bail out the capitalists at the expense of the workers? Now the prescription is what? More of the same? What was it Einstein said about insanity?

I would go back even further to be honest. Thatcher was only mopping up the pieces from the debacles of the seventies, such as the three day week, winter of discontent etc.

as I said earlier, the party that ****s up the economy never get remembered, but the party that has to do the hard work of cleaning up, gets all the blame.

Chips Lovell

Mod Note

Gentle reminder of the charter:

Keep your language civil, particularly when referring to other posters and people in the public eye. Using unsavoury language does not add to your argument. Examples would be referring to other people or groups as scumbags, crusties, sheeple, shills, trolls, traitors or saying that recently deceased people should “rot in hell” or similar. Repeated use of terms like that will result in a ban from the forum.

Be nice.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Aegir wrote: »

I would go back even further to be honest. Thatcher was only mopping up the pieces from the debacles of the seventies, such as the three day week, winter of discontent etc.

as I said earlier, the party that ****s up the economy never get remembered, but the party that has to do the hard work of cleaning up, gets all the blame.

The 70’s were better than the 2010’s and probably the 2000’s. I wasn’t alive then except for the last part but it was the tail end of 30-40 years of prosperity. The oil crisis was an external shock.

Were unions too powerful? Maybe in some cases. There’s a lot of class hatred in Britain.

Thatchers response eventually killed British industry and replaced it with a financial driven economy and fairly cheap services.

Havockk

listermint wrote: »

I lost ?

Im Irish, how can i lose ?

Me too. I'm going to have to eat a big shyte-sandwich come a no-deal brexit. Although I hope that enough people will see sense and vote to unify the island come a border poll.

Aegir wrote: »

Corbyn became party leader for pretty much the same reason the British Antartic Survey nearly had a ship called Boaty McBoatface, except no one had the option to veto this particular student prank.

I would go back even further to be honest. Thatcher was only mopping up the pieces from the debacles of the seventies, such as the three day week, winter of discontent etc.

as I said earlier, the party that ****s up the economy never get remembered, but the party that has to do the hard work of cleaning up, gets all the blame.

They were rebuilding after the war to be fair. And yes, I agree things had to change, I'm not an extremist, I realise that change is always inevitable and hell there was even a time where I thought Blair was great. However, in the end, he sold out to Thatcher's idea of neo-liberalism. For a movement that was created to look after labour, that was unforgivable.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

The roots of the absolute mess we are all in right now go back to 1979. This is Thatcher's legacy, and I accept your point about Blair, all parties have to move with the times. However, Blair doubled down on the neo-liberalism which was to prove fatal. Then to have a Labour government bail out the capitalists at the expense of the workers? Now the prescription is what? More of the same? What was it Einstein said about insanity?

Yes and No. Globalisation is a fact of life and would have been if Thatcher decided to ditch politics and stay in Grantham back in the 70's.

The issue for the old school Marxists and Trotskyites that form the basis of Corbyn's support is how do you make sensible policy in a world of globalisation, free markets, and open trade? They seem to think its the 1970s again. Even the Chinese know what side their bread is buttered!

Blaming is an easy game. One can blame Thatcher or Blair or whoever all you want, but it won't get Corbyn into power.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

I can’t believe you call fairly minor socialist ideologies communist, but you did.

I didn't call them communist.

I was referring to the fanatical dogmatic approach to an ideology where there is no room for real-world pragmatism.

markodaly

listermint wrote: »

Who strangely enough..... want a second referendum.

Thats mad isnt it

Yes, it's an odd rebuttal alright.

They talk of a winning a voting block that will sweep you into power for a generation, yet ignore the fact that said voting block wants to remain in the EU and deny them a vote on any Brexit deal which they also want, but yea... vote Corbyn!

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

Yes and No. Globalisation is a fact of life and would have been if Thatcher decided to ditch politics and stay in Grantham back in the 70's.

The issue for the old school Marxists and Trotskyites that form the basis of Corbyn's support is how do you make sensible policy in a world of globalisation, free markets, and open trade? They seem to think its the 1970s again. Even the Chinese know what side their bread is buttered!

Blaming is an easy game. One can blame Thatcher or Blair or whoever all you want, but it won't get Corbyn into power.

It might not get Corbyn into power. You are absolutely correct. If neo-liberalism has been so great where did the big recovery post-2008 come from? Why has uncertainty ramped up world wide? Why has inequality skyrocketed?

How long is it going to take for you to accept that a dead horse can't be forced to do more work?

Honestly though, I don't know what comes next, but I know something has to change before we even start to have the correct conversation and I hope it gets that far.

quokula

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Corbyn was the unexpected party leader, he was a professional back bencher with the luxury that gave him to rail against the establishment within his own party - now he is the establishment and has singularly failed to expand the base of Labour. Indeed it's clearly shrinking in the Brexit era. That the clusterfeck of Tory government is not being punished in the polls is down to him and him alone.

Since Corbyn became leader, their membership has grown to become the largest party in Europe and at the only general election they fought they achieved their biggest swing in vote share since World War 2.

That's a pretty strange definition of shrinking their base.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The 70’s were better than the 2010’s and probably the 2000’s. I wasn’t alive then except for the last part but it was the tail end of 30-40 years of prosperity. The oil crisis was an external shock.

Were unions too powerful? Maybe in some cases. There’s a lot of class hatred in Britain.

Thatchers response eventually killed British industry and replaced it with a financial driven economy and fairly cheap services.

I was alive in the 70's and there is no way that the 70's were better than any of those years you mention. None.what.so.ever.

Need I remind you that the IMF had to give the UK a loan to tie them over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1976_IMF_Crisis

That decade had its own term called 'The British Disease'.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_British_disease

The thing about the 1970s was the malaise that set in. There was unprecedented government spending since the war and with that huge government inefficiencies and waste had built up that were never tackled or reformed.

People knew that the party had come to an end but didn't know how to fix a broken system. Coal mines that had run dry still had to keep staff is one example of this waste. If the government of the day wanted to close a dry mine, there would be strikes in an attempt to bring down the government of the day.

Unions ran the country, make no bones about that. Cabinet papers were sent to the powerful TUC for approval by the late 1970's and James Callaghan is on record saying.

"We are prostrate before you but don't ask us to put it in writing" - James Callaghan, the Labour Prime minister (1976-1979), to the TUC General Council.

https://www.zum.de/whkmla/sp/0809/kyungmook/kkmlog.html

People have very very selective memories or indeed revise history to such an extent they leave out who chunk of it to suit a political narrative.

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

How long is it going to take for you to accept that a dead horse can't be forced to do more work?
.

What dead-horse is this?

Are we talking Globalisation, Capitalism, Neo-Liberalism, Conservatism, Centrism or what? Or maybe for you it's all the above?

Joe_ Public

There’s a real sh!tty discussion taking place on politics live on bbc right now, concerning Angela Smith and her use of the phrase “a funny tinge” in a topic about race on yesterday’s show. It’s depressing that having missed the significance of it during the live screening, the bbc somehow manages to get it grievously wrong on their second go at it today.

While what Smith said was clumsy and unfortunate, those watching clearly understood she wasn’t referring to any people of colour but to someone - actually white - another guest had referred to as “pink faced”. To discuss it without this crucial context is shockingly lax from the bbc.

I’ve no cause with Smith or her colleagues but have sympathy with her in this instance. If this is best bbc can do, no wonder political discourse is in such a shocking state on these islands.

MrMusician18

Aegir wrote: »

Corbyn became party leader for pretty much the same reason the British Antartic Survey nearly had a ship called Boaty McBoatface, except no one had the option to veto this particular student prank.

.

That's not quite accurate. Corbyn won for a couple of reasons:
1. Local associations and grass roots membership tend to be more extreme these days than the parliamentary party.
This can be due to entryism and/or genuine shift of the party from the centre to the fringes.
2. The daft method in which Labour elect their leader, leaving them wide open to entryism. The massive expansion of Labour would point to the party being taken over rather than being invigorated.

Corbyn wasn't a prank that got out of hand.

Cryptopagan

Joe_ Public wrote: »

There’s a real sh!tty discussion taking place on politics live on bbc right now, concerning Angela Smith and her use of the phrase “a funny tinge” in a topic about race on yesterday’s show. It’s depressing that having missed the significance of it during the live screening, the bbc somehow manages to get it grievously wrong on their second go at it today.

While what Smith said was clumsy and unfortunate, those watching clearly understood she wasn’t referring to any people of colour but to someone - actually white - another guest had referred to as “pink faced”. To discuss it without this crucial context is shockingly lax from the bbc.

I’ve no cause with Smith or her colleagues but have sympathy with her in this instance. If this is best bbc can do, no wonder political discourse is in such a shocking state on these islands.

No, she said "it's not just about being black or a funny tinge [stumbles over her words] different, you know...from the BME community"

How can that be interpreted as anything other than a reference to people of colour?

[Deleted User]

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The 70’s were better than the 2010’s and probably the 2000’s. I wasn’t alive then except for the last part but it was the tail end of 30-40 years of prosperity. The oil crisis was an external shock.

Were unions too powerful? Maybe in some cases. There’s a lot of class hatred in Britain.

Thatchers response eventually killed British industry and replaced it with a financial driven economy and fairly cheap services.

I was and Ione of my earliest memories is my father reading the evening paper each day to see what time the electricity was being turned off because the miners were on strike, once again. Its mad that I once considered power cuts to be part of normal life.

If you get the chance, watch "Carry on at Your Convenience" as usual, the carry on team reflected this beautifully

MrMusician18 wrote: »

That's not quite accurate. Corbyn won for a couple of reasons:
1. Local associations and grass roots membership tend to be more extreme these days than the parliamentary party.
This can be due to entryism and/or genuine shift of the party from the centre to the fringes.
2. The daft method in which Labour elect their leader, leaving them wide open to entryism. The massive expansion of Labour would point to the party being taken over rather than being invigorated.

Corbyn wasn't a prank that got out of hand.

Not that he was a prank, but the fact he only just managed to scrape a nomination and pretty much did so to make up the numbers and then went on to win by a landslide is down to a social media campaign where for £3 students could join the labour party and stick it to the man.

listermint

Cryptopagan wrote: »

No, she said "it's not just about being black or a funny tinge [stumbles over her words] different, you know...from the BME community"

How can that be interpreted as anything other than a reference to people of colour?

I think she was trying to say people of all shades, but stumbled on diplomatic language and that tripped her up. Its hard to know whats PC and not these days and changing the langauge to suit in live setting can be hard off the cuff.

I dont think she was attempting to deride anyone of any colour tbh