Off Topic Political Debate

Frenchie, I would not expect any MP. be he party leader or not, to vote against his own conscience.

 

I would agree with that, but as a party leader you cannot cherry pick which bits you accept and which bits you don't. To try and get support from party members against the MPs, then say you cannot go along with the party members on an issue is not logical. As an official opposition party leader in Parliament it is different to one that does not have to hold a government to account. You cannot do this unless you have the MPs with you.

 

Just to add to what I said above.

Labour MP Jamie Reed attacks what he sees as Jeremy Corbyn's "reckless, juvenile, narcissistic irresponsibility" in opposing his own party's policy.

"For the first time I think ever we have witnessed the leader of the Labour party stand up at the despatch box of this House and argue against the policy of the party that he leads" he tells MPs.

 

But ofh, the very nature of 'politicians' is that the majority will respond to whatever will get them elected. They will 'think' whatever they expect the electorate to think. Very, very few are vertebrates, so if the media (how close is that word to mafia?) control society's 'thinking' by continually training our brains into rejecting the country's most important questioning voice, what chance 'democracy'??!
I'm not Facebook or Twitter savvy, but I guess they must scare the proverbial out of the controlling 'elite' - just where is their editorial control?
Very worrying, but of course totally believable (which is cyclically more worrying) is yorkshire's report. Worrying because we know 'democracy' is failing, but do nothing about it. We all knew the Brexit 'debate' was flawed, but just carried on driving towards the cliff edge assuming something 'right and proper' would save us. Superman ain't there. And it's a long fall off the cliff.

 

My point andy is quite a narrow one about leading the official opposition in Parliament. The country is taking a step into the future with a blindfold on, and every step that the Government makes should be questioned, examined and they should be made to explain why they are taking that route. Every party will have a range of opinions in it, and how a leader can bring them together will determine how successful he or she is. To lead a party requires a manager most often rather than someone who has always been most happy debating and putting forward ideas. It is clear that while Corbyn may be getting some of his ideas thought about, and some like what he says, he cannot under any measure be thought of as bringing the party together to hold the Government to account. At a time like this I would have thought he would have admitted that he was not the right person and handed the reigns to someone else. Who that might be would raise another question of course.

 

Whilst being leader of the opposition carries certain responsibilities with it, Corbyn also sees himself as representative of the Labour Party members who voted him into that position. We can presume that most of those who voted for him were aware of his stance on Trident - and so a poll of all party members on Trident would probably show them as being at odds with the parliamentary party. We do not know if Labour voters are for or against Trident. His ideas on this are also in line with those of the SNP. and the Greens and so may be more representative of the opposition as a whole. It is one more phase of a problem which has not been sorted out yet - namely that the Parliamentary Labour Party is at odds with its grass roots membership, and that is going to take a while to sort itself out. Labour should be doing more in the line of internal opinion polls of their membership.

 

I find the nuclear debate a difficult one. The usual argument used by OFH about the duty of the Opposition is to oppose is not relevant when the Opposition policy is the same as that of the Government. There are certain issues - and this is one - which are more important than toeing the party line- this is about principle but unfortunately it also is technically (but not really) about the safety and security of the UK. I do not believe it is ever correct to take a life. I am anti hanging and anti military solutions to human problems. For me nuclear is not only a stupidly costly option - only possessed by half a dozen nations on Earth but ours is not actually independent - we cannot fire ours without American support.
All that aside it comes down to does the leader of a party have to agree with every single (important perhaps) policy of his party. In essence I would say yes. If you cannot support party policy should you lead it? Giving a free vote to smooth things over is a weak compromise. Labour policy is now - and will be until it is changed - pro nuclear and the leader must support his party. It is another reason why I beleive JC should return to the back benches and influence the party from there.

 

... and of course the reporting of this has been made out that Corbyn defied party policy. We seem to have come a long way from the real concerns of millions around nuclear...... now we have to vote the party way.... in that case the only dissent would be the SNP??

Funny how people can vote how they like on Brexit but not on the Trident issue.

I think everyone has the right to choose.

That is not to say I am for or against... and I have my own view on that.

....

That is also not to say that the Labour party is not in a mess... it is....

 

Leo, the latest one of only a few opinion polls on Trident (ORB. for the Independent - based on 2,000 people) had 51% backing full renewal, 49% backing either the suggestion from Corbyn (non nuclear subs) or rejecting renewal completely. If we assume that amongst Labour voters this comes down more on the side of rejection, then it becomes clear that it is the Parliamentary Labour Party which is out of step - with their members, with their supporters, and with their leader. IMO. a political party within a democracy must also have a democratic structure - just as the government cannot say 'we do not like the electorate, let's change it' - so those at the top of the party cannot ignore the rank and file membership. In other countries political parties make more use of internal opinion polls (obviously to avoid unpopular coalitions) and the Labour Party needs to be doing this - in the end, it is easier to replace 100 MPs than to replace 400,000 members.

 

Sorry cologne, but two thirds of the PLP followed the agreed position as argued by the Party Conference. What you are saying is that after a conference the agreed position is open to change before there is a chance to hold another one. It is Corbyn who is out of step.

 

Sorry Cologne - but Labour Party HAS a nuclear policy - they are in favour - you cannot keep blaming the PLP for everything. Until Labour policy changes - if it ever does the Party has a position and JC voted against it. I support JC's position regarding nuclear weapons - but I am not the leader of a party that has a defined policy in favour of them. JC is a protestor not a leader -I support him in that. Over 40 odd years I have seen good and bad leaders - JC falls into the abysmal category. He is somebody who can motivate small radical groups - the sort of person once called rabble rousers

 

He is a person who is trying to democratize the party Leo, which is always a painfull process for some - other polls show that 53% of Labour members want to get rid of Trident and only 19% actually support a new nuclear weapons system. If, on the other hand, the party conference (what percentage of all members actually fitted in to the conference hall ?) came to a view which is at odds with what both the members, and supporters, think, then something has to change. I for one, could never respect a man who voted against his innermost convictions, whatever his position. On the other hand TM. says that 'she would press the button' - an empty comment because there is no button to press, and the PM. is not alone in this decision. Strange to think that there are people who are for Brexit, and also for Trident - do they think they can force Scotland out of the EU. on the one hand, and force them to keep nuclear warheads on the other hand. The Schadenfreude is that if Brexit comes it will probably break up the UK. in which case the supporters of Trident will have to move it closer to their Tory shires.

 

If by democratise the party you mean load it with like minded supporters like Liverpool Labour under Hatton did back in the day then that is not democracy. Momentum are a sham for democracy. Hitler used the same tactics. I fear for Labour under such waves of signing radical zealots. Labour has a policy - even if Corbyn manages to get it changed in the future the demcractic party as already constituted favours nuclear weapons - you cannot lead a party by voting against it. I would not expect him to vote against his conscience - I would expect him to stand down.
Stop acting as if party members are the Labour Party - the Labour Party is the people who need it and vote for it - there should be 10 million plus of them - not your Momentum couple of hundred thousand.
For goodness sake - "push the button" is just a phrase - used for decades - don't act as if TM invented it.
Millions of those 17.4m favour both Brexit and Trident - they are not mutually exclusive. I favour neither - is that also not permissable in your book?
Scotland is not in the EU - the UK is. Scotland never joined the EU - the UK did. Scotland therefore cannot leave the EU but If the UK leaves, Scotland has it's own choice to make as to whether it leaves the UK and applies to join the EU.
Why has the Scottish Parliament not refused to allow Trident to be built in Scotland if it is opposed? Job and wealth maybe.

 

I agree with Corbyn's choice to vote according to his conscience. Should he be elected PM he will have the codes and will be assumed by others that he would not use the deterrent. That would weaken the country and make us more vulnerable than we currently are. I also think it makes him unelectable regardless of all the other reasons I have for not voting for him - and there are quite a few.

What a mess we're in!

 

Trident isn't a deterrent.

No one is going to invade us, times have changed.

No one will use nukes, and even if they did, we'd be wiped out, retaliation is pointless.

The technology behind it will be worthless by the time it's built, and the cost of it will soar.

Corbyn is the only person who has the guts and the common sense to tell it as it is. Theresa May claiming she'd push the button without thinking is a terrifying prospect, no one should ever consider using nukes again...

 

Interesting that he is being linked with a rabble rouser now ... another emotive term.... another negative image of Corbyn - I am linking this to my previous comments about how the media negatively portrays Corbyn and people who don't represent an establishment view and implants such ideas in the minds of the people who are exposed to them... nothing personal Lenny

I actually respect his views
I don't think he is a good leader
I believe he represents a significant proportion of the population of this countries views particularly those who don't favour the current political establishment and feel alienated.
I cant find evidence that he is a rabble rouser though... he seems an introverted mild-mannered thinker to me...
I think the Labour party has got a big problem.... WHO has agency?? It's membership? Party Conference? PLP??

On the other hand the old adversarial two party system we have had for years IMO is outdated and needs to be radically updated. IMO the two party system got us to this whole BREXIT situation too.

We need a Government for this country which respects the views of all including minorities and is more inclusive and less divisive. People like Corbyn have a place in it as do the Forages of this country too...

 

Well put.
I take Frenchies perspective that the Opposition in Govt needs s decent and effective leadership and a robust opponent to the PM etc etc.

I agree with your comments in your second para. It 'appears' the Govt is behaving like lemmings with our country. We know May has to play that out..... but where is the debate, the consideration of real issues etc etc. The in-out yes-no approach is really so naïve... how on earth our countries' leaders fell for it is just incredible. I have yet to see one major international institution support Brexit..... just a few entrepreneurs, right wing political parties across the world and president Putin... .beyond belief....

Maybe just maybe there is a cunning plan ......

 

Watched Boris taking questions at a news conference with John Kerry. Every US journalist wanted to know why they should believe the word of a liar. Kerry looked shocked, and Boris had a sickly grin. He tried to make out that his comments were written many years ago. If this goes on around the world the country will become a laughing stock.

 

Well Boris has it coming to him..... He for one is certainly not fit for the role

 

Eagle out