Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

It may sound right, but it isn't. Pairs simply agree to both not vote. Whilst it would usually be a Yes/No split there's no reason why it couldn't be a Yes/Abstain or whatever.
I can see that, too. What I'm asking is: was there pairing? And even if there was, were there unpaired Tory no shows/abstentions? By definition not all government MPs can have pairs. And 12 is a very slim majority indeed. We are in a situation where Labour didn't even try. Didn't even try.
 
Pairs simply agree to both not vote. Whilst it would usually be a Yes/No split there's no reason why it couldn't be a Yes/Abstain or whatever.
On the specific Yes/Abstain pairing thing, I agree that Aye/Abstain is a possibility (why I'm asking). It's just that I've never heard of it before. Every book I've read on parliamentary procedure (yes, I'm aware just how sad that sounds) explains pairing as Yes/No. I've never seen other examples given. That of course isn't to say there aren't others. It's just curious that this occasion is the first I've heard of it.
 
Surprised to Sadiq Khan amongst the rebels too, I thought he was well dug in with the Blairite lot. He's running for mayor of London though isn't he, so maybe he wants to put 'opposed welfare cuts' on his campaign flyers.

I think the fact that people like him and Lammy 'rebelled' indicates a view that the party's trajectory is 'leftwards' and anyone seeking support for Mayor cannot be perceived as Blairite.
 
On the specific Yes/Abstain pairing thing, I agree that Aye/Abstain is a possibility (why I'm asking). It's just that I've never heard of it before. Every book I've read on parliamentary procedure (yes, I'm aware just how sad that sounds) explains pairing as Yes/No. I've never seen other examples given.
parliament.gov.uk simply mentions the agreement not to vote, no mention of Yes/No or whatever.

I hadn't realised there was a specific Pairing Whip, whose job it is to track down those who were non-voters 'without being slipped or registering a pair' - I guess 'slipped' is just given a permission slip to not vote
 
We are in a situation where Labour didn't even try. Didn't even try.

I'm used to Labour not trying much these days, but what's shocking to me about this whole sorry affair is the fact that they are not even going to put up a little struggle over child poverty measures/actions and tax credits. We may scoff at these as sticking plaster remedies to huge structural economic and political problems, but they were just about the only re-distributive element of the Blair/Brown govt, that actually helped poor people. They were the sop to the collective Labour Party conscience and the final settlement between the Blairites and the rest of the party. And they've just let them go with only 1 in 5 of them prepared to stand up and be counted against. What a stunning indictment of the PLP.

And what does it say about the next 5 years? I mean even after the shock of losing in May this year, the PLP should be able to see that this govt has Trouble written all over it. A wafer-slim majority, which could easily get thinner (there were 21 by elections 2010-2015), another 5 years of austerity and cuts, every chance of more economic crash(es), the whole issue of Europe which routinely tears the tories apart, That Referendum, - I mean the PLP should be rubbing their hands together and thinking, this could be fun, this could be another Callaghan or another Major, a beleaguered govt, tottering from one tricky vote to another, desperately shoring itself up while falling apart publically...I mean Harman could have just gone hard on this one as a basic strategic decision to make the tories work for everything - no pairing, no deals, get ready for a long hard ride. To me this decision means that fundamentally she must agree with tory policy otherwise, why not oppose it?
 
parliament.gov.uk simply mentions the agreement not to vote, no mention of Yes/No or whatever.

I hadn't realised there was a specific Pairing Whip, whose job it is to track down those who were non-voters 'without being slipped or registering a pair' - I guess 'slipped' is just given a permission slip to not vote
Pairing has to be agreed by Party Whips, and in some votes, such as confidence votes, isn't allowed. So, yes, the Whips keep track of who is paired and who isn't.
 
I think the fact that people like him and Lammy 'rebelled' indicates a view that the party's trajectory is 'leftwards' and anyone seeking support for Mayor cannot be perceived as Blairite.

London has gone Labour in a massive way - there are Labour majorities on councils that have never been seen before, and that electorate is leftish. They will be up against a Green candidate who will try and outflank them to the left (and will obviously succeed pretty easily in doing this). They have to play left.
 
Pairing has to be agreed by Party Whips, and in some votes, such as confidence votes, isn't allowed. So, yes, the Whips keep track of who is paired and who isn't.
yes, it makes sense. There'd be bugger all point in having a system but no way of checking up in it. It was actually abandoned for the first two Blair terms - no point with a majority that big, apparently
 
yes, it makes sense. There'd be bugger all point in having a system but no way of checking up in it. It was actually abandoned for the first two Blair terms - no point with a majority that big, apparently
Indeed. (Although there are other arrangements, such as taking a "bisque", which allow absences according to a set formula. Blair's government organised such a system during the years of his large majorities).
 
I

And what does it say about the next 5 years? I mean even after the shock of losing in May this year, the PLP should be able to see that this govt has Trouble written all over it. A wafer-slim majority, which could easily get thinner (there were 21 by elections 2010-2015), another 5 years of austerity and cuts, every chance of more economic crash(es), the whole issue of Europe which routinely tears the tories apart, That Referendum, - I mean the PLP should be rubbing their hands together and thinking, this could be fun, this could be another Callaghan or another Major, a beleaguered govt, tottering from one tricky vote to another, desperately shoring itself up while falling apart publically...I mean Harman could have just gone hard on this one as a basic strategic decision to make the tories work for everything - no pairing, no deals, get ready for a long hard ride. To me this decision means that fundamentally she must agree with tory policy otherwise, why not oppose it?

It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation.

Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.
 
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation.

Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.

Given that only 48 Labour MPs voted against the Welfare Bill yesterday, is this the first time ever that the PLP are no longer the largest left-wing bloc in Parliament? I'm not going to include the Lib Dem scum even though they voted against it in some pathetic bit of Fallonist "re-positioning", but still 124 MPs voted against this Bill and only 48 of them were Labour.
 
Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...ll-after-abstaining-on-the-bill-10403498.html

Indie said:
Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)

Andy Burnham has faced criticism after a saying Labour "simply cannot abstain" in their opposition to the Tories Welfare Reform Bill – immediately after abstaining in a vote against the cuts.

Burnham, who had been a vocal critic of the plans in the run-up to the vote, seemingly had a change of heart when MPs divided last night, as he abstained from voting on the controversial legislation.

In a statement posted after the vote on his official Facebook page, the MP for Leigh argued that the Parliamentary Labour Party “could not simply abstain on this Bill,” having decided not to vote against plans to cut Government expenditure on welfare by £12 billion.

“The Tory tax-credit cuts I spoke out against will hit working families,” wrote Burnham, “who are doing the right thing. They will actually discourage people from being in work.”

“Children will be hit particularly badly. Many of the measures in this bill will have the effect of increasing child poverty.”

Whilst the current Labour leadership ordered MPs to abstain on the bill, a total of 48 Labour rebels defied the party whip when it came to the vote last night, with Jeremy Corbyn the only leadership contender to vote against the cuts.

Bernardo’s Chief Executive, Javed Khan, has claimed the bill contains plans “that risk locking more children into poverty.”

But Burnham’s assertion that under his potential leadership, “Labour will oppose this Bill with everything we’ve got,” have not gone down well with those who argue his unwillingness to vote against the Tory plans shows a lack of conviction.

Whispers in the House of Commons from the Labour backbenches suggest his new nickname, "flip-flop Andy," will not be going away any time soon, after he'd initially spoken out against Harman's plans to not oppose the bill.

Labour MP Diane Abbott, who joined the rebels in voting no, has said she is "sorry for colleagues who knew it was wrong but abstained. We weren't sent to Parliament to abstain."

It's not just MPs who have been reacting to Burnham's decision.

Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, has now stated that he will "oppose this bill at third reading," although for some it will be too little too late, as this vote will take place long after the leadership race is over.

"flip-flop Andy" :D

"Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, has now stated that he will "oppose this bill at third reading," :facepalm:
 
Let's just repeat that shall we:

And I suppose we should all be grateful to those few Labour MPs who are finally (allegedly/apparently) beginning to challenge it should we? How the fuck can you justify your support, on any level, for the Labour Party, while still coming out with glib nonsense like this?


link to the roll of honour?

sorry just seen it.
 
Labour rebels

Diane Abbott
Debbie Abrahams
David Anderson
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ann Clwyd
Jeremy Corbyn
Geraint Davies
Peter Dowd
Paul Flynn
Mary Glindon
Roger Godsiff
Helen Goodman
Margaret Greenwood
Louise Haigh
Carolyn Harris
Sue Hayman
Imran Hussain
Gerald Jones
Helen Jones
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Sadiq Khan
David Lammy
Ian Lavery
Clive Lewis
Rebecca Long Bailey
Andy McDonald
John McDonnell
Liz McInnes
Rob Marris
Rachael Maskell
Michael Meacher
Ian Mearns
Madeleine Moon
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Teresa Pearce
Marie Rimmer
Paula Sherriff
Tulip Siddiq
Dennis Skinner
Cat Smith
Jo Stevens
Graham Stringer
David Winnick
Iain Wright
Daniel Zeichner
Kelvin Hopkins (Teller)


EDIT : List of nominations of Labour MPs in leadership and dep leadership contests in case anyone wants to cross-reference.


Mine is not on it, talks the talk, but when it comes to it.
 
Labour rebels

Diane Abbott
Debbie Abrahams
David Anderson
Richard Burgon
Dawn Butler
Ann Clwyd
Jeremy Corbyn
Geraint Davies
Peter Dowd
Paul Flynn
Mary Glindon
Roger Godsiff
Helen Goodman
Margaret Greenwood
Louise Haigh
Carolyn Harris
Sue Hayman
Imran Hussain
Gerald Jones
Helen Jones
Sir Gerald Kaufman
Sadiq Khan
David Lammy
Ian Lavery
Clive Lewis
Rebecca Long Bailey
Andy McDonald
John McDonnell
Liz McInnes
Rob Marris
Rachael Maskell
Michael Meacher
Ian Mearns
Madeleine Moon
Grahame Morris
Kate Osamor
Teresa Pearce
Marie Rimmer
Paula Sherriff
Tulip Siddiq
Dennis Skinner
Cat Smith
Jo Stevens
Graham Stringer
David Winnick
Iain Wright
Daniel Zeichner
Kelvin Hopkins (Teller)


EDIT : List of nominations of Labour MPs in leadership and dep leadership contests in case anyone wants to cross-reference.

Stringer voted against the bill, bit surprised there.
 
It's not beyond the realms of possibility that there could be a split in Labour ranks such is the level of disorientation.

Some could go off and form a Democrat style grouping presumably with Liberals. Others could form a left social democratic grouping and presumably seek alliances with the SNP, Plaid and Greens.

Which liberals?, the whole LD cohort(including clegg) voted against the Bill, the Blairites abstained, some would have voted yes if they could
 
Welfare bill: Andy Burnham says 'we cannot simply abstain on this bill' (after abstaining on the bill)

"flip-flop Andy" :D

"Burnham, a former Secretary of State for Health, has now stated that he will "oppose this bill at third reading," :facepalm:

Apart from everything else, he's bringing the name Andy into disrepute :mad:

Anyway, I can't remember if it was Burnham or Harman or one of the other cunts who explicitly said it recently, but the leadership of the LP is entirely focussed on establishing themselves in the public conciousness as being "responsible" in the early period of this parliament, unlike the supposedly irresponsible party of Ed Miliband.

What this means in practice is being utterly craven and not providing even a token opposition to the Tories. According to this strategy, the behaviour of the 40odd Labour rebels who dared to actually vote against the government yesterday is what will lose Labour the election in 2020.
 
Apart from everything else, he's bringing the name Andy into disrepute :mad:

Anyway, I can't remember if it was Burnham or Harman or one of the other cunts who explicitly said it recently, but the leadership of the LP is entirely focussed on establishing themselves in the public conciousness as being "responsible" in the early period of this parliament, unlike the supposedly irresponsible party of Ed Miliband.

What this means in practice is being utterly craven and not providing even a token opposition to the Tories. According to this strategy, the behaviour of the 40odd Labour rebels who dared to actually vote against the government yesterday is what will lose Labour the election in 2020.


Burnham seems the personification of a flipper, though when he does flip he gets things done, Hillsborough.
 
Which liberals?, the whole LD cohort(including clegg) voted against the Bill, the Blairites abstained, some would have voted yes if they could

You easily see the Orange book liberals and right wing of the Labour Party finding common ground.

I think how MP's voted last night is much less important that the various trajectories in the wake of the Tory win, the SNP win and the slow but inevitable implosion of Labour across the rest of the UK.
 
Back
Top Bottom