Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Why Labour are Scum

IMO it's a shame that so many Labour Party members are still so naive as to believe the party's representatives in parliament and elsewhere give a fuck about what the members think of as the party's principles.
I'm not so naive as to think that. Clearly there is a big split in the views of the majority of Labour Party members and the type of leader they want in comparison to the parliamentary party, hence the current problems the party faces. But then having said that, it's the same to a lesser extent in the Conservative Party, with a lot of their members to the right of the parliamentary party.
 
I'm not so naive as to think that. Clearly there is a big split in the views of the majority of Labour Party members and the type of leader they want in comparison to the parliamentary party, hence the current problems the party faces...

I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about why this is not the case, not just now but historically.

Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?
 
I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about why this is not the case, not just now but historically.
I'm not saying that Labour would necessarily get elected on the traditional left-wing mandate which Corbyn and his members support. You only have to look at the party performed under the leadership of Michael Foot to see that. However, it would certainly help if the parliamentary party got behind Corbyn as leader and accepted the democratic wishes of the membership, who have overwhelmingly voted for Corbyn. I do think Labour would be performing a lot better in the polls if it wasn't for the internal feuding within the party. Ultimately, divided parties don't win elections.

Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?
I don't think its because the PLP are made up of nasty people. I just believe they view the whole point of the party in a different way to the membership. They see Labour achieving power and making a real difference through parliament, while a lot of the membership and Corbyn believe the party's route to success is to create a mass grassroots movement. Personally, I think you need both to be a successful political party and I'd like to see the membership and the PLP come together to do what they should be doing and that's opposing this Tory government.
 
I'm afraid you appear to me to be very much so naive as to believe that. Even your most recent response seems to suggest that if only the views of the members and the type of leader they want could magically be reflected in the parliamentary party then everything would be OK, without any thought about why this is not the case, not just now but historically.

Why do the views and the actions of the PLP not reflect the wishes of the members (not that all members have the same wishes)? Is it just because (most of) the Labour MPs and other elected representatives are nasty people who have betrayed the trust you put in them, or is there perhaps a wider reason that doesn't simply depend on their individual failings?
is the answer - because the new labour hierachy spent 2 decade parachuting new labour clones into safe labour constituencies often against the will of the local constituency parties?
 
I don't think its because the PLP are made up of nasty people. I just believe they view the whole point of the party in a different way to the membership. They see Labour achieving power and making a real difference through parliament, while a lot of the membership and Corbyn believe the party's route to success is to create a mass grassroots movement. Personally, I think you need both to be a successful political party and I'd like to see the membership and the PLP come together to do what they should be doing and that's opposing this Tory government.
pretty sure that corbyn and the cast majority of the membership also recognise that the best way to achieve their aims is by being in government, they just happen to think that the best route to get into government without having to betray their core principles is via an enthused mass membership rather than by sucking up to the tabloids and hoping the city will finance your election campaign
 
Which party you in now free spirit?
for a periodically obsessed prick you're not very good at keeping tabs. Same party I was in the last time you asked, and the time before and time before that. Though not very actively atm.

I'm just not naive enough to think the Green party are going to romp home to an overall majority at the next election, and recognise that the best hope of achieving something vaguely close to my politics is via a Corbyn led Labour party ending up in government ideally with Green, SNP and Plaid support to moderate the influence of remaining neoliberal labour MPs.

Under current rules I'd not be allowed to join Labour for 2 years anyway, so you could really save us from having to have this discussion every few months as the answer's not likely to change any time soon.
 
for a periodically obsessed prick you're not very good at keeping tabs. Same party I was in the last time you asked, and the time before and time before that. Though not very actively atm.

I'm just not naive enough to think the Green party are going to romp home to an overall majority at the next election, and recognise that the best hope of achieving something vaguely close to my politics is via a Corbyn led Labour party ending up in government ideally with Green, SNP and Plaid support to moderate the influence of remaining neoliberal labour MPs.

Under current rules I'd not be allowed to join Labour for 2 years anyway, so you could really save us from having to have this discussion every few months as the answer's not likely to change any time soon.
You could always try. Or donate. That seems to help.
 
You could always try. Or donate. That seems to help.
I signed the Green candidates nomination paper, no chance with the current NEC position.

Besides, I've no wish to join only to end up being expected to campaign on behalf of the same neoliberal labour MPs and Councillors who's views and policies I've spent the best part of 20 years campaigning against.
 
I seem to have missed this; it is real...


you forget Miliband's valiant attempt to reposition the Labour Party as again the party of the working class.

o-CONTROLS-ON-IMMIGRATION-CUP-570.jpg
 
is the answer - because the new labour hierachy spent 2 decade parachuting new labour clones into safe labour constituencies often against the will of the local constituency parties?

That's certainly an answer, but anyone with a decent knowledge of LP history can confirm that this discrepancy existed even before Tony Blair and his acolytes gained control.
 
That's certainly an answer, but anyone with a decent knowledge of LP history can confirm that this discrepancy existed even before Tony Blair and his acolytes gained control.
ok yeah I was wrong to use 20 years as the time frame, but that's probably the core reason for the current massive disconnect between the PLP and the membership, along with the mass surge of new (or old and rejoining) left wing members who wouldn't have been joining were it not for Corbyn / another serious left wing leadership challenger.

It also strikes me as being pretty good justification for actually having open nominations and internal elections in the constituencies at the next election rather than the sitting MPs thinking they should have a job for life regardless of whether they represent the views of their local parties or not.
 
Yea on that Corbyn thread, except I was the first one to notice it. I knew that Stephen Kinnock was turning Labour a bit Breitbart before it was cool etc
He'd be able to cover that pate with a "Make Britain Great Again" cap.
 
Seems it is alleged Corbs has given has backing to the Morning Star over their Aleppo "liberated" line. One more example of how, if accurate - while vastly preferable to the neoliberals and Blairites - Corbin and Milne and McDonnell are yesterday's men living in a different age, acting like fellow travellers of Putin and his Stalinist cheerleaders. Time for Lewis and the new breed of Labour left?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom