Heh.
Heh.
So what? Should he just ignore his principles and go along with what his mates think?Originally Posted by Jimmy Floyd
He could let them have a free vote with their conscience if he wants, but instead he appears to be attempting to compel them to follow his lead despite the fact that he's in a massive minority at shadow cabinet level. It works both ways, he isn't the principled one by default.
No, it does in fact look like he's going to allow a free vote at the moment.
Vote on Monday, no?
Did the Tories have a vote?
Because he has no choice if the party isn't to dissolve in his hands within the week.
This is unsustainable levels of shit from Corbyn and his mates. He'll be lucky to last until the summer.
The Tories have been pro intervention on this forever. In the last Parliament they were defeated by the Lib Dems and Labour in a vote.
Not that this shit should really be down to the tits in Parliament anyway.
Who should it be up to?
This is a somewhat laboured (no pun intended) example, but imagine Jeremy Corbyn as Prime Minister in the summer of 1939.
You can't have a pacifist as Prime Minister - it's effectively a disqualification from serious office.
The people who know all the facts, i.e. the government and top of the military.
The ultimate rule of the internet, when you're absolutely desperate to make a point that doesn't hold bring up the Nazis.
What's The Government? The Civil Service and Dave?
The government would never mislead parliament With the facts either. Even if they weren't really facts in the end.
It's the most recent example we have, in this country anyway, of a material and wholesale threat to national security. It is, therefore, a legitimate point in the sense that maintaining the security of your country at all costs is the government's foremost goal.
The ultimate rule of the internet, when you're absolutely desperate to make a point that doesn't hold bring up the Nazis.
If you have someone leading that government who is simply not prepared, under any circumstances, to take the sort of drastic action that may be required to do this then he is not fit for the office. And if he is not fit for the office, then he cannot be the leader of a party with pretensions of being the government.
It is quite a simple equation.
Iraq was a great success mate, Obama came in and fucked it up.
More or less.
Why does the opinion of the MP for Wankington West count for more than them? Because he is 'elected'? lol.
Don't pretend that was the same issue.
'I think dropping bombs is pointless and won't do anything but make the situation worse for us' = 'He wouldn't fight the nazis!'
Must admit, I never took you for a republican.
He's a lifelong pacifist. It's not the same point being argued. Having the discussion is quite difficult as you tend to lack understanding of the issues, but we struggle on.'I think dropping bombs is pointless and won't do anything but make the situation worse for us' = 'He wouldn't fight the nazis!'
Just by the by, if Dave hadn't lost that vote we'd be fighting alongside and helping ISIS. Bet that would have worked out.
It's really ridiculous that more isn't made of that in the media. But no, some people in the Labour party saying maybe we shouldn't rush into another mess in the Middle East is the big story.
I suppose it doesn't matter who you bomb in Syria as long as your arms manufacturing mates make a profit.
I bet we wouldn't.
Have you seen Libya recently?
So again, rather than sniping, perhaps you can tell us what he should do in the situation.
He has two options:
1) He allows a free vote and makes this clear from the outset, recognising that it's inconceivable he can have a whipped vote against bombing. He should also not suggest that he wants to reach an agreed position with his shadow cabinet and then release a letter to his MPs which undermines the shadow cabinet before they have had a chance to even attempt to reach this position. It's piss-poor management, whatever side you're on.
2) He demands a whipped vote and has half his shadow cabinet resign on him.
To be honest, the last couple of weeks from Labour have been dire. If these guys actually gave a shit about the party - or the overwhelming goal of "stopping the Tories" - then Corbyn needs to seriously consider resigning because he's doing more harm than good. Principles are fine, but party leaders need to be flexible or they're fucked. Blind idealism is fantastic in theory, but he's a joke.
I didn't ask what options he had (followed by the same rant yet again), I asked what you think he should do in the scenario.
He allows a free vote. He can then muddle through to the next potential breach with the shadow cabinet.
I would have thought an issue such as whether you go to war or not should always be a free vote. Although I don't really get the whole voting business, has that always been a thing? Seems more of an executive decision really.
Jezza on Andrew Marr IN A SUIT telling his MPs to get fucked.
Lewis swinging to Labour
You'll be at a Stop The War event by March.
I've got a 'CorbIN' blazer and a Lenin hat for the next NHS march.
I know it's The Metro but this is just odd
Yeah, Corbyn's the one taking us to war, not the fucking prime minister.
I was saying to my dad earlier that you'd think Labour were the ones in power the amount of media coverage and scrutiny they're getting and you'd also think that Cameron hadn't wanted to bomb the other side just a few years ago. Turned out my dad thought Assad and ISIS were on the same side. He didn't know they were fighting each other.
If Corbyn had attempted to whip his MPs he might have made Cameron think twice as he wouldn't have been sure about securing the sort of majority he wants / needs. He'd have seen some of the shadow cabinet resign, but that would have been the price.
Instead he's handed them a free vote because he thinks he's lost the fight with the party. A man who puts principle before personal ambition indeed.
Why is there so much shit being talked about the Labour rebellion when there's also going to be a massive one on the government benches?
This is the opposite of what you were saying upthread. You'll attack him whatever he does.
Why wouldn't a train crash in slow motion get plenty of coverage?
The Tories are also getting hammered (largely by the evil Sun newspaper) for their bullying scandal.
That's literally the exact opposite of what you said he should do. You're a partisan nutcase on some issues, it's weird. You lose all ability to talk normally on a subject.
There will be potentially a single digit rebellion by the Tories. This is going to barely register.
Corbyn had no choice but to allow a free vote if he wanted to stay in charge. It doesn't mean it's a principled position to take for the lifelong pacifist who it seems is more interested in staying in charge than STOPPING THE WAR.
It was, however, essential to avoid division within the party and making this a potential resignation matter for him.
He's doing what you said he should do. You'll want to get your criticisms straight if you want them to be taken seriously.
Can someone explain to me what Ken Livingstone said that was so wrong? I just heard some thicko Scottish MP calling for him to resign for 'attacking Western values'
Anyone who can be bullied by Grant Shapps or that other creature I've seen pictured as part of this scandal probably deserve it.
It's politically 'correct' in the sense it's not ripping his party apart. This doesn't mean it's a principled position for Jezza to take.
Presumably he's still going to vote against air strikes. I'm not sure 'forcing people to follow your point of view' can ever really be deemed 'principled'.
He's taken his only realistic option in the most dishonest possible manner. Everything he does is a fucking disaster. It's only a matter of time before mass resignations and a split.
Then you'll have a go either way, won't you?
There was presumably a hidden option available to Corbyn that GS would have approved of.
How has he been dishonest, Jim?
By not being a Tory.
I don't think Corbyn's done too much wrong here.
He's obviously not one for fighting under pretty much any circumstances, which possibly puts him in the "right, but for the wrong reasons" camp, but I'd rather that than the idiotic course of action that looks on the cards now.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote