Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party

With some it was the way Corbyn was ‘ghosted’ that angered them..with others, well they just thought he was useless. Just shows tho’ the present NEC and leadership are not adverse to the old practice of internal Real Politik. The reality of politics boils down to.
Gaining power, using it and hanging on to it. One thing that Labour can learn from the Tories.
Not very nice, but effective.
 
MolteniArcore said:
I can’t really believe that Luciana Berger rejoining the Labour Party has upset people. I would imagine that the majority of the voting public won’t even notice. But then again it’s the usual few on here that have a problem with it!
Click to expand...
She was one of the bigger figures in the antisemitism scam. She left to form a new party and then stood as a Lib Dem. Allowing her back into the party whilst using the same rules that would prevent her being a member to oust people that have barely transgressed them is what gets people upset.

And it wasn't "the usual few on here" that resurrected a year old post in the hope of getting a few bites.

Brian Marwood said:
Corbyn couldn't beat the combined forces of the Tories and the Labour centrists working against a Labour victory.
Click to expand...
FTFY

Ziggy said:
Not very nice, but effective.
Click to expand...
"Effective" remains to be seen. I'd imagine that plenty of left-wing folk will see any manifesto coming from Labour as very conservative - with a small and large C.

If Starmer delivers on what he promised in the leadership election then I'll happily admit I was wrong. I don't think I'll need to though.
 
Brian Marwood said:
Corbyn couldn't beat the Tories, Starmer probably will and therefore gets my vote.
Click to expand...
Corbyn count beat the right wing MPs in his own party and the press.

Saying he would recognise the state of Palestine was clearly a huge issue that caused many problems..

Pretty brave and bold to stick his neck out like that.. shame he couldn't have done the same with Brexit or when faced with the political titan that was.. Philip Schofield.

The Labour Party had so many good ideas while Corbyn was at the helm.. but unfortunately he could not control or satisfy the swarths of Blairite MPs in his own party let alone the massive mainstream media smears. It's sad that it wasnt even check mate.. just a huge blunt force trauma with no real alternative to replace him.

Labour MPs jumping to (their rightful homes) Liberal Democrat Party.. the Independent Group for Change (both hugely unpopular) now Labour have that lot back in the gang after forcing ANOTHER 7 years of Conservative rule on us.

First past the post needs to be scrapped.. the house of lords needs clearing out and replacing with something a little more modern and democratic. Urggh.. where to start eh!
 
Scrote said:
Effective" remains to be seen
Click to expand...

I don’t actually care whether you are right or wrong..just as long as the Tories suffer a heavy defeat.

Just look at the numbers Tory v Labour years in power over the last 100 years.
Whatever it takes. The people can’t take another spell of these people, and it will get worse.

The Tory loony right in parliament will be going for Sunak this month. They will start by using the Rwanda bill. The membership in the country will be happy to see his downfall.
 
I find it quite amusing that the posters happy to announce to the board that I'm a troll and have me "on ignore" miraculously manage to see my posts. They see them, reply to them, quote them directly and indirectly.
Only posts with the slightest hint of praise for Keir Starmer and/or the Labour Party mind, no other subject matter.

And then the paranoia, I've "resurrected a year old post in the hope of getting a few bites".
The news about Luciana Berger coming back to lead a Mental Health Strategy Review was released yesterday. I knew there was an existing thread on her (albeit not a current one) so rather than create a new one I tagged it onto the existing one. But let's face it, for a certain few on here the news would have received the same reaction regardless.
 
Last edited:
In 2016 Jeremy Corbyn lost a vote of confidence from the Parliamentary Labour Party by 40 votes to 127. He should have gone at that point, instead he clung on to the post citing his vote from the membership. Sadly that meant that he had such a limited pool of loyal MPs that he was never able to effectively lead the party after that date. Politics is a brutal game and at that point he was "Yesterday's Man".

I liked Jeremy Corbyn, I liked his policies and believe that had he been elected we would be living in a far more equitable country then we do now. But, it is no good bleating on about other MPs working against him. He should have known that would be the case when he received such a damming judgement in the VoC.
 
Muttley said:
In 2016 Jeremy Corbyn lost a vote of confidence from the Parliamentary Labour Party by 40 votes to 127. He should have gone at that point, instead he clung on to the post citing his vote from the membership. Sadly that meant that he had such a limited pool of loyal MPs that he was never able to effectively lead the party after that date. Politics is a brutal game and at that point he was "Yesterday's Man".

I liked Jeremy Corbyn, I liked his policies and believe that had he been elected we would be living in a far more equitable country then we do now. But, it is no good bleating on about other MPs working against him. He should have known that would be the case when he received such a damming judgement in the VoC.
Click to expand...
It's the other way around. Those MPs should have been listening to the membership, not their own interests. They are the ones that should have left. Some of them did and quickly found out that nobody is aligned with them so they have come crawling back.
 
Nano said:
Those MPs should have been listening to the membership, not their own interests.
Click to expand...
Perhaps.

But that is about as damming a vote as anyone could receive. I'm sure many of the 127 did work with Corbyn though the following period. That's not the point. The point of being an MP is to affect change for your constituents and the country but you can't do that terribly well from the Opposition benches. They judged JC to be "unelectable" and he would know that some of them would actively work against him. That is politics. There is always someone after the top job or a Minister's portfolio. There are plots and allegiances formed with a view to getting into position for the next reshuffle or change of leadership. And that would plainly be the case after that VoC. He was a dead man walking. He did a disservice to the Labour Party and to the chances to oust the Conservatives in 2019 by his insistence on holding on to the Leadership.
 
Muttley said:
Perhaps.

But that is about as damming a vote as anyone could receive. I'm sure many of the 127 did work with Corbyn though the following period. That's not the point. The point of being an MP is to affect change for your constituents and the country but you can't do that terribly well from the Opposition benches. They judged JC to be "unelectable" and he would know that some of them would actively work against him. That is politics. There is always someone after the top job or a Minister's portfolio. There are plots and allegiances formed with a view to getting into position for the next reshuffle or change of leadership. And that would plainly be the case after that VoC. He was a dead man walking. He did a disservice to the Labour Party and to the chances to oust the Conservatives in 2019 by his insistence on holding on to the Leadership.
Click to expand...
The point of being an MP is to represent your constituents interests, not ignore them and follow your own.

Blaming Corbyn and not the people that refused to do the job their constituents and members voted for them to do is akin to victim blaming. And now those same snakes expect the people they betrayed to do exactly what they refused to do.
 
Nano said:
The point of being an MP is to represent your constituents interests, not ignore them and follow your own.
Click to expand...

Here we must take notice of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774.


'I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.'

It is a fine line MP's have to tread often, but they are not mere Delegates, but Representatives.
 
Last edited:
Muttley said:
Would those interests not be better served by having an elected Labour Government?
Click to expand...
So we agree that working against the election of a Labour Government was against the interests of her constituents?

Glad we've cleared that one up...
 
Lefty said:
Here we must take notice of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774.


'I am sorry I cannot conclude without saying a word on a topic touched upon by my worthy colleague. I wish that topic had been passed by at a time when I have so little leisure to discuss it. But since he has thought proper to throw it out, I owe you a clear explanation of my poor sentiments on that subject.

He tells you that "the topic of instructions has occasioned much altercation and uneasiness in this city;" and he expresses himself (if I understand him rightly) in favour of the coercive authority of such instructions.

Certainly, gentlemen, it ought to be the happiness and glory of a representative to live in the strictest union, the closest correspondence, and the most unreserved communication with his constituents. Their wishes ought to have great weight with him; their opinion, high respect; their business, unremitted attention. It is his duty to sacrifice his repose, his pleasures, his satisfactions, to theirs; and above all, ever, and in all cases, to prefer their interest to his own. But his unbiassed opinion, his mature judgment, his enlightened conscience, he ought not to sacrifice to you, to any man, or to any set of men living. These he does not derive from your pleasure; no, nor from the law and the constitution. They are a trust from Providence, for the abuse of which he is deeply answerable. Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion.

My worthy colleague says, his will ought to be subservient to yours. If that be all, the thing is innocent. If government were a matter of will upon any side, yours, without question, ought to be superior. But government and legislation are matters of reason and judgment, and not of inclination; and what sort of reason is that, in which the determination precedes the discussion; in which one set of men deliberate, and another decide; and where those who form the conclusion are perhaps three hundred miles distant from those who hear the arguments?

To deliver an opinion, is the right of all men; that of constituents is a weighty and respectable opinion, which a representative ought always to rejoice to hear; and which he ought always most seriously to consider. But authoritative instructions; mandates issued, which the member is bound blindly and implicitly to obey, to vote, and to argue for, though contrary to the clearest conviction of his judgment and conscience,--these are things utterly unknown to the laws of this land, and which arise from a fundamental mistake of the whole order and tenor of our constitution.

Parliament is not a congress of ambassadors from different and hostile interests; which interests each must maintain, as an agent and advocate, against other agents and advocates; but parliament is a deliberative assembly of one nation, with one interest, that of the whole; where, not local purposes, not local prejudices, ought to guide, but the general good, resulting from the general reason of the whole. You choose a member indeed; but when you have chosen him, he is not member of Bristol, but he is a member of parliament. If the local constituent should have an interest, or should form an hasty opinion, evidently opposite to the real good of the rest of the community, the member for that place ought to be as far, as any other, from any endeavour to give it effect. I beg pardon for saying so much on this subject. I have been unwillingly drawn into it; but I shall ever use a respectful frankness of communication with you. Your faithful friend, your devoted servant, I shall be to the end of my life: a flatterer you do not wish for.'

It is a fine line MP's have to tread often, but they are not mere Delegates, but Representatives.
Click to expand...
As above, working against the election of a Labour Government was against "the general good".

Unless you believe that a Corbyn led Labour Government would have been worse for the country than the past seven years have been?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top