Luciana Berger rejoins Labour Party

Lefty said:
Here we must take notice of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774.
Click to expand...
Lefty said:
It is a fine line MP's have to tread often, but they are not mere Delegates, but Representatives.
Click to expand...

Nah I think that's giving it a very lofty sugar coating. We're talking about MPs and staff that regularly slandered the party and leader to the press, hid party funds so they could only be used in constituencies of their allies, sabotaged the party's complaints process, had racist whatsapp group chats to bully the MPs and campaigners they didn't like.

We're not talking about someone voting with their conscience against the whip system.
 
Muttley said:
Indeed.

Would those interests not be better served by having an elected Labour Government?
Click to expand...
No, not if they are just going to act like Tories. It's the same outcome.

Lefty said:
Here we must take notice of Edmund Burke's speech to the electors of Bristol in 1774.
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.
Click to expand...
Yes. The ruling classes have always had a high opinion of themselves.

As much as the system is setup so people vote for an MP we all know that's not really how people vote. Very few people voted for Berger at the last election she won her seat for example. She was voted in because she was Labour. Her, and the other defectors, arrogance showed when they decided to change party. They were subsequently ignored at the following election because people didn't vote for her opinion but because they know what the party they are voting for should represent. I don't really care what the system is officially set up to do, that's not how it works in practice and a complete overhaul of how we elect people would be my first priority if they ever gave us the opportunity to change it.
 
Scrote said:
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?
Click to expand...

That wasn't the choice they were considering when the vote of no confidence and the resignations from cabinet were taking place. At that point they were considering whether Corbyn would be able to deliver that victory or whether someone else was a better choice. For them it was an incompetently led Labour Party which would not be electable or perhaps a better led one that would.

I was angry at them at the time, but they knew him better than I (Burke's 300 miles distant as it were) and, in the end, they were right.
 
Lefty said:
That wasn't the choice they were considering when the vote of no confidence and the resignations from cabinet were taking place. At that point they were considering whether Corbyn would be able to deliver that victory or whether someone else was a better choice. For them it was an incompetently led Labour Party which would not be electable or perhaps a better led one that would.

I was angry at them at the time, but they knew him better than I (Burke's 300 miles distant as it were) and, in the end, they were right.
Click to expand...
No, they definitely weren't right. Labour increased their votes massively at the following election and that was despite not even having support from within his own party. Labour might have had a far better chance of winning if they had fallen in line. If they had all agreed a single direction of travel and respected the vote (of the leadership elections and the Brexit referendum) then Boris might not have been needed by the Tories and Labour might have had a far better chance of winning than when they went to the polls in the last election which could have prevented the Tories being in power for the last 4 years, where they've been able to wreak so much havoc.

I find it truly incredulous that anyone could defend these people. They behaved disgustingly and are almost as much to blame as the Tories for the mess we are currently in.
 
Lefty said:
That wasn't the choice they were considering when the vote of no confidence and the resignations from cabinet were taking place. At that point they were considering whether Corbyn would be able to deliver that victory or whether someone else was a better choice. For them it was an incompetently led Labour Party which would not be electable or perhaps a better led one that would.

I was angry at them at the time, but they knew him better than I (Burke's 300 miles distant as it were) and, in the end, they were right.
Click to expand...
No, they were worried that Corbyn could deliver an election win and that's why they acted against him.
 
Scrote said:
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...
Click to expand...
Not really.

Did you not experience the 2019 election? It was a complete clusterfkk. Corbyn at that point was so far out of his depth it was untrue. I watched some of his TV appearances from between my fingers. He was awful. The manifesto was a mess and he just kept adding things into it on the spur of the moment if it was mentioned. "Oh yeah we'll do that as well!" He was (at that point and from 2016 until that point) unelectable. He had so few loyal MPs on message that we had the persistent spectre of Dianne Abbott on the front bench stumbling from one mishap to the next. A good honest MP and in many ways an admirable and wonderful human being but as Shadow Home Secretary she was embarrassingly inept.

BlindBoyGrunt said:
No, they were worried that Corbyn could deliver an election win and that's why they acted against him.
Click to expand...
Really? You believe that Corbyn would have won if it wasn't for those meddling centrists? He didn't just lose by a nose he lost by a landslide!

OK...
 
BlindBoyGrunt said:
Yeah, it seems to have switched from 17 to 19 over a few posts. The party were actively working against Corbyn for two elections and in 2017 we could have won. It's criminal when you think what has happened since then.
Click to expand...
More than 2 elections. They were dead against him from the day he got the nomination. The Blairites hate the idea of socialism as much as the Tories do. The Leadership challenge was in 2016 immediately after the Brexit referendum. Cameron had stepped down and the Tories and instead of capitalising on the Tory weakness the Blairites within the party took it as an opportunity to get rid of Corbyn. They've only ever been interested in one brand of politics and never had any interest in what is good for the people of the country. They've got their way now with the Tory continuity candidate leading the party and bringing the traitors back in.
 
Lefty said:
At that point they were considering whether Corbyn would be able to deliver that victory or whether someone else was a better choice. For them it was an incompetently led Labour Party which would not be electable or perhaps a better led one that would.
Click to expand...

Have to say that's very naive Lefty. When they were all resigning from the Shadow Cabinet it was to provide political cover for the tories in the immediate aftermath of the Brexit referendum result and Cameron's whistling resignation. Nothing more, nothing less. The tories weakest moment for a decade and yet MPs like Berger were able to make Labour leadership election the story.
 
Nano said:
More than 2 elections. They were dead against him from the day he got the nomination. The Blairites hate the idea of socialism as much as the Tories do. The Leadership challenge was in 2016 immediately after the Brexit referendum. Cameron had stepped down and the Tories and instead of capitalising on the Tory weakness the Blairites within the party took it as an opportunity to get rid of Corbyn. They've only ever been interested in one brand of politics and never had any interest in what is good for the people of the country. They've got their way now with the Tory continuity candidate leading the party and bringing the traitors back in.
Click to expand...
Well of course. They The Blairites and Zionists were against him from day one and were desperate to see him fail. Mandelson said he tried to undermine Corbyn every day, and that man is still a huge influence on the party.
 
Lefty said:
That wasn't the choice they were considering when the vote of no confidence and the resignations from cabinet were taking place. At that point they were considering whether Corbyn would be able to deliver that victory or whether someone else was a better choice. For them it was an incompetently led Labour Party which would not be electable or perhaps a better led one that would.

I was angry at them at the time, but they knew him better than I (Burke's 300 miles distant as it were) and, in the end, they were right.
Click to expand...
Corbyn got two goes and lost, its about the party not the leader. Its going to be difficult to win the election despite how badly the Tories have ruined the country. The way the boundaries have changed its very tall order to win a small majority.

I would like to see the Labour Party in power, as I always have, at least they can change things for the better given a chance, especially given a long term.
I've never subscribed to what was called Militant in the 80`s or far left ideology, I think they only served the purpose of helping the RWNJ press and the BBC with ammunition to shoot Labour Party with.
I wouldn't imagine Miss Berger has many virtues to admire most MPs are in it for themselves to a degree, but if they don't allow her back, you do know what they will be accused of ?. Perhaps why there's a lot of hate toward Starmer ?.
 
Last edited:
Corbyn got two goes and lost, its about the party not the leader. Its a bit like the football club the manager goes I still support the club

I think a few are actively working against Starmer, but they certainly aren't Labour voters. Look at what happened during Thatchers years and the militant tendency and far left
SuperStu said:
That's a sh*tty thing to insinuate about fellow boro fans, given it's based on absolutely nothing. You should edit your post to delete it.
Click to expand...
Give over.
 
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...
You raise some very good points mutley.
 
mercury_redstone7 said:
Corbyn got two goes and lost, its about the party not the leader. Its a bit like the football club the manager goes I still support the club

I think a few are actively working against Starmer, but they certainly aren't Labour voters. Look at what happened during Thatchers years and the militant tendency and far left

Give over.
Click to expand...
If you see political parties as a football team to support then yes, winning in any manner is better than not winning. If you see a political party as one that stands for something and wants to govern to country in the right way then simply winning isn't enough if you have to leave all your principles behind to do it.

There is no point in winning if all you are going to do it carry on what the opposition were going to do anyway. I prefer my politicians to stand for what they believe in and sell their message about why it is the right thing to do. The Tories do it. They believe in something and they constantly enact policies that benefit their donors and core voters. It is only Labour that go chasing votes and when they do that means the Tory donors/voters win whether it is a Labour or a Tory in Number 10.

Laughing said:
You raise some very good points mutley.
Click to expand...
The only good points he raises are how unsuitable the majority of Labour MPs are for the job of Labour MP.
 
Nano said:
If you see political parties as a football team to support then yes, winning in any manner is better than not winning. If you see a political party as one that stands for something and wants to govern to country in the right way then simply winning isn't enough if you have to leave all your principles behind to do it.

There is no point in winning if all you are going to do it carry on what the opposition were going to do anyway. I prefer my politicians to stand for what they believe in and sell their message about why it is the right thing to do. The Tories do it. They believe in something and they constantly enact policies that benefit their donors and core voters. It is only Labour that go chasing votes and when they do that means the Tory donors/voters win whether it is a Labour or a Tory in Number 10.


The only good points he raises are how unsuitable the majority of Labour MPs are for the job of Labour MP.
Click to expand...
No he didn't he raised the point that Corbyn was slaughtered in a VoC and he should really have stepped down at that point. You don't like the point he makes, so dismiss it.

I liked Corbyn but he is part of the reason we are where we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top