Labour MPs

Then you didn't understand it soon , or you read it in the press and believed it to be true, it wasn't

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/27/corbyn-trident-vote-rejected-labour-party-conference

So what is the truth?

I am beginning to wonder, did I mishear it; it was on the BBC news.
now.

theconversation.com/corbyn-does-pr-he-just-does-it-differently-48350

This is a very interesting look at Corbyn's triumph.

Corbyn has always been against Trident. Many of us agree with him.
It is obviously something that he will have to put to the membership and ultimately to the voters. It does not matter what the rest of his cabinet say. It will only matter when he becomes PM.

I notice that they have a Blair spindoctor, Lance Price, again on the BBC news channel, discussing the papers.
Guess what I will be explaining to my grandson tomorrow!

Fully support him on Trident. No one should push a nuclear 'button' ever.

Under what circumstances? A pre-emptive strike? In retaliation? I hope I never live to see it.

And bring back the LEAs. All good stuff.

Gracesgran

'It is the opinion of someone who feels anger with what has happened with Labour in the past POGS and we are all entitled to our opinions".

Very true BUT 'anger and entitlement' to an opinion is not the domain for those who agree with you or indeed you as an individual. We all have 'anger and opinions' don't we. So basically there is neither a merit nor point to mentioning it, it should be commonly accepted. Unless of course there is a touch of narcassism in believing everybody should agree with you.

Anniebach

You make my case very well. You see Corbyn as being principled when he 'repeatedly' voted against his Leader / Party but you do not believe that others should be given the same right , I find that also troubling.

Why on earth is Corbyn suddenly permitted to vote either now or in the past with his conscience but not any other Labour MP since Corbyn became the Leader?

It should not be a 'selective' requirement to tell an MP he/she should put them self up for reselection just because 'you' don't agree with them. There would be no MP's left!

Over the past few weeks I have seen and heard the mantra 'this is new politics, we respect each others point of view' but this is looking more and more as quite the opposite. It should be 'this is the new politics, we respect each others point of view but only if you agree with me and me alone, if not not resign from the Party'.

That is not new politics, that is not listening to each others point of view and respecting each other, that is blatant bullying but done under the guise of displaying loyalty to the Party /Corbyn , so that's alright then. No it isn't!

If Corbyn was no longer Leader and went back to being a back bench MP the same people calling for 'heads to roll' would soon shut up or change their opinion to suit their own personal views. Or would they stand by the 'principle' that you should be put up for reselection if you don't give 100% support to the Leader, Corbyn and McDonnell included.

There was a party conference this week. At the conference a list of topics to be discussed is put to the hall, delegates etc vote their choices, the votes are counted. The count is then declared, number of votes and percentage , the topics wuth the highest percentage of votes are passed for debate, the topics with a low percentage of votes are not else the conference would go on for weeks. The unions have delegates as do local parties, there are not thousands of union delegates , there are many, many more delegates who are the local party representatives and there are MP's

So it would be impossible for the union delegates to have more votes than the rest of the hall . After the list was announced the BBC jnterviewed a union delegate on his opinion on trident. , he said he supported keeping trident because his job was to keep those who work in this field in work. No one else was interviewed by the BBC and so one interview became 'Unions vote against Trident ' but the union delegates want to keep trident because it keeps people in work

The delegates decided health and education were more important , given the fact that there will be a vote on keeping trident during this governments time in power the vote will be yes

So again, the union want to keep trident , the delegates voted in higher numbers to discuss health, education and housing .

Not voting with your party because of your principles is very different from what is happening now.
There has just been a leadership election. Corbyn had more than half the votes from members, in whatever area of membership you look at.
Did Corbyn immediately after Blair was elected make speeches against the view of over half the membership?
The reason the MPs think they can do this is because Corbyn is seen as an easy target.

What about the principles of the MPs who are taking every chance to put him down? Do they have no loyalty to the party they are members of? The party that said they wanted Corbyn to be leader because of his principles?

POGS, I have not said labour MP's should not vote according to their principles, I have said the Blairite covern should not plot against the part leader and should remember party members voted him leader . I have never once spoken of an MP putting themselves up for reselection

I have attended a few fringe meetings at conferences where Corbyn has spoken, he did not speak against the leader, he spoke on whatever the topic was , he spoke against the Iraq war as an example

I expect loyalty not back stabbing , I dislike hearing a BBC political commentator saying - MP no name told me today etc

I would ask you to withdraw your accusation that I spoke of an MP putting themselves forward for reselection please

Exactly jen , leaving the conference hours. before the leader makes his speech is a snub to the leader and to the party members who voted him leader

I think she's mixing us up, Anniebach. Not that I mind.

Sorry I forgot to say, I am against nuclear ware fare , not because of Corbyn, I joined CND in my teens, what is the point of 'the bomb ' if we are attacked we can't strike back, we will be dead and the government and royals in their nuclear bunkers , if we strike first and wipe out a country sure as hell another country would retaliate

Yes she is jen.

I admire Margaret Beckett , she has said Corbyn was not her choice for leader but she shared the platform with him because she respects the fact the members voted for him

Same here, Annie. I had not heard of Corbyn when I joined CND.

Anniebach

Yes I have reread the thread and you have indeed never answered the question asked in the OP have you.

I will apologise as that is the honourable thing to do as I don't know whether or not you agree with the question in the OP which asks if Labour MP's who do not support Corbyn should go back to their constituencies and put themselves up for re selection.

May I ask , do you agree or not , or am I out of order for asking, if so I apologise again.

This is what I heard of MB years ago.
That she agrees with whoever is leader. Then they put her in their cabinet because they know she will agree with them, and they will get her vote.

I would have thought that most MPs consider Corbyn to have been the most disloyal to "the Party" over the last 30 years.

The Party is a fluid thing.
Corbyn was disloyal to it for 30 years across all its leaders as far as I know.

Loyalty to the Party is one of the last things Corbyn himself was.

Of all words, Corbyn and loyalty are not words to be put together.

No way can he expect loyalty. He can hope for it. He can say that he has a big mandate.

Would that have stopped Corbyn himself? It didnt under Blair did it.

He[and many others] should also expect what they are getting.
I dont agree with the phrase what goes around comes around, but very apt in this situation.

Is Corbyn himself complaining? I dont read everything.

Really soon? Margaret Beckett left the front benches six years ago, she did service for one year in Brown's cabinet but then retired to the back benches , perhaps you read it in the mail

I was alive and working in Atlee's Britain. It was bleak and miserable. Food shortages, power cuts, everything for export. Later I worked in Eastern Europe where no one took responsibility in case they were punished and again everything was bleak and samey. Today was like yesterday and tomorrow will be like today. There Big Brother reigned supreme. This is where the joke came from "How many men does it take to replace a light bulb". The Berlin Wall was not to keep the West Berliners out. Blind faith is not enough. Be very careful what you wish for.

But stb you misunderstand -JC wants disent and debate - see it as the engine of democracy. It is how solid democratic decisions and policy is made. Testing them in debate and see if they stand.

It was 'bleak and miserable' as a result of war not because it was Attlee's Britain!

POGS, I don't understand most of what you said to me but "So basically there is neither a merit nor point to mentioning it" seems to be just you feeling you can tell me what I may or may not post.