Labour MPs

So what is the point of your post, POGS?

Gracesgran

POGS

"seems to be just you telling me what I can or cannot post"

Not at all. That is how you choose to read my post.

I was answering your post to me of 30 Sept 09 02.

My thought is when somebody mentions ' we are all entitled to our opinions ' it is stating the b-----g obvious.

If the statement 'we are all entitled to our opinions' is used in answer to a preceding post I simply find no worth nor merit in it being said. I just read it and think 'OK but what is your opinion / do you even have an opinion of the post you are responding to?

'We are all entitled to our opinions ' is a term used generally to respond to a post/poster when the user has nothing to add / discuss. It's a ne na na nanna approach that only seeks to try and put another poster back in his/her box but I think it actually has a reverse effect. IMHO

Just because I have that opinion I don't see how that equates to 'telling somebody what they may or may not post'. That is actually farthest from the truth, I want to hear thoughts and opinions , not stifle them.

Gracesgran, I heard it too, some believe lies because they want so desperately to believe them

Gracesgran, yes Margaret's interview was as expected, calm, sensible and with acceptance of the results of the party membership decision

Considering she wasn't in Millibands shadow cabinet and isn't in Corbyns shadow cabinet I am rather puzzled by soon's view that she is appointed to cabinets because she agrees with the leader

Annie and Jen I have just been watching an interview about minimum wage which included John Mills of JML (they pay at least the living wage). At the end the interviewer wanted to discuss John Mills stopping giving large donations to the LP. He wasn't stopping, he said, it wasn't true. Oh, says interviewer, so has Jeremy Corbyn convinced you. No, says John Mills, the articles were never true. She looked so nonplussed. He went on to say that the LP has always been a broad church, that he agrees with some of what JC says but not all but that a discussion needed to be had and that was what was happening. I think this was the point at which the interviewer picked her jaw up off the floor.

The press often spins in a pro right-wing anti left-wing way. Very occasionally it actually lies. Why do people still not understand this.

Jackthelad is, IMO telling Corbyn fans to be careful what they wish for, ie. A weak Labour government in power with a weak Laeder in thrall to the unions.That is my interpretation of his post.

Blairite now seems ( on here) to be the insult of the day to be applied to all Labour MPs who 'dare' to question Corbyn's ( very iffy) judgement and pronouncements. It's a bad joke that he has become Leader of the Opposition.I watched his speech the other day, good , if he had been addressing Camdem Young Socialists on a wet Sunday.Awful otherwise.
Difficult for Labour to ditch him for a while, but of course it's inevitable that they will find a way.

Annie I heard the Margaret Beckett interview - very thoughtful and measured in my opinion.

This is what I heard of MB years ago. It seems soon that while you are not prepared to do any of your own research, or indeed, at times, any at all, you are prepared to listen to tittle tattle.

Jackthelad you have obviously led an interesting life but I do not understand what you believe people are wishing for.

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.

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

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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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.

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

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

Yes she is jen.

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

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

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

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

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?

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 .