Labour MP's harassment

Well that just about says it all. It certainly resonates with me too.

Well I read it all the way through the article which I didn't find easy since I find his style obnoxious. I would have preferred a less emotional and more balanced account of his views.

I suppose we all look for evidence to back up the view we already hold on matters such as this.

I was impressed with an interview on Radio 4 this morning with two journalists. Both of them thought bombing Syria was only making the situation worse, increasing the hatred Syrians already feel towards the West.

The impression of these journalists was that instead of going for IS the West should help to stop the civil war and then led the Syrians deal with IS themselves. Present actions of the West are only swelling numbers of those who turn to IS.

Well, I've represented the argument as best I can from what I remember. I am sure those more knowledgeable and certain of the right way for us to proceed than I am will find it easy to dismiss it.

This chap Twll Dun (is that a real name or an alias? I searched it but could find nothing, the only similar words coming up being twll din which is Welsh.

His concluding comment was that he was "somewhere between "soft left" and "hard right", which I found surprising since the major part of his article appeared to be devoted to deriding both the "soft" and "hard" left - sometimes in a most insulting way:

"like the monkeys in the zoo, the far left flung as much shit at the wall as possible".

After sneering at those he calls the "hard left", he then turns his attention to the "soft left" who he describes as "parochial", "tribal" and only worried about their own day-to-day lives - their pay rises/benefit cuts, etc.

He goes on to talk about "silly, wavy hand pacifism", little Englanders who wish to pull up the drawbridge. Those who suggest that spending billions on dropping bombs on people will neither help them nor us are dismissed as being "inherently selfish".

He says their preoccupation with "politician X being friends with arms dealers, or politician Y being in thrall to certain countries is unimportant and a mere "distraction". Some people - and not just those on the left - feel that these sorts of issues need to be addressed because they very pertinent to the current situation.

There is no serious analysis of the very complex Syrian situation and no acknowledgment that what is occurring there is a civil war between pro and anti Assad factions - with civilian non-combatants supporting or opposing Assad or the Free Syrian Army. A further complication is the many other warring tribal and religious groups, each with their own agenda - some very different from our own - and each backed by different countries - including "super powers" who too have their own motives for getting involved in the matter. There have been two or three removals and replacements of leaders of the Free Syrian Army since 2012 which surely places some doubt on the stability of the organisation. US air strikes against Syria began in September 2014 and yet all the bombing appears to have achieved very little other than more homes, towns and vital infrastructure being destroyed.

Given that Twll Dun appears to having nothing but disdain for the "soft" and "hard" left, one wonders why he identifies himself as somewhere in between the two of them. He certainly doesn't sound as if he is.

Agree with you Petallus. I read it two thirds of the way through. It's written for right wingers to agree with. It would have been better if he did not sneer so much at all things left wing. It puts you off.
I would also have preferred it if he had said what he thinks about Saudi Arabia's part in this. Or was that in the last third that I did not read?

That's what the Syria Campaign was set up for, Petallus, to stop the civil war and let the Syrians deal with IS.

thesyriacampaign.org/#

I notice that some sort of agreement has been reached by the UN today, but without saying anything about Assad.

theconversation.com/saudi-arabias-coalition-is-a-brazen-challenge-to-syria-iran-and-the-us-52455

This is what Saudi is doing. It's formed a coalition to fight IS, but forgot to tell the other parties to the coalition.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/dec/18/john-mcdonnell-meets-police-after-receiving-death-threats-online

Anybody else notice this today? It's not just the far left targeting the Blairites.

Excellent post Eleothan. Dj will endeavour to read links later. Have decided I need to improve my understanding of the matter.

A chap who was a speech writer and friend of Blair has found the solution of rifts in the Labour Party . The party members want Corbyn as leader but back benches do not so the backbenchers should form a new party ! Why don't they just cross the floor ?

Oh har har.
Moderate Labour MP's simply don't want very left wing (socialists) running the party....... Neither do the people who matter, the vast electorate.

What the vast electorate want they can vote for, but how can a labour MP expect to leave the party yet represent the party , they cannot, so they can do as the social democrats did, form their own party which lasted a short time then went with the liberals

In Parliament MPs represent their constituents, not the party they belong to.

And we apparently need reminding jane. Every so often the members of the parliamentary parties lose sight of the fact.

And MP's are selected by the party members to stand as candidates representing the party. This is my point, they cannot leave the party and still be labour MP's . Two Tories defected to UKIP before the last election, one failed to be returned to the house.

If people have voted for them as Labour ( or whatever) candidates, they may not want them if they've changed parties? And although they're members of one party they representate the whole constituency. People vote for the individual as well as the party, some more for one than the other!

Even though an MP is supposed to represent all the constituents, you can hardly expect him or her to represent the 70% that cannot be bothered to take part in the election. A labour MP will have been voted for by more labour constituents, and therefore should represent their values and ideals more than those of a tory bent. Those who do not vote should not be surprised if their MP does not represent their views.

And again, no one can stand as a labour MP unless selected by party members, so if any blairites leave the party they cannot stand as labour MP's

Even though an MP is supposed to represent all the constituents, you can hardly expect him or her to represent the 70% that cannot be bothered to take part in the election

But that's the point. You can expect them to. Everyone has the right to be represented by an MP, just as everyone has the right to approach their parish vicar for help, even if they're not practising members of the Church of England.
My MP happens to be a (very hardworking) Tory. He is very approachable and I am sure doesn't ask whether people actually voted for him before helping them, or replying to their emails.
And before you ask, yes, there are some non-Tory voters in the Hexham constituency.

If they don't represent all their constituents, whether they voted for them or even voted at all, then they are not doing their job. It may be that some of their constituents have different priorities to others, and the MP has to work hard to reconcile all their needs, but that does not mean that they are to be ignored as inhabitants of that area or their letters to their MP on local issues just thrown unread into the bin.

Even with a selfish motive it makes sense - an MP who works for all his constituents, of all parties or none, and has a good reputation for doing do, will stand more chance of gaining voters when he stands at the next election than someone who only looks after his own.

My MP is a Tory , he voted to bomb Syria so he didn't represent me, it is not possible for any MP to represent all his constituency

Two different meanings of "represent" here. One refers to an MP's constitutional duty to his constituents, the other to which section of them he happens to represent in voting on a particular issue.

Like Jeremy Corbyn, do you mean, Elegran?
He got 60+% of the vote, and therefore represents over half of those who voted.
However, there was only a 40+% turnout. Those who did not vote for him are hardly likely to turn up at his constituency office to ask him to represent them in parliament. They are much more likely to complain to their friends that their MP does not represent their views.

Should Corbyn then decide he is not doing his job properly and resign?
Like every other MP who does not represent all of his constituents. Do you not realise that you are asking the impossible?
Except of course for Blairites who are all things to all men - except in the labour party.

Why do you think people who didn'y vote for Corbyn, or any other MP, wouldn't contact him about whatever concerns them, dj? I have never had an MP that I voted for but I've often contacted my MP about issues I was concerned about. Sometimes they have contacted me in return, knowing full well that I didn't vote for them. I was still one of their constituents and thus had as much right to have my voice heard by my MP than anyone else.

as anyone else

Not all political issues are party political.

"It may be that some of their constituents have different priorities to others, and *the MP has to work hard to reconcile all their needs*"

Should Corbyn be lucky enough to become Prime Minister, he will speak to other nations as a representative of the whole country, not just those of his own party. He will have to reconcile his own priorities as a party leader with what is best for the country as a whole. It will not be easy.

You are very critical of government decisions which appear to you not to be in favour of that section of the population which you favour so surely you would also be critical of an MP who does not factor in the interests of those who did not vote for him when making his decisions?