CatholicLeft
Labour
2032 posts until I was "accidentally" deleted.
Posts: 6,651
Member is Online
|
Post by CatholicLeft on Jul 23, 2024 21:09:44 GMT
I think it is a daft thing for them to have done as I get the impression it is more that they supported an SNP amendment than anything else. The SNP have just got a complete shellacking at the GE and a group of non-Scottish MPs have handed a them a gift. To be honest, I would probably have voted for the amendment but understand the annoyance it causes.
|
|
|
Post by Strontium Dog on Jul 23, 2024 21:19:05 GMT
None of them are any great loss to Labour, about 12 brain cells between the lot of them, and most of those are McDonnell's.
Quite frankly these idiots need to be reminded that if you campaign upon and get elected on a programme for government, it's not really acceptable to then turn around and vote against it.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,588
|
Post by john07 on Jul 23, 2024 21:35:24 GMT
Labour to Independent after having the whip suspend for having voted for the SNP's amendment of 2 child cap: Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Ian Byrne Imran Hussain Rebecca Long Bailey John McDonnell Zarah Sultana So the rebels fiddle while Byrne roams?
|
|
|
Post by Forfarshire Conservative on Jul 23, 2024 21:35:55 GMT
7 Labour MPs suspended for voting for Labour’s policy in 6 months time? Yes, and a position that's largely uncontroversial. Even many hardline conservative minded folk, like myself, support scrapping the limit. Labour should just scrap it. It wouldn't cost all that much, £2.5 bn, and they're just asking for trouble prolonging the inevitable climb down.
|
|
|
Post by doktorb🏳️🌈🏳️⚧️ on Jul 23, 2024 21:38:22 GMT
Labour to Independent after having the whip suspend for having voted for the SNP's amendment of 2 child cap: Apsana Begum Richard Burgon Ian Byrne Imran Hussain Rebecca Long Bailey John McDonnell Zarah Sultana So the rebels fiddle while Byrne roams? Oh now I like that
|
|
|
Post by swanarcadian on Jul 23, 2024 21:41:02 GMT
None of them are any great loss to Labour, about 12 brain cells between the lot of them, and most of those are McDonnell's. Quite frankly these idiots need to be reminded that if you campaign upon and get elected on a programme for government, it's not really acceptable to then turn around and vote against it. I’m not sure I can agree with that last sentence. Being a supporter of a political party doesn’t mean you have to agree with every policy and every word written in its most recent manifesto. In fact I’m surprised it wasn’t someone on the Labour benches who tabled the amendment. It makes one wonder if a precedent is being set here, so early in the life of this parliament. Is this going to be a “do as I say or else” kind of government? Blair didn’t take this kind of action at this stage - he saw the dissent coming and knew the usual suspects - the famous awkward squad. If your measure is going to be passed by over 200 votes anyway, what’s the fuss about?
|
|
|
Post by Old Fashioned Leftie on Jul 23, 2024 21:47:09 GMT
It all seems to me rather pointless on both sides. We all know the policy will change and the two child limit ended. Little point rebelling, and a poor decision to remove the whip. The point has often been made we have the adults back in charge, well this is nt very mature.
|
|
|
Post by Davıd Boothroyd on Jul 23, 2024 21:48:02 GMT
No Labour leader of at least the last 50 years has attempted to return to Attleian levels of discipline enforcement in Parliament. It will be an interesting experiment to see if it continues.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 23, 2024 21:51:27 GMT
7 Labour MPs suspended for voting for Labour’s policy in 6 months time? Yes, and a position that's largely uncontroversial. Even many hardline conservative minded folk, like myself, support scrapping the limit. Labour should just scrap it. It wouldn't cost all that much, £2.5 bn, and they're just asking for trouble prolonging the inevitable climb down. TBF that's not true. Polling shows the 2 child cap is a popular policy. Which is: a) a failure of the left b) concerning given the falling birth rate Labour may get rid it but it may hurt them politically doing so
|
|
|
Post by matureleft on Jul 23, 2024 21:51:46 GMT
7 Labour MPs suspended for voting for Labour’s policy in 6 months time? It’s never been said that the party won’t do this. It remains a Labour policy and ambition. It’s been made clear that it’ll be done when resources allow, and there’s been a reasonably heavy hint that that won’t be too far distant. So why vote for an SNP amendment deliberately designed to cause a problem? Like a lot of their use of parliamentary tactics it’s designed to divide Labour because Labour is their main opponent. Why oblige? Because the individuals involved are self-indulgent and unwilling to accept that government is about choices and priorities. They’d prefer to be part of a protest movement.
|
|
john07
Labour & Co-operative
Posts: 15,588
|
Post by john07 on Jul 23, 2024 21:58:35 GMT
It all seems to me rather pointless on both sides. We all know the policy will change and the two child limit ended. Little point rebelling, and a poor decision to remove the whip. The point has often been made we have the adults back in charge, well this is nt very mature. It was the manner of rebelling that was at issue. Voting for an SNP amendment was not particularly tactful. It is not as though the two child limit will not be changed. The rebels are trying to elevate their own impatience as a theoretically convincing argument.
|
|
|
Post by Devil Wincarnate on Jul 23, 2024 21:58:58 GMT
I think it is a daft thing for them to have done as I get the impression it is more that they supported an SNP amendment than anything else. The SNP have just got a complete shellacking at the GE and a group of non-Scottish MPs have handed a them a gift. To be honest, I would probably have voted for the amendment but understand the annoyance it causes. It's definitely mischief making by the SNP. The matter isn't legislative.
|
|
|
Post by Johncrane on Jul 23, 2024 22:05:17 GMT
7 Labour MPs suspended for voting for Labour’s policy in 6 months time? It’s never been said that the party won’t do this. It remains a Labour policy and ambition. It’s been made clear that it’ll be done when resources allow, and there’s been a reasonably heavy hint that that won’t be too far distant. So why vote for an SNP amendment deliberately designed to cause a problem? Like a lot of their use of parliamentary tactics it’s designed to divide Labour because Labour is their main opponent. Why oblige? Because the individuals involved are self-indulgent and unwilling to accept that government is about choices and priorities. They’d prefer to be part of a protest movement. Perhaps they disagree with the assumption that the resources don’t allow it and they believe something like this should be prioritised. I don’t think this necessarily makes them self indulgent or ignorant about how government works
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 23, 2024 22:06:44 GMT
I can see arguments that are convincing as to why suspension was right but voting for the SNP one is not one.
There was a certain Gaza motion the SNP proposed that 50 Labour MPs backed and made our lives hard and sometimes scary for 9 months. Leaflets encouraging people to protest outside our office because 'you can't hide you voted for genocide'.
Being chased in the street, shouted at by people on the doorstep, etc. thousands of emails saying the same. Somehow this feels very trivial.
|
|
r34t
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,115
|
Post by r34t on Jul 23, 2024 22:09:55 GMT
It's not about the 2 child cap, or about the SNP. It's about the message. Labour may have a massive majority but breaking the whip has consequences, even in a honeymoon period.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 23, 2024 22:19:36 GMT
It's not about the 2 child cap, or about the SNP. It's about the message. Labour may have a massive majority but breaking the whip has consequences, even in a honeymoon period. not convinced, plenty of governments have massive majorities. Rebelling isn't then instantly suspension
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 23, 2024 22:57:08 GMT
7 Labour MPs suspended for voting for Labour’s policy in 6 months time? It’s never been said that the party won’t do this. It remains a Labour policy and ambition. It’s been made clear that it’ll be done when resources allow, and there’s been a reasonably heavy hint that that won’t be too far distant. So why vote for an SNP amendment deliberately designed to cause a problem? Like a lot of their use of parliamentary tactics it’s designed to divide Labour because Labour is their main opponent. Why oblige? Because the individuals involved are self-indulgent and unwilling to accept that government is about choices and priorities. They’d prefer to be part of a protest movement. Speaking as a Lib Dem, can I just thank the Labour party for shooting the "austerity" fox.
|
|
|
Post by No Offence Alan on Jul 23, 2024 23:16:12 GMT
From the Guardian: "Rosie Duffield, the Canterbury MP, said she would have rebelled to vote for the SNP amendment but was prevented from doing so because she had tested positive for Covid." Is she pissed she wasn't the first to be suspended? Why was she prevented from voting? Through her own choice, or Parliament's? Can't MPs who are sick appoint proxies now? But good luck getting a volunteer to be suspended.
|
|
maxque
Non-Aligned
Posts: 9,232
|
Post by maxque on Jul 23, 2024 23:23:22 GMT
No Labour leader of at least the last 50 years has attempted to return to Attleian levels of discipline enforcement in Parliament. It will be an interesting experiment to see if it continues. I feel it may continue but end with Starmer allies being on the other end of the stick at a point.
|
|
|
Post by mattbewilson on Jul 23, 2024 23:38:40 GMT
No Labour leader of at least the last 50 years has attempted to return to Attleian levels of discipline enforcement in Parliament. It will be an interesting experiment to see if it continues. Attlee put people he suspended in his great offices of state
|
|