Isn’t this fun?

Labour MPs who repeatedly defy Jeremy Corbyn by voting against the party’s agreed position in the House of Commons should face a reselection challenge in their constituencies, Ken Livingstone has said.

I believe, but am not sure, that Corbyn has defied the whip more often than any other Labour MP.

35 thoughts on “Isn’t this fun?”

  1. Doesn’t take the fuckers long does it?.

    Leninslime will be explaining why the milk and apples should be reserved for the pigs next.

  2. Hundreds and hundreds of times. Now, hey presto, he is Stalin and Mr Bean and a hypocrite.

    I can’t see yet how this ride is going to end, but Labour, now, will forever be the party that elected “that guy” and then took its time over getting rid of him. Appalling.

  3. He was asked about this during his election campaign. His response was that he was different as his rebellions were “principled”.

    I kid you not.

  4. ‘Labour MPs who repeatedly defy Jeremy Corbyn by voting against the party’s agreed position’

    What purpose do MPs serve if they are only to vote with the party?

    ‘reselection challenge in their constituencies’

    “I voted for you, not the party” would seem to be an air tight defense.

  5. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Firstly, it’s Livingstone who said this, not Corbyn or McDonnell. Can you be a hypocrite because of what someone else said?

    Secondly, the warning from Livingstone to Labour MPs is probably to remind them that they better have the backing of their constituency party if they wish to rebel against the leadership. Although Corbyn might have defied the party whip many, many times, his voting record is consistent and principled – however unpopular those principles are around these parts – and his stance was never questioned by his local party.

    I find the notion that a Labour MP should try and represent the values of the party workers who helped to get him elected being all Stalinist/Leninist a wee bit silly to be honest. Deselected MPs are quite free to stand for re-election if they choose; we’ll see then if the electorate voted for them or the party.

  6. Most ZaNu voters won’t support Corbyn either Witchfinder. He is scum and his but his voting record is a classic stopped clock. The usual anti-nuke/ immigrant treason but the rest almost sounds reasonable if you had not taken the cut of his jib.

    “Jeremy Corbyn almost always voted against Labour’s anti-terrorism laws, while most Labour MPs almost always voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against the Iraq war, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn almost always voted against requiring the mass retention of information about communications, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn consistently voted against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn almost always voted against a stricter asylum system, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn generally voted against introducing ID cards, while most Labour MPs almost always voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn generally voted against allowing ministers to intervene in inquests, while most Labour MPs almost always voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn almost always voted against replacing Trident with a new nuclear weapons system, while most Labour MPs generally voted for.

    Jeremy Corbyn generally voted for a transparent Parliament, while most Labour MPs generally voted against.

  7. I noted with a smile that the former Socialist party of Poland didn’t win a single seat at the recent election. Corbyn has something to aim for.

  8. It’s not (from his perspective) hypocrisy though:
    Previously Corbyn could vote against the party becuase the party was in the wrong wrong. Now he leads it, the party is always right (at least from Corbyn’s perspective)

    I think that to regard pre and post corbyn Labour as the same entity is the mistake here.

  9. MPs can vote as they wish, as can their constituency party members at reelection time. Bear in mind though that many Labour MPs were on rigged selection lists and will now need to pay more attention to local party members

  10. Witchsmeller

    So Corbyn’s rebellions were always “principled”. Well so were the votes cast by those MPS that voted with he Labour leadership. And so will be the rebellions against Corbyn and McDonnell now they’re the leadership.

    Or is it only people who agree with you that can be principled?

  11. Can’t help but think that the very idea of what a political party is requires that you are always loyal to it, regardless of personal positions.

    A party with many defying its leader has an existential problem that probably requires a revolution within the party.

    If I were a labour mp (hell freeze over), i’d mostly toe the line, else what’s the point?

  12. “Else what’s the point? ”

    I guess history now shows the point is you go on to become leader of that party. So loyalty brings no reward whatsoever. All the more ironic that leader should himself demand loyalty.

  13. “Secondly, the warning from Livingstone to Labour MPs is probably to remind them that they better have the backing of their constituency party if they wish to rebel against the leadership.”

    How very convenient. So Witchsmeller, like all Stalinists before him finds the most convenient Soviet to whom you should owe your loyalty. And it just happens to be the one Livingstone and his mates find easiest to pack out with ‘activists ‘.

    Now I would have thought, if loyalty is owed anywhere, a sitting Labour MP might owe it to the Labour party, as represented by the leader the party elected. Corbyn and McDonnell never saw it that way, so why the hell should today’s Labour MPs?

  14. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Because the leadership has no power to deselect them, but their local party does? Duh. Mr Interested was right about you; you’re not very bright are you?

  15. gives Corbyn a small problem, given that he disagrees with most of the labour party’s agreed positions!

  16. OK, so straight to the personal; how very quickly the veneers stripped away.

    The mechanics of the selection procedure are not difficult to understand and provide a convenient shroud of legitimacy for you and your friends. I repeat, this has nothing to do with any democratic accountability; the selection could just as easily have been done at national level. Hiding behind procedure is what you do.
    Each MP stands as a candidate for and is elected as an MP for a named national party. Douglas Carswell recognised this by standing down and re-fighting his seat. I would have thought that the might feel some obligation to that national party under whose banner he finds protection. So when a senior figure in a party campaigns against a party candidate (Ken Livingstone in Tower Hamlets) that party has a right to be annoyed, at least. When an MP votes again the party line over 500 hundred times in his career, the party might legitimately question his loyalty. And when that rebellious MP justifies this by citing his ‘principles’ and doesn’t mention his constituency party members, we are entitled to conclude supporters are using the constituency mechanism as a matter of convenience. We are entitled to conclude their ‘principles’ are likewise matter of convenience.

  17. Arnald

    Do you understand how opinion works? And how truth telling and lying depend on identifiable facts? And so how opinion cannot be lie?

    Just keep strumming for the passing trade mate.

  18. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    OK, so straight to the personal; how very quickly the veneers stripped away.

    You called me a Stalinist you thick cunt, if you don’t want things to get personal you should mind your fucking manners.

    MPs are accountable primarily to their own electorates, secondly to their constituency party, and only thirdly to their party leader. Neither the good people of Islington nor his constituency party had a problem with Corbyn’s principled rebellion, as shown by his massive majorities, which is why Kinnock, Blair, Brown and Miliband just had to suck it up.

    You might not like it, but party members are morally justified in attempting to find candidates who best represent their views and Livingstone was reminding MPs that they will need the support of their local party if they wish to defy the national leadership. That’s not hiding behind procedure, it’s how British politics works, you stupid, whining fucktard.

  19. Moronman

    So you’ve made up your own mind that Corbyn is “Soviet” without any knowledge or reference point? If so you are merely stupid, but not lying to yourself.

    Or, if you are basing your opinion on some acquired ‘fact’, but you know that ‘fact’ isn’t actually substantiated, then you are lying to yourself, and others by your assertion of falsehood as fact, and you are stupid to boot.

    If you are using an acquired ‘fact’ without checking its veracity, then your opinion is worthless and you are stupid and displaying gross ignorance.

    Either way you spin this, you are a thick, ignorant liar.

  20. “You called me a Stalinist you thick cunt, if you don’t want things to get personal you should mind your fucking manners.”

    And nothing more need be said about who these Corbynists are and how they go about their business.
    If you disagree with them, they set about destroying you. Then they selectively draw on the rulebook to justify their actions to themselves. Stalinists are as Stalinists do. True Democrats should come and look at this thread.

  21. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    You really are a bit of a tool aren’t you? You started the abuse, which I returned in kind. You apparently have no clue about how British politics functions, and still don’t understand when it’s explained to you. And yes of course, those MPs who set out to further their careers whilst ignoring the wishes of the party members who gave them their seats are the true democrats aren’t they? Fuckwit.

  22. “Stalinist” is abuse is it. Delighted to hear that.
    Oh and thanks for confirming my hypothesis:Corbyn’s rebellions are ‘principled’; everyone who disagrees with him isn’t.

  23. So the response “in kind” to Stalinist is: not very bright, tool, thick cunt, fuckwit.

    It seems the standard opinion on this blog, that socialism is a complete failure, is supported by the outrage that greets comparisons with the great Soviet leader’s methods.

  24. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    You seem surprised that someone might be a bit put out by being called a Stalinist. If I was a Stalinist I would call for someone like Simon Danczuk to be put out of his misery for ideological treason. As I’m not, I won’t be.

    I would, however, argue that those members of his local party who don’t agree with him accepting money from the Mail in return for knifing Corbyn, should try and deselect him. This is how our democracy is supposed to function. Don’t kill them, vote them out.

    Stalin was a monster and a murderer. You devalue his victims even further by comparing him to social democrats. If you can’t see that, then yes, you’re a fuckwit.

    Finally, Corbyn is perceived by his supporters to be principled because he’s always held the same views. They haven’t changed to help his career. What he believed in 1983, he still believes. Which makes him principled, whether or not you agree with those principles. I can’t quite understand why you can’t grasp that notion. Some of his opponents may also be principled, but I’m at a loss to name one.

  25. Social Democrats! Oh thank you.

    BTW have your Social Democrat heroes Corbyn and McDonnell sucked it up and condemned the Brighton bomb yet? Or stopped inviting Hamas, Hizbollah and the IRA to share a platform with them?

    You see, a victim of political murder is a victim of political murder. And you and Jeremy and John and Ken break bread with political murderers. And your, ahem, social democratic shell cracks when people like me point this out and you snarl that “if you don’t want things to get personal you should mind your fucking manners.” Bit of a giveaway.

    So you go right ahead and be offended my little commissar.

  26. Witchsmeller Pursuivant

    Hamas and Hezbollah are the legitimate representatives of the resistance of the Palestinian and Lebanese peoples. As were the IRA for the Irish. Political murders are comitted on all sides; where’s your outrage for Cameron and Blair sucking up to butchers like Netenyahu and Sharon? Not calling out either for cosying up with the odious Saudi regime are you?

    As to my aside that “if you don’t want things to get personal, you should mind your fucking manners”, well that’s just common sense in both Yorkshire and Essex. It’s not a threat, it’s an explanation of what will happen and why. Perhaps you don’t come from England?

  27. “It’s not a threat, it’s an explanation of what will happen and why.”

    Thank you once again for revealing yourself on all your glory.

  28. Ronny

    Your ilk are fond of repeating that line about Corbyn ‘being in bed with’ all manner of terrorist organisations.

    Have you actually done any research about this? Or are you relying on Mr Eggs for your information again?

  29. Your description of the Corbynists as social democrats made me splutter: but now you’ve bettered it. In what way, exactly, is Hezbollah (for example) “the legitimate representative of the resistance of the Lebanese people”?

    As opposed to an Iranian stooge that exports Iran’s (notably brutal) Shia theocracy with the help of Iranian cash, training and arms?

    You are aware that many Lebanese are Christians?

    Corbyn and his supporters reveal themselves by their support for Hezbollah and its like. That’s an explanation of what will happen and why.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *