Former Labour MP Bob Marshall-Andrews defects to the Liberal Democrats
14 replies, posted
[quote]A former Labour MP has defected to the Liberal Democrats, accusing Jeremy Corbyn’s party of “crass political ineptitude”.
Bob Marshall-Andrews, who was MP for Medway from 1997 to 2010, said he was disappointed that Labour had not made a “common strategy” with the liberals to take on the Conservatives.
“At present there is manifestly a huge vacuum on the centre-left represented in substantial part by the 48 per cent of the electorate who rejected Brexit and the lies on which it was based,” Mr Marshall-Andrews told the The Times newspaper.
Jeremy Corbyn says he will break rules to overturn the ‘rigged system'
“To many, including me, there was a forlorn hope that a reformed and radical Labour party would rise to historic occasion. It has not and shows no real sign of doing so.”
The former MP cited Labour’s refusal to stand down at the Richmond Park by-election in order to give the Liberal Democrats the best chance of defeating the Conservatives.
While Mr Marshall-Andrews was an MP he sat in the left-wing Socialist Campaign Group with Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
Lib Dem leader Tim Farron said the former MP was “coming over to the only party that is offering a credible opposition to a divisive Tory Brexit government”. [/quote]
[url]http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/former-labour-mp-defects-liberal-democrats-bob-marshall-andrews-medway-a7692181.html[/url]
The majority of Labour should have performed a sudden exodus and formed a new political party as soon as Corbyn failed the motion of no confidence by the margin that he did (172-40) without stepping down. Now it's too late and there's too little momentum to swing the swing votes away from Corbyn's Labour and to another political party, without splitting the vote in every constituency and giving the Conservatives a landslide victory.
[editline]21st April 2017[/editline]
Seriously, it's unprecedented in a Western democracy for a party leader to lose a motion of no confidence by such a margin, and not step down. Like for god's sake, an Australian Premier resigned from being head of government over failing to declare receiving a gift of a bottle of wine. And yet Corbyn has been so reckless and not taken responsibility.
[QUOTE=BF;52131151]The majority of Labour should have performed a sudden exodus and formed a new political party as soon as Corbyn failed the motion of no confidence by the margin that he did (172-40) without stepping down. Now it's too late and there's too little momentum to swing the swing votes away from Corbyn's Labour and to another political party, without splitting the vote in every constituency and giving the Conservatives a landslide victory.
[editline]21st April 2017[/editline]
Seriously, it's unprecedented in a Western democracy for a party leader to lose a motion of no confidence by such a margin, and not step down. Like for god's sake, an Australian Premier resigned over failing to declare a gift of a bottle of wine. And yet Corbyn has been so reckless and not taken responsibility.[/QUOTE]
tbh the backstabbing blairites that initiated the vote are the reason the party is so fucked in the first place, not Corbyn. A bunch of Torys with the privilege of not having to be labelled as such. Crybaby obstructionists who care more about their pockets than a cohesive opposition. If they really cared for Britain they would have sucked up Corbyn winning (twice) and banded together for the good of everyone.
[QUOTE=Crumpet;52131175]tbh the backstabbing blairites that initiated the vote are the reason the party is so fucked in the first place, not Corbyn. A bunch of Torys with the privilege of not having to be labelled as such. Crybaby obstructionists who care more about their pockets than a cohesive opposition. If they really cared for Britain they would have sucked up Corbyn winning (twice) and banded together for the good of everyone.[/QUOTE]
Blair won more elections than any other Labour leader. Just because the Labour MPs support his policies doesn't make them "diet tories", it makes them smart. Labour spent so long in the opposition until Blair brought them left-of-centre rather than regular left, something that brought them more in line with the country as a whole as we tend to be more right-wing. Corbyn has pretty much ruined Labour with how low he's brought their poll ratings and popularity, and he needs to go. Don't have to be a Tory to see that, I'm pretty damn far left and I can see it's not practical having him as leader.
Is there a reason for Labour and LibDems not joining together into a coaliton to beat the Conservatives? Seems they would have far better chances, if they acted as a real viable alternative.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;52132137]Blair won more elections than any other Labour leader. Just because the Labour MPs support his policies doesn't make them "diet tories", it makes them smart. Labour spent so long in the opposition until Blair brought them left-of-centre rather than regular left, something that brought them more in line with the country as a whole as we tend to be more right-wing. Corbyn has pretty much ruined Labour with how low he's brought their poll ratings and popularity, and he needs to go. Don't have to be a Tory to see that, I'm pretty damn far left and I can see it's not practical having him as leader.[/QUOTE]
Blair had much of the groundwork done for him.
Corbyn would have won in '97 easily.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;52132137]Blair won more elections than any other Labour leader. Just because the Labour MPs support his policies doesn't make them "diet tories", it makes them smart. Labour spent so long in the opposition until Blair brought them left-of-centre rather than regular left, something that brought them more in line with the country as a whole as we tend to be more right-wing. Corbyn has pretty much ruined Labour with how low he's brought their poll ratings and popularity, and he needs to go. Don't have to be a Tory to see that, I'm pretty damn far left and I can see it's not practical having him as leader.[/QUOTE]
In an attempt not to resort to shitflinging like the monkey I am I'll keep this post concise and to-the-points:
-What does contemporary labour have to show for their oh-so glorious Blair days beside a distinctive lack of both clause IV and a majority?
-How is Corbyn "ruining labour" in contrast with Blair, who is widely credited for singlehandedly destroying the core identity of Labour as part of his MP run?
-How do you conjugate this "pretty far left" etiquette of yours with your social democrat thought process? (Need this one for research on how to win the french election)
Thanks in advance.
[QUOTE=Scarabix;52132233]In an attempt not to resort to shitflinging like the monkey I am I'll keep this post concise and to-the-points:
-What does contemporary labour have to show for their oh-so glorious Blair days beside a distinctive lack of both clause IV and a majority?
-How is Corbyn "ruining labour" in contrast with Blair, who is widely credited for singlehandedly destroying the core identity of Labour as part of his MP run?
-How do you conjugate this "pretty far left" etiquette of yours with your social democrat thought process? (Need this one for research on how to win the french election)
Thanks in advance.[/QUOTE]
1) They have a pretty solid legacy in terms of the policies that remain, the minimum wage is pretty damn important. The Good Friday Agreement is also a pretty key thing. The question is hard to answer, in the same way as, "What do the Conservatives have to show for their Thatcher days?", it's hard to pinpoint specifics because legacies tend to be eroded by new policies implemented by successive leaderships.
2) Corbyn has pushed Labour's poll ratings down into the mid-twenties, along with having massively low personal ratings. This has basically ruined Labour and their chances for winning an election.
3) I genuinely believe in Communism being a good idea and I'd support it if it was the suddenly appear on a ballot paper as a referendum. Logically, however, I'm able to realize that in politics you can't go that far, and instead you should probably hover more around the centre. Hence, I'm far-left to most, yet I'm able to say, "Like fuck would that ever happen, let's be more reasonable here and think of practicality". It's not practical to keep Corbyn as leader, even if he does have an agenda that suits my needs. What's the point of that? I'd rather have a less-left agenda that WOULD get implemented than a pipe dream.
I don't actually like Blair, I'm just able to realize that he led Labour to victory, while Corbyn seems to be chilling out in the opposition.
Well Blair seemed alright, though the Good Friday Agreement would have been much more of an achievement of the politicians of Northern Ireland, the Republic and possibly John Major. I need to research and learn more about it though I admit.
After that he seemed like a fool for the most part.
[QUOTE=RB33;52132151]Is there a reason for Labour and LibDems not joining together into a coaliton to beat the Conservatives? Seems they would have far better chances, if they acted as a real viable alternative.[/QUOTE]
Because there aren't enough sweats swung by even perfect tactical voting in a landslide election like this one. Nor would perfect tactical voting have provided a majority coalition in 2015, though it would have prevented a conservative majority.
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/20/tactical-voting-to-beat-the-tories-does-the-maths-equal-a-coalition[/url]
[QUOTE=irvbot4000;52132496]Because there aren't enough sweats swung by even perfect tactical voting in a landslide election like this one. Nor would perfect tactical voting have provided a majority coalition in 2015, though it would have prevented a conservative majority.
[url]https://www.theguardian.com/science/2017/apr/20/tactical-voting-to-beat-the-tories-does-the-maths-equal-a-coalition[/url][/QUOTE]
I'm not talking about tactical voting, being coalition would make them appear as a more serious electable alternative. Not just tactically getting voters, but getting entirely new ones.
I'm probably going to vote labour this time, I know they're shit but at least they acknowledge the NHS and our education system needing help. The tories are still riding on their brexit erections.
[QUOTE=BlackMageMari;52132386]Well Blair seemed alright, though the Good Friday Agreement would have been much more of an achievement of the politicians of Northern Ireland, the Republic and possibly John Major. I need to research and learn more about it though I admit.
After that he seemed like a fool for the most part.[/QUOTE]
I feel like we'd probably remember him a whole lot more fondly if it wasn't for the Iraq war.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;52134057]I feel like we'd probably remember him a whole lot more fondly if it wasn't for the Iraq war.[/QUOTE]
Its rose tinted glasses with Blair.
New Labour was sleazy and is ENTIRELY the reason the party is divided now. He was a warhawk with his fingers in Iraq, Sierra Leone, Kosovo and he had a strange love affair with Gadaffi. What about his presidentialism? Making us Bush's lapdog? Cozying up to Rupert Murdoch (maybe the most terrible man on the planet) and lobby groups (especially big tobacco). Terrible ID cards, Faith Schools, he was a terrible man and he gets half the blame for the mess the party is in. Anyone could have won in 97 after John 'who?' Major.
[QUOTE=MissZoey;52132137]Blair won more elections than any other Labour leader. Just because the Labour MPs support his policies doesn't make them "diet tories", it makes them smart.[/QUOTE]
Ok so since you've said that supporting policies that will get votes is inherently ok and not amoral, since the Tories are currently seeing an upswing in support would it be right for Labour to copy their policies?
Political parties don't solely exist to cater to popular sentiment. They can and should exist as a rallying point and a way to change and build consensus. Appealing to voters is important, but doing that through abandoning core policy means that every party will appear the same (i.e. exactly what happened with new labour).
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.