Peter Kyle MP

[Thunder Bolt]

You've got this the wrong way round. It is the PLP who should be moving to support the leader and the will of the party. Thats democracy. If they don't want to support the leader and the membership and represent their views then the honourable thing is to quit. As they are politicians and not too many of them are honourable in my experience then they are going to need to be deselected. You can't have a whole bunch of MPs who don't represent the views of the party or support the elected leader. No party would put up with that.

The party leader allowed a free vote. If he wanted his MPs to support his views then he should have applied the party whip.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

And therein lies the problem for the Labour Party, and I don' think it is going to go away. The MPs know full well, that the membership does not necessarily reflect the views of the electorate, who are much less likely to be as left wing as the dinner party luvvies, who rushed to join up.

"the membership does not necessarily reflect the views of the electorate"

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting it's the party's job to bend and compromise to chase votes? This isnt what a party is for IMHO. In fact it's the exact opposite ticket Corbyn got in on. His speech about formulating an alternative and getting out there and convincing the nation ours is the right way is what convinced me to support him. Support him and our message or quit.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

The party leader allowed a free vote. If he wanted his MPs to support his views then he should have applied the party whip.

If you're referring to the Syria vote I think he did the right thing. For military it should always be free.

 

[beorhthelm]

You've got this the wrong way round. It is the PLP who should be moving to support the leader and the will of the party.

maybe instead of saying "its wrong way round", one should reflect on what has occurred that in six months MPs went from being selected and representing their local party, to apparently being at odds with their party membership. they didnt change, the membership did. those that selected and voted for them are still there, should their views now be superseded by the JCLs? and when the leader was the most rebellious MP in parliament, its a bit rich that he expects everyone to march to his beat. if the new politics is MPs being more independent of the party, that's something we should all be supportive of.

 

[Guinness Boy]

The party leader allowed a free vote. If he wanted his MPs to support his views then he should have applied the party whip.

Exactly this. It's not China.

 

[Hastings gull]

"the membership does not necessarily reflect the views of the electorate"

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting it's the party's job to bend and compromise to chase votes? This isnt what a party is for IMHO. In fact it's the exact opposite ticket Corbyn got in on. His speech about formulating an alternative and getting out there and convincing the nation ours is the right way is what convinced me to support him. Support him and our message or quit.

I think you know full well what I mean, don't you? Your post explains the problem that labour Party faces, as I wrote earlier. If you accept that the party should not "bend and compromise" etc, then that is all well and good. And yes, if you support him, that is your right. The big problem comes with convincing the nation, and it may well be that some/ many MPS will quit, or be forced out by the mob. You could then have two Labour parties. Corbyn and his ilk can provide the alternative, which you so crave, and the 21st century gang of four will advocate a more middle-of-the-road approach. And kiss goodbye to power.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

maybe instead of saying "its wrong way round", one should reflect on what has occurred that in six months MPs went from being selected and representing their local party, to apparently being at odds with their party membership. they didnt change, the membership did. those that selected and voted for them are still there, should their views now be superseded by the JCLs? and when the leader was the most rebellious MP in parliament, its a bit rich that he expects everyone to march to his beat. if the new politics is MPs being more independent of the party, that's something we should all be supportive of.

What's wrong with JCLs? I've been a member for decades and I am pleased we have thousands of newly engaged members. Their views, based on length of membership, are no more valid or invalid than mine.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

I think you know full well what I mean, don't you? Your post explains the problem that labour Party faces, as I wrote earlier. If you accept that the party should not "bend and compromise" etc, then that is all well and good. And yes, if you support him, that is your right. The big problem comes with convincing the nation, and it may well be that some/ many MPS will quit, or be forced out by the mob. You could then have two Labour parties. Corbyn and his ilk can provide the alternative, which you so crave, and the 21st century gang of four will advocate a more middle-of-the-road approach. And kiss goodbye to power.

Fine. But I don't want middle-of-the-road currently.

 

[beorhthelm]

"the membership does not necessarily reflect the views of the electorate"

What do you mean by this? Are you suggesting it's the party's job to bend and compromise to chase votes?

if it intends to be a party of government? absolutely it should compromise, because the party's core principles don't represent the views of the majority of the people. certain policies may do, and adjusted they may appeal to more... so compromise. there's compromise within every party for that matter, don't have to look far for examples. i don't understand where this idea has sprung from that a political party is a single, cohesive set of political views. they contort themselves to a set of policies most the members can accept or compromise on in order to support other issues they are more firm on.

 

[beorhthelm]

What's wrong with JCLs? I've been a member for decades and I am pleased we have thousands of newly engaged members. Their views, based on length of membership, are no more valid or invalid than mine.

nothing wrong with them. their views shouldn't be more or less valid and that's the point: they are apparently being considered as more valid than the existing membership.

 

[jackanada]

Back to Peter Kyle...
I agree that once elected as an MP he is free to vote as he pleases (regardless of constituents views or the party whip) and should vote as thinks best. That said on this occassion he has voted for military action when the conditions as agreed at conference had not been met, when his own caveats as to what he would want before endorsing military action had not been met, when the indications were the majority of his constituents were against bombing, when support for bombing was generally on the decline and when our PM had said bombing was counterproductive and would lead to more terrorist attacks just a few months beforehand.
He's a smart man Peter Kyle, though I suspect he is entirely a careerist politician. This vote was a difficult one for him because he is losing voters but aligning himself with the remnants of Progress (the Blairite party within a party that mysteriously escaped censure) who he obviously believes will regain control of the party. His agosising has nothing to do with morality.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

In a Parliamentary democracy, the role of an elected MP is to form a judgement on what is best for their constituents, and from that view represent them. It is not to follow the dictatorship of party activists.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

I think you know full well what I mean, don't you? Your post explains the problem that labour Party faces, as I wrote earlier. If you accept that the party should not "bend and compromise" etc, then that is all well and good. And yes, if you support him, that is your right. The big problem comes with convincing the nation, and it may well be that some/ many MPS will quit, or be forced out by the mob. You could then have two Labour parties. Corbyn and his ilk can provide the alternative, which you so crave, and the 21st century gang of four will advocate a more middle-of-the-road approach. And kiss goodbye to power.

Agreed.

Labour has to deselect pretty much all their MPs, and they can form a new group in Parliament - the Blue Labour Red Tories, or something - who can select their own leader, and then fight it out with the labour activists at the next election.

 

[Guinness Boy]

I think you know full well what I mean, don't you? Your post explains the problem that labour Party faces, as I wrote earlier. If you accept that the party should not "bend and compromise" etc, then that is all well and good. And yes, if you support him, that is your right. The big problem comes with convincing the nation, and it may well be that some/ many MPS will quit, or be forced out by the mob. You could then have two Labour parties. Corbyn and his ilk can provide the alternative, which you so crave, and the 21st century gang of four will advocate a more middle-of-the-road approach. And kiss goodbye to power.

To be honest this is all heading one of two ways. The first is a left wing Labour Party under Corbyn that will be true to Labour's history and popular with the (new) members but completely unelectable as far as the nation as a whole goes. The natural conclusion to that is the deselection of Social Democrats and Blairites with the formation, dare I say it of a breakaway party. We all know how well that went in the 1980s - uninterrupted Tory rule.

The second way is for Jezzer to continue with the politics of virtually no leadership at all and allow the current splits to fester dressed up as democracy. Eventually he will either end up deposed himself in a rancorous contest or he will lead a split, bickering and bleeding party that is still regarded as too left wing to its greatest defeat ever. That will not only end in uninterrupted Tory rule but probably seat gains for UKIP and the SNP taking an even greater grip on Scotland.

Neither scenario fills me with any joy whatsoever but, at the moment, there is no other alternative. You cannot get the public at large to love Socialism - Britain just isn't that sort of country.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

if it intends to be a party of government? absolutely it should compromise, because the party's core principles don't represent the views of the majority of the people.

A political party can do what the hell it likes. There's no rule book. But I prefer parties to have a set of beliefs and try to convince the electorate there way is the best way. Otherwise, there's no real point.

 

[Gwylan]

if it intends to be a party of government? absolutely it should compromise, because the party's core principles don't represent the views of the majority of the people.

Thatcher didn't compromise on her beliefs - even though she was urged to do so by the centrists in her party. And with three election wins in a row, she didn't do too badly

 

[Guinness Boy]

Thatcher didn't compromise on her beliefs - even though she was urged to do so by the centrists in her party. And with three election wins in a row, she didn't do too badly

Initially she was up against a very left leaning Labour party in hoc to the unions and latterly to a system that was briefly four party in a first past the post system with the Labour Party utterly divided. Meanwhile in 1983 a war saved her bacon. History doesn't look good for Labour.

 

[pb21]

Back to Peter Kyle...
I agree that once elected as an MP he is free to vote as he pleases (regardless of constituents views or the party whip) and should vote as thinks best. That said on this occassion he has voted for military action when the conditions as agreed at conference had not been met, when his own caveats as to what he would want before endorsing military action had not been met, when the indications were the majority of his constituents were against bombing, when support for bombing was generally on the decline and when our PM had said bombing was counterproductive and would lead to more terrorist attacks just a few months beforehand.
He's a smart man Peter Kyle, though I suspect he is entirely a careerist politician. This vote was a difficult one for him because he is losing voters but aligning himself with the remnants of Progress (the Blairite party within a party that mysteriously escaped censure) who he obviously believes will regain control of the party. His agosising has nothing to do with morality.

Cant disagree with any of that, especially the bold bit.

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

In a Parliamentary democracy, the role of an elected MP is to form a judgement on what is best for their constituents, and from that view represent them. It is not to follow the dictatorship of party activists.

But he represents a party first and foremost. He's a party representative. We chose Kyle to represent us. And the people of Hove chose to vote for our choice. Otherwise why would you stand for a party?

 

[Herr Tubthumper]

A political party can do what the hell it likes. There's no rule book. But I prefer parties to have a set of beliefs and try to convince the electorate there way is the best way. Otherwise, there's no real point.

Oops, their!