Shadow cabinet elections - Corbyn hypocrisy exposed, again!

Announcements
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7329631.html

    The Labour moderate faction made it clear that they were willing to try to work with Corbyn if he would agree to reintroduce shadow cabinet elections; that is, that the shadow cabinet will be elected by the parliamentary party, but that the positions are decided by the leader.

    Keep in mind that this is the position Corbyn himself held from the time they were abolished in 2011 up until he became leader. Now that he's leader, he wants as much power as possible, naturally.

    Of course, Corbyn is extremely practised at hypocrisy when it suits him; he also proposed for many years (including during the leadership election last year) that there should be annual elections for party leader. Now that he is party leader, he believes that he is above such things and of course concepts like loyalty and solidarity only apply to MPs when he is leader; when Blessed Jeremy was a backbencher he wasn't bound by such petty restrictions.

    Corbyn's failure to concede on this issue has pretty much guaranteed the civil war continues until he's deposed or the party splits. 172 MPs and almost 200,000 party members voted no confidence in him, and yet he struts around like a conquering dictator. He genuinely has absolutely no conception of when it is appropriate to crack the whip, and when to accommodate. This decision is his downfall
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Elected shadow cabinet positions are a nice idea (I happened to float the idea on tsr a couple of years back) but are completely unrealistic and lead to nonsensical situations like what we. Have now with the trident farce.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Elected shadow cabinet positions are a nice idea (I happened to float the idea on tsr a couple of years back) but are completely unrealistic and lead to nonsensical situations like what we. Have now with the trident farce.
    Elected shadow cabinets is what we had from the very first Labour government in 1924 until 2011. It is completely workable if it is elected by the PLP (not the membership).

    On Trident, we already have the Shadow SecDef Clive Lewis saying he supports renewing Trident and that this is the clear party policy, and that it will not be reviewed before the next election, while Corbyn maintains that he is personally opposed to it and will continue to oppose it.

    Even appointing his own shadow cabinet we still have the ludicrous situation that the leader of the Labour Party opposes his own party's policy. Shadow cabinet elections would give the PLP a much greater stake in making this work, and allow moderate talent to return to the front bench.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    Elected shadow cabinets is what we had from the very first Labour government in 1924 until 2011. It is completely workable if it is elected by the PLP (not the membership).

    On Trident, we already have the Shadow SecDef Clive Lewis saying he supports renewing Trident and that this is the clear party policy, and that it will not be reviewed before the next election, while Corbyn maintains that he is personally opposed to it and will continue to oppose it.

    Even appointing his own shadow cabinet we still have the ludicrous situation that the leader of the Labour Party opposes his own party's policy. Shadow cabinet elections would give the PLP a much greater stake in making this work, and allow moderate talent to return to the front bench.
    Ah, yeah an elected cabinet in that sense would make sense but would still be fairly ridiculous. I think the Torres have the right balance but even they almost got saddled with Leadsom
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    Seems to have dropped by the wayside now, but I thought the three-way proposal brought up previously by Corbyn (a third chosen by him, a third elected by MPs, and a third elected by members) was a good idea for a compromise, at least as a basis to work from.
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Davij038)
    Ah, yeah an elected cabinet in that sense would make sense but would still be fairly ridiculous. I think the Torres have the right balance but even they almost got saddled with Leadsom
    We got nowhere near being saddled with Leadsom, the membership may have elected her but it would have been improbable.

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Wouldn't the MPs just vote for themselves to get in the shadow cabinet ?
    Offline

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by AlexanderHam)
    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk...-a7329631.html

    The Labour moderate faction made it clear that they were willing to try to work with Corbyn if he would agree to reintroduce shadow cabinet elections; that is, that the shadow cabinet will be elected by the parliamentary party, but that the positions are decided by the leader.

    Keep in mind that this is the position Corbyn himself held from the time they were abolished in 2011 up until he became leader. Now that he's leader, he wants as much power as possible, naturally.

    Of course, Corbyn is extremely practised at hypocrisy when it suits him; he also proposed for many years (including during the leadership election last year) that there should be annual elections for party leader. Now that he is party leader, he believes that he is above such things and of course concepts like loyalty and solidarity only apply to MPs when he is leader; when Blessed Jeremy was a backbencher he wasn't bound by such petty restrictions.

    Corbyn's failure to concede on this issue has pretty much guaranteed the civil war continues until he's deposed or the party splits. 172 MPs and almost 200,000 party members voted no confidence in him, and yet he struts around like a conquering dictator. He genuinely has absolutely no conception of when it is appropriate to crack the whip, and when to accommodate. This decision is his downfall
    Finally, someone is pointing this out! People say those who disagree with Corbyn politically are traitors and must put up, shut up and conform because of Corbyn's mandate (from unelected, unaccountable members). Corbyn was one of the biggest rebels against Labour when they had HUGE mandates from the British public, the electorate as a whole, disregarding a far more legitimate mandate than one conferred by the membership alone. I actually agree with some of the issues he rebelled on but the hypocrisy is there.

    MPs have a mandate too, and have to deal with the consequences of who is voted in and must work with them. The Tories knew that members can conceivably elect candidates which are unrealistic to field to the electorate as a whole, which is why they stopped the contest between May and Leadsom and settled it with the MPs. People have largely elected fairly moderate Labour MPs (less left wing than me)- so why does a self-selecting, elite group of members suddenly have all the power? Surely this can't work long term for major parties.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Therec00)
    Wouldn't the MPs just vote for themselves to get in the shadow cabinet ?
    Some would. But there are something like 250 Lab MPs and there would be around 60 positions up for grabs so simply voting for one's self would be futile if they had no support from others in the PLP
    Online

    3
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Therec00)
    Wouldn't the MPs just vote for themselves to get in the shadow cabinet ?
    Believe it or not some aren't children, they will have their factions and get somebody to calculate an optimal voting strategy and would then probably use it about 50% effectively and the moderates would get maybe 80% of the optimal strategy results

    Posted from TSR Mobile
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    It is not hypocrisy to change your position on something when your situation changes. As an MP it would have been to his advantage to have been able to vote for shadow cabinet members. Now as leader it is not. It is not hypocrisy it is logic.
    In his situation it would also be madness, as it is quite obvious what would happen. The PLP would simply elect a shadow cabinet that would ignore him as leader. The PLP already think he is incompetent, to agree to shadow cabinet elections would confirm it. They are not trying to unite the party with this suggestion they are try to dominate it.
 
 
 
Write a reply… Reply
Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. Oops, you need to agree to our Ts&Cs to register
  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: September 29, 2016
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Poll
Which is the best season?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.