Neil Coyle abstains from vote on Welfare Bill

It was the Labour leaders who did the hard work in the background to win the war - Atlee, Bevin, Cripps.

Moving back to Neil Coyle, I am very encouraged to see that he abstained in the welfare vote - in fact I could almost vote for him now. That was the right thing to do in almost impossible circumstances for Labour. That tells us that he is shrewd, intelligent. He will not fall into the traps set by George Osborne - we should be encouraged by that.

He understands that it is very delicate time now for Labour, and they must not let their enemies gain the upper hand.

Watched the youtube link to Clement Attlee's interview.Thanks for that Jules62 , bags of sincerity from Clem

As to Neil Coyle's abstention . Perhaps a constituent or news reporter should ask his reasoning

The devious Tories combine Welfare and Work provisions so that Apprenticeship and Full Employment potential positives are lumped into the same Bill as some punitive
welfare reforms.

Frank Field abstained so that the real fight can be taken up in Committee stage

It's all tactics ain't it

there's stuff in this week's southwark news (as the three 'labour' mps in southwark all abstained)

here's something a bit less serious http://t.co/ckpQnuM9Eo

Pros,

That fact that they all our local MPs abstained on the welfare vote simply shows us that they see the bigger picture here. I know see Harriet Harman in a completely different light - I totally respect her for taking this stand.

It's easy to protest (I think you already know that) - what's really, really difficult is to get people to take you seriously enough to entrust you with office and to do the right thing which is not always the same as the populist thing.

You go ahead and vote for the hard-left Marxist Corbyn (assuming you are even a member of the Labour Party, which I very much doubt) and watch what happens.

Would you be happy with a leader who could never represent effective opposition to the Tories?

A potential tragedy for Labour is unfolding here - it really isn't something to joke about.

shame ...

Floodplain wrote:

Pros,
That fact that they all our local MPs abstained on the welfare vote simply shows us that they see the bigger picture here. I know see Harriet Harman in a completely different light - I totally respect her for taking this stand.

It's easy to protest (I think you already know that) - what's really, really difficult is to get people to take you seriously enough to entrust you with office and to do the right thing which is not always the same as the populist thing.

You go ahead and vote for the hard-left Marxist Corbyn (assuming you are even a member of the Labour Party, which I very much doubt) and watch what happens.

Would you be happy with a leader who could never represent effective opposition to the Tories?

A potential tragedy for Labour is unfolding here - it really isn't something to joke about.

There are also a another two ways: the Blairite way and a 4th and totally new way that none of us can even imagine yet (same as was the case before 'New Labour' was declared).

It is not black and white (ie: Harman or Corbyn): there are shades of gray in between.

Harman may well be one of those 11th hour hat throw-ins that I referred to in an earlier post, but right now her role is merely that of a temporary caretaker.

One thing is for sure: if those eligible to vote in the leadership contest aren't offered the opportunity to choose a viable, fresh new face with bold new ideas (so far I haven't seen anything remotely like that), Labour will remain in opposition for a very long time.

If this is the case, I hope the Lib Dems have better luck, because the Tories MUST be democratically removed from government as soon as our system allows.

I am sure that we will see a Lib Dems renaissance, both locally and nationally. Indeed I have recently joined the party as a member and am proud to have done so.

The whole Labour thing, both locally and nationally, is a joke. The Labour party doesn't know what it stands for. Piers Corbyn seems like the best of a bad bunch.

I truly believe politics is cyclical and after 5 years of this mob we may just like the sound of someone promising renationalisation of a few bits.
We may well like the sound of someone promising some kind of rent restraints.
It's all very well saying we must get the Tories out ASAP, I agree, but it's no good if you're just going to replace them with Tory light. We will need something a bit stronger than that because they ( Tory light)wont undo enough of what the Tories have put in place, eventually they will get kicked out and the jolly old Tories will carry on more or less where they left off and drag us all a bit further into Dickensian times.

I wouldn't underestimate Corbyn, he has the knack, like Farage, of making all those labels, aimed at him, seem way wide of the mark, when he speaks, he seems to speak popular sense, again, like Farage.

I think he's trustable, in a way Foot would never have been.

boroughonian wrote:

I think he's trustable, in a way Foot would never have been.

...and in a way that Farage, of course, never will be. And that's not in the only flaw in this attempt to associate Nige with integrity by proxy.

Sigh

I was actually being apolitical, or at least trying to analyse from outside the game.