How We Respond to Woodcock and Smith

Very simply this is a turning point for Corbyn’s leadership. Now that hostilities are out in the open, we can safely assume the right have begun the process of lining someone up to depose him. The safe money is on Dan Jarvis for now.
This leaves us with clarity on the way the party must progress.

1. Woodcock and Smith should apologise and seek reconciliation with the party, at which point we can continue on with the task at hand, preventing another Tory government. If they do so…their intended goal of placing a more ‘moderate’ figure in charge will be greatly improved at such a time that Corbyn leaves. The membership will see consistent principle in their approach – this is after all why Corbyn won so convincingly in the first place – and potentially reward them for it.

Angela Smith, John Woodcock, and Jamie Reed. Three of the MPs who disavow democracy in favour of their own entitlement. Unfortunately, there will be many more.

2. They can cross the floor or disavow the whip and seek the protection of their constituents as independents or members of another party. I wish them luck in that endeavour. This would be wholly democratic and fair. Should they choose to continue their onslaught yet carry the banner of Labour then they will naturally at some point have to face the accountability of members in their constituency. I again…wish them luck in this endeavour.

The left will not cower to this nonsense, not after so many years in the wilderness. If there is an ideological war to be had then I for one am happy to wage it, unfortunately I do not think it would benefit those we are seeking to represent.

Let’s get round the table and bash this out. If the belligerents in opposition to the leadership are unwilling to do so then the full force of the membership should be levied against them.

As I wrote recently, there is a worrying trend among young members and purportedly sympathetic journalists to attack Corbyn no matter how well he does. The Labour Right have replaced the Conservative 1922 Comittee as the problem child of British politics. This is not a dissatisfaction reflected in any reality, it is pent up adolescent aggression against a world that does not accept focus groups and opinion polled slogans can truly change anything.

There is no space for this when we are doing so well elsewhere. I understand that there are many signs of our electoral frailty, but for the sake of all logic and reason….Corbyn has been in charge for 7 months. They gave David Moyes more time than that. Were this principled opposition over a war, or a significant policy affecting the poor I could entirely sympathise. Unfortunately it is self serving and childish.

Let everyone make it known that this is the state of play. We cannot continue being kind and fair to individuals who do not treat us with the same respect.

Things must change, and change quickly.


6 thoughts on “How We Respond to Woodcock and Smith

  1. If these people succeed in ousting the democratically elected leader of our party then unfortunately the membership will collapse and Labour may as well rebrand itself the Torylite Party, which is what it will be. They can then enjoy political oblivion for the foreseeable future having already delivered two election defeats on the bounce and it will be exactly what they deserve.

    • Sadly, Lester, I have to agree. I am so angry that these few MP’s refuse to accept that Jeremy Corbyn won the leadership contest fair and square and with the backing of full members of the party. He didn’t need the votes of the £3-ers although nice to have them.
      Corbyn is the right man for the job. His style is not that of Blair nor, thank goodness, of any of the Tories but he has the courage of his convictions and that’s why we should back him wholeheartedly.
      People like Smith, Woodcock and Reid should examine their consciences and question whether, in fact, they are true Labour MPs any more. Their self-centred approach is reminiscent of Tory MPs – so maybe they belong on the other side. They should also remember why their constituents elected them.

  2. I really do not like the Labour Party’s in-fighting as neither side of the debate are correct. However, I do accept the point that the best thing for Labour voters is a Labour government.

    I think for the likes of Woodcock its more that getting in to power not only to stop the Conservatives going further, but to improve the lives of the people the cuts are adversely affecting. Its all well and good being Corbynistas and ‘pure’, but that rarely changes anything (think back to 1980-83). Labour in 1997 did introduce a minimum wage, improve worker’s rights, a windfall tax on the utilities to fund improved employment (SureStart, I think it was called) and devolution for Scotland and Wales. In later years, the top rate of income tax was raised to 50p in the pound on income over £100, 000 ie those with the ‘broadest shoulders’ paid that tax. None of this would have been done under the Conservative government. 2029 might well be too late for some people. Perhaps look to Gordon Brown, rather than Tony Blair. I’m sick of this Torylite/Red Tory stuff. What does that even mean?

    Dan Jarvis is an obvious candidate and one I would quite like. He reminds me of Denis Healey. I’ve heard him speak. He didn’t come out with drivel nor were his policies unreasonable. Perhaps Yvette Cooper would have been a good leader – she’s marched with Trade Unionists, but perhaps is seen as part of the ‘old guard’ now. Maybe Stella Creasy is one for the future – she led a campaign against the exploitative/punitive interest rates of the payday loan industry. Chuka Umunna is another possible Labour leader/PM. He has spoken on some social issues which have needed highlighting.

    All this said, Corbyn’s job right now is to lead the Labour Party to a 2020 election victory, nothing less. I’m just not very optimistic he will do that.

    • Dear Jonathan your isea rhat Dan Jarvis would be a good teplaceme t when ge has has portaryedhimself as a sanctamonious right lankur just like Blair dud but ge is totally rstablishment. Both his army career and his arigance of even throwung his hat un tge runf wgen he hasnt even earned his stripes or proved he has any real link with the struggle of the mass of the working class. We hv had enough of the careerists and pro establishment and also we should be fighting the whole of the damn establishment and the corrupt media barons that hv brcome the
      establishment’s mouth piece. You Ron can come out with your wooly -‘lets try someone iv’e heard speak as if it is a theatre show’, rather than a omplete change of a rotten society thst the ruch screw the masses. Smell the coffee or deakise maby cant even afford the coffee in corrupt capitalism as a global system that screws us all id rsther be in opposition for years than a tory lite right wing smooth talking establishment Labour mangung a corruot economic system whilst on a daily basis more and more workers or vulnerable commit suicide.

  3. The way these people are behaving makes me think they have more in common with the Tories, they obviousy do not understand the principles of democracy. My personal view is that they should concentrate their efforts on fighting the Tories and not sniping at the democratically elected leader of their party. If they are not able to do that then they should leave the Labour Party, along with all the other Torylite cronies and leave the rest of us to do the job that needs to be done.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s