Shame he voted for 90 days whilst a backbencher, and also for 42 days detention…

Shame he voted for 90 days whilst a backbencher, and also for 42 days detention

He wasn’t leader then.

@2 But he still could have voted against them – or didn’t he have opinions of his own back then?

@3 didn’t he have opinions of his own back then?

No of course not, he had a whip. Honestly keep up

‘Shame he voted for 90 days whilst a backbencher, and also for 42 days detention

He wasn’t leader then.’

He magically develops a spine when he becomes leader? The man only knows the meaning of equality when he is told what to think by pressure groups.

Still, better than his torture loving brother.

Shame he voted for 90 days whilst a backbencher, and also for 42 days detention

He wasn’t leader then.

Surely this is not the sort of response we ought to be encouraging when Labour MPs are held to account over their voting records from the left, Sunny. It will be extremely difficult, otherwise, for us to expect even minimally decent standards of integrity and leftwing principle from them. Here is a list of Labour MPs who, despite not being leader, chose not to toe the line on 90 day detention:

Diane Abbott (Hackney North & Stoke Newington)
John Austin (Erith & Thamesmead)
Richard Burden (Birmingham Northfield)
Michael Clapham (Barnsley West & Penistone)
Katy Clark (Ayrshire North and Arran)
Harry Cohen (Leyton & Wanstead)
Jeremy Corbyn (Islington North)
Jim Cousins (Newcastle upon Tyne Central)
Ann Cryer (Keighley)
Frank Dobson (Holborn & St Pancras)
Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe & Nantwich)
Mark Fisher (Stoke-on-Trent Central)
Paul Flynn (Newport West)
Neil Gerrard (Walthamstow)
Ian Gibson (Norwich North)
Roger Godsiff (Birmingham Sparkbrook & Small Heath)
John Grogan (Selby)
David Hamilton (Midlothian)
Doug Henderson (Newcastle upon Tyne North)
Kate Hoey (Vauxhall)
Kelvin Hopkins (Luton North)
Glenda Jackson (Hampstead & Highgate)
Sian James (Swansea East)
Lynne Jones (Birmingham Selly Oak)
Sadiq Khan (Tooting)
Peter Kilfoyle (Liverpool Walton)
Mark Lazarowicz (Edinburgh North & Leith)
Tony Lloyd (Manchester Central)
Andy Love (Edmonton)
Christine McCafferty (Calder Valley)
John McDonnell (Hayes & Harlington)
Bob Marshall-Andrews (Medway)
Michael Meacher (Oldham West & Royton)
Julie Morgan (Cardiff North)
George Mudie (Leeds East)
Chris Mullin (Sunderland South)
Gordon Prentice (Pendle)
Nick Raynsford (Greenwich & Woolwich)
Linda Riordan (Halifax)
Clare Short (Birmingham Ladywood)
Alan Simpson (Nottingham South)
Dennis Skinner (Bolsover)
Sir Peter Soulsby (Leicester South)
David Taylor (Leicestershire North West)
Emily Thornberry (Islington South & Finsbury)
Jon Trickett (Hemsworth)
Bob Wareing (Liverpool West Derby)
David Winnick (Walsall North)
Mike Wood (Batley & Spen)

Shame only one candidate for the leadership is on that list.

“he will have disappointed many Lib Dems by insisting the review should not be allowed to reconsider whether the UK needs a nuclear deterrent at all”

Maybe but if they say anything he can just point to them all voting against including Trident in the review.

I saw Ed at a pre-Copenhagen event in Manchester. He came across as someone who while passionate wouldn’t dare even considering shaking things up or being at all radical in what he actually does. And by radical I mean compared to new Labour.

Surely this is not the sort of response we ought to be encouraging when Labour MPs are held to account over their voting records from the left, Sunny.

Here’s what I think:

1. I think it’s important to criticise the party when they do something wrong. So they were wrong on 90 days, 42 days, Iraq etc.

2. But trying to collectively blame everyone in the Cabinet for decisions taken is futile for many reasons. For a start they all have to agree to swallow that some decisions are taken in their name they don’t like. Secondly, discipline is important – and this goes both ways. One of the reasons why Obama hasn’t been MORE successful in pushing his agenda is because Senators have too much freedom to disagree with the agenda he is trying to push.

3. In practice, this idea that the minute you disagree with a decision taken by one of your colleagues you should resign could never work in practice. The govt would constantly be rocked by resignations.

That list is all very nice Soho – but you have to remember the socialists are even more prone to disagree with each other violently over smallest of differences. They would never be able to hold together a disciplined govt. There would constantly be leaks, briefings against each other and resignations.

You can draw a line if you wish and say you don’t want anything to do with people because of the war etc. But simply judging politicians on their voting record doesn’t reflect how the political system needs to work.

Ed Miliband, in an interview with the Guardian, said yesterday that Labour should adopt a “small l liberal position” on civil liberties.

“Lazar Kaganovich calls for reform of Ukranian agriculture policy.”

Whatever position you adopt on ‘liberty’ is irrelevant once you’ve passed almost 4000 laws and spent over ten years cutting it to the bone.

WTF is ‘small l liberalism’ btw? presumably the same worthless unprincipled nonsense as ‘small c conservatism’?

While Miliband believes the current defence review should include Trident, he will have disappointed many Lib Dems by insisting the review should not be allowed to reconsider whether the UK needs a nuclear deterrent at all.

Article VI of the NPT, read it, fuckface.

But, as others have already pointed out Sunny, Ed M was a backbencher at the time of this vote. So, he was not bound by Cabinet collective responsibility. The most one can say for him is that he foresaw that it would not help him get onto the frontbench if he took a stand on this. That is an entirely understandable, though not especially principled position to take. Seriously, Sunny, it does not make one a member of the far-left, self-defeating awkward squad to insist that Ed Miliband gives us an account of his v significant change of heart on this. Or at least acknowledge that his position has changed. Too often, unfortunately, Ed M acts as though he simply hasn’t been present in parliament or in government for the last 5 years.

’3. In practice, this idea that the minute you disagree with a decision taken by one of your colleagues you should resign could never work in practice. The govt would constantly be rocked by resignations.’

Or, I dunno, perhaps the Labour Party could try not to be complicit in human rights abuses and the need for possible resignations could be reduced greatly?

‘You can draw a line if you wish and say you don’t want anything to do with people because of the war etc’

How about war criminals such as David Miliband? Is that a line you are prepared to draw?

@ Chris – that is very much the impression I had from witnessing Ed Miliband in action at a local meeting.

@8 Sunny: In practice, this idea that the minute you disagree with a decision taken by one of your colleagues you should resign could never work in practice. The govt would constantly be rocked by resignations.

Consider Labour MPs. Is it the case that every single one of them has independently made up their mind about all policy issues, and that every single one has co-inci9endently chosen the option that is party policy? Of course not. This cannot be the case, for Labour or for any other party. Within all parties there is a wide range of views, and there are bound to be cases where members suppress their own personal views where they contradict party policy.

Realistically, you can’t have it any other way.

If Ed Miliband really wanted to nick a few Lib Dem votes and cause a bit of mischief, he could propose an amendment to the referendum on AV that 2 further questions be asked:

1. should constituencies be multi-member?
2. should there be top-up seats to make the outcome more proportional?

If either of these pass, we get PR.

I wonder how Ed Miliband is getting on as an MP for Doncaster?

Try this news report from December 1997 on the BBC website: Council accused of ‘blatant junketing’
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/40990.stm

Some years back, that report became inaccessible on the BBC website for unknown reasons so I emailed the BBC and it was restored.

More here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/1867129.stm

Or at least acknowledge that his position has changed. Too often, unfortunately, Ed M acts as though he simply hasn’t been present in parliament or in government for the last 5 years.

Yes, I’ll agree with this.

Or, I dunno, perhaps the Labour Party could try not to be complicit in human rights abuses and the need for possible resignations could be reduced greatly?

They were collective fucked by Tony Blair.

Within all parties there is a wide range of views, and there are bound to be cases where members suppress their own personal views where they contradict party policy.

Yes, which is what I was saying.

How about war criminals such as David Miliband? Is that a line you are prepared to draw?

I am not supporting David Miliband for Labour leader, for not just that reason. I think he has broader intellectual problems too.

@ Chris – that is very much the impression I had from witnessing Ed Miliband in action at a local meeting.

He is, as someone else said, a radical moderate (while David M is a ‘moderate radical’).
The other problem for Ed M is that if he sounds too radical, he’ll be painted as ‘lurching too far to the left’ by a lot of Blairites who are still quite powerful.

‘The other problem for Ed M is that if he sounds too radical, he’ll be painted as ‘lurching too far to the left’ by a lot of Blairites who are still quite powerful.’

True. As evidenced by his fondness of saying ‘You don’t have to be that left-wing to see…’

I think Balls should do the decent thing now and pull out getting his supporters to support Ed M. The prospect of DM as leader is horrifying.

Sunny, can you expand on what you mean by government discipline? And what, therefore, would you imagine party loyalty would mean?

Within all parties there is a wide range of views, and there are bound to be cases where members suppress their own personal views where they contradict party policy.

I think everyone around here is clever enough to realise this.

The point is that Ed Miliband did not feel sufficiently strongly about 90 days to oppose it, and some people think that means he’s not as ‘liberal on civil liberties’ as he might like us to believe.

Soho Politico’s comment @10 is spot on.

So what are you saying ukliberty? That because Diane Abbott was the only candidate that voted against 42/90 days, then she should be voted leader? Do you really think she is the right candidate to pull the party together to fight back against the ConDem coalition.

Have the Tories repealed or are planning to repeal any of Labour’s anti terror laws or crime laws which are on the statute books.
CCTV seems to be increasing. Boris has asked for more for the tube.
After the first terrorist attack it will be interesting what will be the response of the government.
Isn’t the government bringing back the authoritarian stop and search of the eighties.
I cannot imagine the right wing Chris Atkins making a film criticising his boys so most anti civil rights laws will be ignored as responsible government.
It is good to hear Miliband respond to pressure to look at labours civil liberties records

earwicga,

So what are you saying ukliberty? That because Diane Abbott was the only candidate that voted against 42/90 days, then she should be voted leader? Do you really think she is the right candidate to pull the party together to fight back against the ConDem coalition.

You appear to have made some assumptions that don’t logically follow from what I wrote.

@10

Soho Politico makes very good point re Ed Miliband (he was a backbencher at the time…and an astute one…political career and pragmatism overtook the desire for political principle over 90 and 42 days…or whether Miliband actually has any political principles grounded in the labour movement?) . Indeed why can’t Miliband explain his change of mind, people do change their political opinions but with Miliband the younger I am more convinced it’s about his own opportunism. It does appear that Miliband (well, actually, all of the other former NL ministers standing for the contest) suffer from collective amnesia about their time in the cabinet along with the mealy-mouth whinges of “we should have done better” etc….

Well, New Labour had 13 years and squander they did.

ukliberty – I’m not assuming anything, I’m asking you questions.

So what are you saying ukliberty? That because Diane Abbott was the only candidate that voted against 42/90 days, then she should be voted leader?

No that is not what I’m saying.

Do you really think she is the right candidate to pull the party together to fight back against the ConDem coalition.

I have no opinion about it.

He was very disappointing in the interview: weaselly, equivocating and uninspiring.

Ed doing the classic consultant thing and borrowing everyone else’s watch to them the time.

Does he have any unpopular policies implying thought and credibility or is he just painting whatever placards he thinks people want to hear?