Remember in 2003 when they were whipped into war despite a majority of their constituents being against? It cost Barbara Roche her seat.
See David Lammy's reasons (thanks CLP members!) here.
And Catherine West's twitter feed here.
Whatever you may think of the current Labour leadership, something being more democratic means that more people take part in the decision and this is a good thing because we get better decisions.
Jeez, this is getting damn serious. Am I going to have to revise my opinion of D. Lammy and his conscience?
More does not necessarily mean better.
True. And especially true if there's an echo chamber of the like-minded of the Right. Or the Left. All nodding sagely and competing to see who can parrot the Leader's views most closely and enthusiastically.
Of course that may be advisable in some circumstances.
But there is also another tradition. One of challenging the Fuhrer, Caudillo, Tsar, Duce, Emperor, Dear Leader, Comrade Stalin; etc etc. And instead seeking to build united judgement by having viewpoints in friendly co-operative contention. Seems to me that this is what Corbyn has been up to.
"More does not necessarily mean better." - In anything but the short term it does.
Thanks for putting this up John.
My Dear Friend David tells me that BBC2 tomorrow at 9pm will give me "a behind-the-scenes-unique perspective" on his surgery techniques. Crikey, I hope there's not too much blood and guts. I've just about got used to decapitations.
We need to genetically engineer some big angry ferrets.
very glad to hear that. It seems David(what's in it for me) Lammy has decided his future ambitions are best served by sticking with Obi Wan Corbyn(he's our only hope) Makes a surprising turnaround from supporting the invasion of Iraq, opposing the Chilcot Inquiry and supporting the bombing of Gaza. Any port in a storm tho.....
I would hope what Lammy is doing is representing what he believes to be the opinion of his constituents.
I was a little surprised to see the results in from YouGov showing a clear majority of the British public supporting the use of British ground troops, let alone air strikes. I'd love to see a breakdown of opinion by region. I'd have thought that opinion in Londonland might be rather less in favour, or am I just living too much in a London cocoon?
It seems quite likely that London will suffer further terrorist attacks as 'retaliation' for our involvement in the ME, so I imagine more people here are against the bombing on that account. Of course that is always described as 'cowardly' in the press.
There are over 2300 comments on the latest BBC article with all the top rated comments opposed to UK involvement via the 'bombing' option. BBC also reports that Cameron's 'terrorist sympathiser' comment has turned some wavering MPS against him.