What a difference four months (and Jeremy Corbyn) makes. It’s easy to forget how this contest began in the uneasy, doomy days after 7 May: with all that talk about “aspiration”, unsettling messages about benefits, and the sense that the Labour party was more scared of its own shadow than ever before. But now, listen to the fire, brimstone and old-time religion that pours forth from Yvette Cooper and Andy Burnham – rather more, tonally at least, than Jeremy Corbyn, who sticks to his measured, slightly stilted kind of oratory, but manages to come up with applause-line after applause-line.

chairman bill wrote:Cooper seemed to have the edge on Burnham, and good that she's challenged the view that Labour mismanged the economy prior to the banking collapse.

Beatsong wrote:
In particular, I bought his explanation of the welfare bill vote. I didn't realise that he was the only member of the shadow cabinet who was for voting against it. I got the impression he was properly fucked off with having shared the blame for it, when as a member of the shadow cabinet he had to follow the whip and, despite having done everything he could to oppose it, basically didn't have a choice.

Ahead of tonight's vote on the welfare bill, Andy Burnham has written to all Labour MPs outlining his stance. The leadership candidate, who helped persuade Harriet Harman to table an amendment to the legislation, writes that "in truth, it [the amendment] could be stronger". As I reported on Friday, Burnham was unhappy at its "weak wording".

But after arguing at shadow cabinet last week that Labour should vote against the bill if its amendment is defeated, the shadow health secretary has fallen into line by agreeing to abstain. He writes: "Collective responsibility is important and it is what I would expect as Leader of our Party. It is why I will be voting for our Reasoned Amendment and, if it is defeated, abstaining on the Bill." Had he broken the whip and voted against the legislation he would, by convention, have had to resign from the shadow cabinet. But Burnham adds that in the absence of "major changes" to the bill at commitee stage, he will, if elected leader, vote against it at Third Reading.

chairman bill wrote:Cooper seemed to have the edge on Burnham, and good that she's challenged the view that Labour mismanged the economy prior to the banking collapse.

ronmcd wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
In particular, I bought his explanation of the welfare bill vote. I didn't realise that he was the only member of the shadow cabinet who was for voting against it. I got the impression he was properly fucked off with having shared the blame for it, when as a member of the shadow cabinet he had to follow the whip and, despite having done everything he could to oppose it, basically didn't have a choice.

Hmm. I think he's fucked off they are all getting the blame, rightly, he's probably wishing he'd defied the whip.

Beatsong wrote:

ronmcd wrote:

Beatsong wrote:
In particular, I bought his explanation of the welfare bill vote. I didn't realise that he was the only member of the shadow cabinet who was for voting against it. I got the impression he was properly fucked off with having shared the blame for it, when as a member of the shadow cabinet he had to follow the whip and, despite having done everything he could to oppose it, basically didn't have a choice.

Hmm. I think he's fucked off they are all getting the blame, rightly, he's probably wishing he'd defied the whip.

As a shadow cabinet member he can't defy the whip without resigning from the shadow cabinet. Apparently.

ED209 wrote:

At this time though, what harm to burnham's career would rebelling have done? Whether he is in the shadow cabinet in a couple of weeks depends entirely on who is leader and how he campaigns against him or her in the meantime, not on his incumbency. For that matter; cooper has explicitly ruled herself out of corbyn's cabinet amyway so what did she have to lose by voting against?

Beatsong wrote:Also interested that he's in favour of a Land Value Tax. He's definitely my No.2 now.

Diane Abbott has warned that MPs making "bluster and threats" will have to fall into line if Jeremy Corbyn becomes leader.

The Hackney North MP said that party members would "never forgive" any MPs seeking to undermine Corbyn should he win the Labour leadership contest.

Abbott is a key supporter of Corbyn's leadership bid, while also standing to be Labour’s candidate for mayor of London.

In an interview with Total Politics, she said that some of those MPs criticising Corbyn would have to be loyal to the new leader - or face being deselected by their local parties.

“Within the parliamentary Labour party people are making all sorts of bluster and threats, but in the end people have to pay attention to what ordinary party members are thinking and saying. Some of the noisiest people, anti-Corbyn people, have local parties that broadly support Jeremy’s decisions, as we can see from who they chose to nominate.

“So, I think that the noisiest members of the parliamentary Labour party will have to calm down if and when Jeremy is elected. Because the party will never forgive people that deliberately undermine someone who has been elected under the most democratic system the Labour party has ever seen.”

chairman bill wrote:Maybe you should read what Corbyn has said about his leadership - no whipping, policy decided by the membership (which includes MPs as well as other members), so the whole party getting a say, and an essentially collaborative approach, rather than the top-down version where the leader doesn't so much lead as dictate the terms. It's about disseminating power in a democratic manner. He's said he'll appoint a broad-based cabinet, reflecting the range of opinion across the party (so not just yes-men & women & his political friends), with backbenchers joining committees to feed into each department. It's a different way of doing politics, this socialism thing.

Emmeline wrote:How is he going to deliver on his manifesto then?