No, the bottom line is that if every Labour MP had voted against, every Tory MP would have voted for. And if they had been unable to get every Tory MP back in time, they would have abolished the pairing system to ensure that it hadn't happened again then resubmitted the bill with a minor amendment. Back at square one.

I'm really not sure which part of all of this you aren't understanding. There is literally nothing Labour could have done to prevent this bill from getting through *one way or another*. If a bill were defeated by someone going back on their pairing rather than an actual rebellion, it would just be resubmitted - the only thing that prevents bills that are defeated from being submitted again is the knowledge that for some reason the numbers are not there for it to win. The Tories have a majority. If they don't have any rebels on a bill, they will get it through at some stage or another, regardless of whether or not Labour attempt to impotently break the pairing system in order to...force a resubmission of the bill with all Tory members turning up.

 

-x-

 

A very sad day anyway. I hope we get some Tory rebels soon - these rock vs hard place votes are always hideous.

Yo. I've been back in the UK for 10 days and I'm still getting up to speed.

/

Could someone explain to me what Labour actually had to lose by voting against the bill? Or are there Labour MP who actually agree with the bill?

Which do you think is the best of the 3 other candidates?

 

Well none really, I don't think either will win the hearts and minds of the British people. But I would probably say Cooper is the best shout.

Yo. I've been back in the UK for 10 days and I'm still getting up to speed.

/

Could someone explain to me what Labour actually had to lose by voting against the bill? Or are there Labour MP who actually agree with the bill?

It's the eternal debate at the top of the party as to whether disagreeing with the government will reinforce the image of Labour as scrounger apologists. The leadership is terrified of another five years topping the polls being undone at the last minute because the public still don't trust us on the economy.

 

Of course the logical thing to do would be to explain why the reforms fail on economic terms, but the right of the party isn't interested in doing that and the left think economics is a dirty word.

 

I despair.

Yo. I've been back in the UK for 10 days and I'm still getting up to speed.

/

Could someone explain to me what Labour actually had to lose by voting against the bill? Or are there Labour MP who actually agree with the bill?

Essentially the debate over 'here's a welfare bill that's going to happen whether you like it or not - do you want to step into Osborne's trap and have it blared on every poster in five years time that you're 'same old Labour - higher taxes, higher welfare, higher spending''.

 

That said this really is a worst of all worlds scenario. Labour's in a gross position where it's hugely influenced by social media but hasn't yet figured out how to adjust what it does to social media's existence, so we get all the downsides and none of the gains from things like this amongst the culturally connected left, while still keeping the image (and almost certainly the posters - because I doubt an abstention will stop Osborne from calling us the welfare party in any case, but he's provoked civil war and that's what he was after if he could get it too).

 

What would I have done in Harman's position? At this stage I think I probably would've weighed up, realised this is an image we probably couldn't have shaken in opposition and gone for the argument of:

 

'Is x spending* really a higher priority than taking away support for the strivers in our society who makes ends meet thanks to in-work tax credits? Why should we be subsidising late night taxis for City workers and giving help to those who don't need it, rather than helping those who are doing the right thing and do? That is what restoring fairness to our welfare system would look like. None of these measures would do a thing to stop the few who game the system, while hitting the many who are playing by the rules hardest, and it will come back to bite this government - it's rather like having a slug problem in your garden, and responding by salting the whole earth.'

 

*(take your pick - as a Kendallite tax relief would be mine, but if someone wanted to be very populist they could question the merits of a fixed 0.7% on foreign aid when DFID literally had to rush to find things to spend £3.7bn on in the last eight weeks of the budget year)

 

Or something.

Paid my £3 to sign up as a Labour 'supporter' and at the moment I'm backing Yvette and Stella.

 

Go easy on me, I'm new at this.

 

I'm the same way (I think, the page was a bit dodgy when I actually paid) but I've been getting e-mails from all the candidates ever since trying to convince me so I assume that's working alright. But unlike you I'm completely unsure. I'd love Corbyn if I thought there was any way he could be workable without destroying any chance Labour has of getting back in power (I can be a bit of an idealistic lefty at heart) while none of the other three are really exciting me yet.

Yo. I've been back in the UK for 10 days and I'm still getting up to speed.

/

Could someone explain to me what Labour actually had to lose by voting against the bill? Or are there Labour MP who actually agree with the bill?

 

Harriet Harman was pushing this disingenuous line yesterday that this move was worthwhile so that Labour could get elected next time. Even leaving aside the issue of whether this type of thing helps them get elected (pandering to Tory arguments didn't work out so well at this year's election, did it), it shows how craven and unprincipled they are that they think the only thing that matters is their "team" winning irrespective of how many cuts to poor people they enable the Tories to pass in the process.

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

Anyway, I think Burnham may have lost the contest last night.

 

A typical comment on my timeline today:

 

Glenn Kitson ‏@Glenn_Kitson 17h17 hours ago

Never stop? 48 Labour MPs who voted against #WelfareBill - the rest are a f***ing disgrace.

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

Harriet Harman was pushing this disingenuous line yesterday that this move was worthwhile so that Labour could get elected next time. Even leaving aside the issue of whether this type of thing helps them get elected (pandering to Tory arguments didn't work out so well at this year's election, did it), it shows how craven and unprincipled they are that they think the only thing that matters is their "team" winning irrespective of how many people they enable the Tories to throw into poverty in the process.

Child benefit for more than two kids isn't literally the only policy a government could enforce to help the least well-off? One of the first policies New Labour brought in in 1997 was cuts for benefits for single parents. You could equally have taken the same position on that as this ('what's the point of you, it's not just a team!') but it's about the broader picture - changes in policy elsewhere meant that by the end of that New Labour government child poverty had fallen by a million, a reduction which has basically zero precedent in any developed country in the world.

 

It's not just about your 'team' winning - I don't agree that Harriet's taken the right decision here, but it's ludicrous to think any one of the leaders wouldn't try looking for another way to try and reduce poverty even if they did make a decision like last night's in opposition.

Also, if you're of the opinion that not going against the bill makes us more electable (I'm not, I think it's inane) then it's a no brainer. No single bill the Tories pass is comparable to a potential Labour government.

Also, if you're of the opinion that not going against the bill makes us more electable (I'm not, I think it's inane) then it's a no brainer. No single bill the Tories pass is comparable to a potential Labour government.

 

I'm not sure the people who will see their incomes drop as a direct result of how Labour voted last night will share the view that it's worth it just to get people wearing red rosettes into government.

I'm not sure the people who will see their incomes drop as a direct result of how Labour voted last night will share the view that it's worth it just to get people wearing red rosettes into government.

Because electing a Labour government doesn't just change the colour of the rosette. For crying out loud.

 

Helen Lewis ‏@helenlewis 2h2 hours ago

Beginning to feel that people don't understand there's a tactical difference between opposition positioning & a programme for government.

Because electing a Labour government doesn't just change the colour of the rosette. For crying out loud.

 

Helen Lewis ‏@helenlewis 2h2 hours ago

Beginning to feel that people don't understand there's a tactical difference between opposition positioning & a programme for government.

 

Except it's not 'opposition positioning' when Labour actively makes the difference between cuts happening or not.

You know it's bad when even the Lib Dems are ripping you for being unprincipled:

 

Seriously, I will just start reposting this every time. There's a Tory majority government. There were no Tory MPs voting against the bill. That this bill is happening is because there is a Tory majority. There are far more productive things to be arguing about than whether or not Labour MPs can block a bill which all the evidence shows has universal support amongst the MPs in the majority. No Tory MP spoke against the bill. It is a fairly common occurrence for MPs to not be present for a bill, without getting into conspiracy theories on why they weren't there.

 

I'm really not sure which part of all of this you aren't understanding. There is literally nothing Labour could have done to prevent this bill from getting through *one way or another*. If a bill were defeated by someone going back on their pairing rather than an actual rebellion, it would just be resubmitted - the only thing that prevents bills that are defeated from being submitted again is the knowledge that for some reason the numbers are not there for it to win. The Tories have a majority. If they don't have any rebels on a bill, they will get it through at some stage or another, regardless of whether or not Labour attempt to impotently break the pairing system in order to...force a resubmission of the bill with all Tory members turning up.

 

And the Lib Dems have got some nerve, given they're a part of the pairing system too and know full well how it works. Back to the pious hypocrites of pre-2010 then.

Even Tom Copley (one of the Labour figures who would definitely have voted against were he an MP) grasps this very simple point.

 

Tom Copley ‏@tomcopley 9h9 hours ago

@sazza_jay @rayfilar if Labour had ordered its MPs to vote against, all 22 of those Tory MPs would've been pulled in to vote

 

Last night wasn't Labour's finest hour, but really, let's not start kidding ourselves that Labour voting against would have done a thing to stop this bill from happening.

Seriously, I will just start reposting this every time. There's a Tory majority government. There were no Tory MPs voting against the bill. That this bill is happening is because there is a Tory majority. There are far more productive things to be arguing about than whether or not Labour MPs can block a bill which all the evidence shows has universal support amongst the MPs in the majority. No Tory MP spoke against the bill. It is a fairly common occurrence for MPs to not be present for a bill, without getting into conspiracy theories on why they weren't there.

And the Lib Dems have got some nerve, given they're a part of the pairing system too and know full well how it works. Back to the pious hypocrites of pre-2010 then.

 

I still can't make head nor tail of your argument that the Tories had enough votes to pass it on their own when.....they didn't. 308 votes is not an absolute majority.

 

How those Tory MPs would've voted if the Tories 'resubmitted' it is purely hypothetical - for all we know, those same people may have mysteriously absented themselves yet again (especially those in marginal seats with some foresight to think about how to keep their job in 2020). The only thing we know for sure is that, if Labour had voted against, the cuts would've been defeated.

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by Danny

I still can't make head nor tail of your argument that the Tories had enough votes to pass it on their own when.....they didn't. 308 votes is not an absolute majority.

 

How those Tory MPs would've voted if the Tories 'resubmitted' it is purely hypothetical - for all we know, those same people may have mysteriously absented themselves yet again (especially those in marginal seats with some foresight to think about how to keep their job in 2020). The only thing we know for sure is that, if Labour had voted against, the cuts would've been defeated.

And this is what I mean about getting into conspiracy theories over why those 22 MPs weren't there. The government just got elected on a pretty clear platform (it's been fairly well known since before the election that there would be £12bn of welfare cuts). It's the false consensus effect at its worst to assume that the reason Tory MPs weren't there is because they all actually agree with you all along.

I'm the same way (I think, the page was a bit dodgy when I actually paid) but I've been getting e-mails from all the candidates ever since trying to convince me so I assume that's working alright. But unlike you I'm completely unsure. I'd love Corbyn if I thought there was any way he could be workable without destroying any chance Labour has of getting back in power (I can be a bit of an idealistic lefty at heart) while none of the other three are really exciting me yet.

 

Well you know the saying "Not a socialist by 15? something's wrong with your heart. Still a socialist at 50? something's wrong with your head".

 

(Although apparently everyone who isn't a Trotskyist revoloutionary is a 'Tory' now)

Edited July 21, 20159 yr by LexC

Thanks for the three explanations!

 

So 'the public' trust the Conservatives more than Labour when it comes to the economy, so the right side of the party believe that agreeing with the fabled Conservatives will build up this trust? I'm struggling to see how this will make Labour appeal to centre-right voters over the Conservatives when by 2020 the Conservatives will be a 'tried-and-tested' option offering something that, it seems, won't be radically different. Is there not a way for the electorate (a good proportion of whom follow centre-right rhetoric that seems to have been quite dominant in the recent past) to regain confidence in Labour's ability to manage the economy while also actively opposing what the Conservatives do? Because this strategy alienates those on the left, and that I do know.

 

I doubt I'll be voting for Labour in the near future because they're watching a dismantling of the welfare state with too much passivity for my liking and that doesn't bode well for bold steps to be made towards a fairer society if they ever were to regain a majority. It's so relieving that today's Labour still credit themselves for the welfare state but it feels a bit empty when they're not using their time in opposition to, yanno, oppose reforms related to it. Even under FPTP, I'd much rather my vote goes to a smaller party at this point.

 

If yesterday is a sign of the direction Labour are to take, I'm struggling to see what a 2020 Labour voter will look like. I don't see why the swathes of people who will be (directly) affected by the current government's reforms or otherwise oppose them would vote for Labour over parties that take a harder opposition against them, other than Labour being a well-established party who in many constituencies aren't a 'wasted' vote.