Labour MPs told to abstain in the Covid tier vote today

[Chris_Boro]

Abstaining on a bill where there is no time for alternative motions and no analysis of the data used by government is not sitting on the fence.

The Tories have an 80 seat majority, the only way Labour get to start putting real pressure on Boris Johnson and his team is to allow them to hang themselves on their decisions and expose the divisions as is now happening, expect a climb down in two weeks by Johnson to appease them.

If Labour voted against, the bill would likely have passed anyway and the narrative would have been twisted to how Labour almost causes a public health crisis. Win win for the PM.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Dead man walking.

Once the vaccine rollout is a go and Brexit b***ks is sorted he's out.

Side note, MP's should not be allowed to abstain from voting.

The ability to abstain is a democratic right for MP's in Parliament just as it is for you, me and everyone else in an election.

 

[Pog]

Abstaining on a bill where there is no time for alternative motions and no analysis of the data used by government is not sitting on the fence.

The Tories have an 80 seat majority, the only way Labour get to start putting real pressure on Boris Johnson and his team is to allow them to hang themselves on their decisions and expose the divisions as is now happening, expect a climb down in two weeks by Johnson to appease them.

If Labour voted against, the bill would likely have passed anyway and the narrative would have been twisted to how Labour almost causes a public health crisis. Win win for the PM.

It’s absolutely sitting on the fence.

Vote against it, explain why you voted against and outline what would be required to get your support.

If Labour voted against it that would have been a narrow win of around 30 votes for the government and real pressure on Johnson.

Starmer’s fence sitting has allowed them to win by 213 votes, the Tories who voted against it can now just be put down as posturing towards their constituents, knowing their votes would mean nothing with Labour hiding and the government steam roll ahead with their flawed Tier system.

Starmer can be as critical as he wants about the government but unless there’s going to be consequences - ie. vote against, he’s just doing empty posturing whilst millions in this country are struggling financially, businesses are going to the wall and the country is crying out for the government to be held accountable.

 

[HolgateCorner]

Dead man walking.

Once the vaccine rollout is a go and Brexit b***ks is sorted he's out.

Side note, MP's should not be allowed to abstain from voting.

I agree with you and with the electronic kit available now they should be able to vote from anywhere when they are not in the commons.

 

[Muttley]

If Starmer had whipped the Labour MPs to vote against he would have been pilloried for "playing politics" during a Pandemic. Voting for the measures would have legitimised the Johnson stance. The difference in abstaining is important, it keeps the Labour Party from being associated with an unpopular measure but also covers Starmer from any accusations of undermining the Government response to COVID.

It shold be the same for any Brexit deal; it is a Tory mess, they are in charge, their mandate, own it.

 

[Chris_Boro]

It’s absolutely sitting on the fence.

Vote against it, explain why you voted against and outline what would be required to get your support.

If Labour voted against it that would have been a narrow win of around 30 votes for the government and real pressure on Johnson.

Starmer’s fence sitting has allowed them to win by 213 votes, the Tories who voted against it can now just be put down as posturing towards their constituents, knowing their votes would mean nothing with Labour hiding and the government steam roll ahead with their flawed Tier system.

Starmer can be as critical as he wants about the government but unless there’s going to be consequences - ie. vote against, he’s just doing empty posturing whilst millions in this country are struggling financially, businesses are going to the wall and the country is crying out for the government to be held accountable.

In a normal process that is what ammendments are for and designed to achieve. There was deliberately no time for this and a no vote carries a huge risk to public health as well as an easy get out for government to blame Labour for "playing politics in a pandemic".

Just like those who did vote no, Starmer gave his reasons why and what would be needed to gain his support.

Again people looking for any reason to blame the opposition for the failure of government and their blatant abuse of process.

Lockdown should have came with a plan when it was announced a month ago for MP's to debate, Johnson deliberately kicked the decision down to the last minute to avoid such scrutiny.

 

[BoroMart]

Nuanced maybe, but Keir Starmer's line on this isn't going down well. It's neither supporting the Tories nor opposing them..

nuance is teh point though, they agree controls are required, they just don't agree with the detail of the tory plan

 

[BoroMart]

Dead man walking.

Once the vaccine rollout is a go and Brexit b***ks is sorted he's out.

Side note, MP's should not be allowed to abstain from voting.

that would only work if they could have the vote choice Reject, Endorse with amendments, or Fully Endorse. Otherwise you end up with a dogs brexit of a voting system.

 

[Piccadilly Day Tripper]

It's a long four years before another election, Labour still has to sort itself and its policies out, as well as get the right people in place through a series of reshuffles, so you can't go kart-wheeling into every argument - especially one like this where its a national crisis that the Government needs to be given the room to fix. It's not Labour's fault that the government has made a complete b***ks of it from day one. Better to let the tories fight amongst themselves and take chunks out of each other rather than give them cause to show a united front.

Corbyn might have been all fire and brimstone at the despatch box on this, but he still would have achieved naff all.

Corbyn is a bit like Joe Cole - the longer he's not there the better politician and leader he becomes.

 

[Pog]

In a normal process that is what ammendments are for and designed to achieve. There was deliberately no time for this and a no vote carries a huge risk to public health as well as an easy get out for government to blame Labour for "playing politics in a pandemic".

Just like those who did vote no, Starmer gave his reasons why and what would be needed to gain his support.

Again people looking for any reason to blame the opposition for the failure of government and their blatant abuse of process.

Lockdown should have came with a plan when it was announced a month ago for MP's to debate, Johnson deliberately kicked the decision down to the last minute to avoid such scrutiny.

They have an 80 seat majority, if they lost the vote it would have been because their own MPs voted against them. It’s down to Johnson to persuade his own MPs. That’s the narrative and it’s down to you as the leader of the opposition to go out there and push it.

It’s going to be a long 4 years with your attitude because you could use your narrative for just about everything.

“We don’t agree with it, but we’re not going to vote against it because we’re scared of being blamed”.

The next one will be Brexit, which will be an absolute disaster for our economy.

If Starmer doesn’t have the courage to oppose the tier system there’s no chance he votes against a bad Brexit deal.

“Yeah it’s not a good deal, but we decide for the national interest not to vote against it as we didn’t want to be seen as being Anti-British or against the will of the people”.

Weak, weak, weak. Unless it’s against the left of course, then he becomes the Incredible Hulk.

 

[Randy]

The ability to abstain is a democratic right for MP's in Parliament just as it is for you, me and everyone else in an election.

Personal opinion.

Own your decision if you are a member of parliament, otherwise what exactly are they getting paid to do?

 

[ThatFragranceGuy]

If Starmer had whipped the Labour MPs to vote against he would have been pilloried for "playing politics" during a Pandemic. Voting for the measures would have legitimised the Johnson stance. The difference in abstaining is important, it keeps the Labour Party from being associated with an unpopular measure but also covers Starmer from any accusations of undermining the Government response to COVID.

It shold be the same for any Brexit deal; it is a Tory mess, they are in charge, their mandate, own it.

100% this. Saw loads people saying comments before about how Labour needed to come together and supper the government etc, instead of arguing - obviously not understanding what the role of the opposition is.

 

[Chris_Boro]

Personal opinion.

Own your decision if you are a member of parliament, otherwise what exactly are they getting paid to do?

They get to own it by voting on ammendments, thats how the process works in normal times.

There is no simple yes or no to own when your opinion is forced by lack of a process.

 

[Chris_Boro]

They have an 80 seat majority, if they lost the vote it would have been because their own MPs voted against them. It’s down to Johnson to persuade his own MPs. That’s the narrative and it’s down to you as the leader of the opposition to go out there and push it.

It’s going to be a long 4 years with your attitude because you could use your narrative for just about everything.

“We don’t agree with it, but we’re not going to vote against it because we’re scared of being blamed”.

The next one will be Brexit, which will be an absolute disaster for our economy.

If Starmer doesn’t have the courage to oppose the tier system there’s no chance he votes against a bad Brexit deal.

“Yeah it’s not a good deal, but we decide for the national interest not to vote against it as we didn’t want to be seen as being Anti-British or against the will of the people”.

Weak, weak, weak. Unless it’s against the left of course, then he becomes the Incredible Hulk.

Thats not how the narrative would have been played by the Tories and the media. Labour would have been crucified.

If by voting against Labour defeated the bill, the ensuing chaos while a new bill is brought would all be Labour's fault.

Any rise in infections and deaths would be Labour's fault, if the new measures never worked it would be Labour's fault and somehow if the above didn't happen it would be because of swift action by the PM with new measures. Labour lose.

Abstaining forces the Tories to own this and the outcome.

 

[Baggins]

I think it's an opportunity missed. Sooner or later Labour need to start showing they are an alternative. The party voting should have been managed so that enough voted against it while guaranteeing it still went through. They could have issued a list of concerns and demands at the same time, calling out the Tories on the shambles of a process and explaining what Labour would have done differently. This would be better received than abstaining, more people would appreciate/understand an alternative view vs them not abstaining and not having a view at all. This is one of the most important votes in years, It is far too easy for this to be spun as cowardice or fence sitting now.

If they also abstain during any forthcoming Brexit vote, which is being reported, then they are going to look even worse. Most people in the country do not understand nuance in political decisions, they want "action", even if the action is utterly meaningless and purely visual.

 

[Pog]

If by voting against Labour defeated the bill, the ensuing chaos while a new bill is brought would all be Labour's fault.

Any rise in infections and deaths would be Labour's fault, if the new measures never worked it would be Labour's fault and somehow if the above didn't happen it would be because of swift action by the PM with new measures. Labour lose.

Abstaining forces the Tories to own this and the outcome.

What part of Labour aren’t in power don’t you understand? The Tories are in power with an 80 seat majority, it’s on them if they lose any votes in the HOC.

If they’re going to accept your strategy and they’re not going to vote against anything the Tories do for the next four years because they’re scared of being blamed when they’re not even in power then this country is totally and utterly screwed.

The oppositions job is to oppose, not sit on the sidelines.

 

[bear66]

The opposition's role is to scrutinise government actions and propose alternative policies. Voting or not voting is neither here nor there to that remit.

 

[Pog]

I think it's an opportunity missed. Sooner or later Labour need to start showing they are an alternative. The party voting should have been managed so that enough voted against it while guaranteeing it still went through. They could have issued a list of concerns and demands at the same time, calling out the Tories on the shambles of a process and explaining what Labour would have done differently. This would be better received than abstaining, more people would appreciate/understand an alternative view vs them not abstaining and not having a view at all. This is one of the most important votes in years, It is far too easy for this to be spun as cowardice or fence sitting now.

If they also abstain during any forthcoming Brexit vote, which is being reported, then they are going to look even worse. Most people in the country do not understand nuance in political decisions, they want "action", even if the action is utterly meaningless and purely visual.

Exactly this.

I don’t understand who Starmer thinks sitting on the fence has mass appeal to.

People who are against the Tiers system can call him out for not opposing them and not getting any concessions.

People who are for the Tier system can call him out for not backing they restrictions.

The only people this pleases are a small number of Labour diehards who think him sitting on the sidelines makes a Labour government more likely if the Tories get blamed for the mess.

Essentially gambling with people’s health and livelihoods for possible future political capital.

 

[Pog]

The opposition's role is to scrutinise government actions and propose alternative policies. Voting or not voting is neither here nor there to that remit.

Zero point scrutinising it or proposing any alternatives if you’re going to then sit on the sidelines and let the government wave through what they want anyway.

You may aswell not be there.

 

[bear66]

Exactly this.

I don’t understand who Starmer thinks sitting on the fence has mass appeal to.

People who are against the Tiers system can call him out for not opposing them and not getting any concessions.

People who are for the Tier system can call him out for not backing they restrictions.

The only people this pleases are a small number of Labour diehards who think him sitting on the sidelines makes a Labour government more likely if the Tories get blamed for the mess.

Essentially gambling with people’s health and livelihoods for possible future political capital.

So should they have voted for restrictions or voted against the lack of financial support underpinning the restrictions?