Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip

The BBC is reporting that Gisela Stuart and Graham Stringer have resigned from the "I want a referendum" campaign committe, after Geoff Hoon threatened to withdraw the Labour whip.  But Frank Field and Kate Hoey have said they are still fully committed to the project which targets pro-European MPs with small majorities  (all bar one of whom just happen to be Labour).

I'm not saying the Labour backbenchers should be sacked for opposing the Lisbon treaty, or don't have every right to call for a referendum (a position I have some sympathy with).  But it is quite a different thing to go around the country campaigning for voters to unseat their Labour colleagues - and thereby help the Tories.

So why shouldn't they have the whip withdrawn?  Galloway was expelled for less...



Display: Sort:

Re: Withdraw whip from Field and Hoey (#1)

I think Kate Hoey is just beyond the pale; she'll soon be joining Clare, I've no doubt. Field should be old enough to know better than to upset the applecart. He'll never make Speaker, if he carries on rubbing people up the wrong way.

Re: Withdraw whip from Field and Hoey (#2)

Can't fault Geoff Hoon on this, self-indulgent MP's need to wake up and smell the consquences. Agree that Hoey is detached and I consider it an insult to the party if she stands at the next election.

Re: Withdraw whip from Field and Hoey (#9)

Agree, MPs should have no part of this insidious campaign and Hoon must be firm.

Frank Field almost calls for a government defeat (#3)

I thought this when I heard Frank Field on Newsnight last night almost call for a government defeat. His words were:

Frank Field: "If the Liberal Democrats come off the fence, then the arithmetic changes and I think many more of our colleagues will say it is actually really worth voting for our election pledge and the government will face defeat."

I don't think Frank was treating this as answering a hypothetical question, he is hoping and arguing for this. Am I right in thinking other MPs have had the whip withdrawn for less? 

If you want to see this for yourself, use watch again on the Newsnight website, it is about 27:20secs into the programme (about half way on the slider). The full UPIP/iwantareferendum.com story starts at 25:28secs.

Re: Frank Field (#18)

On this specific point, FF means defeat in Commons on this matter (and it can hardly be surprising that he wants that) - rather than defeat in a general election.  Presumably every time a Labour MP votes against the whip (and let's face it it happens pretty frequently and often for very good reason!) they're hoping the government is defeated on that motion (once they've given up hope that the government will amend the legislation to the point of it being acceptable).

So - I don't think this specific quotation is the issue.

Re: Frank Field (#25)

True, but while most MPs usually orchestrate rebellions in the house, fairly quietly, it seems Frank often seeks media coverage so his rebellions are more prominent!

publicwhip.org.uk has Frank down at a pretty ordinary rebellion(*) rate of 7.1% from an ordinary division attendence rate of 67.9%.

Kate Hoey OTOH has a remarkable rebellion(*) rate of 19.3% from a lowly division attendence rate of 52.4%.

Kate Hoey is the one who in reality seems much more ready/deserving to walk, though her rebellions seem less nationally visible!

(*) beacuse the Whips do not publish their orders, publicwhip define rebellion as voting different to the majority in your party, which will pick up some free votes. (If you have the opportunity, ask the Whips to publish their decisions on a website to help publicwhip.)

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#4)

Hoey has been slightly detached for years - but I think to some extent her way of working is in battling authority.

She is loved in Vauxhall constituency for it - I have been out canvassing for her and to all intents and purposes it is the Kate Hoey vote that we were getting out not the Labour vote.

She defines hereself as the outsider: the constituents' champion against the Labour Lambeth council and the Labour government.

She is a very good constituency MP. I'm sure that if she had the whip withdrawn and stood as an independent she would more than likely win the seat without Labour - there are enough social housing tenants who remember how kate sorted out their housing, immigration, benefits or other problem for her to be re-elected. She is also very well liked in Vauxhall CLP - she always turns up for meetings, is happy to help with campaigning and will deal with issues/ problems.

Everyone defines her as 'their' MP so I dont think that withdrawl of the whip will do much to her and would be disasterous for Labour - its better to have her on side as a 'tolerated eccentric' than have her on the outside

 

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#5)

Just how would losing Hoey be "disastrous".  At worst, we'd lose one maverick and unreliable MP, even if you are correct that she would win as an independent - which is a big IF.  More likely, she'd jump ship back to her natural home in the Tories, and we could select a Labour candidate who at least enjoyed the confidence of the party.  We'd have lost a slightly nutter pro-fox hunting Euro-sceptic, unionist.  Boo-hoo. 

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#6)

Galloway was 'expelled for less'

I do admire Galloway for saying British soldiers should be murdered, by telling the Iraqis to 'rise up' against them

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#7)

If the whip needs to be withdrawn from those who campaign against the party, then so be it.

Kate Hoey will be no loss to us anyway - I've never forgiven her for supporting fox hunting. She'd prefer being in the Tories anyway.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#15)

"Kate Hoey will be no loss to us anyway"

 

For hundreds of thousands of people in this country, the existence and tolerance of Kate Hoey is the one thing that demonstrates that their opinions and grievances are, if not agreed with, at any rate recognised by the Labour govt. Remove her and you will simply confirm their opinion of you as a pack of ignorant, incompetent, bullying, intolerant bigots who can be neither debated not reasoned with, but can only simply be got rid of. And remember, if they organise properly, there are more of them than there are of you.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#16)

Trouble is Kate Hoey chairs an organisation that 3 weeks before the last election produced, on the same day, press releases such as "Conservative rural policy holistic and sustainable" and "Labour drops commitments to angling and shooting", and campaigned against individual PLP candidates at the general election. Would a left-wing chair of an organisation that campaigns against Labour candidates be given as much leeway?

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#8)

"I don't think Frank was treating this as answering a hypothetical question, he is hoping and arguing for this. Am I right in thinking other MPs have had the whip withdrawn for less?"

I don't think MPs have had the whip withdrawn for less than arguing for a government defeat in a Commons vote, no.

I don't see how that's significantly different than voting against the government - which 150+ MPs have done since 1997 without having the whip withdrawn.

I don't think calling Kate Hoey a Tory makes much sense. She has a strong left-wing voting record on economic issues and trade union rights, which wouldn't make her popular in the Tory party although I accept it doesn't make her very popular within New Labour either.

If we're defining our politics by whether we support not banning foxhunting or the radical victorious position of simply failing to prevent it from happening, we may as well all go home.  

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#12)

She is also very Eurosceptic - something which would make her far more suitable to join with the Tories than us.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#14)

Really? Labour in 1983 stood on a platform of actually leaving the EC. There are plenty of people still in Labour who campaigned for that - something the Tories have never done.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#27)

I agree Alex - but we were wrong to be Eurosceptic back then, thank goodness we've since seen sense.

The Tories however have done the opposite - from supporting Europe under Heath, to tolerating Europe whilst muttering under the breath under Thatcher and Major to now being outright Eurosceptic under Cameron.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#21)

For once I'll agree with Alex. NM, Labour have historically been the more eurosceptic party. 1975 referendum, and that was the only time collective responsibility was suspended in order to stop people like Barbera Castle and Tony Benn resigning.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#28)

You're right jk - we were always the Eurosceptic party but that very much changed under Kinnock and I'm grateful that we are now pro-European (although not as supportive of the Euro or Schengen as I would like).

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#10)

Two MPs stand behind an election manifesto promise.

They are in the right and the nuLabour Govt are in the wrong.

 

 

 

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#11)

Thats not the point and you know it. Noone is saying they can't support a referendum - but it is unacceptable for them to support an organisation that supports standing candidates against Labour MPs. Simple as.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#13)

That is exactly the point. Labour MPs stood on a manifesto that offered a referendum. Field and Hoey are standing by that and putting the interests of the ordinary citizen above the partisan and tribal instincts of the Labour Party. Nobody not prepared to do that is fit to be an MP.

 

However, since you seem to believe that the Labour Party is more important than anything else, feel free to think about the consequences for you at the next election. You can guarantee that every Tory candidate in the country will be putting out leaflets pointing out that Labour cannot be trusted to keep its promises, that Gordon Brown has even sent a lawyer into court to put an official stamp on it. How do think that'll go down? Who is it who's really damaged Labour's chances?

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#17)

The rights and wrongs of whether there should be a referendum are a different question entirely.  Alex, are you a member of the party?  You don't sound like one.  If not, the issue of our party discipline doesn't concern you. 

One of the reasons cited for Galloway's expulsion was his support for a Socialist Alliance candidate opposing Labour in a local election.  If this is sufficient grounds, then how much more serious is supporting opposing candidates in 10 parliamentary seats?!? 

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#19)

Thats what I like to see on this site, free thinking!

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#29)

Alex Swanson was a Tory who then left because the party wasn't right-wing enough for him!

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#40)

The I Want a Referendum campaign is not standing candidates against Labour MPs. It is holding referendums in a variety of constituencies, which I understand will be mainly Lib Dem constituencies once the full list is revealed.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#20)

Well said Real labour not this bloody New labour rubbish.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#22)

Frank however, I just don't understand him. He makes Blair look like a Bennite.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#23)

We should be concentrating on how to gain Labour MPs. Not lose them.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#24)


It is difficult to tell with the amount of corruption in parliament at the moment if the failure of the Labour government to allow the electorate a referendum on the Lisbon EU Treaty is just another example of financial corruption.
It is true that the financial benefits for business and therefore our double dealing MP's are likely to be massive.
Whether it is worth abandoning the electorate and any morals that they might have left in the hope that we will forget by election time is a pretty futile hope.
The fact is that this government will never win another election after selling out Britain to the EU on the cheap.
Every MP is now being targeted on line.
The smother of corruption unfortunately means that the only party with a clean slate for the next election is UKIP.





Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#26)

Lets look at this dispassionately
If Kate Hoey and Frank Field are in an organisation which supports targeting Labour MP's with the aim that they lose their seats at the hands of the electorate, just because of one or two political views they may hold. And if they refuse to leave that said organisation, then yes tey should have the Whip withdrawn.
There are other ways of making your views known and felt. They could for example, resign from the group and put pressure on Pro-Euro Labour CLP's to select other candidates for the Labour Party in those respective seats, but they have decided not to do that and so, sadly, it's a no brainer

Maybe Charles Clarke as well? (#30)

Give us strength: Charles Clarke calls Gordon Brown a "ditherer" - apparently as he tucks into a plate of smoked salmon and scrambled eggs. (Paid for by the Daily Mail reporter?) Well at least it wasn't a liquid lunch.

Maybe he'd care to join the tories as well? 

Re: Maybe Charles Clarke as well? (#31)

So Charles Clarke is to be vilified for speaking the truth!

Re: Maybe Charles Clarke as well? (#32)

So anybody who dares to questions Brown's leadership is automatically a Tory?  Well that's grown up politics, give me strength!

The tragic thing is that much of what Clarke said to the Daily Mail reporter was 100% true, it is perhaps only the most blinkered Labour supporters who car'nt see we are heading for electoral meltdown with Brown.

Re: Maybe Charles Clarke as well? (#33)

Questioning Brown's leadership is one thing; supporting the Tory "ditherer" narrative in the Daily Mail is entirely another, and utterly reprehensible.

(Personally I like leaders taking the time to consider issues properly before making an important non time-critical decision - this dithering argument seems pathetic to me anyway.)

Re: Maybe Charles Clarke as well? (#38)

Shut it Clarke! and stop rocking the boat.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#34)

And whilst we're on about discipline, how disgusting is it the Km Howells is prepared to pose for a photo op with Columbian Army death squads who have murdered and tortured trade unionists?  

The man is not fit to represent Labour.  

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#36)

Kim Howells does seem to say/do some idiotic things at times - "[Iraq] is a mess that can't launch an attack now on Iran" on Today springs to mind. And he does look altogether too smiling and chummy in the General Mario Montoya photo. It's weird the FCO should publish this photo.

But we do need Foreign Office ministers, and indeed MPs, to go meet reprehensible characters to try to improve things, so the odd photo is bound to emerge.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#37)

Agree that meeting is OK, in order to make representations and demonstrate vehement opposition.  But this love-in is stomach churning.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#39)

I'd be happy for them both to lose the whip. Pandering, thats all they are doing.


The manifesto called for a vote on the Constitution, not just a Treaty.  Those that call for a vote on the Treaty and/or constitution should come clean and say what they really want is for us to pull out of the EU, not just have it both ways.


I can never understand why we still see Europe as foreign, alien thing imposed on us... we are part of Europe and its up to us to shape its future and make Europe work for us.

Re: Field and Hoey face withdrawal of whip (#41)

I'm surprised that no-one has mentioned that Hoey was the only Labour MP to vote against the Good Friday Agreement, and has opposed every piece of Northern Ireland legislation since then.

I'm not sure her natural home is in the Conservative Party, I can see no difference between her and the Democratic Unionists.