Why do Kendall, Cooper, and Burnham still refuse to address the issues Corbyn's challenge raise?

[Ken Burch]

Last edited Wed Sep 2, 2015, 01:22 PM - Edit history (3)

Why, rather than just frothing about how horrible it is for Jeremy Corbyn to stand for the Labour leadership, and how impertinent his growing ranks of supporters are to dare to stand up for Labour's historic values rather than bow to the "inevitable" need to let the party continue to "modernize&quot a term which sounds increasingly like a disagreeable veterinary procedure), have those three absolutely refused to do what would have appeared to be the sensible thing and acknowledge that the ideas the Corbyn movement stands for have widespread support in the party and in many cases outside of it, and then embraced at least some of those ideas?

Why don't they work for unity in the Labour Party by admitting that Blairism is extinct now in terms of popular support and that a clear break with it(which Ed Miliband did not provide)is clearly needed in order to win back Scotland and bring the one out of every three people who could have voted in 2015 but did not back to the polls?

Why has their response been to do nothing but attack Corbyn and his supporters, treating them as if they don't exist(yet STILL owe the Labour Party unquestioning support in the next election)?

How can those three and their supporters be so self-destructively stubborn?

It's not as though they are going to have any chance of a comeback if Labour DOES do badly because they've chosen to sabotage it if they don't win.

[T_i_B]

1. Andy Burnham has attempted to address some issues

He's been about the only candidate interested in party unity. And he's decided to embrace some Corbynite policies like renationalising the railways. (One issue where I don't agree with Corbyn at all as it happens)

The problem with this for Andy Burnham is that he's managed to show himself as a flip flopper who will say anything to win votes. Bear in mind that he was a staunch Blairite while Labour was in power.

[fedsron2us]

2. Cooper and Burnham have tainted pasts

For example, both rather distastefully were trying to make political mileage out of the refugee crisis in Europe today

http://www.itv.com/news/2015-08-29/burnham-take-in-more-syrian-refugees-to-secure-eu-reforms/

Unfortunately, a cursory glance at their Parliamentary records also shows that both consistently voted in favour of the Iraq war

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10131/yvette_cooper/normanton,_pontefract_and_castleford/divisions?policy=1049

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10766/andy_burnham/leigh/divisions?policy=1049

If Middle Eastern societies are collapsing and kids are drowning in the seas off Turkey today then they must bear some personal responsibility since they directly supported, aided and abetted the Blair governments involvement in the military invasion of Iraq which precipitated the unravelling of the whole region.

At least Corbyn consistently voted against the war

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/divisions?policy=1049

The reason the Labour party has seen its electoral support erode is that far too many of its Parliamentary party are hypocrites like Burnham and Cooper and far too few show any independence of thought or principle like Corbyn

[T_i_B]

3. Corbyn was one of the leaders of the anti Iraq war movement

I'd say that's the biggest thing that he's built his reputation on.

I don't remember Yvette Cooper having much to say on the subject, but I do remember Andy Burnham being something of a cheerleader for invading Iraq along with David Miliband, Liam Byrne and James Purnell. It was a big reason why his leadership campaign in 2010 didn't get anywhere.

[Jeneral2885]

5. any essentially anti war and anti British Armed Forces

[Ken Burch]

6. You are bringing a great deal of anger and hostility to this discussion.

What attitude do you think the leader of the Labour Party should have towards the British armed forces? Thanking them for their service is to be expected, but should a Labour leader treat the military as though it is an institution above all others? Should it act as though war is something that can never be avoided or moved past in this world? Should it be expected to be "gung ho" about getting into future wars(especially a war against ISIL, which even you would have to concede would be endless and unwinnable)?

[T_i_B]

8. Rather then blindly typing rubbish...

Tell us who you would prefer as the next Labour leader.

a) Andy Burnham
b) Yvette Cooper
c) Liz Kendall

I've asked you twice before and both times you have suddenly gone AWOL, which speaks volumes.

[Jeneral2885]

4. Ok fine

Leader Corbyn. I want to see negotiation with ISIL I really do. If he does, he can get the Nobel Peace Prize.

[Ken Burch]

7. It's not as though sending Western troops to fight IS would achieve anything.

Western military intervention is precisely what IS wants...if the U.S and UK and others send their armies in, IS can sell themselves as "anti-imperialist" and "anti-Crusader" in the eyes of the "Arab street".

Why give them the chance to do that?