Our MP Helen Hayes is no longer a shadow minister

[Sue]

https://www.eastdulwichforum.co.uk/forum/read.php?20,2093860,2174736,page=37#msg-2174736

[JohnL]

My family one (Gower) resigned too.

Not sure why they needed to tbh. Would they really be sacked ?

[Blah Blah]

It is not compatible for a cabinet minister to defy the whip usually.

[Clutterqueen]

They would probably be sacked so they have resigned.

[nxjen]

I have a feeling she will be invited back before too long. That she resigned rather than wait to be sacked avoids the situation where Keir Starmer is seen to do a U turn.

[Abe_froeman]

Seems pretty childish to me.

As Keith Starmer himself said, voting against the deal was a vote for no deal.

Why on earth would she vote for no deal? Whose interest is that in? Certainly not any of ours.

[JohnL]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems pretty childish to me.

>

> As Keith Starmer himself said, voting against the

> deal was a vote for no deal.

>

> Why on earth would she vote for no deal? Whose

> interest is that in? Certainly not any of ours.

She abstained - only one Labour MP voted against.

[Sue]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems pretty childish to me.

>

> As Keith Starmer himself said, voting against the

> deal was a vote for no deal.

>

> Why on earth would she vote for no deal? Whose

> interest is that in? Certainly not any of ours.

She didn't vote for no deal.

And if you read her long and informative letter in the link above, you will find out exactly why she abstained.

[Blah Blah]

Quite. Starmer's opinion is irrelevant. Hayes has gone to some length to explain her decision, which appears to chime with the range of responses she got from her constituents. She is allowed to defy any whip if she so chooses. No-one knows at this point if the deal is going to be enough to avoid stark detriment to the UK economy, and Labour voted for the deal with expressed reservations and not because they like it, but because the other outcome of no deal would be far worse.

[Abe_froeman]

Sorry but the reasons in that letter are pathetic. Abstaining is as bad as voting against it (and therefore for no deal) for the reasons Keir Starmer gave yesterday:

"With no further time for negotiation, when the default is no deal, it is not a mark of how pro-European you are to reject implementing this treaty. It is not in the national interest to duck a question or to hide in the knowledge that others will save you from the consequences of your own vote. This is a simple vote, with a simple choice?do we leave the transition period with a treaty that has been negotiated with the EU, or do we leave with no deal? So Labour will vote to implement this treaty today to avoid no deal and to put in place a floor from which we can build a strong future relationship with the EU."

Our representative ducked the question and hid. It isnt good enough frankly.

[Penguin68]

I think Ms Hayes was very much between a rock and a hard place. At the referendum, and subsequently at the last General Election, her constituents have been pretty clear about what they support, and a Johnsonian Brexit isn't it. To have voted for the bill would have been a very unsympathetic gesture towards her constituents who voted to remain, and subsequently voted for her to be re-elected.

By abstaining and immediately resigning her front-bench position she is, at the very least, demonstrating integrity and solidarity with her constituents. It is, of course, a futile gesture which achieves nothing save her own peace of mind (and her reputation for integrity) - but with this constituency I don't think she could do anything else.

HOWEVER, I hope now that she works not just to represent her constituents, but towards making a success of where we are now, which is outside the EU and with the deal she abstained from approving. I hope she now looks forward, and not back to what could have been (but wasn't). That she isn't stuck in the last decade, but moves on. Or she will end up as stranded as her former leader, still fighting the battles of yesteryear. And I hope that by doing so she will be invited, soon, to re-join the front bench.

[KidKruger]

Absolutely.

To treat this as some binary decision where only yes/no will suffice is missing the point of an MP (to represent one?s constituents).

HH has it seems indicated her priority is her constituents and their concerns.

[Sue]

KidKruger Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Absolutely.

> To treat this as some binary decision where only

> yes/no will suffice is missing the point of an MP

> (to represent one?s constituents).

> HH has it seems indicated her priority is her

> constituents and their concerns.

Exactly. And it would be very worrying if she had some different priority!

[pearsonville]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Sorry but the reasons in that letter are pathetic.

> Abstaining is as bad as voting against it (and

> therefore for no deal)

Voting for - 1+1=2

Abstaining - 1+0=1

Voting against - 1-1=0

Not the same thing at all.

If I had any criticism of Helen Hayes, it would be that she is not a Tory MP. Because if she was, I would be able to send her multitudinous scathing emails, and attending her surgeries, demanding that the Government start putting the good of the nation ahead of its own agenda and the agenda of its donors.

[Clutterqueen]

Seems like Helen Hayes is still able to write a column in The Southwark News today on her 'View from Westminster' even though she has resigned from the Labour Party.

[Sue]

Clutterqueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Seems like Helen Hayes is still able to write a

> column in The Southwark News today on her 'View

> from Westminster' even though she has resigned

> from the Labour Party.

She hasn't resigned from the Labour Party!

She is no longer a shadow minister. She is still a Labour MP!

🙄

[Clutterqueen]

I stand corrected.