A packed Parliamentary Labour Party meeting on Libya
It seems to have been an interesting meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party this lunchtime to discuss Libya. Packed, I'm told.
To the surprise of many people, the Islington MP Emily Thornberry came out strongly against military action. On the other hand the veteran left-winger Michael Meacher was strongly in favour.
One of the most powerful speeches came from another veteran, Gerald Kaufman, who compared the situation to 1982 and the Falklands War, when unlike now, he said, Labour was "all over the place".
That, said Kaufman, to great laughter, was one of the "many reasons" why Labour lost the 1983 election.
I'm Michael Crick, and I'm Newsnight's political editor. My guiding rule is that in any story there's usually something the politicians would prefer the world not to know. My job is to find that out. Follow me on
Comment number 1.
At 21st Mar 2011, JunkkMale wrote:'one of the "many reasons" why Labour lost'
Nothing like adding since to the repertoire, one supposes.
Though it may explain why others seem to feel they need to fill in the role of opposition. If uniquely.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 1)
Comment number 2.
At 21st Mar 2011, stevie wrote:it wouldn't have anything to do with Neil Kinnock and his 'well all right' at Sheffield...I still cringe when I think of it...no wonder Labour lost....
Complain about this comment (Comment number 2)
Comment number 3.
At 21st Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:PROOF OF THE PUDDING
Complain about this comment (Comment number 3)
Comment number 4.
At 21st Mar 2011, barriesingleton wrote:PROOF OF THE PUDDING (#2)
Kinnock, and many like him, could only carry high status in the politicial arena, where the poor in spirit abound. Puddings all.
(No idea why this posted half-chickened)
Complain about this comment (Comment number 4)
Comment number 5.
At 22nd Mar 2011, TheGingerF wrote:To be fair Stevie @ 2 it was the 1987 and 1992 elections that Kinnock lost, Foot was in charge for the 1983 drubbing.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 5)
Comment number 6.
At 23rd Mar 2011, BluesBerry wrote:Libya:
It's not that R-1973 was wrong as worded. It's the adtantage taken of R-1973 to obviously, blatantly twist words and stretch the meaning to include making Gaddafi disappear. This exceeded R-1973. This made the Arab League hostile.
This even made normal Libyan citizens hostile, i.e. those that are not rebelling. Let's face it, we don't even know who the rebels are! Are the infiltrators, trouble-makers, members of the CIA, M16 and.or Mossad? Who are these rebels and why is the Coalition trying so hard to favour them against Gaddafi?
I too am strongly against military action; it has done nothing to protect the regular citizen vs. the rebel. In fact, the military action has killed and wounded more civilians than Gaddafi had managed to do.
I also agree that the mission (unending) has no clear plan, no clear objective. It reminds me of the invasion on Iraq and Afghanistan - all over the place with no real place to go.
This farce would be funny, if people were not bleeding and dying.
Complain about this comment (Comment number 6)