Dulwich & W Norwood MP's response to referendum result

[katanita]

Several posts here addressing Helen Hayes as if she is on this thread, but @worldwiser (the OP) was posting the response received after getting in contact with her. Helen Hayes won't see your comments here unless you send them to her directly (or unless she does happen to read the EDF after all, but I don't believe she has posted here before?).

[Sue]

Dear All,

Thank you for contacting me about the leadership of the Labour Party following the EU referendum result. I am grateful to everyone who has got in touch to express their views.

I have received hundreds of emails from friends and colleagues in our party who I have known and campaigned alongside for many years, as well as new members who I have been pleased to welcome to our local party more recently. Significantly more members asked me to back the motion of no confidence than asked me to support Jeremy Corbyn as leader. This includes a significant number of members who have got in touch to say that while they initially supported Jeremy?s leadership, they no longer do so. This is particularly the case amongst strong EU Remain supporters and younger members. It is clear to me that Dulwich and West Norwood is divided in our views on this issue.

Jeremy Corbyn is a decent man and I fully appreciate the attraction of the fresh approach to politics that he brought to the Labour Party and that encouraged so many members both to join and to vote for him. One of my first actions on entering Parliament was to join the All Party Parliamentary Group on Human Rights, which Jeremy helped to establish. Although I did not propose Jeremy as a candidate in the leadership selection, I recognised and have respected the mandate that he received from members and registered supporters. The Labour Party is both the party that I love and the party on whose behalf I was elected to serve. Since Jeremy was elected I have wished deeply to see him do well, as I would any newly elected leader of our party. I have sought to play the most useful and constructive role possible in opposing the Tory government and representing my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood and I have not criticised his leadership either publicly or at meetings of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

The behaviour and actions of the Parliamentary Labour Party (PLP) have been much discussed. My experience is that the vast majority of Labour MPs have, like me, sought to work constructively with Jeremy and his leadership team. However I have listened to concerns about direction and performance being raised politely and respectfully in PLP meetings, and I have been worried at the lack of meaningful response from Jeremy. This has, quite understandably, led to an increase in frustration amongst Labour MPs, who know their constituencies very well, and know how Labour is being perceived locally. It is also my experience that differences within the PLP are in the main not political, but relate to perceptions and opinions about Jeremy?s leadership. The shadow cabinet resignations have been from across the full spectrum of political views in the Labour Party - whatever your personal political views, Lisa Nandy and Andy Slaughter cannot be described as coming from anything but the left of the party.

Though I rarely disagree with Jeremy Corbyn?s articulation of the problems and injustices the Tory government are causing in this country, Labour must, as well as saying what the problem is, be able to spell out clearly what we would do differently and to communicate this effectively through the media, whatever the imperfections and biases of the press.

The campaign to Remain in the European Union was extremely important to me, as it was to almost every local Labour Party member that I spoke to. A key part of my personal politics is a strong belief in internationalism, in diversity and in solidarity with those who share similar beliefs both in Europe and further afield. There were two messages that I received from the doorstep in Dulwich and West Norwood. The first message from Labour?s Remain supporters was that they wanted Jeremy to speak up much more strongly in favour of Europe. The second message from too many residents in core Labour areas of the constituency, was that they were planning to vote Leave and that they had not been aware that Jeremy was campaigning to Remain. I do not lay the blame for the loss of the European referendum on Jeremy, but it is clear that the result would have been much closer if the Labour vision for Europe was more clearly spelled out.

Our most critical task as a party is to articulate our vision for the country. This must be a vision for the whole country, it must be about an industrial strategy for the North and the Midlands, skills for our young people, delivering housing and infrastructure, saving our NHS, funding libraries and parks, an education system which dramatically narrows the gap in achievement between rich and poor, the reinvigoration of the trades unions, and a debate about immigration which is focused on fairness and has no space at all in it for racism.

Parts of such a vision are now materially harder to deliver because of the result of the EU referendum ? it will be harder to articulate a strategy for industry or infrastructure without the ability to borrow from the European Investment Bank at preferential rates; it will be harder to do so without significant EU grant funding; and it will be harder to attract new investment from firms seeking to establish their EU headquarters, if we are no longer part of the EU. All of these things will affect our ability to deliver for the people we are seeking to represent, who need high quality, well paid, secure jobs and genuinely affordable homes and for the Labour Party to offer them the hope of a better future if we all work together.

At the next General Election, which is likely to take place very soon, it will be even more critical to articulate clearly a viable, credible and attractive Labour vision that appeals to voters from all backgrounds right across the UK.

Every Labour leader and party member must do their utmost to deliver for the people that our Party was created to represent - none of us, myself included, should put out own personal political beliefs above the continuing requirement for a strong Labour Party to represent those in our country most in need ? to do so is to betray our founding principles, which are as relevant today as they were when the party was created.

My message to those who asked for support for Jeremy Corbyn is therefore to ask that you think carefully about the terms on which his leadership project is successful, and be prepared to question its validity if it is not delivering against them. I voted for Ed Miliband in the previous leadership election. His politics were closer to mine than any other Labour leader since I joined the party more than two decades ago. But when voter after voter told me on the doorstep that they wouldn?t vote Labour because they couldn?t see him as Prime Minister, I had to accept that there was a problem with his leadership. Not to do so would have been to bury my head in the sand.

My message to those who would have a different leader now, is to ask that you think carefully about both the individual and the agenda that can unite our whole party and help us win across the country. I agree entirely with those who say that we need to be, above all else, united in our opposition to the Tories. We can only be that through a process of discussion and debate and through a proactive focus on the things which unite us, which, in the words of my good friend and colleague Jo Cox are more than the things that divide us. So I ask everyone to join me and others in our party in working through, with some urgency, our shared vision for this country. Critique of the government is important, but it is not enough. We must have a Labour vision of fairness, justice and opportunity which can excite, unite and inspire and offer people hope for the future where the Tory government would drive them further into despair.

I have closely read and re-read the views of every person who has contacted me about the Labour Party leadership. After careful consideration I decided that I would serve the Labour Party locally and nationally best by taking steps to ask the membership of our party to reconsider who should lead our Party into what seems likely to be an imminent General Election. With a heavy heart I voted in favour of the no confidence motion this afternoon.

We face huge challenges as a party, and we urgently need to establish the agenda and programme around which we can unite in our opposition to the Tories. Ultimately, whoever is elected as the leader of the Labour Party in any fresh leadership election, I will respect and support, as I have respected the result of every internal Labour Party election since joining the party more than two decades ago, and I will continue to work as hard and constructively as I can towards a Labour government, and to represent my constituents in Dulwich and West Norwood.

Warmest regards,

Helen

Helen Hayes MP

Member of Parliament for Dulwich and West Norwood

[somehannahb]

Two thoughtful replies from Helen Hayes. I thought this article was interesting on the role and duty of MPs.

https://waitingfortax.com/2016/06/28/the-big-green-button-bill/

"MPs inclined before the Referendum result to vote Remain and who live in areas ? in particular Scotland and London ? which supported Remaining may feel little difficulty in voting against a Big Green Button Bill now. The (relatively small) number of MPs inclined to vote Leave and in areas that support Leaving will feel no difficulty in voting in favour of such a Bill now. But, at least I would say, an MP in a Leave area whose judgment told her or him that Leaving would be bad for the United Kingdom ? bad for its economy; bad for the the Union; bad for jobs and the NHS and education; bad for its place in the world; bad as heralding the arrival of racial intolerance; and, yes, bad for the long term future of democracy ? should vote against that Bill."

[NewWave]

I was effectively writing an open letter and replying to a forum post. What is the correct form for replying to a post that is only a quote?

I have seen the rough figures for voting. I will run through my argument again. We vote for Helen, the area votes remain and we want her to carry this on. When the majority of people who either she represents or vote for in the borough agree with something she has stood for I struggle to see why she has to change her voting preference. I understand there will be people who have different preferences but at some stage a local MP should represent local views. I imagine if MPs gave up after every "vote against" if it is something that has local support and they believed in? Now that wouldn't be very good would it?

What we have ended up with is the minority dictating to the majority in Dulwich and West Norwood. Are the Brexit views being taken into account? Yes. We are leaving unless something else happens to stop it. Surely that is enough representation or is there another level we need to go to?

Read the last quoted post from Helen and you will see she is happy to do along with what the local people want when it suits.......

"I have closely read and re-read the views of every person who has contacted me about the Labour Party leadership. After careful consideration I decided that I would serve the Labour Party locally and nationally best by taking steps to ask the membership of our party to reconsider who should lead our Party into what seems likely to be an imminent General Election. With a heavy heart I voted in favour of the no confidence motion this afternoon. "

[Bic Basher]

It's worth noting that while certain Labour MP's were infighting, Helen Hayes emailed me about a completely different issue I have as part of the constituent emails at 11.30pm.

As someone who has had dealings with Helen at both Cllr and MP level, I can't fault her for her hard work towards local people.

[Blah Blah]

But it's not just about any one constituency is it NewWave. It's about Labour as a party. I was very annoyed when I saw Harriet and Sadiq flanking Cameron on the campaign trail for example. I wanted to know why they weren't flanking Jeremy? And that's the problem. Jeremy has always been a eurosceptic, and he was in position where he felt obliged to support something he doesn't really believe in. He did do some campaigning, but he failed to make any impression at all. When I watched his media interview the next morning (after staying up all night watching results), I was left feeling very angry at his non-plussed response to the result. And it was at that point he finally lost my support. And I'm not the only one who feels that way.

[James Barber]

Hi NewWave,

I think Helen faces a dilemma which many of us wouldn't.

Her constituents voted overwhelmingly for remain and she has stated she shares this view. Sounds simple enough.

But if she has ambitions beyond being a 'just' a local MP she may be closing those down if she upsets her national party and if it has a strategy of going along with the referendum result. Some Labour MP's have now publicly stated they do not want free movement of people, a pre requisite of remaining in the EU. So I think she's now keeping her options open.

Not what I or you would do.

[Blah Blah]

She sits on the Parliamentary Local Government and Communities select committee James. What on earth are you talking about 'ambitions beyond just being a local MP'. She has been far more than that for quite some time. She's not someone who plays games for careerism. As a local councillor you should know this.

[James Barber]

Hi Blah Blah,

Then why is she making statements where she is sitting on the fence about her future actions to represent her constituents best interests to remain?

[Loz]

I think most MPs sit on one committee or the other. I think James was referring to ministerial ambitions.

[Blah Blah]

She isn't sitting on the fence at all. She has always supported remain. But Labour now have to deal with a vote to leave and a looming leadership challenge.

You also claim some Labour MPs now don't want free movement of people. There were around 10 Labour MPs who backed leave. Nothing has changed. Tom Watson today said reform of EU free meovemnt was needed, but's not quite what you are trying to infer it is. There is no mass Labour swing to restricting free movement of people within the EU, never has been. It's just not the party's position. Helen has no options she needs to keep open there at all.

[Blah Blah]

James is being mischievious Loz.

All Helen has said is that she backed remain but doesn't know if pushing for a 2nd referendum is the right way to go, and that she can no longer support Jeremy Corbyn, and explained her reasoning for both.

James wants to try and make something of that beyond what it really is.

[Abe_froeman]

James you have no idea how her constituents voted.

More than 35,000 people in Southwark voted to leave. There is a strong correlation between the demographic that traditionally voted labour and a large section of those that supported Brexit. It's perfectly feasible that more than half of the 27,000 that elected Helen Hayes also voted Leave.

[muffins78]

Hi everyone, in case some of you don't go the lounge, we found this petition the other evening - whilst it wasn't exactly what we were looking for, it was close, with a view of acting as weight for MPs who wanted to demonstrate a case for remain. (Setting up a similar petition would have been rejected from the site)

Since finding this, we've worked hard to increase the numbers from almost 500 to over 6000 now, and see it as a supporting one to the second referendum which is unlikely to happen.

If you are of a similar feeling that the remain voters needs should be heard also, please sign and share where possible! Thank you

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133540

[James Barber]

Hi Blahblah,

3 days before the referendum I watched an interview with tom Watson the Labour deputy leader saying he thought freedom of movement would have to end.

He was officially campaigning for remain but with such statements effectively saying the opposite.

I don't think pointing this out is stirring.

The question for me is will Helen vote for article 50 to be issued to the EU or against when parliament takes a vote on it.

[LD929]

Abe_froeman Wrote:

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

> James you have no idea how her constituents voted.

>

>

> More than 35,000 people in Southwark voted to

> leave. There is a strong correlation between the

> demographic that traditionally voted labour and a

> large section of those that supported Brexit.

> It's perfectly feasible that more than half of the

> 27,000 that elected Helen Hayes also voted Leave.

Although plausable, it is doubtful. It would mean that 39% of the Southwark Leave vote was concentrated in Dulwich and West Norwood. If that is the case, then Helen should have campaigned harder there!

In any event, my view is that the referendum was a significant mistake and should never have occurred in the first place. There is a reason why referendums are not generally used as a method of governing: because these are complicated issues that don't lend themselves well to a political campaign (if you think this is anti-democratic, just do a though experiment of other issues that could theoretically be put to a referendum and where we wouldn't actually like the result even if people were in favour of it(such as "Should the UK government eliminate the income tax")). We elect MPs to make these decisions for us with the recognition that the general public cannot make these decisions in any coherent manner.

In any event, I think Helen should recognize that the majority of Labour voted in favour of Remain, and as much as she may wish to win the political support of those areas of the UK that are "traditional" Labour and voted Leave, Labour will lose the support of the large number of Labour supporters that voted Remain and are looking for a real opposition to act courageously against the Tory Brexiteers. Only a few people (Nicola Sturgeon, Tim Farron and David Lammy) have been showing that courage.

[muffins78]

Is it worth demonstrating the constituency support for remain through the link I've put above?

It shows how many in the area of signed this already.

MPs are meant to act on both a local and national level, but they should put the position that supports the best interests forward and/or support them.

Doing otherwise goes against the grain of why they were elected. It all sounds so easy, but it's not! :(

[nxjen]

Helen has sponsored an early day motion which sets out her position

http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/243

[LD929]

Thanks Nxjen. Glad to see that she has taken that position.

[Sue]

nxjen Wrote:

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

> Helen has sponsored an early day motion which sets

> out her position

>

> http://www.parliament.uk/edm/2016-17/243

Thanks for posting that.

[Blah Blah]

I think your question is answered James ;D

Don't know why you suddenly mention Tom Watson either when you were trying to pour doubt on Helen's sincerity. Always the politician eh?

[James Barber]

But we know the government isn't minded to have a second referendum. So the EDM is great posturing but as shown by how few have signed up to support it a diversion.

However it is likely a vote on whether to trigger Article 50 will occur. The lawyers are currently arguing over this.

So will Helen vote for or against Article 50 being invoked?

If she is as passionate on this as claimed then an easy one to answer.

[Blah Blah]

Why does she have to answer anything? We don't even know who is going to be negotiating brexit yet? It's all very well for you to take the high ground because Tim Farron has set a position, but it just looks to me as though you are trying to find fault with Helen where there is none to be found.

[nxjen]

James: In case you haven't noticed, everything parliamentary is in total disarray at the moment. To bang on about will Helen vote to trigger Article 50 is premature and opportunistic. To repeat what Tom Watson said regarding freedom of movement and to present it as official labour policy is disingenuous, there doesn't appear to be any consensual labour policy on anything at the moment. Though the EDM stands little chance of success, by signing it Helen has shown herself as wanting to do something about the awful position we now find ourselves and is not going to quietly roll over and passively accept the referendum result. I get it James that you're frustrated not to be in a position to do something, but to take pop shots at what Helen might hypothetically do at a time when everything seems to be hypothetical is irritating. I think Helen is showing herself to be a good MP in very difficult times.

[muffins78]

I'm just copying / pasting my post in the lounge!!

Hi, they've come back with a response to the second referendum petition. So, with that in mind, I think it's more important than ever to sign this, to show per constituency to our MPs that we are affected by this decision.

If you haven't signed and feel our voices need to be heard in whichever step they take, please sign and it would be amazing to share - :)

https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/133540