Its just another name on the tin.

Where does the loyalty of an MP lay. Is it to the people who vote for them or is it to each other ?
It is of course individuals (MP's) who put themselves forward to talk and gather the votes of ordinary people. As the Barbra Streisand song goes "People, people who need people" and that other homely, "which came first, the hen or the egg" comes to mind.
Politicians used to be representative of a 'class' of people since largely the condition of people were largely described by class. The poor were in one camp and the rich were in another with marginals in the middle. The "condition of people" was no academic argument, it was crucial to who you represented. You represented your people because you were concerned for their plight and their plight came before your political career. Your convictions were in line with the people who chose to elect you, not that you chose a conviction to align yourself with a parliamentary group.

Corbyn was elected by massive support in the country from the group who called themselves socialist. They recognised in him 'one of their own' and to his everlasting credit he has stayed loyal since it is not just loyalty but conviction that has made him and keeps him a socialist. 

Those professional weathervanes who flank him on the Labour front bench would sell their grandmother if it meant garnering the praise of the commentariat. Praise means air time, air time bolsters the image and image is everything.

Listening to Corbyn this morning, reasoning his stance to his opposition to bombing ISIS without a proper and full analysis, not only of the consequences of the act, particularly the radicalisation of the disenchanted Islamic youth in this country who need martyrs to redefine their hatred but the mayhem that is left on the ground in Syria without any sense of resolution because there is no army to root out the ISIS fanatics who live amongst the general population.

Following Jeremy Cobyn came Michael Fallon the Defence Secretary. Peddling the party line with little original to say. He talked down to us about "his information" which he is not at liberty to divulge of the threat ISIS are to us in the UK and that only by defeating them in the fields of Syria will we be able to sleep safe in our beds. He parroted the line of David Cameron that there are over 60.000 fighters in Northern Syria just waiting to flatten the Jihadi once we have added our relatively merge bomb tonnage to the French and Americans. His attitude that 'we' know better and have it on our power,  has been the mantra of many an ill fated call to arms. 

Give me Corbyne's scepticism any day.  

The mighty Americans poured millions into Afghanistan to prevent Al Qaeda from being a force in the world of terrorism. "Take out the leadership, take out Bin Laden and all will be well". Even with boots on the ground and bombers in the air, the result has been failure. The Taliban (the local affiliates of Al Qaeda) are poised to reassume their dominant role in Afghanistan once the last American troops, who prop up the despotic rule in Kabul, leave.  Al Qaeda has morphed into so many Hydras. Hamas, Boko Haram, and ISIS are the main players in the Islamic ferment but many of the anti Assad fighters "who we wish to call allies" are in fact just as extreme Jihadists as ISIS.  It's just another name on the tin.