MPs quitting Labour & Conservative parties discussion thread

Folkstonian

prawnsambo wrote: »

It's not that hard. You can use the search facility on Twitter to look for certain keywords in tweets to a particular handle. I could do it for you now, but I'd have to charge you.

Diane Abbott gets a lot of attention and scrutiny because she is wheeled out by Labour for television and radio probably more than any other member of the shadow cabinet - I can’t think of another female politician other than the PM who does quite as much media work as her.

My personal view is that she is uniquely unfit for office, based on some of her quite unpalatable views, her apparent inability to grasp basic issues, her lack of communication or leadership skills and so on.

Nothing to do with her ethnic background or her gender. I think most of the ‘abuse’ she receives focuses purely on her politics - as I have done there - and people shouldn’t ever be rebuked for criticising the political statements and positions of elected politicians

Where it crosses the line from political criticism and becomes a personal attack on her ethnicity, then absolutely it becomes a real problem and possibly even a hate crime, but I’m not convinced that most of that 40% of all criticism for female MPs that goes towards Abbott does indeed cross that line.

If that’s not the case I’m always happy to be enlightened, but that’s personally what I see as the difference between a lot of the abuse copped by Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge etc.. and Abbott

just looking at the reports that show the abuse she receives, it seems the period for which they carried out the survey was in the run up to the last election.

During that time, she did make a fool of herself on more than one occasion.

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

Diane Abbott gets a lot of attention and scrutiny because she is wheeled out by Labour for television and radio probably more than any other member of the shadow cabinet - I can’t think of another female politician other than the PM who does quite as much media work as her.

My personal view is that she is uniquely unfit for office, based on some of her quite unpalatable views, her apparent inability to grasp basic issues, her lack of communication or leadership skills and so on.

Nothing to do with her ethnic background or her gender. I think most of the ‘abuse’ she receives focuses purely on her politics - as I have done there - and people shouldn’t ever be rebuked for criticising the political statements and positions of elected politicians

Where it crosses the line from political criticism and becomes a personal attack on her ethnicity, then absolutely it becomes a real problem and possibly even a hate crime, but I’m not convinced that most of that 40% of all criticism for female MPs that goes towards Abbott does indeed cross that line.

If that’s not the case I’m always happy to be enlightened, but that’s personally what I see as the difference between a lot of the abuse copped by Luciana Berger, Margaret Hodge etc.. and Abbott

I've only seen her a few times on TV, but I wouldn't be impressed with her grasp of detail. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar when you think of geniuses like Raab, Davis and of course our perennial favourite Nadine Dorries. I'm not including JRM or Johnson in that list because I don't know whether to be generous and call them a bit dumb or blatantly disingenuous.

listermint

Havockk wrote: »

This is nothing but thinly disguised racism. If no one else wants to call it out I will.

Abbott is terrible and her faux outrage at the Tories over brexit doesn't even hide her own inaction.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Well I wasn't there but the most important thing for workers would be wage growth and well, it was better than the 2010s and the 2000s.

This is hilarious on your part.

You ignored all the points I made regarding the malaise of the 70's in the UK and the 'Britsh Disease', you pick one metric and base your opinion on that therefore the 70's were better because of that one metric.

On, wage growth, to compare the world economy of this decade to the 70's is a very clear cut example of wanton disregard of the facts and reality. During this decade, China was still cut off from the world where its economy was still largely agrarian and feudal. It was only in the late 80's that they really started to drop the Marxism/Maoism and adopt a more practical approach to growth. When China woke up, it changed everything.

In other words, globalisation is THE biggest factor in determining wage growth in the West. Another factor would be record level of inward migration. (The 70's had net emigration), but no one wants to talk about that factoid. The rise of automation, technology also raises productivity without the wage growth of yesteryear. In other words, its complex.

If you don't want to engage in the reality of now versus the 70's, thats fine. But dont engage in Trumpian soundbites of making the 'UK great again' and expect not to be called out on it.

https://www.afr.com/news/economy/weak-wages-caused-by-technology-globalisation-20170709-gx7hts

"Globalisation and technology may have changed the relation between growth, labour markets and inflation in a way that challenges the existing monetary policy frameworks," notes Barclays head of economic research, Christian Keller.

The famous Phillips Curve, which dictates that declining unemployment will ultimately trigger wage inflation, is flattening out. Consequently, interest rates are much lower than historic norms.

In the US, Bernanke says the emergence of China as a global trading power was particularly disruptive, with adverse effects on the wages and employment opportunities of many American workers of moderate or lower skills.

markodaly

Diane Abbott is comes across terribly on TV, and she is always a second away from making a gaff.
Why Labour put her forward all the time for media appearances baffles me.

Folkstonian

prawnsambo wrote: »

I've only seen her a few times on TV, but I wouldn't be impressed with her grasp of detail. But to be fair, that's a pretty low bar when you think of geniuses like Raab, Davis and of course our perennial favourite Nadine Dorries. I'm not including JRM or Johnson in that list because I don't know whether to be generous and call them a bit dumb or blatantly disingenuous.

I just think that politicians, especially those who aspire to the ‘great offices of state’ need to have a certain sharpness and authority to them.

They need to be able to walk into a meeting room full of civil servants, or address the public in front of a television camera, and be able to deliver the message with a high degree of confidence. I don’t see it with Diane Abbott and I never have. She’s generally slow, ponderous, and very light on any actual substance. The ‘10 thousand coppers at 30 pounds a head’ debacle before the last general election was a bit of a case in point.

You mention the likes of Raab and Rees-Mogg and I agree to an extent, but even they (on a good day) can deliver a punchy, often relatively compelling message and look, at least for a few minutes like they know what they are doing.

This is all before you get to things like her defence of Mao, her comments about Finnish nurses, West Indian mums, white people playing divide and conquer.. and so on. She honestly doesn’t seem like a particularly switched on, or particularly pleasant person.

I get that she was a trailblazer for women of colour back in the 80s, and her place in labour history is assured for that reason. But is she really the best they have to offer in the here and now for the job of shadow home sec? I just can’t see how she can be.

Roger_007

markodaly wrote: »

Diane Abbott is comes across terribly on TV, and she is always a second away from making a gaff.
Why Labour put her forward all the time for media appearances baffles me.

They put her forward because any of the other front benchers are just as bad, if not worse. Most MPs of any capability in Labour has either resigned from the front bench or won't serve under Corbyn. All they are left with are second raters like Barry Gardiner, Diane Abbot, Angela Rayner and the like.
The only half decent spokesperson is Keir Starmer but he is rarely put out to bat. I wonder why?

An Ciarraioch

And then there were eight:

http://twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/1097982646548905988

Harry Palmr

Keir Starmer is just waiting to take over, Corbyn's inner circle doesn't want to give him any more screen time than possible.

Another Labour party MP has quit

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1097980352008765440

prawnsambo

Folkstonian wrote: »

I just think that politicians, especially those who aspire to the ‘great offices of state’ need to have a certain sharpness and authority to them.

They need to be able to walk into a meeting room full of civil servants, or address the public in front of a television camera, and be able to deliver the message with a high degree of confidence. I don’t see it with Diane Abbott and I never have. She’s generally slow, ponderous, and very light on any actual substance. The ‘10 thousand coppers at 30 pounds a head’ debacle before the last general election was a bit of a case in point.

You mention the likes of Raab and Rees-Mogg and I agree to an extent, but even they (on a good day) can deliver a punchy, often relatively compelling message and look, at least for a few minutes like they know what they are doing.

This is all before you get to things like her defence of Mao, her comments about Finnish nurses, West Indian mums, white people playing divide and conquer.. and so on. She honestly doesn’t seem like a particularly switched on, or particularly pleasant person.

I get that she was a trailblazer for women of colour back in the 80s, and her place in labour history is assured for that reason. But is she really the best they have to offer in the here and now for the job of shadow home sec? I just can’t see how she can be.

I don't disagree with you. But I have to admit huge disappointment with the general fare in the HoC, where faced with a national crisis of massive proportions, very few are able to stand up and deliver a cogent argument that is not either incomprehensibly muddled or deliberately disingenuous. I especially find the former to be far more prevalent than I would have thought possible.

Water John

OP better come up with a different Post Head or indent an updateable number.

Three Conservatives may jump also, whether they stay as a separate group, isn't known.

Havockk

markodaly wrote: »

In other words, globalisation is THE biggest factor in determining wage growth in the West. Another factor would be record level of inward migration. (The 70's had net emigration), but no one wants to talk about that factoid. The rise of automation, technology also raises productivity without the wage growth of yesteryear. In other words, its complex.

https://www.afr.com/news/economy/weak-wages-caused-by-technology-globalisation-20170709-gx7hts

Post WW2 weary governments set out to create full employment. They invested and pulled it off. This led to wage growth but it also led to inflation. Western investors didn't like inflation for in their eyes it hit their profits so they essentially went on strike in the 70's which caused the downturn.

Then comes neo-liberalism, everything was let loose and because investors didn't like inflation they set out to control it. Now globalisation comes into play (it's a factor, not a cause) which essentially upsets local labour power and disenfranchises swathes of people as they watch their jobs depart overseas to where wages are lower. However, the sting in the tail is Thatcher is now in power and she refuses to lift a finger to help the millions of her own people she has now disenfranchised. She believes the market will solve the problem.

Now here we are, wages have not risen since the 70's in real terms. Inflation barely exists. And instead of wage growth what did people do? Thye stacked up on debt to make up for the lower wages. And what happens with debt with no inflation to eat the debt?

No one is trying to fix this and the Indy Group want to keep this status quo? They don't even understand the problem.

BobbyBobberson

Water John wrote: »

OP better come up with a different Post Head or indent an updateable number.

Three Conservatives may jump also, whether they stay as a separate group, isn't known.

I actually didnt start the thread, it was pulled out of the Brexit thread such were the amount of comments. I actually have not got the foggiest how to update the heading! Apologies!

Water John

My comment was tongue in cheek. The only thread I saw with a rolling title was on After Hours about a certain female writer.

prawnsambo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Keir Starmer is just waiting to take over, Corbyn's inner circle doesn't want to give him any more screen time than possible.

Another Labour party MP has quit

https://twitter.com/hzeffman/status/1097980352008765440

I was surprised she wasn't in the original group tbh. She got a fair bit of the hate stuff as well.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

This is hilarious on your part.

Is it?

You ignored all the points I made regarding the malaise of the 70's in the UK and the 'Britsh Disease', you pick one metric and base your opinion on that therefore the 70's were better because of that one metric.

The most important metric. The metric that makes ordinary people better off. Despite the IMF. Despite the “British disease”. Which is after all just a phrase.

On, wage growth, to compare the world economy of this decade to the 70's is a very clear cut example of wanton disregard of the facts and reality.

My stats on the 70s vs the 2010s are quite literally exactly facts and reality. You just didn’t like those facts.

During this decade, China was still cut off from the world where its economy was still largely agrarian and feudal. It was only in the late 80's that they really started to drop the Marxism/Maoism and adopt a more practical approach to growth. When China woke up, it changed everything.

That’s an excuse not a justification. The 70s were better for workers in the UK than now. That was my initial claim. I then proved the claim with stats. You don’t have a rebuttal so it’s just a list of excuses. If it is true that China is the reason that wages in the west are stagnating (and I don’t disagree that it’s a factor) then one of the shibboleths of free market theology is incorrect. Globalisation and trade were supposed to lift all boats.

In other words, globalisation is THE biggest factor in determining wage growth in the West.

Don’t doubt it.

Another factor would be record level of inward migration. (The 70's had net emigration), but no one wants to talk about that factoid.

Again that might be true but economics claims migration, open borders and free trade are what makes us richer.

The rise of automation, technology also raises productivity without the wage growth of yesteryear. In other words, its complex.

Productivity should increase wages in real terms if distributed evenly. After all more stuff is being produced. And again this is arguing against another free market shibboleth - that technology raises living standards.

If you don't want to engage in the reality of now versus the 70's, thats fine.

What gave you that impression?

But dont engage in Trumpian soundbites of making the 'UK great again' and expect not to be called out on it.

I’m not sure that Trump has anything to do with my position given that, like you, he is a free market fanatic. And you didn’t “call me out”, or disprove my stats.

You merely restated my facts and quite correctly dismantled a number of free market ideological positions, although it’s not clear to me that you understand that that’s what you are doing.

Water John

The pro Corbyn guy interviewed on Newsnight was asked about the risk to 100 LB MPs of being deselected and he was completely unfazed. This looks like the beginning of a purge within LB. If you're not a Corbynite, you're out.
Anyone who feels under this threat will jump.

Franz Von Peppercorn

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Keir Starmer is just waiting to take over, Corbyn's inner circle doesn't want to give him any more screen time than possible.

Doesn’t the parliamentary parry have to vote and haven’t about 8 people hostile to Corbyn left the party?

Franz Von Peppercorn

Water John wrote: »

The pro Corbyn guy interviewed on Newsnight was asked about the risk to 100 LB MPs of being deselected and he was completely unfazed. This looks like the beginning of a purge within LB. If you're not a Corbynite, you're out.
Anyone who feels under this threat will jump.

100 defectors? A big claim.

It isnt surprising about Ryan, I had forgotten about her but she was an obvious candidateto defect.

Water John

I'm not saying any number but the attitude of the MP was staggering in it's consequence.

super_furry

Harry Palmr wrote: »

Ruth George really helping the split.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-47296591

It's genuinely mad what's going on with Labour and these Israel and Jewish conspiracy theories.

Water John

Water John wrote: »

I'm not saying any number but the attitude of the MP was staggering in it's consequence.

It seems to be the way of the current Labour Party. Quite happy to watch the world burn so they bring in their new socialist eutopia

markodaly

Havockk wrote: »

Western investors didn't like inflation for in their eyes it hit their profits so they essentially went on strike in the 70's which caused the downturn.

Is this claim based in actual fact or is it just another convenient story ala Conspiracy Theory.

Then comes neo-liberalism, everything was let loose and because investors didn't like inflation they set out to control it. Now globalisation comes into play (it's a factor, not a cause) which essentially upsets local labour power and disenfranchises swathes of people as they watch their jobs depart overseas to where wages are lower. However, the sting in the tail is Thatcher is now in power and she refuses to lift a finger to help the millions of her own people she has now disenfranchised. She believes the market will solve the problem.

Neo-Liberalism and Gloablisation came before Thatcher.....
Are you making it, or just engaging Trumpian fake news.

Now here we are, wages have not risen since the 70's in real terms.

Another fact where you are wrong.



Wage HAVE grown in real term since the 1970's in the UK

No one is trying to fix this and the Indy Group want to keep this status quo? They don't even understand the problem.

Perhaps, but the solution to the problem is what again? Adopt economic policies from the 1970's in such a globalised inter-connected world of 2019?

Corbyn and yourself are wrong to believe that Brexit (which you both favour deep down) will enable the UK to solve this issue problem.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

The most important metric.

Defined by whom, you?


Do you know when there was record real wage growth in the UK? Around 1985.



Does that mean we should try and reinvent the 80's with old hat economic policy? No, of course not.

Picking out a single metric from the 1970's and using that as cause and motivation to pretend that that decade was lovely, is purely deluded.

You admitted yourself you weren't around for it, yet for someone who lived through it take it from me, you would have hated it. You dont know how lucky you are to be honest.

You just didn’t like those facts.

I don't disagree with the fact that wage growth of the 70's may be higher than now. That does not mean we should or even can revert back to that era and follow similar economic policy when the world is a vastly different place economically.

That is the danger of looking back, anyone can pick out a fact and claim that the past was great, and we should go back there.
Economic data coming out of 1930's Germany was pretty impressive, does not mean we should advocate building up submarines and tanks today to improve unemployment and wage growth?

The 70s were better for workers in the UK than now. That was my initial claim. I then proved the claim with stats.

You didn't prove anything, you posted up something about wage growth as if that is the single metric that matters, as Moses himself stated its all that matters to make reasonable objective judgments on the past.

What about life expectancy?
1970 it was 71, today it is 81

What about death rates at work?
There has been an 85% reduction since 1974

What about education levels?
The average school leaver is 7 times more likely to go to University or a Polytech today than in 1970

What about women's place in the workforce? Do you think the '70s was a great time for them?

What about if you were a minority or Gay, the latter was legally a fireable offense.

So long as you didn't mind dying younger, more likely to have a fatal accident at work, not mind having the same educational opportunities, not be a woman, a minority or gay, then MAYBE you might be better off working in the 1970's than now.

"Make the UK great again"

You don’t have a rebuttal so it’s just a list of excuses. If it is true that China is the reason that wages in the west are stagnating (and I don’t disagree that it’s a factor) then one of the shibboleths of free market theology is incorrect. Globalisation and trade were supposed to lift all boats.

It does actually in the main but as you know there are caveats. Just because wage growth has stagnated, does not mean there are no benefits to Globalisation and free trade.

Its the Brexit argument again, the EU is somewhat dysfunctional, so lets leave and revert to the 1970's (Corbynista's) 1950's (Tory Brexiters)

Again that might be true but economics claims migration, open borders and free trade are what makes us richer.

It does actually.

Productivity should increase wages in real terms if distributed evenly. After all more stuff is being produced. And again this is arguing against another free market shibboleth - that technology raises living standards.

Only if you think that all and every metric of prosperity, growth, and progress can be encapsulated in one and only metric, of wage growth. If you really believe that.....

I’m not sure that Trump has anything to do with my position given that, like you, he is a free market fanatic.

LOL, This is the same guy who raised tariffs on Chinese steel and aluminum and threatens a trade war with China? That free market fanatic? At least engage honestly.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trump_tariffs
Trump is many many things, but a free market fanatic he is not.

Trump is very pertinent to this question, as he was elected on a populism, much like how Corbyn hopes to be elected.

prawnsambo

And there it is again. Since deleted and disavowed, but as if other wavering Labour MPs needed an excuse.

Edit: And another one.

ancapailldorcha

Posts deleted and bans issued.

judeboy101

To me it seems that anything anti-Zionist is now conflated with anti-semitic. Not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews.

prawnsambo

judeboy101 wrote: »

To me it seems that anything anti-Zionist is now conflated with anti-semitic. Not all jews are zionists and not all zionists are jews.

I have real problems with the use of that word. 'Zionism' is usually taken to be the movement for the development and protection of the Jewish nation of Israel. It now seems to be conflated loosely to mean a hawkish Israel intent on widening its borders at the expense of Palestine. The former meaning is a statement of a situation that pretty much the whole world (bar those few nations who want to wipe Israel off the map) agrees with. The latter seems to be interchangeable in its meaning and being anti-Zionist can sound reasonable in one context and abhorrent in the other. And it seems to me that that interchangeability can be used as a dog whistle for anti-semitism whilst simultaneously being a defence against any such charges.

prawnsambo

It's starting to look like I have an agenda here, but really I don't. It's just... well... words fail me. I feel like I've woken up this morning to an Orwellian landscape. Somewhere between Animal Farm and 1984.