MPs quitting Labour & Conservative parties discussion thread

Water John

Some people in LB, fanatics, need a basic lesson in democratic principles. An MP is elected by the people to be their Member of Parliament for as long as that Parliament sits.
They are charged with acting in the best interests of the people, not slavishly taking direction from them. Go back and read Edmund Burke.
This is similar to governing of the basis of ongoing polls, and not the national interest.

Hurrache

prawnsambo wrote: »

And there it is again. Since deleted and disavowed,

I read last night that a representative from Young Labour said they couldn't stop people tweeting abusive tweets from the Young Labour Account. What an awful crowd.

But remember folks, there's people here insisting that this is all made up and doesn't exist.

c.p.w.g.w

Hurrache wrote: »

I read last night that a representative from Young Labour said they couldn't stop people tweeting abusive tweets from the Young Labour Account. What an awful crowd.

But remember folks, there's people here insisting that this is all made up and doesn't exist.

Genuine question...is supporting Palestine deemed anti-Semitic?

Hurrache

I never said it was.

Leroy42

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Genuine question...is supporting Palestine deemed anti-Semitic?

I would say that to many, yes it is. Certainly IMO, that is the view that Israel takes.

Cryptopagan

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

A lot of constituencies are so solidly Labour or Tory that the identity of the candidate they actually run isn’t that important; they will win regardless. It isn’t like Ireland where every lampost is burnished with half a dozen posters at election time and you’ve got candidates calling to your door. Voters will vote for whoever as long as they’re running for their preferred party.

c.p.w.g.w

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would say that to many, yes it is. Certainly IMO, that is the view that Israel takes.

Ok if that's the case many Irish people are anti-Semitic without knowing it.

hill16bhoy

prawnsambo wrote: »

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.

Recall elections are a regular event in the US, most notably when California governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 and lost the subsequent election to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Likewise in the US, any representative can be primaried and effectively de-selected from within their own party. That's how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became the Democratic candidate in her district.

Trump could theoretically face this in 2020.

I don't particularly agree with the concept of allowing the recall of MPs (outside of the existing provisons to do so) but to say such a proposal is "Orwellian" is considerably overegging the pudding, in my view.

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Genuine question...is supporting Palestine deemed anti-Semitic?

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Ok if that's the case many Irish people are anti-Semitic without knowing it.

As pointed out by judeboy101 earlier, I think this relies on a false equivalence between anti-Zionism and anti-Semitism.

prawnsambo

c.p.w.g.w wrote: »

Genuine question...is supporting Palestine deemed anti-Semitic?

No. And this is what I think is part of the disingenuous narrative around Israel and anti-semitism. Supporting the rights of Palestine and the Palestinian people and directly or indirectly condemning Israeli government policy is fine. But then the water gets muddied by people calling on Jewish people in the UK or the HoC to condemn Israel crosses that line. Because it's a bit like saying that Muslims who have lived all their lives in Ireland or the UK, should somehow be required to condemn Isamic fundamentalism, because y'know, they're the same thing until proven otherwise.

prawnsambo

hill16bhoy wrote: »

Recall elections are a regular event in the US, most notably when California governor Gray Davis was recalled in 2003 and lost the subsequent election to Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Likewise in the US, any representative can be primaried and effectively de-selected from within their own party. That's how Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez became the Democratic candidate in her district.

Trump could theoretically face this in 2020.

I don't particularly agree with the concept of allowing the recall of MPs (outside of the existing provisons to do so) but to say such a proposal is "Orwellian" is considerably overegging the pudding, in my view.

But recall elections only go as far as state level. And the rules differ from state to state. Some have to pass judicial scrutiny. As for primaries, they are part of the elction process and therefore can only remove a sitting representative at the end of their term. Pretty much what can happen here or in the UK. Although it's very rare that a sitting TD would be removed from a constituency prior to an election. But it is possible.

It may be a stretch to call it Orwellian, but I'm thinking of the pledge that's been going around social media recently as well. But the real issue is the notion that a party can 'own' a seat and therefore decide who sits in it and now is looking to increase that power to remove dissenters from them is stretching democracy to breaking point.

bilston

George Galloway has said today that the accusation that Corbyn is anti-Semitic is a "Goebelian lie'

Dreadful choice of phrase

Harry Palmr

This thread will need a new title again, everything is pointing to three Conservative MPs quitting imminently.

Franz Von Peppercorn

markodaly wrote: »

Defined by whom, you?

Defined by capitalists or indeed modernists when they deal with economic growth since the capitalist era. There are other criteria ( like environmentalism, equality etc) but capitalism has generally sunk or swam on the basis that it makes everybody richer. And if the richer get even richer, so what? If that system breaks down then there isn't much left the the armoury of capitalist apologism except "theres no other option", which might be true of course.

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

I doubt that graph, the page I produced showed average per decade wage growth in the UK, showed it slow down every decade since the 70s

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.

It is and you are right on that. Its a pipe dream to assume that Keynsianism would work in globalised environments.

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?

Thats a bit Godwin for me.

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 offence.

This is all good stuff, but was all driven by and large by leftwing ideologies. The Thatcher regime was clearly homophobic ( i.e. section 28).

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)

You've lost the economic argument at this stage so it is all straw men. I think that Brexit is lunacy, that said I think low wages are a contribution to Brexit.

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 don't but capitalist apologists tend to. However the response I originally made to you was economic.

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.

You might want to look at his state of the union speech on socialism. He has imposed Tariffs yes but in fact theres a growing body of economic position that globalisation hasn't worked, you contributed to that yourself. Look at this tax cuts though, totally supply side.

( Anyway I am done now as we are heading off topic).

prawnsambo

Leroy42 wrote: »

I would say that to many, yes it is. Certainly IMO, that is the view that Israel takes.

When you say 'Israel' do you mean the government or the people? Because that distinction is important since many Israeli people do not support the government's attitude to Palestine or the Palestinian people. So it's back to the distinction between Israeli government policy, Israel as a nation and the Israeli people. All subtly different but nonetheless important distinctions.

prawnsambo

Harry Palmr wrote: »

This thread will need a new title again, everything is pointing to three Conservative MPs quitting imminently.

Aaaaand they're off.

ancapailldorcha

Hopefully the new thread title will be a bit more durable.

Harry Palmr

It's really exiting (god I'm a nerd)

Hurrache

prawnsambo wrote: »

Aaaaand they're off.

I thought Anna Soubry would have quit last week, but I suppose now with the platform of the Independent Group she has somewhere to jump to.

prawnsambo

Here is the shared resignation letter. Basically decrying the move to the hard right, pandering to the ERG and handling of brexit.

markodaly

Franz Von Peppercorn wrote: »

Defined by capitalists or indeed modernists when they deal with economic growth since the capitalist era.

Can you show me these modernists that say this?

I doubt that graph,

Convenient.

This is all good stuff, but was all driven by and large by leftwing ideologies.

Yes, it ALL happened under the Blair years :rolleyes:, who ironically the Corbynistas hate more than the Tories.

I think that Brexit is lunacy,

So why isnt Corbyn willing to try and stop it?

He has imposed Tariffs yes..

So not a Free Market fanatic so, glad we cleared that one up.

in fact there is a growing body of economic position that globalisation hasn't worked,

It depends on who you ask. For the 500 million Chinese who have been lifted out of extreme poverty, it certainly has worked, not mentioning the other billions world wide.

For the coal miner in Yorkshire, perhaps not.

The point is to not let the problems masks the huge achievements.

https://www.worldbank.org/en/news/press-release/2018/09/19/decline-of-global-extreme-poverty-continues-but-has-slowed-world-bank

“Over the last 25 years, more than a billion people have lifted themselves out of extreme poverty, and the global poverty rate is now lower than it has ever been in recorded history. This is one of the greatest human achievements of our time,” World Bank Group President Jim Yong Kim said

Schnitzler Hiyori Geta

Hard to disagree with her there.

lawred2

Harry Palmr wrote: »

It's really exiting (god I'm a nerd)

Are these numbers of defectors big enough to make any difference?

prawnsambo

No mention of them joining The Independent Group that I've seen yet, but their Twitter account is now following the three of them, so maybe they are.

Edit: Nope, The Guardian is reporting that they've joined. PMQs will be interesting as TM has to rip up her script slagging Labour for the defections.

Leroy42

prawnsambo wrote: »

No mention of them joining The Independent Group that I've seen yet, but their Twitter account is now following the three of them, so maybe they are.

It says they are in the letter

lawred2

Is it noteworthy that the defectors are all women?

robinph

lawred2 wrote: »

Are these numbers of defectors big enough to make any difference?

I thought Con+DUP only gave a majority of 2? So only needed one to jump ship to tip the balance.

hill16bhoy

prawnsambo wrote: »

But recall elections only go as far as state level. And the rules differ from state to state. Some have to pass judicial scrutiny. As for primaries, they are part of the elction process and therefore can only remove a sitting representative at the end of their term. Pretty much what can happen here or in the UK. Although it's very rare that a sitting TD would be removed from a constituency prior to an election. But it is possible.

It may be a stretch to call it Orwellian, but I'm thinking of the pledge that's been going around social media recently as well. But the real issue is the notion that a party can 'own' a seat and therefore decide who sits in it and now is looking to increase that power to remove dissenters from them is stretching democracy to breaking point.

Deselection can only apply at the end of a term though and people have also been calling that Orwellian, when it really isn't.

I don't agree that a party should be able to "own" a seat, but public discontent at somebody changing sides is understandable.

In Ireland, Stephen Donnelly is a good case in point. I don't believe he should have been forced to resign his seat and seek re-election in a by-election however, no more than I did when he and Roisin Shortall and Catherine Murphy formed the Social Democrats.

lawred2

robinph wrote: »

I thought Con+DUP only gave a majority of 2? So only needed one to jump ship to tip the balance.

May's Deal was defeated by over 200 votes..

What is it that these ten help parliament agree on?

Realistically May's government was always a minority government

prawnsambo

lawred2 wrote: »

Are these numbers of defectors big enough to make any difference?

Potentially yes. They are now one more than the DUP.

The numbers are now:
Conservatives - 308
Labour - 239
SNP - 35
Lib Dems - 11
Ind Group - 11
DUP - 10
Plaid Cymru - 4
Green - 1
Independents - 8
Vacant - 1

So if you add Labour and all the rest against the Tories (with the DUP abstaining), you get a 308 to 309 split.

There may well be more defections from both parties. TheIndGroup on Twitter now has over 100k followers.