|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 2, 2019 10:38:42 GMT
First it was Labour and Momentum trying to deselect MPs who were insufficiently loyal to Grandpa Semtex.
Now it's the Tories and Johnson (or rather one suspects Dick Dastardly (aka Cummings)) threatening to deselect MPs who don't toe the Government's line on Brexit.
Do we think this is a good thing or a bad thing? Should political parties permit internal dissent or not?
My instant reaction is that I didn't like it much when Labour did it, and similarly disapprove of the Tories doing it. Largely because I think any public organisation that stifles dissent is a bad one. Of course, you wouldn't last long in any private company if you publically criticised it, but surely organisations that seek to govern in a democracy should also operate on a democratic basis internally. That said, if this ends up promoting the foundation and growth of new centrist parties to challenge the old Labour and Tory monsters, then I'm in favour of that.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 2, 2019 10:49:00 GMT
Not sure. The difference I suppose is that it's trying to prevent individuals working against the government and its mandate. You might argue they don't have one but there is still a majority and the referendum delivered a mandate in itself. I'm still at a loss as to why anyone would think the EU would negotiate a better deal if we took no deal off the table.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2019 11:42:21 GMT
Mixed feelings. A more dictatorial hand from May might have forced a deal through, which would have been preferable to where we are now. But then a stronger hand from Cameron would have been better still...
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 2, 2019 12:06:53 GMT
I am inherently against this control of MP's and the wielding of the party whip. It means the people of the country are not represented by people they voted for and policies are enforced by small interest groups which manage to wrestle control of a party. It isn't democratic as far as I am concerned. I understand the need, at times, for all MP's to toe the party line to get certain Bills through Parliament but there are some matters where personal conscience and beliefs (or representing the beliefs of your constituents) should allow voting without the party whip.
This bullying and threatening of MPs that they will lose their seats and will be redundant and ostracised if they don't follow a particular line leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth because the Houses of Parliament should be the shining light in the preservation and demonstration of democracy. Beating people and threatening them until you get them to publicly agree with your point of view is the work of the type of regime we send troops to oust from power because they are dictatorial and undemocratic!
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 2, 2019 12:09:41 GMT
I am inherently against this control of MP's and the wielding of the party whip. It means the people of the country are not represented by people they voted for and policies are enforced by small interest groups which manage to wrestle control of a party. It isn't democratic as far as I am concerned. I understand the need, at times, for all MP's to toe the party line to get certain Bills through Parliament but there are some matters where personal conscience and beliefs (or representing the beliefs of your constituents) should allow voting without the party whip. This bullying and threatening of MPs that they will lose their seats and will be redundant and ostracised if they don't follow a particular line leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth because the Houses of Parliament should be the shining light in the preservation and demonstration of democracy. Beating people and threatening them until you get them to publicly agree with your point of view is the work of the type of regime we send troops to oust from power because they are dictatorial and undemocratic! The problem is that talk of democracy doesn't square with respecting the referendum result which is also about democracy. The actions against the government will bring down the government in this case so I can see it as an exceptional but necessary move.
|
|
|
Post by scouse on Sept 2, 2019 12:14:58 GMT
It's not an ideal state of affairs, but when you've stood on a platform, but are then saying you'll work with the opposition (let alone a foreign power) to bring down your government for following the same manifesto you've stood on I can't say the actions suprise me.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 2, 2019 12:20:13 GMT
I'm still at a loss as to why anyone would think the EU would negotiate a better deal if we took no deal off the table. I'm not sure anyone does think that, precisely because you are right that it makes no sense. I think that it's more that they fear the EU isn't going to blink at the prospect of No Deal, making it a much more likely proposition than it is made out to be, and therefore they want to create a safety net.
I have made a bet with my brother-in-law (with the loser buying the winner a slap-up meal) that we'll have a No Deal Brexit. After making it, I pointed out to him that I considered myself to have a win-win bet.
If we have No Deal, then I get to console myself over an expensive meal at his expense.
If we have a Deal, then I'll be happy to fork out in celebration that we've avoided No Deal.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 2, 2019 12:21:56 GMT
I am inherently against this control of MP's and the wielding of the party whip. It means the people of the country are not represented by people they voted for and policies are enforced by small interest groups which manage to wrestle control of a party. It isn't democratic as far as I am concerned. I understand the need, at times, for all MP's to toe the party line to get certain Bills through Parliament but there are some matters where personal conscience and beliefs (or representing the beliefs of your constituents) should allow voting without the party whip. This bullying and threatening of MPs that they will lose their seats and will be redundant and ostracised if they don't follow a particular line leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth because the Houses of Parliament should be the shining light in the preservation and demonstration of democracy. Beating people and threatening them until you get them to publicly agree with your point of view is the work of the type of regime we send troops to oust from power because they are dictatorial and undemocratic! The problem is that talk of democracy doesn't square with respecting the referendum result which is also about democracy. The actions against the government will bring down the government in this case so I can see it as an exceptional but necessary move. Surely if you want parliament to respect the referendum result then forcing them ALL to toe the party line is NOT democratic either? If they are forced to then they're merely representing the views of the majority of the 100k tory members who voted for BoJo, rather than trying to appeal, as I think they should, to the wider public? In addition if the thing they're being forced to follow is pushing us towards a no deal Brexit (which is how it looks at present) then that's unrepresentative of the referendum result as well since the type of deal was not included in the vote aside from some vague assertions that the EU would bend over backwards to give us a deal. We're still no further forward really, are we?
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 2, 2019 12:24:10 GMT
It's not an ideal state of affairs, but when you've stood on a platform, but are then saying you'll work with the opposition (let alone a foreign power) to bring down your government for following the same manifesto you've stood on I can't say the actions suprise me. But they're not - where are they saying that they want us to stay in the EU, rather than simply saying they won't support a no deal (which was in nobody's manifesto)?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 2, 2019 12:24:54 GMT
Ok, this wasn't really meant to be about Brexit, but about the principle of threatening to deselect those who disagree with the Dear Leader, and Labour is equally culpable.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 2, 2019 12:25:17 GMT
The problem is that talk of democracy doesn't square with respecting the referendum result which is also about democracy. The actions against the government will bring down the government in this case so I can see it as an exceptional but necessary move. I won't get into an open argument about Brexit and democracy but my views differ to yours. I don't believe any referendum (on any subject) which potentially has a massive impact on the whole country should ever be held on a 50%+1 majority basis. The percentage needs to be 60%+ to carry common support and the goodwill of the losers. I have made that statement many times on here. There is the argument that there should also be a requirement for 50% of the electorate to vote in favour, not just a majority of those who can be bothered voting. When there are 2 groups of virtually equal size who have diametrically opposing views and one group is telling the other just to suck it up and shut up, my experience has been that things tend to erupt at some point and nearly always there are no winners.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 2, 2019 12:31:58 GMT
The problem is that talk of democracy doesn't square with respecting the referendum result which is also about democracy. The actions against the government will bring down the government in this case so I can see it as an exceptional but necessary move. I won't get into an open argument about Brexit and democracy but my views differ to yours. I don't believe any referendum (on any subject) which potentially has a massive impact on the whole country should ever be held on a 50%+1 majority basis. The percentage needs to be 60%+ to carry common support and the goodwill of the losers. I have made that statement many times on here. There is the argument that there should also be a requirement for 50% of the electorate to vote in favour, not just a majority of those who can be bothered voting. When there are 2 groups of virtually equal size who have diametrically opposing views and one group is telling the other just to suck it up and shut up, my experience has been that things tend to erupt at some point and nearly always there are no winners. But that's not how the vote was held. It was clear how it would be run and the what would happen based on the outcome. Democracy accepting the results you don't like as well as the ones you do.
Taking no deal off the table only sets us up for a worse deal. We have committed to leaving and so there needs to be some honesty from the other side, it's not about the risk of removing no deal it's about overturning the result without implementing it and that is inherently undemocratic.
|
|
|
Post by Bob Sacamano v2.0 on Sept 2, 2019 15:39:58 GMT
The problem is that talk of democracy doesn't square with respecting the referendum result which is also about democracy. The actions against the government will bring down the government in this case so I can see it as an exceptional but necessary move. I won't get into an open argument about Brexit and democracy but my views differ to yours. I don't believe any referendum (on any subject) which potentially has a massive impact on the whole country should ever be held on a 50%+1 majority basis. The percentage needs to be 60%+ to carry common support and the goodwill of the losers. Do you think if that was the case and it was 59% to leave that would be the end of it. I think BoJo intends to call a GE and stand as the party delivering Brexit. As the majority of people at the last GE voted for Brexit parties he stands a very good chance of getting a significant majority and pushing on from there. He may even be bold as to call it in the next couple of weeks and say give me your vote and we leave the day after the result is announced.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 2, 2019 16:18:59 GMT
Do you think if that was the case and it was 59% to leave that would be the end of it. I think BoJo intends to call a GE and stand as the party delivering Brexit. As the majority of people at the last GE voted for Brexit parties he stands a very good chance of getting a significant majority and pushing on from there. He may even be bold as to call it in the next couple of weeks and say give me your vote and we leave the day after the result is announced. That's not my point - I just think any referendum for major life changing decisions needs to have a statutory majority higher than 50%. If people know they need a large majority then they have the chance to vote for it but 50/50 just leaves a nasty taste in the mouth and a sense of resentment. It's the same in any group decision: if there is a larger majority, the minority accept it and move on, becoming part of the team again. 50/50 leaves too many if and buts. As for BJ's "negotiations" with the EU, I think he is doing all that he can to force the EU into concessions (which I agree with because I accept we have to leave) but the Irish border is one problem I have been totally unable to find a solution to, no matter how I try and unfortunately it may not have a solution without the UK remaining in some kind of customs union.
|
|
|
Post by PG on Sept 2, 2019 18:10:47 GMT
I think on the OP, the answer is "it depends".
Opposing something verbally and attempting to convert other party members to something or against something should not get you thrown out of a party and I think that Momentum / Labour's threats about cleansing the party of non-Corbynites is dangerous territory. Or throwing out people for just talking about opposing no-deal.
But if it comes to voting against your party (especially when they are in in government), the stakes get much higher. Especially on flagship or key manifesto commitments.
An MP stands for election as a member of a party and that party has a manifesto. On key issues the assumption is that the MP will support the manifesto. If they do not and vote against them, then why are they in that party?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 2, 2019 18:25:21 GMT
An MP stands for election as a member of a party and that party has a manifesto. On key issues the assumption is that the MP will support the manifesto. If they do not and vote against them, then why are they in that party? Try telling that to Corbyn who voted against the whip more times than anyone cares to remember. Or Johnson, who voted against Theresa May's deal three times.
The hypocrisy on display by both is beneath contempt.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 2, 2019 19:10:43 GMT
It’s not the way in which people vote on a deal that’s the issue, it’s if they vote to take control of the order paper out of the hands of the government which is quite a different thing.
|
|
|
Post by Stuntman on Sept 2, 2019 20:46:57 GMT
... This bullying and threatening of MPs that they will lose their seats and will be redundant and ostracised if they don't follow a particular line leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth because the Houses of Parliament should be the shining light in the preservation and demonstration of democracy. Beating people and threatening them until you get them to publicly agree with your point of view is the work of the type of regime we send troops to oust from power because they are dictatorial and undemocratic! This. All day long and twice on Sundays.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 3, 2019 8:15:55 GMT
... This bullying and threatening of MPs that they will lose their seats and will be redundant and ostracised if they don't follow a particular line leaves a really nasty taste in my mouth because the Houses of Parliament should be the shining light in the preservation and demonstration of democracy. Beating people and threatening them until you get them to publicly agree with your point of view is the work of the type of regime we send troops to oust from power because they are dictatorial and undemocratic! This. All day long and twice on Sundays. Just to repeat, the threat of deselection isn't about voting on Brexit, it's about voting to take control of parliament out of the hands of the government by dubious means aided by a speaker who is not impartial.
|
|
|
Post by johnc on Sept 3, 2019 8:51:50 GMT
This. All day long and twice on Sundays. Just to repeat, the threat of deselection isn't about voting on Brexit, it's about voting to take control of parliament out of the hands of the government by dubious means aided by a speaker who is not impartial. You think? Without Brexit we wouldn't be having this vote and it's only because we have a near 50/50 situation that the threats have been made to try to leverage some power. The whole Brexit issue is so central to everything this country has been for the last 40 to 50 years that some Politicians feel they have to stand up for the principles they believe in and also in some cases the wishes of their constituents. It's all about Brexit. The Supreme Court ruled that Parliament should be given the vote on any Brexit agreement and BJ's actions suggest that he wishes to bypass this particular requirement - that's why we have the stand off.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2019 9:16:21 GMT
This. All day long and twice on Sundays. Just to repeat, the threat of deselection isn't about voting on Brexit, it's about voting to take control of parliament out of the hands of the government by dubious means aided by a speaker who is not impartial. A minority government that only achieves a majority of one by virtue of chucking money at the gremlins in the DUP.
Plus, I see Justine Greening has announced she's standing down as Putney MP (Putney is one of my neighbouring constituencies). Now she had only had a majority in 2017 of 1,500 over Labour and Putney voted 72.4% to remain, making it one of the least Brexit-friendly consitutuencies in the country, so I reckon it's a lost cause for Boris.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 3, 2019 9:26:32 GMT
What you're saying is that Parliament has the right to shut down Brexit which is correct, but that doesn't mean it should or indeed that to do so would be acceptable to the voting public. What people were voting for was clear, they were told that one vote would win it. Parliament agreed that approach and that is where we are. As desirable as it might be to pull the whole thing there isn't a situation on the horizon where that is going to happen because the dynamics are quite simply that the majority of the voting public continue to want to leave. It is insanity to think we can just forget the vote in 2016 ever happened. To that end the best possible deal has to be negotiated and it seems like the threat of no-deal is having some effect in Europe. Parliament had a series of indicative votes and couldn't find a majority in any of them, it doesn't know what to do and simply want to delay which suits nobody. My own view is that the referendum can only be overturned by a second vote. As it stands I think that vote would be leave again unless something significant changes. It seems to me that the threat of economic chaos isn't winning people over and neither is patronising those who voted leave as not knowing what they voted for. In my view the answers lie where the problems arise, in Europe. If the EU made an offer to improve the deal they made to Cameron, dealing with migration and looking to reform the EU for the better I think remain would walk it here and other EU countries, I can't think of a more desirable outcome. The problem as I see it is that as much as we bash the Brexit ideologues, they have there opposite EU number who are just as dogmatic. If a solution is to be found both sides have to move.
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2019 9:45:32 GMT
As desirable as it might be to pull the whole thing there isn't a situation on the horizon where that is going to happen because the dynamics are quite simply that the majority of the voting public continue to want to leave. Just to correct your assertion, that isn't actually what the reliable polling shows. It's pretty consistently shown a Remain majority for some time. Now, it's almost the same small margin as that by which Leave won in the first place, but since that Leave margin has since been considered gospel, so it would be intensely hypocritical to dismiss this consistent Remain majority out-of-hand.
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 3, 2019 9:49:35 GMT
Remain polled a majority before the vote in 2016, too. The polls count for nothing compared to an actual vote.
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 3, 2019 11:38:58 GMT
As this is a car forum, do you remember when Mercedes-Benz cars were bastions of build quality and reliability? Remember then that the accountants took control and the staple car, the Taxi E class became the W210 variant and the reputation of the tank-like W123 and W124 models was wiped out in one fell swoop?
That’s where the UK Parliament is now. We once held our Parliament up as an example of how to do democracy whilst deriding newly independent nations as being led by childish leaders hiding behind powers obtained in dubious circumstances by votes from a few privileged selectors and forcing their view of the nation on to the entire population.
A banana republic that doesn’t grow bananas.
|
|
|
Post by Tim on Sept 3, 2019 11:43:27 GMT
What would anyone suggest the Scottish Tory MPs do - I haven't looked at their individual constituencies but Scotland as a whole voted comfortably to stay (if the 52% for leave was overwhelming what does that make 65% to stay up here?) so presumably the Scottish Tories have a decision to make between, on a local level, country and party?
It's presumably even harder (although it really shouldn't be) for the Scottish Tory MSPs, although they have no say in Westminster their representations to their colleagues should surely be against Johnson's proposal?
Obviously Johnson has been less than supportive of the level of devolution in Scotland so maybe he's going to take that conflict out of their hands but I'll put that aside as that would be speculation for a future Tory government.
EDIT BB, Merc are doing better now than they ever have. Maybe that's a metaphor for Brexit and all the doomsayers (including me) are completely wrong?
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2019 12:02:49 GMT
Remain polled a majority before the vote in 2016, too. The polls count for nothing compared to an actual vote. Ok then, so on what basis do you assert that the majority of the public still wants to leave?
Spidey senses?
|
|
|
Post by michael on Sept 3, 2019 12:11:18 GMT
Remain polled a majority before the vote in 2016, too. The polls count for nothing compared to an actual vote. Ok then, so on what basis do you assert that the majority of the public still wants to leave?
Spidey senses?
I've spoken to a great number of people during the local election campaign who have described their views. At the last election the majority of votes were cast for parties committed to implementing the result of the referendum. Finally, a campaign to leave would have plenty of ammunition to get on with and it's then that polls really start to matter - the leave faction haven't actually campaigned as well as remain has post referendum.
I'd be more interested to hear how you realistically think things can move forward rather than just demanding a second vote with little plan for how to win it?
|
|
|
Post by Big Blue on Sept 3, 2019 12:22:16 GMT
BB, Merc are doing better now than they ever have. Maybe that's a metaphor for Brexit and all the doomsayers (including me) are completely wrong? They’ve had to move downmarket to increase revenues and market share so as long as the UK workforce is prepared to become a cheap labour source for foreign owned companies and the youth move away to serve in coffee shops and clean offices, living 5 to a room whilst sending their pay back to Blighty post-Brexit UK will be fine. Plus this isn’t painting a rosy picture: europe.autonews.com/automakers/mercedes-vehicles-pile-german-airport-supplier-triggers-bottleneck
|
|
|
Post by racingteatray on Sept 3, 2019 12:40:43 GMT
Ok then, so on what basis do you assert that the majority of the public still wants to leave?
Spidey senses?
I've spoken to a great number of people during the local election campaign who have described their views. At the last election the majority of votes were cast for parties committed to implementing the result of the referendum. Finally, a campaign to leave would have plenty of ammunition to get on with and it's then that poles really start to matter - the leave faction haven't actually campaigned as well as remain has post referendum.
I'd be more interested to hear how you realistically think things can move forward rather than just demanding a second vote with little plan for how to win it?
I haven't demanded anything. I simply took issue with your blithe assertion.
I personally wouldn't presume to make such a statement on whether there is or isn't a majority for leave or remain because I cannot possibly know.
But leaving personal views aside, European elections results have very rarely been indicative of general election results, and at last local elections the Tories and UKIP got an absolute slippering. Let's not forget that the Tories lost over 1,300 seats, over half of which went to the LibDems, the only major openly anti-Brexit party in England.
I had a quick look on-line, which tells me there are a total of 20,224 local council seats.
Leave
The Tories hold 7,480, UKIP have 61, the DUP have 122 and the UUP have 75 - collectively 38%
That assumes every single Tory is a leaver (which we know they aren't).
Then provided you assume that all the non-affiliated/others (2,371) are Brexiteers, that's 10,109 or a whisker shy of 50%.
Remain
Labour (6,330), LDs (2,527), SNP (421), Green (387), Plaid Cymru (199), SDLP (59), Sinn Fein (105), Alliance (53) - collectively 50%
Now again that assumes every Labourite is a remainer (which we know they aren't) but still assumes all the non-affiliated/others are leavers.
So, at a council seat level, I don't see this clear majority for Leave myself.
|
|