|
In order to ensure that this thread meets TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we ask that everyone please adhere to this mod note. Posts containing only Tweets or articles adds nothing to the discussions. Therefore, when providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments will be actioned upon. All in all, please continue to enjoy posting in TL General and partake in discussions as much as you want! But please be respectful when posting or replying to someone. There is a clear difference between constructive criticism/discussion and just plain being rude and insulting. https://www.registertovote.service.gov.uk |
On July 12 2016 03:54 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:24 Shield wrote:
I'm not sure if, as an European national, I should be happy or not that Theresa May is going to be the next PM. It's good there's another woman as a PM, but that's as far as I know.
Edit: It feels kind of undemocratic if Theresa May has no competition because the last one gave up. She gives up because she thinks she has no chance in the vote. That's not undemocratic, that's realising you've already lost.
While this could be true, wasn't there going to be one last election when common people are allowed to take part in? They have power to change balance even if Theresa May was the clear favourite. That's the part I'm confused about.
|
On July 12 2016 03:56 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:54 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 03:24 Shield wrote:
I'm not sure if, as an European national, I should be happy or not that Theresa May is going to be the next PM. It's good there's another woman as a PM, but that's as far as I know.
Edit: It feels kind of undemocratic if Theresa May has no competition because the last one gave up. She gives up because she thinks she has no chance in the vote. That's not undemocratic, that's realising you've already lost. While this could be true, wasn't there going to be one last election when common people are allowed to take part in? They have power to change balance even if Theresa May was the clear favourite. That's the part I'm confused about.
No it was already over, there was another round but I'm pretty sure it was just conservative party insiders voting in it.
|
United States42884 Posts
On July 12 2016 03:56 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 03:54 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 03:24 Shield wrote:
I'm not sure if, as an European national, I should be happy or not that Theresa May is going to be the next PM. It's good there's another woman as a PM, but that's as far as I know.
Edit: It feels kind of undemocratic if Theresa May has no competition because the last one gave up. She gives up because she thinks she has no chance in the vote. That's not undemocratic, that's realising you've already lost. While this could be true, wasn't there going to be one last election when common people are allowed to take part in? They have power to change balance even if Theresa May was the clear favourite. That's the part I'm confused about.
It's a campaign for the leadership of the parliamentary party, ultimately it comes down to whether or not a candidate could obtain the loyalty of the MPs. The other candidates realized that they could not do that and withdrew themselves from the nomination.
|
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation.
|
On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation.
Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round.
|
On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation.
Conservative party members do vote in the final stage of the leadership contest. The final two candidates are selected by successive votes of the parliamentary party, then party members vote to determine the winner. There is the possibility that the membership go against the parliamentary party, but May was polling 63%-31% against Leadsom, and after that things started to get even worse for Leadsom, so it was highly unlikely that she would gain any traction with the membership.
The full rules of the contest can be found on wikipedia.
|
Really?
Oh, OK i must be wrong on that. I'm sure I read otherwise :/
Yeah just checked apologies I was wrong
|
On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round.
Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters.
|
On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters.
I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem.
Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular.
|
On July 13 2016 02:28 Shield wrote:Show nested quote +On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters. I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem. Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular.
Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people.
In this case the small number of people are the labour members. The party represents all their voters not just its members. This is how someone like Corbyn gets elected who represents party members but not a significant part of the voters at all.
I'd just let MPs decide. You're letting a select few people decide yes but at least they have a democratic mandate. Either that or everyone who voted labour gets a ballot to vote or something.
|
On July 13 2016 03:52 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 02:28 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 20:51 RvB wrote:On July 12 2016 07:48 Shield wrote:On July 12 2016 07:17 Jockmcplop wrote:
jello_biafra is correct, the Conservatives do not allow members to vote in leadership contests as Labour do. Leadership contests in the UK are determined by Party rules, not by any overall legislation. Hmmm, I'm not left wing (economy at least), but I think Labour is more democratic in this case. Are you sure? I thought they mentioned Conservative party members will decide the final round. Letting party members vote isn't more democratic. It's oligarchic. Only party members are allowed to vote. Even when you're free to sign up (for a cost) like labour it's not democratic. At least mp's have a democratic mandate from all the conservative voters. I think you need to learn what oligarchic really means. In this case, it's not. Every party needs to decide who their leader should be. That should be decided by party members. No ifs, no buts. Choosing the next PM, in absence of general election, is a separate problem. Edit: Anything else is just unreasonable. Do you not see how opposition can vote for the weakest candidate? Tactical voting is still popular. Show nested quote +Oligarchy (from Greek ὀλιγαρχία (oligarkhía); from ὀλίγος (olígos), meaning "few", and ἄρχω (arkho), meaning "to rule or to command")[1][2][3] is a form of power structure in which power effectively rests with a small number of people. In this case the small number of people are the labour members. The party represents all their voters not just its members. This is how someone like Corbyn gets elected who represents party members but not a significant part of the voters at all. I'd just let MPs decide. You're letting a select few people decide yes but at least they have a democratic mandate. Either that or everyone who voted labour gets a ballot to vote or something.
You talk about oligarchy, but you fail to realise that letting only MPs decide is bigger oligarchy than party members. I don't think party members being able to decide is oligarchy. I said why. Opposition can abuse that. Let party itself decide who their leader is. Then, if voters don't like that leader, they vote for another party with a better leader. It's basic democracy. You get punished if you don't represent voters.
Also, when I vote for an MP I usually vote for THEIR POLICY not their opinion on who the next PM/party leader should be. That's something I've not given them a mandate for. That's in general not British politics.
|
Except people voted for their MPs when the party had a direction under Milliband. If Corbyn takes the party in a new direction that isn't what people voted for the MPs on the basis of, then you are basically betraying all of the actual voters, the general public.
The party should therefore continue to toe the Milliband line until such time as another election is held for MPs, where people can vote for the new party or not based on the direction as determined by Corby and the Party itself.
Voters cannot vote for another party with a preferred leader if there isn't a vote, and we aren't having one until probably 2020.
No one voted for Labour MPs on the basis of a Corbyn led party with Corbyn ideals, because that simply wasn't the party when people voted. Forcing MPs to follow Corbyn's line rather than the line of their own electorate is ridiculous.
Because parties have a whip, either the labour MPs all rebel to follow what their own policy was, or they follow the whip and betray their electorate. Either you are fucking over the voters, or you are killing the party from within. Currently they are opting for #2, because they want to get re-elected, and trying to fix #1 so that the aprty can be the party the people voted for.
|
United States42884 Posts
On July 13 2016 06:18 Lonyo wrote:
Except people voted for their MPs when the party had a direction under Milliband. If Corbyn takes the party in a new direction that isn't what people voted for the MPs on the basis of, then you are basically betraying all of the actual voters, the general public.
The party should therefore continue to toe the Milliband line until such time as another election is held for MPs, where people can vote for the new party or not based on the direction as determined by Corby and the Party itself.
Voters cannot vote for another party with a preferred leader if there isn't a vote, and we aren't having one until probably 2020.
No one voted for Labour MPs on the basis of a Corbyn led party with Corbyn ideals, because that simply wasn't the party when people voted. Forcing MPs to follow Corbyn's line rather than the line of their own electorate is ridiculous.
Because parties have a whip, either the labour MPs all rebel to follow what their own policy was, or they follow the whip and betray their electorate. Either you are fucking over the voters, or you are killing the party from within. Currently they are opting for #2, because they want to get re-elected, and trying to fix #1 so that the aprty can be the party the people voted for.
You want a completely different model to the current model and your way of getting it isn't to try and obtain that model but rather to complain about how the current model doesn't work in a way completely opposed to its nature. You vote for MPs, that's where your involvement ends. If the MPs choose to back someone completely different that's their prerogative. This is representative democracy. If you want direct democracy then ask for that but don't expect your representative to come and check in with you to make sure you still like them.
|
I don't see what the problem is. Labour is in opposition, so they can afford the time to hold another leader election. If Corbyn is indeed good, he'll defend his leadership. It's that simple.
|
On July 13 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:18 Lonyo wrote:
Except people voted for their MPs when the party had a direction under Milliband. If Corbyn takes the party in a new direction that isn't what people voted for the MPs on the basis of, then you are basically betraying all of the actual voters, the general public.
The party should therefore continue to toe the Milliband line until such time as another election is held for MPs, where people can vote for the new party or not based on the direction as determined by Corby and the Party itself.
Voters cannot vote for another party with a preferred leader if there isn't a vote, and we aren't having one until probably 2020.
No one voted for Labour MPs on the basis of a Corbyn led party with Corbyn ideals, because that simply wasn't the party when people voted. Forcing MPs to follow Corbyn's line rather than the line of their own electorate is ridiculous.
Because parties have a whip, either the labour MPs all rebel to follow what their own policy was, or they follow the whip and betray their electorate. Either you are fucking over the voters, or you are killing the party from within. Currently they are opting for #2, because they want to get re-elected, and trying to fix #1 so that the aprty can be the party the people voted for. You want a completely different model to the current model and your way of getting it isn't to try and obtain that model but rather to complain about how the current model doesn't work in a way completely opposed to its nature. You vote for MPs, that's where your involvement ends. If the MPs choose to back someone completely different that's their prerogative. This is representative democracy. If you want direct democracy then ask for that but don't expect your representative to come and check in with you to make sure you still like them.
Except the point is, and the problem arises because, it is a representative democracy. The MPs don't WANT to back someone different, they want to keep their jobs by keeping their electorate happy by representing their electorate.
That's why they don't want Corbyn as a leader. Because he doesn't reflect the views of their electorate who elect them and give them their jobs, and therefore want a different leader. He reflects the views of the party membership, which isn't the electorate.
|
On July 13 2016 07:01 Lonyo wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 06:18 Lonyo wrote:
Except people voted for their MPs when the party had a direction under Milliband. If Corbyn takes the party in a new direction that isn't what people voted for the MPs on the basis of, then you are basically betraying all of the actual voters, the general public.
The party should therefore continue to toe the Milliband line until such time as another election is held for MPs, where people can vote for the new party or not based on the direction as determined by Corby and the Party itself.
Voters cannot vote for another party with a preferred leader if there isn't a vote, and we aren't having one until probably 2020.
No one voted for Labour MPs on the basis of a Corbyn led party with Corbyn ideals, because that simply wasn't the party when people voted. Forcing MPs to follow Corbyn's line rather than the line of their own electorate is ridiculous.
Because parties have a whip, either the labour MPs all rebel to follow what their own policy was, or they follow the whip and betray their electorate. Either you are fucking over the voters, or you are killing the party from within. Currently they are opting for #2, because they want to get re-elected, and trying to fix #1 so that the aprty can be the party the people voted for. You want a completely different model to the current model and your way of getting it isn't to try and obtain that model but rather to complain about how the current model doesn't work in a way completely opposed to its nature. You vote for MPs, that's where your involvement ends. If the MPs choose to back someone completely different that's their prerogative. This is representative democracy. If you want direct democracy then ask for that but don't expect your representative to come and check in with you to make sure you still like them. Except the point is, and the problem arises because, it is a representative democracy. The MPs don't WANT to back someone different, they want to keep their jobs by keeping their electorate happy by representing their electorate. That's why they don't want Corbyn as a leader. Because he doesn't reflect the views of their electorate who elect them and give them their jobs, and therefore want a different leader. He reflects the views of the party membership, which isn't the electorate.
Corbyn is afaik party leader, not leader of the MP of his party or their elctorate.
_party leader_ So who should decide on who that leader is? Yeah... Maybe the party? Nahhh. No way!
|
On July 13 2016 07:04 mahrgell wrote:Show nested quote +On July 13 2016 07:01 Lonyo wrote:On July 13 2016 06:24 KwarK wrote:On July 13 2016 06:18 Lonyo wrote:
Except people voted for their MPs when the party had a direction under Milliband. If Corbyn takes the party in a new direction that isn't what people voted for the MPs on the basis of, then you are basically betraying all of the actual voters, the general public.
The party should therefore continue to toe the Milliband line until such time as another election is held for MPs, where people can vote for the new party or not based on the direction as determined by Corby and the Party itself.
Voters cannot vote for another party with a preferred leader if there isn't a vote, and we aren't having one until probably 2020.
No one voted for Labour MPs on the basis of a Corbyn led party with Corbyn ideals, because that simply wasn't the party when people voted. Forcing MPs to follow Corbyn's line rather than the line of their own electorate is ridiculous.
Because parties have a whip, either the labour MPs all rebel to follow what their own policy was, or they follow the whip and betray their electorate. Either you are fucking over the voters, or you are killing the party from within. Currently they are opting for #2, because they want to get re-elected, and trying to fix #1 so that the aprty can be the party the people voted for. You want a completely different model to the current model and your way of getting it isn't to try and obtain that model but rather to complain about how the current model doesn't work in a way completely opposed to its nature. You vote for MPs, that's where your involvement ends. If the MPs choose to back someone completely different that's their prerogative. This is representative democracy. If you want direct democracy then ask for that but don't expect your representative to come and check in with you to make sure you still like them. Except the point is, and the problem arises because, it is a representative democracy. The MPs don't WANT to back someone different, they want to keep their jobs by keeping their electorate happy by representing their electorate. That's why they don't want Corbyn as a leader. Because he doesn't reflect the views of their electorate who elect them and give them their jobs, and therefore want a different leader. He reflects the views of the party membership, which isn't the electorate. Corbyn is afaik party leader, not leader of the MP of his party or their elctorate. _party leader_ So who should decide on who that leader is? Yeah... Maybe the party? Nahhh. No way!
Which then leads to a bunch of MPs not following the leader because they don't agree with him.
Which then either means a new leader, or an infighting and ineffective party, or a split within the party.
Either you want an electable party, or you want an ineffective party, or a broken party. The MPs are trying to get an electable party, because that's how you can be most effective. The party members are trying to get a party that fits their ideals which have narrow appeal, which isn't how you get a successful and elected party.
Personally I think the MPs should just fuck off and form a new party and leave Corbyn to it, as I have said before in this thread. A Corbyn Labour will continue to be a shitfest and a waste of space. Shame the party members don't care about that.
|
The electable argument is so overstated good lord, the anyone-but-Corbyn side of the party have actually managed to back someone less charismatic, less likeable, and less principled than Corbyn who will be an utter disaster in an election. Maybe Corbyn will be too, but considering Labour lost the past 2 general elections on a more right wing platform maybe the change might be positive. And if it isn't positive and ends in disaster, maybe the problem isn't as simple as who is leader!
|
Jeremy Corbin seems to be quite the charismatic guy. I admire that he is able to bring a speech like + Show Spoiler + to the table when under pressure.
|
On July 13 2016 08:42 kollin wrote:
The electable argument is so overstated good lord, the anyone-but-Corbyn side of the party have actually managed to back someone less charismatic, less likeable, and less principled than Corbyn who will be an utter disaster in an election. Maybe Corbyn will be too, but considering Labour lost the past 2 general elections on a more right wing platform maybe the change might be positive. And if it isn't positive and ends in disaster, maybe the problem isn't as simple as who is leader!
Just because they're both unelectable doesn't mean the unelectable argument is overstated. They are suffering from their own progressivism, trying to pretend that somebody like Ed Miliband or Angela Eagle can lead - with absolutely no leadership qualities.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
