Forum rules Welcome to FTN. New posters are welcome to join the conversation. You can follow us on Twitter @FlythenestHaven You are responsible for the content you post. This is a public forum. Treat it as if you are speaking in a crowded room. Site admin and Moderators are volunteers who will respond as quickly as they are able to when made aware of any complaints. Please do not post copyrighted material without the original authors permission.
Chances of that happening given everything else going on?
Not likely I'd say - esp. as it impacts as many Tories as it does Labour. Why would she risk having a fight with her own MPs?
Also, given that post-Brexit we're supposed to be taking more of our own decisions, and increase in population, where's the logic that says we need fewer (600 rather than 650) MPs?
A good question that, if we run to term they probably have to happen, but maybe not.
Another question, given David Davis is in the cabinet now what will happen to the Snoopers Charter.
To me that can only apply to people who are not Labour supporters who join to try to cause trouble......Tories, SWP (all 20 of them) etc....
If it is just someone who has an ambition to change the political direction of a party through legitimate means then that is not the same.
If that definition is to be applied then Tony Blair was an entryist! And god knows what Shaun Woodward would have been classed as
If people who are more left wing than the current party join legitimately and vote/campaign to change the direction of the party then that is perfectly legitimate
For example, if Temulkar (sorry for taking your name in vain), remained a committed Green and joined Labour just to vote for Corbyn in order to prolong the split in Labour then I think he could be called an 'Entryist'.
If he left the Greens and joined Labour to vote for Corbyn as that is the direction he wants the party to go in then that is fine from my side...
I left Labour in 2005ish because of the direction labour was taking. I rejoined in 2010 specifically to ensure Miliband Major did not get in (I voted for his bro) and was pleased in what he was trying to do in general.....pity the traitorous bastards in the SC and PLP were briefing against him (hmmmm Corbyn's fault?). Was I an Entryist?
Oh I was going to do exactly thatbefore being declared a trot, but if corbyn wins this election - and he may v well not with all the gerrymandering - I will rejoin labour.
Tsk! Here am I encouraging people to join the Greens and you're talking about going the other way.
Although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative.
Tell me why a government wouldn't lose a vote of confidence if it wanted to trigger an election. This would simply be seen as a technical device. Boris was proposing to do just that.
May has a mandate. We elect a political party not a PM and her government holds a majority in the house of commons. Nobody with any credibility questioned Brown's.
May tears up manifesto the Tory Party was elected on. "She has a mandate. People elect parties not PMs"
Corbyn tears up manifesto the Labour Party lost an election with. "He doesn't have a mandate. MPs are elected by their constituents not the members of the party."
Chances of that happening given everything else going on?
Not likely I'd say - esp. as it impacts as many Tories as it does Labour. Why would she risk having a fight with her own MPs?
Also, given that post-Brexit we're supposed to be taking more of our own decisions, and increase in population, where's the logic that says we need fewer (600 rather than 650) MPs?
Logic? From a Tory Government? Where was the democratic logic in Cameron reducing the number of MPs whilst simultaneously increasing the number of Tories in the Lords?
Chances of that happening given everything else going on?
Not likely I'd say - esp. as it impacts as many Tories as it does Labour. Why would she risk having a fight with her own MPs?
Also, given that post-Brexit we're supposed to be taking more of our own decisions, and increase in population, where's the logic that says we need fewer (600 rather than 650) MPs?
A good question that, if we run to term they probably have to happen, but maybe not.
Another question, given David Davis is in the cabinet now what will happen to the Snoopers Charter.
Given that David Davis is thicker than Iain Duncan Smith, he'll resign in protest, and it'll fly through with an opposition of one on the Tory (back)benches.
Chances of that happening given everything else going on?
Not likely I'd say - esp. as it impacts as many Tories as it does Labour. Why would she risk having a fight with her own MPs?
Also, given that post-Brexit we're supposed to be taking more of our own decisions, and increase in population, where's the logic that says we need fewer (600 rather than 650) MPs?
Good question, but my judgment is still probable. (650 is too many anyway. 500 should be more than enough: if we elected them on any sensible basis -ie not FPTP)
Tell me why a government wouldn't lose a vote of confidence if it wanted to trigger an election. This would simply be seen as a technical device. Boris was proposing to do just that.
May has a mandate. We elect a political party not a PM and her government holds a majority in the house of commons. Nobody with any credibility questioned Brown's.
May tears up manifesto the Tory Party was elected on. "She has a mandate. People elect parties not PMs"
Corbyn tears up manifesto the Labour Party lost an election with. "He doesn't have a mandate. MPs are elected by their constituents not the members of the party."
I despair at the illogic of it all.
The two are not equivalent. Corbyn can create policy, the argument is should he still be leader having lost the confidence of the PLP. In Labour apparently yes, in the Lib Dems and Tories he wouldn't be. May has a mandate because she has won the support of 75% of her MPs.
Corbyn is in anycase judged not on his mandate but on his ability to lead Labour to power (or at least get close to it).
That is surely the only measure that matters for the leader of the opposition. If MPs believed he was winning he would have won the vote by 80% to 20% ( Woodcock and a few others would presumably oppose him even if he was on course for a Blair size majority).
RogerOThornhill wrote:
Chances of that happening given everything else going on?
Not likely I'd say - esp. as it impacts as many Tories as it does Labour. Why would she risk having a fight with her own MPs?
Also, given that post-Brexit we're supposed to be taking more of our own decisions, and increase in population, where's the logic that says we need fewer (600 rather than 650) MPs?
A good question that, if we run to term they probably have to happen, but maybe not.
Another question, given David Davis is in the cabinet now what will happen to the Snoopers Charter.
Given that David Davis is thicker than Iain Duncan Smith, he'll resign in protest, and it'll fly through with an opposition of one on the Tory (back)benches.
howsillyofme1 wrote:A government is going to have purposely lose a vote of confidence in themselves just as all the Brexit negotiations are going on and before the boundary changes are put in place?
As I said there seems to be some alternate realities being invented here but with a tone of smug arrogance......
Dial down the abuse
Tell me why a government wouldn't lose a vote of confidence if it wanted to trigger an election. This would simply be seen as a technical device. Boris was proposing to do just that.
May has a mandate. We elect a political party not a PM and her government holds a majority in the house of commons. Nobody with any credibility questioned Brown's.
mbc1955 wrote:So 'fairness' is a situational thing. What is likely to favour your side is fair, no matter how blatantly underhand it is. I still feel no grounds for pity towards the NEC, but I could be brought to feel pity towards those whose twisted ethics lead them to condone whatever irregular manuoevre creates power for their side.
No, I couldn't.
That is generally how people interpret fairness. A good guide is that if both opposing sides are unhappy it is probably fair (or equally unfair). Both sides have some of what they want, the rules are clear and consistent.
Thank you for making explicit your complete lack of morality.
From that editorial:
"The repatriation of higher education to the department that handles other kinds of education was overdue."
I find myself in disagreement with this. University education is so far removed from further and primary/secondary that it really does need a completely different attitude and skill set from the people dealing with it. I'm not sure a department so invested in one form of education (schooling) over the other is actually the best place for it. Not that BIS necessarily was either, but DfE also isn't.
The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
The UK is actually very unrepresented in terms of elected...in my village of 1000 people we have 60 conseillers communals, above that we have conseillers cantonals and above the conseillers d'état.....the US is similarly heavily represented locally
When I lived in Huddersfield, I had 3 councillors to around 15000 people and then we had an MP (sort of) and an MEP....bloody ridiculous
From that editorial:
"The repatriation of higher education to the department that handles other kinds of education was overdue."
I find myself in disagreement with this. University education is so far removed from further and primary/secondary that it really does need a completely different attitude and skill set from the people dealing with it. I'm not sure a department so invested in one form of education (schooling) over the other is actually the best place for it. Not that BIS necessarily was either, but DfE also isn't.
Better in Education than BIS IMHO. Universities should serve a higher purpose than delivering a well-trained workforce. End of.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 36541.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s vote to leave the EU will plunge the country into a shallow recession in the second half of 2016, which could see the unemployment rate rise to 6.5 per cent, the equivalent of around 500,000 jobs.
Hope all the more cavalier Leavers will still think it was worth it.
The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
The UK is actually very unrepresented in terms of elected...in my village of 1000 people we have 60 conseillers communals, above that we have conseillers cantonals and above the conseillers d'état.....the US is similarly heavily represented locally
When I lived in Huddersfield, I had 3 councillors to around 15000 people and then we had an MP (sort of) and an MEP....bloody ridiculous
Didn't know you'd lived in lovely Huddersfield
And yes, it's a fair bet that if it was Cameron's idea it will be a crock of.
PaulfromYorkshire wrote:Better in Education than BIS IMHO. Universities should serve a higher purpose than delivering a well-trained workforce. End of.
Not going to disagree with that in any way - I loathe the notion that academia can be shoehorned into just churning out research of 'commercial' worth. By imposing an arbitrary and meaningless constraint, it's the antithesis of how research discovers things.
I just don't think DfE is the natural home of higher education. I'd rather a department specifically dedicated to it.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/busin ... 36541.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Britain’s vote to leave the EU will plunge the country into a shallow recession in the second half of 2016, which could see the unemployment rate rise to 6.5 per cent, the equivalent of around 500,000 jobs.
Hope all the more cavalier Leavers will still think it was worth it.
Of Course it was! Because We Took Our Country Back (to the 1950's)
The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
The UK is actually very unrepresented in terms of elected...in my village of 1000 people we have 60 conseillers communals, above that we have conseillers cantonals and above the conseillers d'état.....the US is similarly heavily represented locally
When I lived in Huddersfield, I had 3 councillors to around 15000 people and then we had an MP (sort of) and an MEP....bloody ridiculous
Well quite - we have 73 MEPs. the idea that we should go down to 500 when these disappear and all legislation comes back to the UK is bizarre.
If I'm not here, then I'll be in the library. Or the other library.
howsillyofme1 wrote:The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
Immediately apparent the moment he started stuffing the House of Lords with more Tory Donors, thus ballooning its size far beyond any proposed reduction in the HoC.
RogerOThornhill wrote:Well quite - we have 73 MEPs. the idea that we should go down to 500 when these disappear and all legislation comes back to the UK is bizarre.
To play Devil's Advocate, there is something of a case for reducing the number of MPs by, say, 172 for a brief period...
I am again getting annoyed by the monomaniacal focus of some people on here about Corbyn - and just dismiss any other point of view
I am fed up everything becomes a discussion about him
Just to remind them
5 million votes lost since 1997
Lost in 2015 because, in part, of the behaviour of members of the SC and PLP
Lost Scotland because of a putrid and rotten arrogance of the establishment in the party
A previous leader has essentially been called a liar by a judicial inquiry over the decision to take the country to war
The press is pathologically opposes- as they were to Miliband - probably because they know what will happen if he ever gets to power. A more 'moderate' leader who would kiss the arse of Murdoch like Blair did would be far more acceptable
Cameron has just managed to take the UK out of the EU
Cameron has been found wanting at virtually every moment when he has had to make a decision
Cameron was the most inept, arrogant and incapable PM we have had for decades
Just for further understanding:
I didn't vote for Corbyn
I don't think he is necessarily the right person to be leader of the Labour Party (sometimes too stubborn, too inflexible, too idealistic) but his weaknesses are part of his strengths, as well as his principles
I wish there was another person who could realistically replace him - there isn't at the moment
He is by no means 'hard left' - his policies are now more akin to Smith or even early Blair - he has moved a long way from his early position.
He tried to reach out when elected
The people who have, since 2010, been looking to undermine the leader are the same ones there now, and who I am sure are pulling the strings. I have no real problems with a Smith or Eagle but they are not leadership calibre
The party establishment is making themselves look very seedy with their attempts at removing Corbyn via underhand and unconstitutional means - and the attacks on him by senior politicians have been vile
Yet we still have on here people who blame him for everything, cannot bring themselves to understand why he is there and what brought him to the leadership. They, as their friends in the Labour establishment, seem to be totally divorced from how the Labour Party is changing and why that is. Everyone joining is an 'entryist' - a pathetic term used to conflate the new membership with Militant.
These same people say he is a 'bad leader' and not 'Prime Minister' material who can never win an elections. Well, their last point has not been tested and is based on predictions of the future - but it may be right although there is no indication that anyone else could win either.
The worst thing though is that they compare him badly against the lying, incompetent, slimy wretch who just ran away from his folly. To these posters being Prime Ministerial is having no principles, wearing nice suits and being able to lie with no problem - I believe that the latter point would suggest some sort of sociopathic tendencies. They also never seem to criticise the likes of Jamie Reed who wrote a glowing commendation of him after his cowardly resignation, or those who gave him a standing ovation the other day. This man has done more harm to my country than I can remember anyone doing but he is 'Prime Ministerial' so that is alright then
This does not include all those who criticise Corbyn and do so in a measured way - Hindle, Willow and Tubby......
Last edited by howsillyofme1 on Thu 14 Jul, 2016 10:41 pm, edited 2 times in total.
The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
The UK is actually very unrepresented in terms of elected...in my village of 1000 people we have 60 conseillers communals, above that we have conseillers cantonals and above the conseillers d'état.....the US is similarly heavily represented locally
When I lived in Huddersfield, I had 3 councillors to around 15000 people and then we had an MP (sort of) and an MEP....bloody ridiculous
Didn't know you'd lived in lovely Huddersfield
And yes, it's a fair bet that if it was Cameron's idea it will be a crock of.
Almondbury - I really liked Hudds.....an interesting town with more to it than meets the eye...and of course situated in lovely countryside
What strikes me most about this is not that it wasn't until the early 1800s that the UK's population is estimated to have first passed 10 million, it's how the shape of this graph is so similar to the first half of a growth curve for a bacterial culture.
And what happens next in that curve is (ultimately) not good for the bacteria...
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
A good question that, if we run to term they probably have to happen, but maybe not.
Another question, given David Davis is in the cabinet now what will happen to the Snoopers Charter.
Given that David Davis is thicker than Iain Duncan Smith, he'll resign in protest, and it'll fly through with an opposition of one on the Tory (back)benches.
Nobody is thicker than IDS.
Well, David Davies is, as has already been said.
Then moving to the thicker even than Davies category the names Chris Grayling, Pritti Patel and Owen Patterson spring to mind. And that's before we start examining the back rows of the back-benches.
I forget who it was (one of the Pitts maybe???) who was said to have assembled a "government of all the talents". May seems to have worked with quite the opposite principle in mind.
howsillyofme1 wrote:
The whole reduction in MPs was an illogical idea that was typical Cameron i.e. was all about political positioning with no an ounce of integrity
The UK is actually very unrepresented in terms of elected...in my village of 1000 people we have 60 conseillers communals, above that we have conseillers cantonals and above the conseillers d'état.....the US is similarly heavily represented locally
When I lived in Huddersfield, I had 3 councillors to around 15000 people and then we had an MP (sort of) and an MEP....bloody ridiculous
Didn't know you'd lived in lovely Huddersfield
And yes, it's a fair bet that if it was Cameron's idea it will be a crock of.
Almondbury - I really liked Hudds.....an interesting town with more to it than meets the eye...and of course situated in lovely countryside
My grandparents lived in Almondbury, up towards Castle Hill. Yes I completely buy your description of Huddersfield. Come and visit next time you're passing
