Jools Holland Hootenanny. Never Again.
Film, Media & TV1 min ago
Does Jezza Have A Point?
42 Answers
I must admit I wasn't really sure but having read this I think I may actually have to agree with him.
Now we have the fixed term then surely time for a re-think?
https:/
Now we have the fixed term then surely time for a re-think?
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by youngmafbog. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Under the current electoral system, no he does not -- but I will concede that this is one of the most pedantic arguments I'll have ever made (and there's a lot of competition for this award, I fear...). But constituents vote for an MP, not for the party.
In practice of course I see the point: party politics is more significant to many voters, to the extent that I shouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the MPs in the new Independent Group lose their seats in a by-election, especially in Labour heartlands. But then if you want to vote for MPs on party political grounds then you should have an electoral system that is based on Party politics, rather than individual MPs.
In practice of course I see the point: party politics is more significant to many voters, to the extent that I shouldn't be at all surprised to see some of the MPs in the new Independent Group lose their seats in a by-election, especially in Labour heartlands. But then if you want to vote for MPs on party political grounds then you should have an electoral system that is based on Party politics, rather than individual MPs.
I could be argued though jim that mechanism already exists in that anyone can stand as an independent.
It can also be argued that if you align yourself to a party and are a memeber of that party then you are endorsing the Party Manifesto so unless you specifically say at election time you dont agree with it then you should follow it or it is false representation.
Having said that I am still in two minds.
It can also be argued that if you align yourself to a party and are a memeber of that party then you are endorsing the Party Manifesto so unless you specifically say at election time you dont agree with it then you should follow it or it is false representation.
Having said that I am still in two minds.
I can;t agree with Mr Corbyn.
I suspect he would not be in such ire if seven Tory MP's had quit first!
I also think he imnagines that all labour voters think that he is as important as he thinks he is. I believe that if the MP's are doing a good job as constituency MP's, there is no problem for their electorate if they feel their MP can longer support a riven and corrupt party.
I suspect he would not be in such ire if seven Tory MP's had quit first!
I also think he imnagines that all labour voters think that he is as important as he thinks he is. I believe that if the MP's are doing a good job as constituency MP's, there is no problem for their electorate if they feel their MP can longer support a riven and corrupt party.
I'm not sure that your first argument holds much water: an independent candidate can be as appealing as they like but ultimately is constrained to appealing locally rather than nationally. I think such famous independents as Martin Bell or Dr Richard Taylor were successful partly because they were able to appeal to local issues (in Bell's case, admittedly, he targeted a politician who represented a wider issue), but can't do much nationally.
I take your point on the second argument, of course. As I say, I was being more than a little pedantic, but MPs should be allowed to be flexible and while there is a national manifesto I am sure that many or most also focus on local issues. It's been suggested that more than a few Labour MPs in the 2017 election were disavowing Corbyn and trying to fight locally, and still did well -- so did they win despite, or because of, the Manifesto? Hard to say.
All this does is reinforce my feeling that FPTP is the wrong electoral system for our country, or indeed any one. My snap judgement is that I'd rather like to vote for the Independent Group, if I got a chance -- but, for the moment, I won't have that chance, because none of their members are in my constituency. Even if I later decide that they aren't worth voting for then it's still completely unacceptable that I don't even have that choice.
I take your point on the second argument, of course. As I say, I was being more than a little pedantic, but MPs should be allowed to be flexible and while there is a national manifesto I am sure that many or most also focus on local issues. It's been suggested that more than a few Labour MPs in the 2017 election were disavowing Corbyn and trying to fight locally, and still did well -- so did they win despite, or because of, the Manifesto? Hard to say.
All this does is reinforce my feeling that FPTP is the wrong electoral system for our country, or indeed any one. My snap judgement is that I'd rather like to vote for the Independent Group, if I got a chance -- but, for the moment, I won't have that chance, because none of their members are in my constituency. Even if I later decide that they aren't worth voting for then it's still completely unacceptable that I don't even have that choice.
"I believe that if the MP's are doing a good job as constituency MP's, there is no problem for their electorate if they feel their MP can longer support a riven and corrupt party."
And if they dont adhere to the Party manifesto from a Party that is not "riven and corrupt" and dont do what their electorate want? - Thinking Sourby here.
And if they dont adhere to the Party manifesto from a Party that is not "riven and corrupt" and dont do what their electorate want? - Thinking Sourby here.
He has a point for MPs that cross the floor and join the other side. There should be a compulsory by-election in those cases. Otherwise, no.
He's not upset that they've left. He's thinking good riddance, that's 7 less Blairite weasels. He's upset that they can't immediately be replaced with fawning Corbynista acolytes.
He's not upset that they've left. He's thinking good riddance, that's 7 less Blairite weasels. He's upset that they can't immediately be replaced with fawning Corbynista acolytes.
YMB - // And if they dont adhere to the Party manifesto from a Party that is not "riven and corrupt" and dont do what their electorate want? - Thinking Sourby here. //
I can't agree that any mainstream political party is not riven and corrupt - the corruption varies, but it is absolutely always there.
If Ms Soubry's constituents feel she is not representing them fairly, then they have recourse under the current system to remove her.
It is somewhat early days yet to judge the MP's on their actions thus far.
I can't agree that any mainstream political party is not riven and corrupt - the corruption varies, but it is absolutely always there.
If Ms Soubry's constituents feel she is not representing them fairly, then they have recourse under the current system to remove her.
It is somewhat early days yet to judge the MP's on their actions thus far.
Possibly true for the labour but for Sourby and the other two?
I was talking about Corbyn's "point" as per your question. Corbyn wasn't talking about Soubry, this story came out before any Tories quit. Now that they have, I have no idea if he still thinks the same way.
But it's clear the Tories haven't quit in order to breach manifesto commitments; all of them on both sides have quit because extremists are taking over their parties with the connivance of incompetent leaders.
I was talking about Corbyn's "point" as per your question. Corbyn wasn't talking about Soubry, this story came out before any Tories quit. Now that they have, I have no idea if he still thinks the same way.
But it's clear the Tories haven't quit in order to breach manifesto commitments; all of them on both sides have quit because extremists are taking over their parties with the connivance of incompetent leaders.
No, I think the way it is is correct, we do not want drones in parliament. An MP cannot be expected to tolerate every twist and turn in party policy over a 5 year period, especially the huge shift to hard left that Labour has undertaken of late. They must be allowed to leave the party if they no longer subscribe to what they must to remain and retain their seat. The electorate can decide on their tenure next chance they get. Agent COB is no stranger to being at odds with his own party and this is a rather twee attempt at change from him.
