People vote for a party and they should (quite rightly) expect their parties candidates to be willing to tow the party line.
What, just like Jeremy Corbyn? He was regularly unwilling to toe the party line. He is apparently a good constituency MP. People voted for him. Should he have been deselected?
Yes, absolutely, if that's what party members wanted.
Of course, there may be a good argument that it was the Labour leadership post Kinnock who were out of touch and not Corbyn and that mandatory reselection would have maintained Labour as a coherent and left wing party unlike the Red Tories they became.
If they had done so, then in 1997, they would have likely only been able to form a government with the Lib Dems and proper PR would have been introduced.
This is a good example of how broken our democracy is and how democracy stems from the lowest level.
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. I know very well (because I've been involved in doing it) that consumer electronics companies evaluate competitors' products for various reasons, including to see how they do things, what we could learn from them, and, importantly, where they don't meet their published specifications.
The latter is good ammo when going into marketing meetings, when you can show customers that your competitor's products aren't quite as good as they make out. And in two cases I know our competitors did the same to us, as a customer gave us a spec sheet that rivals had given them on our product. (*)
It's another reason, as I mentioned the other day, why I would always argue against fixing or kludging figures.
Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
(*) In at least one of those cases, it was the fact measurements were being done by different methods.
Apologies for going off-topic straight away, but I do need to respond to Hurst Llama.
"Sean_F said:
that on here because it comes close to saying *looks around to see who is listening and then whispers*, "white flight"
That's a factor. But there are others. A very big increase in the student/university worker population in some seats; continued drift leftwards in Scotland, Merseyside, and the urban North. Continued leftward drift among middle class voters in Greater London and core cities.
On the plus side for the Conservatives, rapid economic growth in prosperous areas fuels growth in their electorates, and in due course, growth in the number of constituencies. There is an ongoing shift of population into Conservative-voting districts from Labour-voting districts. Presumably, those who move are disproportionately right wing.
I think there are some seats that have definitely trended to Con e.g. Kingswood and Sherwood. There are also areas like NE Wales and the Potteries where Lab is losing votes to UKIP, which may help Con come through the middle of the trend continues
Wales has been shifting rightwards ever so slightly, at most elections since 1970. For a long time, Labour's position in Wales was so strong that this didn't matter, but now it is starting to cost Labour seats. You're certainly correct about seats like Kingswood and Sherwood, but these were won narrowly by the Conservatives in 1992. But, they now look safer.
There's a very good paper here from Lewis Baston. His conclusion that much of the Midlands is starting to vote like the South (the Conservatives did better in both East and West Midlands than in 1992, and far better outside Birmingham, Nottingham, and Leicester). The good news for Labour is that parts of the South are starting to vote like Greater London (eg Brighton, Hove, Exeter). The big political divide, as he points out, is between London and core cities vs small cities/big towns/rural areas. He finds that levels of car ownership are a significant factor in political allegiances.
I should add that Jeremy Corbyn is the ideal leader to ensure that more of the Midlands votes like the South, while less of the South votes like Greater London.
Sherwood was Labour in 1992 as were Gower, Thurrock, Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Ipswich, Southampton Itchen and some other Labour seats won by Cameron. Cameron also won seats like Truro, North Cornwall, North Devon, Berwick, Yeovil and Montgomeryshire which wereLD in 1992
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Mandatory reselection is merely democracy in action. It should be the standard situation in all political parties. That it is not present in either the Labour or Tory parties is a disgrace.
Democracy in action is the electorate in the constituency voting resulting in the election of that MP. You seem to wish to substitute the views of a small number of people within the party for the views of the far larger number of actual voters. Some might consider that a tad contemptuous of voters.
All these arguments and fights were had in the 1980's and very enjoyable they were too for those watching. Less so for the Labour party, I think.
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
The only thing Skinner has improved is his own bank account and massive pension..he is a rather dim version of the rather dim Corbyn... all slogans and no policies
Dair maybe you should checkout the figures re money for youth football in the UK..
Where's your link.
Mens Football (and Mens and Womens Tennis) are unique amongst mainstream sports in that they receive no government funding (either directly or via the Lottery). The Govt (via various agencies) does support women's football.
People vote for a party and they should (quite rightly) expect their parties candidates to be willing to tow the party line.
What, just like Jeremy Corbyn? He was regularly unwilling to toe the party line. He is apparently a good constituency MP. People voted for him. Should he have been deselected?
Yes, absolutely, if that's what party members wanted.
Of course, there may be a good argument that it was the Labour leadership post Kinnock who were out of touch and not Corbyn and that mandatory reselection would have maintained Labour as a coherent and left wing party unlike the Red Tories they became.
If they had done so, then in 1997, they would have likely only been able to form a government with the Lib Dems and proper PR would have been introduced.
This is a good example of how broken our democracy is and how democracy stems from the lowest level.
Actually, your response is a good example of how modern political discourse tries to drown out the minority opinion, the variation inherent in the sectional interests represented by different electorates. Homogeneity is not a good thing in democracy - it tends to offend too many individuals/groups/interests all at once (I.e. SNP dominance in Scotland offends a large proportion of the English and Welsh electorate), or offers so little opinion that it becomes meaningless (I.e. Lib Dems 2015, Labour 2008-10).
I relish in being a member of a party with such contrary politicians as Redwood, Clarke, Halfon, Rees Mogg, BoJo etc.
Labour would be worse without Mandelson, and worse without Skinner.
I don't agree with "tax everyone else more". I would agree with "tax those with high earnings and/or high wealth and companies making high profits more". Otherwise, I'm a full-on Jezlamist.
Ten types of overpriced tat is still overpriced tat. An energy cartel isn't competition. Five different vans all delivering parcels to the same business park isn't efficient.
SR Trabant never had emission tests..and in some of the ones I rode in during a trip to East Germany..no floor..a couple of bits of wood to put your feet on..
Out of interest, this is the first time I've watched the ITV coverage of RWC. Does anyone else find that awful drawling which tops and tails each ad break by Paloma Faith to be utterly repellent?
It actually makes me want to give up and change the channel.
Looks like the Chinese have seen George coming from a mile off.
I am sure the Chinese kids have never heard of Man Utd, City, Arsenal or Chelsea
They've prob got posters of George Osborne on their bedroom walls, not Rayne Looney
Why trust the free market when state intervention will do?
Do you object to the scheme in general? It's been running since 2007 around the world. It's geared to teaching English through football, as explained here:
Do you object to the scheme operating in China? As the article notes, it's long-running there too.
Or is it just that you object to it being extended to Xinjiang province, which is what was announced this week?
Given that football is specifically associated with Britain among the Anglosphere countries, it looks like a novel way of getting some soft influence.
The fact that football is specifically associated with Britain among the Anglosphere countries means we can get that soft influence through our privately owned football teams without govt spending I would have thought
If mandatory reselection goes through it will send signal even Tom Watson can't mitigate Corbynite excesses, and that will be a big deal...
I am sure that loyal, hard-working MPs will see this as nothing more than a rubber stamping exercise.
The idea from some of these Labour MPs that they have a divine right to remain an MP forevermore without any accountability to activists is baffling.
I didn't even vote for Corbyn, but I would want my MP to be deselected if he started routinely voting with the Tories on things like Syria, welfare, etc.
Indeed.
Most people vote for a party most of the time. Sometimes local issues might be in play but the idea they vote for an individual is a complete fantasy of the democracy deniers in their ridiculous attempts to defend FPTP.
As people vote for a party, reselection should always take place to ensure the candidate reflects the parties views.
And the best part, if this analysis is wrong and the voters do vote for individuals, then a deselected candidate can just stand without the party label and by the democracy deniers logic, they would still win the seat.
Bwahahahhahahah
oh, you're not joking?
er...
Yeah. What a way to stamp out any form of individualism and dissent from a party.
Good thing enforced conformity and punishment of rebels was not in place to prevent Corbyn's local party selecting him all these years.
Oh... and for those who like cars, I am starting to wonder if Volkswagen and Volkswagen dealerships will survive much longer. A sniff of Ratner in the air methinks (or is it excess emissions?)
Not Ratner... their products (with some exceptions) were crap.
Nobody is saying that the VW Golf etc are suddenly shit.
True, but if you had £10+K in your pocket, would YOU buy a new Volkswagen tomorrow? Cash flow interruptions can kill businesses
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
And if they do go bust, there's so many about that there will be a very good independent dealer and parts ecosystems.
What do you mean you need a second car? Mr. Jessop, there are only three of you and only one working, do you really, really need a second car? How about trying an alternative plan? Leave the money in the bank and run for three months with only one car.
From what you have posted before I don't think you live any more rural than we do, and you may find, as we did, that what you thought was a need was just actually just a habit, that one car is more than enough and the savings on insurance alone more than covers the cost of the occasional taxi ride.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Mandatory reselection is merely democracy in action. It should be the standard situation in all political parties. That it is not present in either the Labour or Tory parties is a disgrace.
Democracy in action is the electorate in the constituency voting resulting in the election of that MP. You seem to wish to substitute the views of a small number of people within the party for the views of the far larger number of actual voters. Some might consider that a tad contemptuous of voters.
All these arguments and fights were had in the 1980's and very enjoyable they were too for those watching. Less so for the Labour party, I think.
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
Your focus is on the contract between party activists and MPs. That's fine, as far as it goes. You're missing the far more important contract: that between the party and the voters.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Mandatory reselection is merely democracy in action. It should be the standard situation in all political parties. That it is not present in either the Labour or Tory parties is a disgrace.
Democracy in action is the electorate in the constituency voting resulting in the election of that MP. You seem to wish to substitute the views of a small number of people within the party for the views of the far larger number of actual voters. Some might consider that a tad contemptuous of voters.
All these arguments and fights were had in the 1980's and very enjoyable they were too for those watching. Less so for the Labour party, I think.
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
Your focus is on the contract between party activists and MPs. That's fine, as far as it goes. You're missing the far more important contract: that between the party and the voters.
Such a logical disconnect is truly mind boggling.
The voters can vote for an independent candidate if they want an alternative to a political party and the promises they make through their manifesto, leadership and activists.
Your focus is on the contract between party activists and MPs. That's fine, as far as it goes. You're missing the far more important contract: that between the party and the voters.
That argument might be relevant when talking about Labour party policies, but again, I'm really not persuaded that swing voters are demanding particular personalities like Danczuk or Hunt as MPs, and that them being deselected would swing people's votes even with all other things being equal.
(Coincidentally or not, around half of the few Labour candidates who made gains from the Tories this year are on "the Left" of the party, while many of the Progress-backed "centrist" candidates in swing seats lost badly. At best, personal political positions seem irrelevant, behind general party policies or how good a local representative that person is.)
I guess most Jezlamists would see this data and argue that the soft left has just not been converted yet because no-one's made the argument to them.
''The people's stick is big and strong, And we will swing it before long. lf you think you can be bold, ‘Think again’ you will be told. So raise old Corbyn’s standard high, Beneath it's shade we'll live the lie, Though liberals flinch and moderates sneer, We'll keep the big stick swinging here.''
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
You seem to lack any understanding of how UK General Elections work.
In effect, the UK works as an electoral college, where constituencies return party representatives. Like any electoral college the voter should expect those representatives to vote in the way their party is offering through its manifesto, leadership and activists.
Anything else is an insult to the decision of the voters to back and party. Your highly contradictory nonsense even admits this when you say "inclined to vote Labour".
I understand perfectly well how elections work in this country. Your focus - and that of the Labour party at the moment is on party activists. It is talking to itself. Not to the voters. That is not a likely route to electoral success.
MPs stand for a party but represent all the people in their constituency.
I suggest you read Edmund Burke on the role of an MP before spouting more nonsense about what a party representative is supposed to do.
Oh... and for those who like cars, I am starting to wonder if Volkswagen and Volkswagen dealerships will survive much longer. A sniff of Ratner in the air methinks (or is it excess emissions?)
Not Ratner... their products (with some exceptions) were crap.
Nobody is saying that the VW Golf etc are suddenly shit.
True, but if you had £10+K in your pocket, would YOU buy a new Volkswagen tomorrow? Cash flow interruptions can kill businesses
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
And if they do go bust, there's so many about that there will be a very good independent dealer and parts ecosystems.
What do you mean you need a second car? Mr. Jessop, there are only three of you and only one working, do you really, really need a second car? How about trying an alternative plan? Leave the money in the bank and run for three months with only one car.
From what you have posted before I don't think you live any more rural than we do, and you may find, as we did, that what you thought was a need was just actually just a habit, that one car is more than enough and the savings on insurance alone more than covers the cost of the occasional taxi ride.
We've managed 11 years together with just one car as Mrs J likes living within walking distance of her work (which is one of the reasons we've moved around so much).
But her division's moving to an office near the Milton cr@pfarm (*), and there is no easy public transport link. The village we live in is pleasant and a good place for the little 'un to grow up in, and we don't want to move now we've finally bought a place, and particularly only for the sake of an eight-mile commute.
I also do lots of things with the little 'un that involves driving, and I really don't want to be without a car for those. So we've reluctantly decided to get a second one.
Out of interest, this is the first time I've watched the ITV coverage of RWC. Does anyone else find that awful drawling which tops and tails each ad break by Paloma Faith to be utterly repellent?
It actually makes me want to give up and change the channel.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Democracy in action is the electorate in the constituency voting resulting in the election of that MP. You seem to wish to substitute the views of a small number of people within the party for the views of the far larger number of actual voters. Some might consider that a tad contemptuous of voters.
All these arguments and fights were had in the 1980's and very enjoyable they were too for those watching. Less so for the Labour party, I think.
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
Your focus is on the contract between party activists and MPs. That's fine, as far as it goes. You're missing the far more important contract: that between the party and the voters.
Such a logical disconnect is truly mind boggling.
The voters can vote for an independent candidate if they want an alternative to a political party and the promises they make through their manifesto, leadership and activists.
Well, as I said, it was very enjoyable watching the Labour party tie itself in knots in the 1980's and, judging by these exchanges, it will be equally enjoyable this time around.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Mandatory reselection is merely democracy in action. It should be the standard situation in all political parties. That it is not present in either the Labour or Tory parties is a disgrace.
Democracy in action is
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like in.
Your focus is on
Such a logical disconnect is truly mind boggling.
The voters can vote for an independent candidate if they want an alternative to a political party and the promises they make through their manifesto, leadership and activists.
Of course, at the moment the manifesto many were elected promising to deliver is probably worth less than dirt in the eyes of the leader, who presumably knows about being elected under a manifesto and leader he thought was crap and proceeded to ignore, so there's a bit of a contradiction in place, as we maintain the fiction people vote purely for the individual so it ones that matter if they repeatedly disagree with their party even if their voters agree with it.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
You seem to lack any understanding of how UK General Elections work.
In effect, the UK works as an electoral college, where constituencies return party representatives. Like any electoral college the voter should expect those representatives to vote in the way their party is offering through its manifesto, leadership and activists.
Anything else is an insult to the decision of the voters to back and party. Your highly contradictory nonsense even admits this when you say "inclined to vote Labour".
I understand perfectly well how elections work in this country. Your focus - and that of the Labour party at the moment is on party activists. It is talking to itself. Not to the voters. That is not a likely route to electoral success.
MPs stand for a party but represent all the people in their constituency.
I suggest you read Edmund Burke on the role of an MP before spouting more nonsense about what a party representative is supposed to do.
Ah I see why your so logically bankrupt in this thread.
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties. They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party. If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents. If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
Watched most of the Scotland/Japan game. For most of it, the match was tense and tight, and then Japan appeared to collapse like an English batting lineup.
Still, good for Scotland. They're in solid shape to get out of the group, but if they'd lost it would've been tricky.
I guess most Jezlamists would see this data and argue that the soft left has just not been converted yet because no-one's made the argument to them.
''The people's stick is big and strong, And we will swing it before long. lf you think you can be bold, ‘Think again’ you will be told. So raise old Corbyn’s standard high, Beneath it's shade we'll live the lie, Though liberals flinch and moderates sneer, We'll keep the big stick swinging here.''
Ah I see why your so logically bankrupt in this thread.
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties. They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party. If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents. If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
By your logic, Labour MPs should definitely not be kowtowing to Corbyn, as people voting for them actually endorsed Ed Miliband's Labour Party.
Your position is far more inflexible and incoherent than Cyclefree's.
@OliverCooper: Corbyn says Labour MPs will be forced to compete for reselection if Conference approves it. Countdown to the #purge. http://t.co/Yn1qTjdidZ
Mandatory reselection is merely democracy in action. It should be the standard situation in all political parties. That it is not present in either the Labour or Tory parties is a disgrace.
Democracy in action is the electorate in the constituency voting resulting in the election of that MP. You seem to wish to substitute the views of a small number of people within the party for the views of the far larger number of actual voters. Some might consider that a tad contemptuous of voters.
All these arguments and fights were had in the 1980's and very enjoyable they were too for those watching. Less so for the Labour party, I think.
As Dair says, it is not contemptuous of the general electorate - any deselected MP is free to put themselves forward for re-election as an independent.
But standing under a party banner (and thereby benefitting from the hard work that activists do and money they pay to make sure that party banner has any currency) is a privilege, not a right.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
But a political party is more akin to a charity than a business. The true customers are the voting public.
The irony is that it actually seems to me that the Labour activists demanding reselection procedures have the more capitalist/"free market" view on this! They're saying that MPs should be subject to accountability and be required to perform if they want to keep their jobs. The "centrist" MPs on the other hand seem to be saying they're entitled to jobs for life no matter how poorly they do.
For me, saying party activists should have no right to deselect their MPs, is as illogical as saying Tesco shareholders should have no right to sack the CEO if the company is tanking
JJ Get the second car.. it will enhance your life..and all you are spending is money..what you will get in return are some precious moments with your child...life is too darn short to always be thinking about dosh..
Watched most of the Scotland/Japan game. For most of it, the match was tense and tight, and then Japan appeared to collapse like an English batting lineup.
Still, good for Scotland. They're in solid shape to get out of the group, but if they'd lost it would've been tricky.
Before Cotter, Scotland had arguably the best defence in the world of rugby (but they couldn't score a try for toffee). Their defence is a hell of a lot poorer now and decent sides tend to expos that. However, they are excellent on the attack.
Japan managed to put Scotland on the back foot but this was pretty tiring for them and they weren't good enough to capitalise on that. As soon as they started to tire, the Scottish attack were always going to rip them to shreds.
JJ Get the second car.. it will enhance your life..and all you are spending is money..what you will get in return are some precious moments with your child...life is too darn short to always be thinking about dosh..
Pretty much my view. I'd rather not spend the money, but I also don't want to miss out on taking the little 'un to picnics in Wimpole Park, various groups outside the village, visiting friends, etc, etc.
I'm very tempted to get a brand new car for the first time in my life, and sod the depreciation. But probably not, as I'm tight.
Well, to be fair, Dair has a point. The Labour Party is perfectly free to organise itself, and choose its parliamentary candidates, as it chooses. If it wants to deselect MPs who fail some Corbynite ideological purity test that is up to the party.
Of course, voters are perfectly free to place their votes in the next general election accordingly.
Those arguments were run in the 1980's too. There is a smidgen of merit in them but not as much as you might think, particularly when it resulted in Labour remaining out of power. All the focus on the rights of party activists was all well and good but it rather ignored the rights and desires and needs of the voters, particularly those who might be inclined to vote Labour.
In politics you have to choose. Labour needs to decide whether it prefers to be on the side of party activists or voters.
Anything else is an insult to the decision of the voters to back and party. Your highly contradictory nonsense even admits this when you say "inclined to vote Labour".
I understand perfectly well how elections work in this country. Your focus - and that of the Labour party at the moment is on party activists. It is talking to itself. Not to the voters. That is not a likely route to electoral success.
MPs stand for a party but represent all the people in their constituency.
I suggest you read Edmund Burke on the role of an MP before spouting more nonsense about what a party representative is supposed to do.
Ah I see why your so logically bankrupt in this thread.
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties. They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party. If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents. If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
There is nothing 18th Century about expecting an MP to represent his or her constituents, who are all of the people in the constituency, not just those who voted for him or her.
According to your logic, the electorate in Corbyn's constituency should have expected him to vote in line with the party. He did not do so, being one of the most prolific and prolonged rebels. If anything, he voted more often with the Tories. Perhaps he should have stood as a Tory in that case. Or maybe as an independent.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
He - or those around him - are now expecting other MPs to do precisely what he did not do and to be treated in the opposite way to how he was treated. Do as I say, not do as I do. There's nothing "new" about such politics.
Ah I see why your so logically bankrupt in this thread.
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties. They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party. If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents. If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
By your logic, Labour MPs should definitely not be kowtowing to Corbyn, as people voting for them actually endorsed Ed Miliband's Labour Party.
Your position is far more inflexible and incoherent than Cyclefree's.
My position is that political parties should have mandatory reselection.
That could well have seen Corbyn booted out and I would be very happy with that. Equally as likely, it could also have seen the Blairite coup completely derailed with an inability to parachute their pals into seats and deselection of Blairites by local parties.
Unfortunately there wasn't mandatory reselection so we don;t know which outcome would have occurred. I'd have no problem with either.
LOL, Labour has many problems but the idea that voters would be put off by Labour losing the sparkling personalities of Simon Danczuk or Tristram Hunt is a bit hard to take seriously.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
But a political party is more akin to a charity than a business. The true customers are the voting public.
And under those terms, the likes of Danczuk would be a breach of the Trade Descriptions Act
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
But a political party is more akin to a charity than a business. The true customers are the voting public.
I don't agree. As far as I'm concerned, parties are private businesses who put together a product, and then try to get the public to give them a 5-year contract.
Obviously they would be wise to listen to what the public think if they want to be successful, but it still should ultimately be the choice of the people who fund and power the party.
Ah I see why your so logically bankrupt in this thread.
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties. They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party. If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents. If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
By your logic, Labour MPs should definitely not be kowtowing to Corbyn, as people voting for them actually endorsed Ed Miliband's Labour Party.
Your position is far more inflexible and incoherent than Cyclefree's.
My position is that political parties should have mandatory reselection.
That could well have seen Corbyn booted out and I would be very happy with that. Equally as likely, it could also have seen the Blairite coup completely derailed with an inability to parachute their pals into seats and deselection of Blairites by local parties.
Unfortunately there wasn't mandatory reselection so we don;t know which outcome would have occurred. I'd have no problem with either.
Why should the local activists get to decide the local candidates? If "democracy" and party coherence is all, then selections should be made at party level [via whatever democratic mechanism you like] and the candidates then doled out to seats. Otherwise you privilege activists in winnable seats.
In practice, the pragmatic approach to selection and tenure has served both major parties well, in terms of maintaining a connection to the wider electorate rather than disappearing up their own ideological fundaments. Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
The irony is that it actually seems to me that the Labour activists demanding reselection procedures have the more capitalist/"free market" view on this! They're saying that MPs should be subject to accountability and be required to perform if they want to keep their jobs. The "centrist" MPs on the other hand seem to be saying they're entitled to jobs for life no matter how poorly they do.
For me, saying party activists should have no right to deselect their MPs, is as illogical as saying Tesco shareholders should have no right to sack the CEO if the company is tanking
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
The Tories went through something similar. And they remained out of power because they were talking to themselves.
The Labour activists are hoping that the result will be different this time.
If Labour want to get into power, they need to realise that the people they need to persuade are not the party activists but the voters. That's all.
But, hey, what do I know. I'm only a voter, after all.
We need to 'raise awareness' of Premier League football in China apparently...
twitter.com/tommctague/status/646708496138924032
Do grow up
What do you mean? Osborne said the cash was to "significantly increase" China's awareness of English football
At the end of this typical Mail diatribe is ... ''The Premier Skills initiative, operated since 2008 by the Premier League and British Council, is designed to bring through new coaches and referees across the world and inspire young people to get involved in football. So far the programme has trained 1,100 coaches and reached nearly 500,000 young people in China, and the new UK government cash has allowed it to be extended for the first time to the rural Xinjiang region. Most of the players who met the Chancellor were from the region's Uighur ethnic minority.''
'since 2008' so to repeat ... do grow up.
And as a PS Some oaf complained about 'giving' China £2bn... re the power station deal l suppose but this is a loan guarantee not a payment and will not get used.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
JJ Get the second car.. it will enhance your life..and all you are spending is money..what you will get in return are some precious moments with your child...life is too darn short to always be thinking about dosh..
Pretty much my view. I'd rather not spend the money, but I also don't want to miss out on taking the little 'un to picnics in Wimpole Park, various groups outside the village, visiting friends, etc, etc.
I'm very tempted to get a brand new car for the first time in my life, and sod the depreciation. But probably not, as I'm tight.
You could probably get 0% finance out of a VW dealership, or a good discount for cash I reckon.
Mr. Dair, I do think Japan had a credible chance, but they made more mistakes and fell to pieces.
Agree on Scotland now being pretty good at try-scoring, whereas in the past they rarely did it.
Whilst I would've preferred a reasonable odds bet to come off, 'tis nice that Scotland are in a good position.
I think the next interesting match is England Vs Wales.
Well this evening Romania are still 50/1 with Paddy and a couple of others. At worst there should be a small profit on cash out when it's still close at half time.
And as a PS Some oaf complained about 'giving' China £2bn... re the power station deal l suppose but this is a loan guarantee not a payment and will not get used.
Cheers for the vote of confidence FP - but the guaranteed price per kwh from Hinkley is looking expensive right now. And the taxpayer will pick up the tab unless oil recovers some.
Not in the least bit surprised by the polling for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, when observed in their natural habit on social media, they are quite clearly barking mad.
Why should the local activists get to decide the local candidates? If "democracy" and party coherence is all, then selections should be made at party level [via whatever democratic mechanism you like] and the candidates then doled out to seats. Otherwise you privilege activists in winnable seats.
In practice, the pragmatic approach to selection and tenure has served both major parties well, in terms of maintaining a connection to the wider electorate rather than disappearing up their own ideological fundaments. Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
Interestingly, especially if you add another strand from this thread - that parties should listen and not preach, the most successful party in the United Kingdom bucks these trends.
The SNP have mandatory reselection and, on balance, appear far more willing to try to convert voters to their line than alter their line to appease voters.
Labour and the Tories can only dream of the SNP's VI share.
I guess most Jezlamists would see this data and argue that the soft left has just not been converted yet because no-one's made the argument to them.
''The people's stick is big and strong, And we will swing it before long. lf you think you can be bold, ‘Think again’ you will be told. So raise old Corbyn’s standard high, Beneath it's shade we'll live the lie, Though liberals flinch and moderates sneer, We'll keep the big stick swinging here.''
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep. As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there. So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop. Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
The defeat device as far as l know it is not present on cars in Britain. The issue refers one type of engine and to cars in America. Has there been additional news?
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
The irony is that it actually seems to me that the Labour activists demanding reselection procedures have the more capitalist/"free market" view on this! They're saying that MPs should be subject to accountability and be required to perform if they want to keep their jobs. The "centrist" MPs on the other hand seem to be saying they're entitled to jobs for life no matter how poorly they do.
For me, saying party activists should have no right to deselect their MPs, is as illogical as saying Tesco shareholders should have no right to sack the CEO if the company is tanking
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
The Tories went through something similar. And they remained out of power because they were talking to themselves.
The Labour activists are hoping that the result will be different this time.
If Labour want to get into power, they need to realise that the people they need to persuade are not the party activists but the voters. That's all.
But, hey, what do I know. I'm only a voter, after all.
Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
The fact that statement is true demonstrates just how fucked Labour are right now. Has there ever been a wider gap between a major parliamentary party, it's activists and the electorate ?
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
This re-runs the "stand for something we care about and maybe even win" vs "be electable at all costs and maybe even do something worthwhile" argument which was decisively answered (rightly or wrongly) in the leadership election. It'd be interesting, though, to know how "potential voters" in this survey were defined (and indeed how "firm" and "weak" and "Corbyn supporters" were defined).
I don't think Corbyn will have much trouble keeping left-wing voters onside - e.g. left-wing criticism of him for already saying he doesn't plan to press NATO withdrawal or the monarchy has been zero,since even the most ardent left-winger can see we can't do everything at once. Trident will be trickier, with odd alliances (UNITE is very pro-Trident for employment reasons).
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
As I understand the software, the US device is programmed to recognise the conditions of a US based emissions test and react accordingly.. An MOT test would not meet those conditions..as it is purely an emissions test based on CO and smoke.. and there is no rolling road used -(for emissions)...
Unless it has been reprogrammed to recognise an MOT test. If it has been that would be I suspect death for VAG...in the UK at least.
I believe the VAG 3.0D V6 used in VAG, Audi and Porsche cars may also be affectd..
Why should the local activists get to decide the local candidates? If "democracy" and party coherence is all, then selections should be made at party level [via whatever democratic mechanism you like] and the candidates then doled out to seats. Otherwise you privilege activists in winnable seats.
In practice, the pragmatic approach to selection and tenure has served both major parties well, in terms of maintaining a connection to the wider electorate rather than disappearing up their own ideological fundaments. Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
Interestingly, especially if you add another strand from this thread - that parties should listen and not preach, the most successful party in the United Kingdom bucks these trends.
The SNP have mandatory reselection and, on balance, appear far more willing to try to convert voters to their line than alter their line to appease voters.
Labour and the Tories can only dream of the SNP's VI share.
It's a bit easier when you set yourself up to govern as a permanent opposition and invite people to vote themselves more money.
And mandatory reselection may yet cause a lot of trouble for the SNP as and when their fortunes change or there is some sort of split (perhaps over Indyref II). I don't know anything about the details of how SNP mandatory reselection works in practice, though.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
The fact that statement is true demonstrates just how fucked Labour are right now. Has there ever been a wider gap between a major parliamentary party, it's activists and the electorate ?
Labour in the early 1980s, probably. I don'tthink today's far lefters have the tenacity their colleagues of yesteryear showed.
There is no doubt in my mind that with Corbyn as leader, Labour will split into two and perhaps three parties. Labour started with different strands of the workers movement coming together, i.e., union, co-operative, fabian and independents. Indeed there were so called Independent Labour MP's in parliament up to 1945. So back to basics?
This re-runs the "stand for something we care about and maybe even win" vs "be electable at all costs and maybe even do something worthwhile" argument which was decisively answered (rightly or wrongly) in the leadership election.
Yes, that is correct. I'm not sure it should be any consolation, though - rather the reverse, since Corbyn's mandate was sufficiently large to make it hard to start the necessary corrective action.
I don't agree with "tax everyone else more". I would agree with "tax those with high earnings and/or high wealth and companies making high profits more". Otherwise, I'm a full-on Jezlamist.
The party faithfull will have their own special shops.
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
As I understand the software, the US device is programmed to recognise the conditions of a US based emissions test and react accordingly.. An MOT test would not meet those conditions..as it is purely an emissions test based on CO and smoke.. and there is no rolling road used -(for emissions)...
Unless it has been reprogrammed to recognise an MOT test. If it has been that would be I suspect death for VAG...in the UK at least.
I believe the VAG 3.0D V6 used in VAG, Audi and Porsche cars may also be affectd..
Thanks for that. Do you know of any good links into a technical breakdown of this?
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
It is not just whether you have mandatory reselection, how that reselection is carried out is just as important. Is it for a constituncy executive, for the constituncy membership, for supporters too, or what?
I don't agree with "tax everyone else more". I would agree with "tax those with high earnings and/or high wealth and companies making high profits more". Otherwise, I'm a full-on Jezlamist.
Ten types of overpriced tat is still overpriced tat. An energy cartel isn't competition. Five different vans all delivering parcels to the same business park isn't efficient.
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
How do you deselect an elected MP yet still say you are allowing him to be accountable and put himself forward to the electorate. Where does the MP get his deposit from; and his campaign funds; who nominates him; how does he campaign on his own; where is his voter canvassing data? Where is the level playing field.
We need to 'raise awareness' of Premier League football in China apparently...
twitter.com/tommctague/status/646708496138924032
Do grow up
What do you mean? Osborne said the cash was to "significantly increase" China's awareness of English football
At the end of this typical Mail diatribe is ... ''The Premier Skills initiative, operated since 2008 by the Premier League and British Council, is designed to bring through new coaches and referees across the world and inspire young people to get involved in football. So far the programme has trained 1,100 coaches and reached nearly 500,000 young people in China, and the new UK government cash has allowed it to be extended for the first time to the rural Xinjiang region. Most of the players who met the Chancellor were from the region's Uighur ethnic minority.''
'since 2008' so to repeat ... do grow up.
And as a PS Some oaf complained about 'giving' China £2bn... re the power station deal l suppose but this is a loan guarantee not a payment and will not get used.
The free market could do it for nothing but I'm not going to argue any more.. big statists like yourself always want the last word
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
Probably. I can see how it might swing things in a tight race, but by and large, outside of major and rare events (such as the SNP surge), a monkey could hold a safe seat it seems, and someone being hated within their own party hardly seems to matter - as long as they can secure the local nomination, they'll pick up those voting positively for policies the party supports but they don't, while allowing them to do so as they can say their constituents clearly like that (even if it is probably hard to know the proportion that do - for instance, how many of Danzuk's voters voted for Corbyn? It might be very few, but it might have been as overwhelming there as most places)
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
I don't think it's ever been particularly hyped, has it? I remember reading one account which said that, at its best, the personal vote is no more that 1000-1500 votes. But what a hard working MP may be able to do is convert a small majority into a larger one e.g. Farron.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
I don't think it's ever been particularly hyped, has it?
I think it's brought out more on the internet as a 'people vote for candidates, not parties or leaders, silly' kind of rebuttal, when simple fact is many people are effectively voting for the party.
This is the problem with letting a couple of hundred thousand entryists dictate the party leader for a mainstream party. Their opinions are not representative of the wider public or centre left. Labour have a long road ahead of them if they stick with Corbyn. Sadly I don't see how they will be able to ditch him with the same rules for leader present or the same membership as they currently have.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
Probably. I can see how it might swing things in a tight race, but by and large, outside of major and rare events (such as the SNP surge), a monkey could hold a safe seat it seems, and someone being hated within their own party hardly seems to matter - as long as they can secure the local nomination, they'll pick up those voting positively for policies the party supports but they don't, while allowing them to do so as they can say their constituents clearly like that (even if it is probably hard to know the proportion that do - for instance, how many of Danzuk's voters voted for Corbyn? It might be very few, but it might have been as overwhelming there as most places)
Part of the problem appears to be that a lot of things which are not personal votes are confused as personal votes.
People talked for years about Liberals having personal votes. But it seems to be that the reality is that people were simply more willing to vote for a third party where they had a chance of winning or held the seat already.
Just basic logic says this is almost certainly true - it is undoubtedly far more likely that this was the reason than by some miracle every Liberal in the country just happened to have great personal support.
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
How do you deselect an elected MP yet still say you are allowing him to be accountable and put himself forward to the electorate. Where does the MP get his deposit from; and his campaign funds; who nominates him; how does he campaign on his own; where is his voter canvassing data? Where is the level playing field.
If s/he is really talented and good enough, s/he will naturally get the funding and support as an independent. Isn't that one of the main principles behind "laissez-faire" meritocratic policies?
All of the benefits you talk about just shows what a privilege it is to stand under a party banner, and why it's reasonable for party activists to also hold MPs to account in return for the privileges that they're paying for.
This is the problem with letting a couple of hundred thousand entryists dictate the party leader for a mainstream party. Their opinions are not representative of the wider public or centre left. Labour have a long road ahead of them if they stick with Corbyn. Sadly I don't see how they will be able to ditch him with the same rules for leader present or the same membership as they currently have.
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
How do you deselect an elected MP yet still say you are allowing him to be accountable and put himself forward to the electorate. Where does the MP get his deposit from; and his campaign funds; who nominates him; how does he campaign on his own; where is his voter canvassing data? Where is the level playing field.
If s/he is really talented and good enough, s/he will naturally get the funding and support as an independent. Isn't that one of the main principles behind "laissez-faire" meritocratic policies?
All of the benefits you talk about just shows what a privilege it is to stand under a party banner, and why it's reasonable for party activists to also hold MPs to account in return for the privileges that they're paying for.
The real answer to the question is that an MP with a personal following who is deselected will transfer to another party that is more flexible. That is unlikely to be to the advantage of the original party, which in turn should encourage that party to be hands-off when deciding whether to deselect.
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
As I understand the software, the US device is programmed to recognise the conditions of a US based emissions test and react accordingly.. An MOT test would not meet those conditions..as it is purely an emissions test based on CO and smoke.. and there is no rolling road used -(for emissions)...
Unless it has been reprogrammed to recognise an MOT test. If it has been that would be I suspect death for VAG...in the UK at least.
I believe the VAG 3.0D V6 used in VAG, Audi and Porsche cars may also be affectd..
Thanks for that. Do you know of any good links into a technical breakdown of this?
The issue is not whether MPs should be accountable. It's whom they should be accountable to. Some say the voters; others say the party activists. The same arguments were had 30 or more years ago. The result was that Labour stayed out of power.
They should be accountable to BOTH if they stand on a party ticket.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
How do you deselect an elected MP yet still say you are allowing him to be accountable and put himself forward to the electorate. Where does the MP get his deposit from; and his campaign funds; who nominates him; how does he campaign on his own; where is his voter canvassing data? Where is the level playing field.
If s/he is really talented and good enough, s/he will naturally get the funding and support as an independent. Isn't that one of the main principles behind "laissez-faire" meritocratic policies?
All of the benefits you talk about just shows what a privilege it is to stand under a party banner, and why it's reasonable for party activists to also hold MPs to account in return for the privileges that they're paying for.
MPs are paid for by the taxpayer.
Mandatory reselection concentrates party power in a generally duopolic system. Being against it is like being against cartels: sensible.
Unions would not allow such unprotected employment regulations for their workers....
We need a second car in a month, and I'm considering doing just that. There's a risk, but I might be able to screw them down on a really good deal. Even though I'm not a particularly good haggler.
Other manufacturers are feeling the heat too. If Volkswagen could do it....
If more of them falls foul of this then the industry may be safe. The EU cannot afford to have the ENTIRE automotive sector go *boom*. If it is only Volkswagen then one sacrifice for the good of the rest might be viewed as worth it.
I suspect that good deals are going to be found on more than VW forecourts.
Yep.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. .... Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
It will be interesting to see what happens, but for now VW may have a cash-flow problem to add to the enormous fines and huge share drop.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
As I understand the software, the US device is programmed to recognise the conditions of a US based emissions test and react accordingly.. An MOT test would not meet those conditions..as it is purely an emissions test based on CO and smoke.. and there is no rolling road used -(for emissions)...
Unless it has been reprogrammed to recognise an MOT test. If it has been that would be I suspect death for VAG...in the UK at least.
I believe the VAG 3.0D V6 used in VAG, Audi and Porsche cars may also be affectd..
Thanks for that. Do you know of any good links into a technical breakdown of this?
This is the problem with letting a couple of hundred thousand entryists dictate the party leader for a mainstream party. Their opinions are not representative of the wider public or centre left. Labour have a long road ahead of them if they stick with Corbyn. Sadly I don't see how they will be able to ditch him with the same rules for leader present or the same membership as they currently have.
Any replacement would have to be a Senior Shadow Cabinet Minister seen as of the Left i.e. Hillary Benn just as Michael Howard, a rightwinger who was IDS' Shadow Chancellor was the only logical alternative in 2003
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
Apart from 2010 there is not a single election where Corbyn has bucked the trend. His vote has been up when Labour were up and down when Labour were down.
Thanks. I had read otherwise.
Generally speaking, everything I have ever read about personal votes and individuals bucking trends has never stood up to any sort of scrutiny.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
I don't think it's ever been particularly hyped, has it? I remember reading one account which said that, at its best, the personal vote is no more that 1000-1500 votes. But what a hard working MP may be able to do is convert a small majority into a larger one e.g. Farron.
There are other factors to bear in mind as well. For some MPs - and Farron is a terrific example of this - if you have the local newspaper in your pocket then it all becomes a whole lot easier.
Apologies for going off-topic straight away, but I do need to respond to Hurst Llama.
"Sean_F said:
that on here because it comes close to saying *looks around to see who is listening and then whispers*, "white flight"
That's a factor. But there are others. A very big increase in the student/university worker population in some seats; continued drift leftwards in Scotland, Merseyside, and the urban North.
On the plus side for the Conservatives, rapid economic growth in prosperous areas fuels growth in their electorates, and in due course, growth in the number of constituencies. There is an ongoing shift of population into Conservative-voting districts from Labour-voting districts. Presumably, those who move are disproportionately right wing.
I think there are some seats that have definitely trended to Con e.g. Kingswood and Sherwood. There are also areas like NE Wales and the Potteries where Lab is losing votes to UKIP, which may help Con come through the middle of the trend continues
Wales has been shifting rightwards ever so slightly, at most elections since 1970. For a long time, Labour's position in Wales was so strong that this didn't matter, but now it is starting to cost Labour seats. You're certainly correct about seats like Kingswood and Sherwood, but these were won narrowly by the Conservatives in 1992. But, they now look safer.
There's a very good paper here from Lewis Baston. His conclusion that much of the Midlands is starting to vote like the South (the Conservatives did better in both East and West Midlands than in 1992, and far better outside Birmingham, Nottingham, and Leicester). The good news for Labour is that parts of the South are starting to vote like Greater London (eg Brighton, Hove, Exeter). The big political divide, as he points out, is between London and core cities vs small cities/big towns/rural areas. He finds that levels of car ownership are a significant factor in political allegiances.
I should add that Jeremy Corbyn is the ideal leader to ensure that more of the Midlands votes like the South, while less of the South votes like Greater London.
Sherwood was Labour in 1992 as were Gower, Thurrock, Nuneaton, Warwickshire North, Ipswich, Southampton Itchen and some other Labour seats won by Cameron. Cameron also won seats like Truro, North Cornwall, North Devon, Berwick, Yeovil and Montgomeryshire which wereLD in 1992
Thanks. I thought it was a narrow hold. But, I still think it's correct that the bulk of Conservative gains come from the creation of new seats.
Why should the local activists get to decide the local candidates? If "democracy" and party coherence is all, then selections should be made at party level [via whatever democratic mechanism you like] and the candidates then doled out to seats. Otherwise you privilege activists in winnable seats.
In practice, the pragmatic approach to selection and tenure has served both major parties well, in terms of maintaining a connection to the wider electorate rather than disappearing up their own ideological fundaments. Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
Interestingly, especially if you add another strand from this thread - that parties should listen and not preach, the most successful party in the United Kingdom bucks these trends.
The SNP have mandatory reselection and, on balance, appear far more willing to try to convert voters to their line than alter their line to appease voters.
Labour and the Tories can only dream of the SNP's VI share.
It's a bit easier when you set yourself up to govern as a permanent opposition and invite people to vote themselves more money.
And mandatory reselection may yet cause a lot of trouble for the SNP as and when their fortunes change or there is some sort of split (perhaps over Indyref II). I don't know anything about the details of how SNP mandatory reselection works in practice, though.
Bollox, given the SNP work on pocket money doled out by the troughers , which is reducing rather than rising, where do you get the "vote themselves more money " garbage.
Comments
Of course, there may be a good argument that it was the Labour leadership post Kinnock who were out of touch and not Corbyn and that mandatory reselection would have maintained Labour as a coherent and left wing party unlike the Red Tories they became.
If they had done so, then in 1997, they would have likely only been able to form a government with the Lib Dems and proper PR would have been introduced.
This is a good example of how broken our democracy is and how democracy stems from the lowest level.
As an aside, I'm surprised this hasn't come out earlier. I know very well (because I've been involved in doing it) that consumer electronics companies evaluate competitors' products for various reasons, including to see how they do things, what we could learn from them, and, importantly, where they don't meet their published specifications.
The latter is good ammo when going into marketing meetings, when you can show customers that your competitor's products aren't quite as good as they make out. And in two cases I know our competitors did the same to us, as a customer gave us a spec sheet that rivals had given them on our product. (*)
It's another reason, as I mentioned the other day, why I would always argue against fixing or kludging figures.
Given this, what are the chances that Ford, Toyota, Honda etc don't rip apart and test their rivals' products. And if they're doing that, they'd be really incompetent if they didn't know the defeat device was there.
So why were they keeping quiet? There's an ominous answer: MAD.
(*) In at least one of those cases, it was the fact measurements were being done by different methods.
Again, I come back to that, just like any public service or business contract, customers (in this case party activists) are well within the rights to expect something in return for the money and effort they put in.
I bet Trabant wouldn't have done it!
Mens Football (and Mens and Womens Tennis) are unique amongst mainstream sports in that they receive no government funding (either directly or via the Lottery). The Govt (via various agencies) does support women's football.
Actually, your response is a good example of how modern political discourse tries to drown out the minority opinion, the variation inherent in the sectional interests represented by different electorates. Homogeneity is not a good thing in democracy - it tends to offend too many individuals/groups/interests all at once (I.e. SNP dominance in Scotland offends a large proportion of the English and Welsh electorate), or offers so little opinion that it becomes meaningless (I.e. Lib Dems 2015, Labour 2008-10).
I relish in being a member of a party with such contrary politicians as Redwood, Clarke, Halfon, Rees Mogg, BoJo etc.
Labour would be worse without Mandelson, and worse without Skinner.
It actually makes me want to give up and change the channel.
From what you have posted before I don't think you live any more rural than we do, and you may find, as we did, that what you thought was a need was just actually just a habit, that one car is more than enough and the savings on insurance alone more than covers the cost of the occasional taxi ride.
The voters can vote for an independent candidate if they want an alternative to a political party and the promises they make through their manifesto, leadership and activists.
(Coincidentally or not, around half of the few Labour candidates who made gains from the Tories this year are on "the Left" of the party, while many of the Progress-backed "centrist" candidates in swing seats lost badly. At best, personal political positions seem irrelevant, behind general party policies or how good a local representative that person is.)
And we will swing it before long.
lf you think you can be bold,
‘Think again’ you will be told.
So raise old Corbyn’s standard high,
Beneath it's shade we'll live the lie,
Though liberals flinch and moderates sneer,
We'll keep the big stick swinging here.''
MPs stand for a party but represent all the people in their constituency.
I suggest you read Edmund Burke on the role of an MP before spouting more nonsense about what a party representative is supposed to do.
But her division's moving to an office near the Milton cr@pfarm (*), and there is no easy public transport link. The village we live in is pleasant and a good place for the little 'un to grow up in, and we don't want to move now we've finally bought a place, and particularly only for the sake of an eight-mile commute.
I also do lots of things with the little 'un that involves driving, and I really don't want to be without a car for those. So we've reluctantly decided to get a second one.
(*) Otherwise known as Cambridge Science Park
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/Network-Rail-unveil-vision-new-Cambridge-North/story-26563239-detail/story.html
I wouldn't like to be waiting for a train there in summer if the wind;s in the wrong direction. Although they might be fixing it:
http://www.cambridge-news.co.uk/8203-Excrement-peak-multi-million-pound-poo/story-26090142-detail/story.html
Reliance on narrow 18th century viewpoints as to "what an MP is" is always going to lead people into intellectual cul de sacs.
Again the logic is not hard.
People vote for parties.
They have a right to expect successful party nominees to vote in line with the party.
If the prospeective MP does not support the party lin they can stand as independents.
If people do not vote for parties they will be successful as independents.
Watched most of the Scotland/Japan game. For most of it, the match was tense and tight, and then Japan appeared to collapse like an English batting lineup.
Still, good for Scotland. They're in solid shape to get out of the group, but if they'd lost it would've been tricky.
Your position is far more inflexible and incoherent than Cyclefree's.
For me, saying party activists should have no right to deselect their MPs, is as illogical as saying Tesco shareholders should have no right to sack the CEO if the company is tanking
Japan managed to put Scotland on the back foot but this was pretty tiring for them and they weren't good enough to capitalise on that. As soon as they started to tire, the Scottish attack were always going to rip them to shreds.
I'm very tempted to get a brand new car for the first time in my life, and sod the depreciation. But probably not, as I'm tight.
Of course, voters are perfectly free to place their votes in the next general election accordingly.
According to your logic, the electorate in Corbyn's constituency should have expected him to vote in line with the party. He did not do so, being one of the most prolific and prolonged rebels. If anything, he voted more often with the Tories. Perhaps he should have stood as a Tory in that case. Or maybe as an independent.
His constituents, on the other hand, were perfectly happy with him, which is why he has had increased majorities even while the party lost.
He - or those around him - are now expecting other MPs to do precisely what he did not do and to be treated in the opposite way to how he was treated. Do as I say, not do as I do. There's nothing "new" about such politics.
That could well have seen Corbyn booted out and I would be very happy with that. Equally as likely, it could also have seen the Blairite coup completely derailed with an inability to parachute their pals into seats and deselection of Blairites by local parties.
Unfortunately there wasn't mandatory reselection so we don;t know which outcome would have occurred. I'd have no problem with either.
Agree on Scotland now being pretty good at try-scoring, whereas in the past they rarely did it.
Whilst I would've preferred a reasonable odds bet to come off, 'tis nice that Scotland are in a good position.
I think the next interesting match is England Vs Wales.
Incidentally, does the "defeat device" work during MOT tests?
Obviously they would be wise to listen to what the public think if they want to be successful, but it still should ultimately be the choice of the people who fund and power the party.
In practice, the pragmatic approach to selection and tenure has served both major parties well, in terms of maintaining a connection to the wider electorate rather than disappearing up their own ideological fundaments. Mandatory reselection represents an existential threat for today's Labour Party.
The Tories went through something similar. And they remained out of power because they were talking to themselves.
The Labour activists are hoping that the result will be different this time.
If Labour want to get into power, they need to realise that the people they need to persuade are not the party activists but the voters. That's all.
But, hey, what do I know. I'm only a voter, after all.
''The Premier Skills initiative, operated since 2008 by the Premier League and British Council, is designed to bring through new coaches and referees across the world and inspire young people to get involved in football.
So far the programme has trained 1,100 coaches and reached nearly 500,000 young people in China, and the new UK government cash has allowed it to be extended for the first time to the rural Xinjiang region.
Most of the players who met the Chancellor were from the region's Uighur ethnic minority.''
'since 2008'
so to repeat ... do grow up.
And as a PS
Some oaf complained about 'giving' China £2bn... re the power station deal l suppose but this is a loan guarantee not a payment and will not get used.
Not in the least bit surprised by the polling for Jeremy Corbyn supporters, when observed in their natural habit on social media, they are quite clearly barking mad.
The SNP have mandatory reselection and, on balance, appear far more willing to try to convert voters to their line than alter their line to appease voters.
Labour and the Tories can only dream of the SNP's VI share.
And after forcing them to take a quota of immigrants, they'll beat them at the rugby.
Which is only achieved through mandatory reselection.
They will call you a Tory and tell you to FO.
also-rans 40.5%
I don't think Corbyn will have much trouble keeping left-wing voters onside - e.g. left-wing criticism of him for already saying he doesn't plan to press NATO withdrawal or the monarchy has been zero,since even the most ardent left-winger can see we can't do everything at once. Trident will be trickier, with odd alliances (UNITE is very pro-Trident for employment reasons).
As I understand the software, the US device is programmed to recognise the conditions of a US based emissions test and react accordingly.. An MOT test would not meet those conditions..as it is purely an emissions test based on CO and smoke.. and there is no rolling road used -(for emissions)...
Unless it has been reprogrammed to recognise an MOT test. If it has been that would be I suspect death for VAG...in the UK at least.
I believe the VAG 3.0D V6 used in VAG, Audi and Porsche cars may also be affectd..
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/09/new-polling-data-shows-challenge-facing-jeremy-corbyn
"Currently, just over a quarter would vote Labour; a further 20 per cent would consider doing so."
On the natural reading of this wording, it sounds as if Labour can't be above 28%.
And mandatory reselection may yet cause a lot of trouble for the SNP as and when their fortunes change or there is some sort of split (perhaps over Indyref II). I don't know anything about the details of how SNP mandatory reselection works in practice, though.
It is probably the biggest myth in UK politics.
Communist equality in action.
Where is the level playing field.
@BBCNormanS: Jeremy Corbyn in @NewStatesman pledges to re-create a Department of Employment
People talked for years about Liberals having personal votes. But it seems to be that the reality is that people were simply more willing to vote for a third party where they had a chance of winning or held the seat already.
Just basic logic says this is almost certainly true - it is undoubtedly far more likely that this was the reason than by some miracle every Liberal in the country just happened to have great personal support.
All of the benefits you talk about just shows what a privilege it is to stand under a party banner, and why it's reasonable for party activists to also hold MPs to account in return for the privileges that they're paying for.
gives general details..and a timeline.. which shows VAG lied for 12 months to teh US EPA..
I read a more detailed review which I have lost - will try to look back at browser.. done
http://www.cnet.com/uk/news/volkswagen-audi-accused-of-using-software-to-cheat-us-diesel-emissions-tests/
http://jalopnik.com/your-guide-to-dieselgate-volkswagens-diesel-cheating-c-1731857018
Mandatory reselection concentrates party power in a generally duopolic system. Being against it is like being against cartels: sensible.
Unions would not allow such unprotected employment regulations for their workers....
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/volkswagen-uses-software-to-fool-epa-pollution-tests/
Politics is about power. Not feeling good in defeat.