This Once Great Movement Of Ours

[EastAnglianLefty]

While I understand there are reservations about Wakeford, given his conservative voting record, I remain amazed by the ability of Labour factions to not only look a gifthorse in the mouth, but to demand the gifthorse be immediately turned into glue.

Between Momentum, Young Labour and Co, there seems to be a number of calls demanding Wakeford either resign, or face immediate deselection, within hours of his defection. Very Twitter-brain.

I understand even less the Tories (and some on the left) calling for an immediate by-election as some sort of own, as if the incumbent wouldn't win comfortably in current circumstances.

I do think it's the honourable thing to do and should probably be legislated to be mandatory.

It sounds good, but the practicalities of enforcing it haven't gone away.

I don't see what's impractical about it, parlimentary parties are legal bodies simply state members of such parties who contest the election under such a banner can have their office vacated if the party they contested under decides so.

We have it as a convention here in Singapore.

It would mean that Anne-Marie Morris, for example, could be deemed to have resigned when the Tory party decided to suspend the whip from her last week. even though there's no chance she'll defect.

There is a reason that Singapore has it as a convention but most liberal democracies do not.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

While I understand there are reservations about Wakeford, given his conservative voting record, I remain amazed by the ability of Labour factions to not only look a gifthorse in the mouth, but to demand the gifthorse be immediately turned into glue.

Between Momentum, Young Labour and Co, there seems to be a number of calls demanding Wakeford either resign, or face immediate deselection, within hours of his defection. Very Twitter-brain.

I understand even less the Tories (and some on the left) calling for an immediate by-election as some sort of own, as if the incumbent wouldn't win comfortably in current circumstances.

I do think it's the honourable thing to do and should probably be legislated to be mandatory.

It sounds good, but the practicalities of enforcing it haven't gone away.

I don't see what's impractical about it, parlimentary parties are legal bodies simply state members of such parties who contest the election under such a banner can have their office vacated if the party they contested under decides so.

We have it as a convention here in Singapore.

It would mean that Anne-Marie Morris, for example, could be deemed to have resigned when the Tory party decided to suspend the whip from her last week. even though there's no chance she'll defect.

There is a reason that Singapore has it as a convention but most liberal democracies do not.

Well, I don't see why that would be the problem, if the tory executive wished to expel her from the party then she should resign as she won her seat as a member of the Tory party. There would be a natural limit to this thing as if a party was overeager in using this as a whipping tool then they would naturaly face a risk of their majority being lost or reduced by calling those by-elections.

[CumbrianLefty]

The online left have retreated totally into their own self-reinforcing bubble - amongst other things this shows that having to look outwards just a bit (as was unavoidably the case when "one of their own" led the party) was genuinely beneficial.

Now its just an extended "Corbyn would have won a LANDSLIDE but for the Labour right, who are far worse than the Tories" betrayal myth.

As for the practical questions of an automatic byelection on changing parties - yes it seems obvious in a case like Wakeford's - but what about someone who goes independent? Somebody who has had the whip removed or even been expelled (and maybe only actually switches parties after that)?? Truth is, there are plenty of potential grey areas and opportunities for abuse by the unscrupulous.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

As for the practical questions of an automatic byelection on changing parties - yes it seems obvious in a case like Wakeford's - but what about someone who goes independent? Somebody who has had the whip removed or even been expelled (and maybe only actually switches parties after that)?? Truth is, are plenty of potential grey areas and opportunities for abuse by the unscrupulous.

All of those should require a by-election, I don't see what abuse or grey area you're seeing here. If somebody runs for a seat and wins under a banner of a party but then falls out of favour with that party they should have to immediately seek a by-election.

Honestly, this and the whole speaker having to represent a constituency farce makes me take a very strange look when British people criticise the American electoral college for being anti-democratic given their own system democratic deficits. 

[CumbrianLefty]

You have simply restated a view that most will not agree with.

I do agree with you that the Speaker should have a "symbolic" rather than real constituency - but the argument has been it benefits them to still do some "ordinary" political work.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

You have simply restated a view that most will not agree with.

I do agree with you that the Speaker should have a "symbolic" rather than real constituency - but the argument has been it benefits them to still do some "ordinary" political work.

I'm just not understanding what abuse you could forsee happening, could you give me an example of a situation where the rule would be problematic ?

[Continential]

Since you mentioned the Speaker, do they do constituency work?

[MaxQue]

You have simply restated a view that most will not agree with.

I do agree with you that the Speaker should have a "symbolic" rather than real constituency - but the argument has been it benefits them to still do some "ordinary" political work.

I'm just not understanding what abuse you could forsee happening, could you give me an example of a situation where the rule would be problematic ?

A party could easily abuse that to get rid of an internal opponent.

[CumbrianLefty]

Since you mentioned the Speaker, do they do constituency work?

Since they are still constituency MPs, very much so.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Since you mentioned the Speaker, do they do constituency work?

Since they are still constituency MPs, very much so.

yeah and that's one of the biggest problems I have with the Westminster system, being an MP is a full-time job and so is being a minister. They are both compensated as such and most MP's treat it as such. We can't expect someone to be doing two full-time jobs without that affecting their perfomance. In most cases, the job of a constituency MP for a minister is in effect outsourced to a staffer but that is neither democratic nor fair.I don't agree with Cummings at all but his idea of parachuting ministers into the house of lords has some merit to it.

[CumbrianLefty]

Since you mentioned the Speaker, do they do constituency work?

Since they are still constituency MPs, very much so.

yeah and that's one of the biggest problems I have with the Westminster system, being an MP is a full-time job and so is being a minister. They are both compensated as such and most MP's treat it as such. We can't expect someone to be doing two full-time jobs without that affecting their perfomance. In most cases, the job of a constituency MP for a minister is in effect outsourced to a staffer but that is neither democratic nor fair.I don't agree with Cummings at all but his idea of parachuting ministers into the house of lords has some merit to it.

Well tbf it is hardly "his" idea, and has indeed been tried before - with mixed results it is fair to say.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

You have simply restated a view that most will not agree with.

I do agree with you that the Speaker should have a "symbolic" rather than real constituency - but the argument has been it benefits them to still do some "ordinary" political work.

I'm just not understanding what abuse you could forsee happening, could you give me an example of a situation where the rule would be problematic ?

A party could easily abuse that to get rid of an internal opponent.

Well all major parties have rule-books setting up administrative processes required to expel a member of the political party. MPs who feel that they were being purged can apply for judicial review to ensure that the proper administrative procedures and due process were offered to the MP before they were removed. This is well-established legal ground and is precisely what happened here when a party tried to use it in bad faith (and as a result of the attempt have never held a single seat since while the expelled MP was continuously re-elected until 2011)


https://twwst.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/looking-backwards-chiam-see-tongs-legacy-in-the-sdp-part-1/

[Blair]

It would just require a different system & culture.

Namely that political parties & parliamentary parties are two different functions- Jeremy Corbyn is a member of the Labour Party but not a member of the Parliamentary Labour Party.

While MPs are broadly elected because of their party, we are still electing the person- with all their faults. I don't think a list system (which it would be under these changes) would improve anything or change much- defections aren't enough of a problem and we haven't seen anything like other European countries where you have groups regularly defecting to bring down Governments.

The courts generally take a view that British parties are free to do what they want (within the law) around membership and so forth- so it just leads to an even greater fight to control the levers of power in the party.

[Blair]

In acronym news the People's Alliance of the Left have formed today.

This is a coalition of Left Unity, Breakthrough Party, Northern Independence Party, and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (who I believe were a coalition of various groups)

I'm very unsure of what it does as they won't have members or candidates but will organise which one of the parties runs in certain seats. If anyone is interested their agreement is below.

PAL Memorandum of Understanding
• PAL stands for equality and justice. It is socialist, feminist, environmentalist, internationalist, anti-racist and against all forms of discrimination including (but not exclusively) discrimination against: women; black and ethnic minority people; the working class; political, religious, or philosophical belief; disabled people; and LGBTQI+ people. We oppose antisemitism and Islamophobia wherever they arise.

• PAL supports a massive social and political transformation to avert climate catastrophe, environmental degradation, mass extinction, global poverty, hunger, and hyper-exploitation

• PAL is internationalist. We stand for peace and equality between peoples. We oppose the exploitation of other countries for economic gain, and we oppose imperialist intervention, whether, military, political or economic. We stand in solidarity with the Palestinian people in their struggle against oppression and dispossession.

• PAL opposes all laws which make people illegal because of who they are, where they or their parents were born, the colour of their skin or what language they speak. We oppose deportations and welcome and stand in solidarity with people fleeing war, oppression, and poverty.

• PAL supports trade unions, co-operatives and other community-based groups who are fighting for ordinary people up and down the country.

PAL aims to:

• Secure a socialist government.

• Secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.

• Oppose all austerity-driven cuts and closures to public sector, jobs, pay and conditions at the levels of national governments, regional, and local authorities. We reject the claim that ‘some cuts’ are necessary to our services or that the Covid crisis is a reason for austerity.

• Oppose the privatisation of, or the transfer of existing public services, land or property to private ownership, or to social enterprises or ‘arms-length’ management organisations which are the first steps to their privatisation.

• Reverse privatisation of the NHS, restoring it to a fully public service funded by General Taxation and under democratic control, free at the point of use to any according to clinical need from the cradle to the grave.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

[MaxQue]

You have simply restated a view that most will not agree with.

I do agree with you that the Speaker should have a "symbolic" rather than real constituency - but the argument has been it benefits them to still do some "ordinary" political work.

I'm just not understanding what abuse you could forsee happening, could you give me an example of a situation where the rule would be problematic ?

A party could easily abuse that to get rid of an internal opponent.

Well all major parties have rule-books setting up administrative processes required to expel a member of the political party. MPs who feel that they were being purged can apply for judicial review to ensure that the proper administrative procedures and due process were offered to the MP before they were removed. This is well-established legal ground and is precisely what happened here when a party tried to use it in bad faith (and as a result of the attempt have never held a single seat since while the expelled MP was continuously re-elected until 2011)


https://twwst.wordpress.com/2015/01/22/looking-backwards-chiam-see-tongs-legacy-in-the-sdp-part-1/

The problem is that UK courts are of the opinion it's not their role to review internal decisions by political parties.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The problem is that UK courts are of the opinion it's not their role to review internal decisions by political parties.

They will up to a point, but it's a carefully and consciously limited one and no further than they would be minded to review decisions made by a chess club. And in fact they're governed by the same branch of the law.

[Continential]

In acronym news the People's Alliance of the Left have formed today.

This is a coalition of Left Unity, Breakthrough Party, Northern Independence Party, and the Trade Union and Socialist Coalition (who I believe were a coalition of various groups)

I'm very unsure of what it does as they won't have members or candidates but will organise which one of the parties runs in certain seats. If anyone is interested their agreement is below.

Their agreement should have included that the alliance supports Jeremy Corbyn and will be loyal to him forever.

[beesley]

Honestly, this and the whole speaker having to represent a constituency farce makes me take a very strange look when British people criticise the American electoral college for being anti-democratic given their own system democratic deficits. 

Most British people who are even knowledgeable enough to criticise the Electoral College probably maintain the transferrable criticisms when discussing the UK's First Past The Post Electoral System, particularly if those criticisms include disproportionality. In any case, given the fact the Speaker does do constituency work and their role doesn't prevent them from doing so, that's hardly an equally significant aspect of British democracy compared to the criticisms of the US electoral college. Where the criticism does not apply is the adherence to the democratic principle of one person, one vote, when you take into account the existence of ridiculous bodies like the Senate that further distort the Electoral College with no major benefit for representation as a whole and good governance. Anyway, why shouldn't British people be allowed to criticise other countries' systems?

[beesley]

Does anybody have any inkling as to who the favourite to be Labour's candidate in the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election is? I haven't been paying attention to the state of the race.

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

Honestly, this and the whole speaker having to represent a constituency farce makes me take a very strange look when British people criticise the American electoral college for being anti-democratic given their own system democratic deficits. 

Most British people who are even knowledgeable enough to criticise the Electoral College probably maintain the transferrable criticisms when discussing the UK's First Past The Post Electoral System, particularly if those criticisms include disproportionality. In any case, given the fact the Speaker does do constituency work and their role doesn't prevent them from doing so, that's hardly an equally significant aspect of British democracy compared to the criticisms of the US electoral college. Where the criticism does not apply is the adherence to the democratic principle of one person, one vote, when you take into account the existence of ridiculous bodies like the Senate that further distort the Electoral College with no major benefit for representation as a whole and good governance. Anyway, why shouldn't British people be allowed to criticise other countries' systems?

I'm not saying you aren't allowed to criticize other systems but your system shares all the essential democratic deficits of the American system(of course with the major exception that your upper house is powerless unlike dominant in the American system). Your FPTP constituency system shares the same flaw that a party can win a majority of the votes but still loose an election as was seen in 1951. Politicians really only have to win voters in marginal counsitneyc and can freely ignore safe seats without consequences.

And the main issue with the speaker system is that it arbitrarily disenfranchises a constituency from having any say in the national election results similar to how Washington DC is disenfranchised something that can be trivially fixed. Denying almost 100k people the ability to vote is a rather large democratic deficit espeicaly when there seems to be no real justification beyond tradition.

[CumbrianLefty]

A reminder that this "alliance" includes the Northern Independence Party - an outfit run by an online s***poster based in Brighton. After its launch last year, the very online left was full of dizzying stuff about how it would eviscerate Labour in its "Northern heartlands" in the same way the SNP had done in Scotland - and then at the Hartlepool byelection its candidate (a former Labour MP who has in the past few days been urging all left wing people to leave a party that currently appears to be poised to take actual power for the first time in years) came two votes ahead of a confirmed paedophile.

With such powerhouses behind it, how can this new project possibly fail?

[Blair]

I’ve always wondered why the speaker doesn’t represent the Palace of Westminster where he could be the only elector.

Does anybody have any inkling as to who the favourite to be Labour's candidate in the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election is? I haven't been paying attention to the state of the race.

A hunch would be Oliver Coppard- who imo should be the Sheffield Hallam MP. He stood against Nick Clegg in 2015 and your seat is actually one of the most depressing things about that night.

I know the left and some trade unions are backing someone else- I know next to nothing about South Yorkshire Labour stuff though.

[beesley]

Does anybody have any inkling as to who the favourite to be Labour's candidate in the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election is? I haven't been paying attention to the state of the race.

A hunch would be Oliver Coppard- who imo should be the Sheffield Hallam MP. He stood against Nick Clegg in 2015 and your seat is actually one of the most depressing things about that night.

I know the left and some trade unions are backing someone else- I know next to nothing about South Yorkshire Labour stuff though.

Yeah - I like everyone else have heard nothing but good about Oliver Coppard. That left candidate is Lewis Dagnall who I believe is a Sheffield Councillor and the husband of Olivia Blake MP. From what I've seen he's campaigning heavily on transport - timely given the Stagecoach strike in Sheffield and Barnsley. However I've no idea how he's doing.

[YL]

Does anybody have any inkling as to who the favourite to be Labour's candidate in the South Yorkshire Mayoral Election is? I haven't been paying attention to the state of the race.

A hunch would be Oliver Coppard- who imo should be the Sheffield Hallam MP. He stood against Nick Clegg in 2015 and your seat is actually one of the most depressing things about that night.

I know the left and some trade unions are backing someone else- I know next to nothing about South Yorkshire Labour stuff though.

Yeah - I like everyone else have heard nothing but good about Oliver Coppard. That left candidate is Lewis Dagnall who I believe is a Sheffield Councillor and the husband of Olivia Blake MP. From what I've seen he's campaigning heavily on transport - timely given the Stagecoach strike in Sheffield and Barnsley. However I've no idea how he's doing.

Yes, Dagnall is campaigning heavily on transport.  Most of what I've seen has been from him and Coppard but that's probably a reflection of where I'm getting things from rather than a strong indication that they're the front-runners.

I would vote for Coppard if I were a member.