Independent Group

[Evil Homer]

11 minutes ago, Bedford Roughyed said:

And how's your nearly year long campaign against Jared O'Mara going?  I must of missed your outrage on that one.  

O'Mara should've also called a by-election, and is a complete waste of space. The small difference is that he was initially suspended by the party and his leaving was based on a disciplinary matter rather than just walking away for reasons which he and his supporters (if he has any) can't really articulate, as is the case with Umunna and friends.

This thread is also not about Jared O'Mara, unless he has joined this group and I missed it.

[Evil Homer]

22 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

How many times does it need pointing out that we vote for a person not a party?

The two main parties are more than happy to push this agenda because it allows them to bully any new party out of existence and maintain their monopoly on power. If they want to change to a system where we vote for a party and then distribute seats accordingly, I'm sure the IG would be more than happy to oblige. 

The fact that you are unable to see why they left Labour says a great deal. 

No I see why they left, and why many on this forum seem to be supporting them. I just think it's inane, hysterical nonsense. I've already asked multiple times what specifically Labour is doing outside of Brexit that they (you?) disagree with and nobody has ever been able to answer.

I'd be quite happy to see a system where there are no parties BTW and local candidates stand on individual tickets, but that isn't in any way realistic or practical. If you think that people in the real world voted for these candidates based solely on their individual merits, and they just so happened to represent the parties that they did, then I don't know what to tell you.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

28 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

How many times does it need pointing out that we vote for a person not a party?

The two main parties are more than happy to push this agenda because it allows them to bully any new party out of existence and maintain their monopoly on power. If they want to change to a system where we vote for a party and then distribute seats accordingly, I'm sure the IG would be more than happy to oblige. 

The fact that you are unable to see why they left Labour says a great deal. 

I vote for the party pure and simple. Picking and choosing on the basis of the candidates appeal is for dilitantes and dreamers. We've had some real wasters in my town over the years but I still held my nose and voted for them. 

[Maximus Decimus]

51 minutes ago, Private Baldrick said:

But for which party that person represents is a real issue and a reason for voting for that person in the first place, otherwise every candidate would be independent. People vote for the candidate of a party because they align themselves to that particular party more so than the individual representing that party.

In practise but not in theory.

As I said if we want to change the theory to reflect the fact that people vote for parties then I'm sure IP would be all for it. 

[Maximus Decimus]

39 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I vote for the party pure and simple. Picking and choosing on the basis of the candidates appeal is for dilitantes and dreamers. We've had some real wasters in my town over the years but I still held my nose and voted for them. 

You did but this isn't what our system expects you to do in exactly the same way you aren't supposed to be voting for a leader but most do. 

 

[Shadow]

38 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I vote for the party pure and simple. Picking and choosing on the basis of the candidates appeal is for dilitantes and dreamers. We've had some real wasters in my town over the years but I still held my nose and voted for them. 

I don't know what you think Diletante means but I suspect it's not the same as the OED: 

Noun. diletante m , f (plural diletantes) dilettante (someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest)

I'd have thought a casual interest would be more likely to get someone voting on the basis of Party not taking an interest in the thoughts, record and history of the actual candidates.

I have voted for all three major party GE candidates in my time on the basis of what I thought they would do rather than party lines. 

[Maximus Decimus]

53 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

No I see why they left, and why many on this forum seem to be supporting them. I just think it's inane, hysterical nonsense. I've already asked multiple times what specifically Labour is doing outside of Brexit that they (you?) disagree with and nobody has ever been able to answer.

I'd be quite happy to see a system where there are no parties BTW and local candidates stand on individual tickets, but that isn't in any way realistic or practical. If you think that people in the real world voted for these candidates based solely on their individual merits, and they just so happened to represent the parties that they did, then I don't know what to tell you.

Our system is massively weighted against the creation of new parties. Forcing a by-election would mean that they were strangled before they even had a chance.

If we had any form of PR, it would reflect the fact that we do vote for parties and not people. However, we don't. I'm not against them using whatever small advantage they can get to try and create something new.

I find it hard to believe that you can't see any potential problem some people might have with the direction the Labour Party has gone in. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

6 minutes ago, Shadow said:

I don't know what you think Diletante means but I suspect it's not the same as the OED: 

Noun. diletante m , f (plural diletantes) dilettante (someone who dabbles in a field out of casual interest)

I'd have thought a casual interest would be more likely to get someone voting on the basis of Party not taking an interest in the thoughts, record and history of the actual candidates.

I have voted for all three major party GE candidates in my time on the basis of what I thought they would do rather than party lines. 

I  read it as some one just playing at the game instead of being a serious competitor. If you haven't decided which party suits your particular desires by now can I suggest you haven't been paying enough attention to politics.

[Shadow]

35 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I  read it as some one just playing at the game instead of being a serious competitor. If you haven't decided which party suits your particular desires by now can I suggest you haven't been paying enough attention to politics.

At different times different parties have suited what I felt best represented my best interests and the country's best interests.

I took the time to meet my sitting MP, the late Michael Colvin (Con) and was immensely impressed with him as a person. He had an aura of capability and reliability that in my view meant he, as a constituency MP, would best look out for my and my fellow constituents best interests. 

In the 1997 election I voted against him and for the Labour Candidate, partly out of the feeling of weariness the whle country felt for teh Tories by then and partly because the local candidate was very much a New Labour Blairite and I would have been happy with her as my MP

The Tory still won even with a 15 %* swing to Labour, but he  was sadly killed in a house fire in 2000 and the Conservatives parachuted in Tim Nice-But-Dim in a Barbour Jacket and Flat Cap whereas the Lib Dems put up the local Pharmacist and former Councillor who'd been well known in the constituency. I knew her and voted for her. She proved to be an exceptionally good constituency MP.

I think politics is more important than just blindly following the party without getting involved and finding out what the candidates are about. If you think party loyalty outweighs individual responsibility then what you shouldnt be allowed a vote.

 

Edit for accuracy:

It was a 5.7% swing to Labour but a 17.2% reduction in the Tory vote.

[Maximus Decimus]

7 minutes ago, Shadow said:

At different times different parties have suited what I felt best represented my best interests and the country's best interests.

I took the time to met my sitting MP, the late Michael Colvin (Con) and was immensely impressed with him as a person. He had an aura of capability and reliability that in my view meant he, as a constituency MP, would best look out for my and my fellow constituents best interests. 

In the 1997 election I voted against him and for the Labour Candidate, partly out of the feeling of weariness the whle country felt for teh Tories by then and partly because the local candidate was very much a New Labour Blairite and I would have been happy with her as my MP

The Tory still won even with a 15 % swing to Labour, but he  was sadly killed in a house fire in 2000 and the Conservatives parachuted in Tim Nice-But-Dim in a Barbour Jacket and Flat Cap whereas the Lib Dems put up the local Pharmacist and former Councillor who'd been well known in the constituency. I knew her and voted for her. She proved to be an exceptionally good constituency MP.

I think politics is more important than just blindly following the party without getting involved and finding out what the candidates are about. If you think party loyalty outweighs individual responsibility then what you shouldnt be allowed a vote.

Following a party like a football team is exactly what we shouldn't be doing. 

[Niels]

23 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

I  read it as some one just playing at the game instead of being a serious competitor. If you haven't decided which party suits your particular desires by now can I suggest you haven't been paying enough attention to politics.

I think Tyrone that if Mps do a lot of work for their constituents they deserve loyalty.

My current MP worked hard and saved me £200 last year. I was happy to give my vote in gratitude.

Having said that I do think if they are calling for a second peoples' vote then to be consistent they should have to face a by election. Otherwise it's wanting it both ways. 

 

[Maximus Decimus]

2 minutes ago, Niels said:

I think Tyrone that if Mps do a lot of work for their constituents they deserve loyalty.

My current MP worked hard and saved me £200 last year. I was happy to give my vote in gratitude.

Having said that I do think if they are calling for a second peoples' vote then to be consistent they should have to face a by election. Otherwise it's wanting it both ways. 

 

They are different issues in that they cannot avoid a vote. It is only an issue of timing. 

The so called people's vote might never happen full stop. 

[Evil Homer]

59 minutes ago, Maximus Decimus said:

I find it hard to believe that you can't see any potential problem some people might have with the direction the Labour Party has gone in. 

I see a lot of hysterics, bluster and finger-pointing. I see few if any tangible problems that anyone has pointed to. Owen Smith's manifesto in his leadership challenge was virtually identical to Corbyn's. Corbyn's 2017 manifesto was universally praised and was a vote-winner. As far as I can see it's purely a case of people who hold historical grudges or align themselves with those who hold the grudges being unwilling to put them aside and work together, to the extent that they've preferred to try and sabotage their own party and then imploded completely. As a complete neutral, to me Corbyn has not done anything disagreeable or in any way deserving of the vitriol that has been thrown at him during his time as leader. The only thing I would take a little issue with at this stage is his stance on Brexit, which I have some sympathy for as it's a no win situation for everyone. Other than that, the problems seem to exist entirely within the heads of those claiming there to be a problem. At least as far as I can see.

[Maximus Decimus]

55 minutes ago, Evil Homer said:

I see a lot of hysterics, bluster and finger-pointing. I see few if any tangible problems that anyone has pointed to. Owen Smith's manifesto in his leadership challenge was virtually identical to Corbyn's. Corbyn's 2017 manifesto was universally praised and was a vote-winner. As far as I can see it's purely a case of people who hold historical grudges or align themselves with those who hold the grudges being unwilling to put them aside and work together, to the extent that they've preferred to try and sabotage their own party and then imploded completely. As a complete neutral, to me Corbyn has not done anything disagreeable or in any way deserving of the vitriol that has been thrown at him during his time as leader. The only thing I would take a little issue with at this stage is his stance on Brexit, which I have some sympathy for as it's a no win situation for everyone. Other than that, the problems seem to exist entirely within the heads of those claiming there to be a problem. At least as far as I can see.

The thing I think you ignore, is the atmosphere around the Labour party and the perceived culture of bullying. Whether you agree with it or not, the Labour party today is vastly different than that of around 1987-2015.

If you are more Blairite than Corbynite, you're not just out of favour you're finding yourself not welcome in the party. I don't think you can state that they are being hysterical when you don't know what they experience. Corbyn has potentially moved the Labour party leftwards permanently; there's nothing particularly wrong with this but I can understand how people who are Labour MPs no longer want to be in the party.

Then there is of course the anti-semitism issue and Labour's perceived inability to deal with it. This might be nothing to you, but maybe if you were facing regular abuse about it you might feel differently. 

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

2 hours ago, Shadow said:

At different times different parties have suited what I felt best represented my best interests and the country's best interests.

I took the time to meet my sitting MP, the late Michael Colvin (Con) and was immensely impressed with him as a person. He had an aura of capability and reliability that in my view meant he, as a constituency MP, would best look out for my and my fellow constituents best interests. 

In the 1997 election I voted against him and for the Labour Candidate, partly out of the feeling of weariness the whle country felt for teh Tories by then and partly because the local candidate was very much a New Labour Blairite and I would have been happy with her as my MP

The Tory still won even with a 15 %* swing to Labour, but he  was sadly killed in a house fire in 2000 and the Conservatives parachuted in Tim Nice-But-Dim in a Barbour Jacket and Flat Cap whereas the Lib Dems put up the local Pharmacist and former Councillor who'd been well known in the constituency. I knew her and voted for her. She proved to be an exceptionally good constituency MP.

I think politics is more important than just blindly following the party without getting involved and finding out what the candidates are about. If you think party loyalty outweighs individual responsibility then what you shouldnt be allowed a vote.

 

Edit for accuracy:

It was a 5.7% swing to Labour but a 17.2% reduction in the Tory vote.

You may think you know enough about politics but your grasp of what democracy entails appears to be very tenuous. I've never voted for my own good  ever, if that was the case I'd be better off financially voting Tory. I've always voted for the Party that will look after my fellow man, the people who aren't as lucky as I am. That definitely excludes the Tories and the Torylites. I'd got that figured out by the time I was old enough to vote for the first time. 

[Griff9of13]

7 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

You may think you know enough about politics but your grasp of what democracy entails appears to be very tenuous. I've never voted for my own good  ever, if that was the case I'd be better off financially voting Tory. I've always voted for the Party that will look after my fellow man, the people who aren't as lucky as I am. That definitely excludes the Tories and the Torylites. I'd got that figured out by the time I was old enough to vote for the first time. 

The paternalistic, one nation Tories of Heath, Major etc would no doubt say that they wanted the same thing just that their methods of achieving it were different. I've never been convinced myself, but plenty are. Your argument also falls down a bit when it comes to the large numbers of less well off people who vote Tory, just like my parents and grandparents all did.

[GUBRATS]

13 minutes ago, Tyrone Shoelaces said:

You may think you know enough about politics but your grasp of what democracy entails appears to be very tenuous. I've never voted for my own good  ever, if that was the case I'd be better off financially voting Tory. I've always voted for the Party that will look after my fellow man, the people who aren't as lucky as I am. That definitely excludes the Tories and the Torylites. I'd got that figured out by the time I was old enough to vote for the first time.

If we had a labour leader capable of actually running the country , I'd happily vote for him in an instant , but the unions will have mr Corbyn wrapped round their little fingers the day after the election , now i dont know if youre old enough to remember what they did last time , I am , where is Mr Scargill living these days ?

 

[JonM]

9 hours ago, Martyn Sadler said:

One slightly curious thing about Heidi Allen is that she appears to be the only MP who doesn't reveal details about where she went to school.

Like all the MPs round here, she came into the local sixth forms to give talks and my oldest son was quite impressed by her and from what I remember, I *think* she went to a private secondary school having won a scholarship due to her maths ability and was snapped up by JP Morgan to work part-time while she was still doing her Astrophysics degree.

[GUBRATS]

Question time should be interesting tonight

[Maximus Decimus]

12 minutes ago, Griff9of13 said:

The paternalistic, one nation Tories of Heath, Major etc would no doubt say that they wanted the same thing just that their methods of achieving it were different. I've never been convinced myself, but plenty are. Your argument also falls down a bit when it comes to the large numbers of less well off people who vote Tory, just like my parents and grandparents all did.

It represents one of the big problems we have in society: the inability to see other people as coming from a good faith position. 

In my experience, most people believe something because they think it is the best course of action. Take benefits, giving people much more generous benefits might seem like the best course of action if you are on the left but I can understand how somebody on the right could think it actually has negative effects on society. Instead both sides see the other side as sinister and with ulterior motives. 

This week is the perfect example. The breakaway group cannot be sincere but mistaken, they must be secretly getting money; trying to sabotage Brexit; scared of fighting Corbyn etc. 

[Futtocks]

6 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Question time should be interesting tonight

That'd be a memorable first!

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

23 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

If we had a labour leader capable of actually running the country , I'd happily vote for him in an instant , but the unions will have mr Corbyn wrapped round their little fingers the day after the election , now i dont know if youre old enough to remember what they did last time , I am , where is Mr Scargill living these days ?

 

What are these " Unions " you speak of ?  What do they do ?

[GUBRATS]

3 minutes ago, Futtocks said:

That'd be a memorable first!

oh , I dont know , the one from Scotland last week was quite funny , somebody pointing out to the SNP person that they want independance from westminster , to give it to Brussels , and then asking how theyd manage the border with England ?

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

15 minutes ago, JonM said:

Like all the MPs round here, she came into the local sixth forms to give talks and my oldest son was quite impressed by her and from what I remember, I *think* she went to a private secondary school having won a scholarship due to her maths ability and was snapped up by JP Morgan to work part-time while she was still doing her Astrophysics degree.

She obviously gave Spanish a swerve when she did modern foreign languages.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

14 minutes ago, GUBRATS said:

Question time should be interesting tonight

Giving that a miss, early night and up a 2.15 for the 6.25 am flight to Granada. I'm dreading it, I hate early flights.