When will the Lib Dems sweep to power?

[Azrael]

And you still ignore the fact that the government doesn't control what MP's do as individual MP's.

You believe that government and the whips play no part in MPs being re-selected? If so, you've misunderstood everything I've been saying.

How will MPs be accountable to a "mass party"? In reality, that means being accontable to the leadership of the party, a narrower elite than 600 odd MPs with their own seperate agendas.

 

[belboid]

I understand everything you say perfectly well. It's just utter rubbish. And deeply ignorant of history, particularly of Labour Party history, and the changes Blair had to make within the party to subjugate it to him.

 

[Azrael]

So you're saying that MPs have the freedom to ignore the government whips and remain secure in their seats for 40 odd years?

 

[belboid]

What I'm saying at this precise moment is that you are avoiding the fact that your proposal is entirely elitist, regressive and reactionary, and that you are dodging any and all of the points made that show that. you can't even seriously defend your proposal.

 

[Azrael]

So you're not claiming that MPs can defy the whips throughout their career without it affecting their chances of re-selection?

If you're not, then MPs aren't independent, and must do the bidding of the government on threat of losing their livelihood. Which places power in the hands of an even narrower elite than my proposal.

Which points am I supposed to be dodging?

 

[belboid]

oh please, what a terrible response, albeit hardly surprising.

You have failed to prove, or even give any substantial evidence, for your assertion. You have failed to consider the vast number of alternatives to your one thought that better explain the problem you complain of. And you have refused to respond to any criticisms of your 'theory'.

Simply repeating the same thing over and over and over doesn't make it so.

 

[TomPaine]

Effectivley when an MP is voted in by his constituants he is commencing a contract to represent those people for 4/5 years in parliament. I would suggest that whilst in the position of MP he has to cut loose any business ties/board positions etc. as these would be considered a conflict of interest. After all you couldn't go work for say one company whilst working for a rival, so I see no reason why an MP should be a minster of health and contract to a Pharma company.
Secondly maybe the wages of the MP should come out of the constiuants council tax.
Then if the MP is beholden to his voters. Not only can they vote him out, they can vote his salary + pay rises.

 

[Azrael]

You have failed to consider the vast number of alternatives to your one thought that better explain the problem you complain of.

What alternatives? I suggested salaries for life, but am hesitant to pay millions in taxpayers' money to placemen for doing nothing. What alternative do you suggest?

Are claiming that defying the whips doesn't affect re-selection?

 

[belboid]

oh stop your pathetic squirming Azrael, deal with the points stop avoiding them,, or I'll have to assume your just a daft troll seeing just how stupidly right-wing he can get away with being.

 

[Azrael]

Which points do you think I'm avoiding? Please point them out and I'll answer them.

And please clarify your position on re-selection (are you claiming that defying the whips has no effect?). If you agree that defying the whips can get an MP de-selected, how do you suggest this be stopped?

 

[belboid]

your dodge re whips is all but irrelevant. Just you have a look at the history of party politics, rather than just judgng of the past ten years, and you'll see your notion is nonsense. Tho even in the last ten years there have stikll been a couple of dozen labour MP's that make your view look nonsensical. There were more before the emasculation of the Labour Party as well.

You have failed to show, or even attempted to show, why the rich are genuinely financially 'independent' (as opposed to utterly dependant on a particular form of capitalism), nor why being so makes them have seperate viewpoints (they wouldnt have), you have not shown any actual understanding of the difference between parliament and government, and you are, in effect, oppossed to people being allowed their simple democratic choices. And you've just utterly ignored the simple fact that your far-right suggestion would leave the vast majority of people unable to stand for parliament - which exposes your claim that you want to see a wider selection of opinion in parliament as nothing but a squalid little lie.

Still, at least you also showed that the spirit of Bill Boakes lives on.

 

[ericjarvis]

Under the current system a sitting MP who defies the party whips is still likely to remain the MP in the New Thingy Party, probably will in the Tory Party, and if well supported locally the Lib Dem Party. Under older Labour Party rules it was almost entirely up to the local party to make the decision on parliamentary candidates. In my view all political parties should use that model. An MP should look to their constituents first, and second, third, fourth, and fifth. Party whips should be well down the list. So the central organisation of a party should have very little say in the selection of candidates.

 

[Azrael]

your dodge re whips is all but irrelevant.

Presumably you qualified "irrelevant" with "all but" because you'd read Tess Kingham's article. "My constituency was threatened with the withdrawal of resources by one whip." A few dozen licensed rebels, many of whom have been in place for years and would be difficult to remove, don't eliminate the dark art of the whips.

As for financially independent MPs not having separate viewpoints, just take a cursory look at 19th century legislation. The Reform Act 1867, or the failed attempt by the Liberal government to get Charles Bradlaugh into parliament. How am I opposed to people being allowed "simple democratic choices"? Right now, they vote for people whose votes will be coerced. Very democratic. I'm opposed to the governing party having the power to bully and intimidate its members.

As for capitalism dictating their choices, that wouldn't apply to those 29 Labour MPs, and anyway, I don't go for economic reductivism.

As for your curious suggestion that I don't know the difference between MPs and government, the current situation, where MPs can enter Parliament after having done nothing else, makes it all the more likely they'll want to "progress" in their "career". That's the root of all this: why should politics be a career, instead of a vocation?

If MPs are to remain on the paybooks, how would you increase their independence?

 

[belboid]

Well, I guess i shouldn't be surprised you think two slightly different shade of blue makes for effective choice, but not many other people would. if you think your pseudo-independence would stop vote 'coercion' you are so unbelievably naive as to be unbelievable. I dont think you are naive tho, merely a grotesque elitist.

And you are still very confused about what you mean by finanacial independence. one moment MP's paid for by unions are anti-democratic and not 'independent' the next minute they are independent! make your mind up (if you can do so without contradicting your argument even more). And the claim that the existence of those 29 proves any other point is really funny, more MP's than that are regular rebels today, and yet you say that small number proves the need to return to government by and for the rich!

utterly laughable.

 

[Azrael]

And you are still very confused about what you mean by finanacial independence. one moment MP's paid for by unions are anti-democratic and not 'independent' the next minute they are independent! make your mind up (if you can do so without contradicting your argument even more).

When have I claimed MPs sponsored by unions are "anti-democratic"?

My argument has been consistent throughout: hundreds of agendas amongst a governing party are better than one, enforced by the whips. I don't much care where MPs' get their cash from, provided it's legal. I want as much plurality as possible. (Those 29 Labour MPs could well have grown. The Liberals had yet to collapse.) The point you seem determined to miss is that our current system is extremely elitist.

As I asked above, what alternative would you propose?

 

[belboid]

My 'alternative' is not relevant as my only interest here is to show yours up as idiotic, reactionary, and an excuse for permanent tory government.

you have still failed entirely to show how restricting government to the rich would be beneficuial. All you have done is repeat ad nauseam your (false) claim that the government of the day controls MP's, despite a plethora of evidence that it does no such thing.

As to your opposing unons paying for MP's, well, if they do that, then vthe MP's obviously aren't 'financially independent' are they? So do you believe in your version of such 'independence' or not? Make your mind up.

 

[Azrael]

My 'alternative' is not relevant as my only interest here is to show yours up as idiotic, reactionary, and an excuse for permanent tory government.

Union-sponsored MPs are financially independent of government; and I've not seen any "plethora of evidence" that the whips don't control the Parliamentary parties, most likely because it doesn't exist. And are you seriously suggesting that the 19th century saw "permanent tory government"?

But if you're not interested in constructive debate, there's little point in continuing this.

 

[belboid]

Union-sponsored MPs are financially independent of government; and I've not seen any "plethora of evidence" that the whips don't control the Parliamentary parties, most likely because it doesn't exist.

what nonsense, its up to you to show they do, and you have totally and utterly failed to do so. you've come up with one quote from one MP! Pathetic.

nd are you seriously suggesting that the 19th century saw "permanent tory government"?

Yes, as any sane look at history will tell you. Sure, they sometimes called themselves 'whigs' but they were all tories, looking after the very rich. And that is what you think was a better system. yummy.

But if you're not interested in constructive debate, there's little point in continuing this.

aah, your typical copout becaue you have shown to be a rather ignorant person, without any serous knowledge of history, or of politics.

to be honest tho, there is no pint in continuing this, you are a reactionary tory who would argue black is white if it suited your wallet. Sorry, if it suited your purpose.

you haven't actuallyput forward one real argument to support your proposakl, merely repearted one thing obver andf over and over again, and ignored all the criticisms. Until you can reply honestly, there isn't really much point continuing.

 

[Azrael]

I'd have thought the way the aborted 42 days detention without charge went through the Commons would dispel any notion that MPs are free of the whips' influence. Ditto top-up fees, foundation hospitals, Iraq ...

Talking of Iraq, Paul Marsden might be a bit surprised to hear about the whips' fairness.

It's a good time to give it a rest when things start getting ad hominem, but I did chuckle at having my knowledge of history and politics called into question by someone who thinks the Liberal and Conservative parties were "all tories". What was that about arguing black is white?

 

[belboid]

Whose talking about whips being 'fair'? Not me, another non sequiteur from you. Bit of a poor show when you have to keep making such things up, isnt it? Still, typical of such a tory

And, yes, for any working-class person the difference between the tories and the wehigs was the difference between being kicked in the head and being kicked in the teeth. ie, fuck all.

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Well I for one predict a landslide next year.

 

[JimW]

The fight-back starts here.

 

[frogwoman]

Bloody hell.

 

[Belushi]

Winning Here!

 

[frogwoman]

Its a two horse race!

 

[moochedit]

I wonder what odds i can get on them not existing by the next election?