What Do You Want From Political Leaders And Partys?

[GabrielC 56]

8 hours ago, Anna B said:

The last Labour leader galvanised the party and caused the biggest increase in party membership ever. He was happy to work with right wing Labour and all comers to unite the party and benefit the country.

 

Starmer on the other hand has gone to great lengths to exterminate all the socialist elements in a socialist party!

You want the Tories removed from power and replaced with Labour but have concerns about the leader? 

 

When voting in the next general election will you still vote Labour or abstain because of the leadership which could help the Tories into power?

 

 

[GabrielC 56]

8 hours ago, El Cid said:

That was caused by Brexit and our poor democracy.

Indeed Brexit defined the last election which Labour could have been much clearer on that might have got them over the line. Yes we have an poor democracy but we have a powerful right wing media who know how to play the game and get people to vote against their own interest and it works.

[sheffbag 227]

On 12/09/2021 at 11:50, Anna B said:

The last Labour leader galvanised the party and caused the biggest increase in party membership ever. He was happy to work with right wing Labour and all comers to unite the party and benefit the country.

 

Starmer on the other hand has gone to great lengths to exterminate all the socialist elements in a socialist party!

You really do love him dont you

 

Galvanised the party? did he? results don't show that and the mass removal of his shadow cabinet dont really show that

Increased the party membership yet got the biggest hammering in modern times in the election. If all those new members joined because of Corbyn and he"galvanised the party" then ........why didnt they vote for him? 

 

I thought they were the Labour party not the socialist party? 

[crookesey 634]

On 11/09/2021 at 15:13, Kidorry said:

A politician telling the truth would not go amiss.

The grey suited ones would never have that.

[altus 540]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

 

One of the main reasons the Labour party suffered such a massive defeat was because their party leadership didn't respect democracy and wanted to cheat the electorate out of their democratic choice to leave the EU. Our democracy most certainly isn't poor but our elected MPs during the time of the rogue parliament were absolutely poor in respecting democracy.

The only things rogue in parliament at that time were May's government's attempt to bypass the sovereignty of parliament over article 50 and Johnson's government's attempt to do the same by proroguing parliament.

[El Cid 219]

2 hours ago, West 77 said:

One of the main reasons the Labour party suffered such a massive defeat was because their party leadership didn't respect democracy and wanted to cheat the electorate out of their democratic choice to leave the EU. Our democracy most certainly isn't poor but our elected MPs during the time of the rogue parliament were absolutely poor in respecting democracy.

Are you selective in which election promises you think should be carried out, just referendums or should partys honour their promises?

It was the ruling party that failed to force their MPs to vote in accordance with their manifesto, the LD stuck to their partys principles, I think Labour were always on the fence.

What did the Labour manifesto say abour leaving the EU, but lets not make this thread about the EU.

[altus 540]

30 minutes ago, West 77 said:

As someone who has no respect for democracy you would say that.  Those rogue MPs got their just desserts at the December 2019 general election and justice was done in giving Boris and the Tory party an eighty seat majority which enabled Brexit to be done which is the will of the electorate. 

It's quite cear that you are the one who doesn't respect our democracy - not just in your support of government attempts to bypass the sovereignty of parliament but also in your criticism of the oppositon parties for not supporting the government of the day. They are officially referred to as "Her Majesty's loyal opposition" to emphasise that opposing the government is not being disloyal but actually their job of holding the government to account. Your lack of respect for our democracy is not limited to brexit related issues.

[altus 540]

3 minutes ago, West 77 said:

I criticise all MPs would sought to block the democratic choice the British people made to leave the EU regardless of which party they represent. There were members of the Tory party elected in the 2017 general election who were part of the rogue parliament. You are correct it is the job of the opposition parties to hold the government of the day to account. However regarding leaving the EU parliament handed over the job of deciding whether the UK should remain in the EU or leave the EU to the electorate  and it was the job of parliament and the government of the day to carry out those instructions.  The rogue parliament didn't follow the wishes of the electorate who instructed them to implement leaving the EU.

The referendum didn't define what form leaving the EU would take. Even Nigel Farage said before the referendum that being in the EEA with a Norway style deal would have been acceptable to him. So politicians arguing about what form brexit should take was not attempting to block the referendum result. Your support of the rogue governments trying to bypass our parliamentary system shows you don't respect our democracy, as does your criticism of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for trying to hold the government of the day to account on matters whether they are related to brexit or not.

[altus 540]

19 minutes ago, West 77 said:

More irrelevant anti democratic claptrap. The truth is the rogue parliament wanted no form of Brexit which is why they blocked its implementation.  It was the job of the Government led by Theresa May after the 2017 general election to negotiate an agreement with the EU and parliament had two options which was to either accept the negotiated deal or leave the EU on 29th March 2019 without a deal. The rogue parliament with the help of the rogue speaker moved the goalposts and prevented our country leaving the EU without a deal which was one of the options parliament supported when they voted in favour of triggering Article 50.  

You still demonstrate you don't understand how our parliamentary system works. It's the job of parliament to hold the government to account not to accept a false dichotomy of either of two presented choices if they think those choices are both unacceptable. Parliament telling to government to go back and do better is part of it's job - it happens with every piece of legislation it passes.

[altus 540]

43 minutes ago, West 77 said:

You're trying to defend the indefensible actions of the rogue parliament. It was parliament that voted in favour of triggering article 50 shortly before the 2017 general election in doing so they supported the option of leaving the EU without a deal in they didn't support the deal negotiated..  The electorate in 2017  had to decide which main political party were going to negotiate a deal for leaving the EU. The Tory party were still the largest party after the 2017 general election and Theresa May remained prime minister thus was in charge of negotiating a deal with the EU. It was never parliaments role to negotiate a deal because as normal it's the governments job to negotiate or agree to treaties. Parliament's role was to either support the deal negotiated with the EU or not support the deal negotiated which should have meant the default position of leaving the EU without a deal implemented.  The withdrawal agreement wasn't domestic legislation which makes another of your anti democratic comments irrelevant. 

You are still demonstrating you don't understand how our democracy works. Here's a handy guide on the Parliament web site on how legislation is passed.

 

Article 50, which was only voted on after May's rogue government was prevented from bypassing the sovereignty of parliament by the supreme court, was only about informing the EU we wanted to leave - it didn't support or otherwise any form of brexit.

 

Yes it was the government's job to negotiate the withdrawal agreement. It was also parliament's job to scrutinise the legislation the government put forward to implement the withdrawal agreement and to suggest amendments or reject it as they saw fit. The possibility of it telling the government to go back and do better was entirely within parliament's remit.

 

You keep calling me anti-democratic but you don't even respect our democracy enough to find out how it works. You can't sensibly criticise someone over something you don't understand.

[altus 540]

5 minutes ago, West 77 said:

Even more anti democratic clap trap. I'm quite aware how parliament works but yet again you're comparing a treaty with domestic legislation.

And again you demonstrate you don't understand how our democratic parliamentary system works. The government can negotiate whatever treaties it likes but until legislation passes though parliament they cannot be enacted.

 

Your unwillingness to accept our system of government isn't limited to brexit related matters either. You have argued on multiple occasions that Her Majesty's loyal opposition should just accept what the government proposes rather than doing their duty of scrutinising and suggesting amendments to it.

[altus 540]

1 hour ago, West 77 said:

I've tried to make you see reason which is a hopeless task.  You clearly don't know the difference between what is right and what is wrong. It's absolutely wrong for parliament to block the implementation of a democratic choice they overwhelmingly voted in favour of giving the electorate when they passed the legislation to hold an in/out EU referendum. The rogue parliament prevented  implementing the democratic choice they gave the electorate to make which was to leave the EU and were rightly punished at the December 2019 general election for their disgraceful lack of respect for democracy.

If you want to talk what's right and what's wrong, both May's and Johnson's rogue governments were slapped down by the supreme court for trying to do things they weren't legally allowed to. The supreme court has taken no such action against a parliament doing its democratic duty of scrutinising the government.

 

Quote

Just for completeness, I've never argued that opposition parties shouldn't scrutinise domestic legislation.  What you are doing is comparing apples with oranges.

Your selective quote to remove context has been noted. I put "You have argued on multiple occasions that Her Majesty's loyal opposition should just accept what the government proposes rather than doing their duty of scrutinising and suggesting amendments to it." If the opposition are going to just accept what the government proposes there'd be no point in them scrutinising any proposed legislation. So, unless you are actually arguing that the opposition should waste their time scrutinising legislation but say nothing about it, it's implicit in your 'just accept what the government proposes' argument that you don't want them scrutinising legislation.