The Labour Government

Mr Kobayashi said:
Was the radio interview because he's checked himself into a wellness retreat because he's still grieving the loss of his seat?

His voice was croaking, he's obviously not coping.
Click to expand...
It was because there was no minister put forward for the media round so presumably someone said give Ashworth a ring. Probably would have done the full gig if he wasn't on LBC aswell. Have they released the Strictly line up yet?
 
i kne albert davy said:
Shouldn’t you find out if you’re intending to stand to be a member of parliament.
Click to expand...
Surely, if you have stood for a party, on a party manifesto which didn’t include a certain criteria, you’d expect to be fucked off if you went against said criteria?

Makes me think that these so called ‘ideologues’ were just in it for themselves, riding on the coat-tails to keep their job.

If you do not agree with what a party represents, go to the one you do, or, at least, have the courage of your conviction and go independent.
 
Lowtower said:
Really?

Thats your take on it?

We need to get away from people supporting political parties as if they are football clubs.

There is no way these MPs should have been suspended for not voting as Starmer wanted, how is this "Change"?
Click to expand...
Whilst agreeing we shouldn’t be encouraging group think, the election was less than 3 weeks ago and they all stood on a manifesto that did not make that commitment. I’m certainly not Starmer biggest fan by any means, and I’m sure it’ll happen but Starmer wouldn’t want it happening in some sort of ill thought out amendment, put down by the recently thrashed SNP.
It was yet another SNP laid trap that some of the usual Labour suspects walked straight into. Not only that, I’d imagine they’d all be supporting Jezza if he was still in charge, as they did in 2017, when they all stood on a manifesto that said the following, which wasn’t actually a pledge to do anything about it.
There would be an end to the so-called "rape clause" - part of the policy of restricting child tax credits to the first two children in a family. It means mothers who have a third child as a result of rape can be exempted, but would have to provide evidence in order to do so.
 
Lowtower said:
Really?

Thats your take on it?

We need to get away from people supporting political parties as if they are football clubs.

There is no way these MPs should have been suspended for not voting as Starmer wanted, how is this "Change"?
Click to expand...

Not just parties, but factions within the parties.

I don't know how many times this needs to be said, but this wasn't about removing the 2-Child cap, it was all part of a political point-scoring game.

The suspended MPs claiming a moral victory as they've been suspended for 'the crime of wanting to end childhood poverty' is disingenuous bollocks.

This was simply the Corbynites letting Starmer know their movement is still alive and that they are going to be to this Labour Government what the ERG were to the Tories.
 
liveandletdive said:
You probably won't be saying that after the October budget, Starmer is twat, just like the rest of them..
Click to expand...
Let’s get this right, the Labour Party, not Starmer, are now your twat, who you think is coming after your money in order to look after the poor.

What a sick and twisted mind that is, especially when the likes of yourself have prevented your governement to make immediate policies to prevent child poverty.

Fucking weirdos!
 
The Future’s Blue! said:
Surely, if you have stood for a party, on a party manifesto which didn’t include a certain criteria, you’d expect to be fucked off if you went against said criteria?

Makes me think that these so called ‘ideologues’ were just in it for themselves, riding on the coat-tails to keep their job.

If you do not agree with what a party represents, go to the one you do, or, at least, have the courage of your conviction and go independent.
Click to expand...
I just thought if I was standing for parliament for a particular party i’d have made sure i’d read the party manifesto on the off chance someone asked me a question.
 
ROCKET80 said:
.This was simply the Corbynites letting Starmer know their movement is still alive and that they are going to be to this Labour Government what the ERG were to the Tories.
Click to expand...

Quite cynical way of thinking, especially when it comes to the subject of child poverty. The rhetoric for a long while has been that anyone voting against anything is a "faction" or a "protest" which is a quite ridiculous way of thinking.

As for the Manifesto and standing by it, the party whip has been used far too much as time has gone by, to the point where it can be seen as sometimes having actual MPs there is pointless, I would expect any MP that I voted for to question things if it didn't sit straight (child poverty is up there of course) and any amendment should be looked at, and if it is deemed to be beneficial for the area they represent vote for it, not just toe the line.

Too many of our MPs are career politicians seeing Westminster as a way to future gains, shoehorned in to constituencies where they have zero concept of what really goes on nor really care, its a mess, and its not getting better, we need to seriously look at the selection process for MPs.
 
Lowtower said:
Quite cynical way of thinking, especially when it comes to the subject of child poverty. The rhetoric for a long while has been that anyone voting against anything is a "faction" or a "protest" which is a quite ridiculous way of thinking.

As for the Manifesto and standing by it, the party whip has been used far too much as time has gone by, to the point where it can be seen as sometimes having actual MPs there is pointless, I would expect any MP that I voted for to question things if it didn't sit straight (child poverty is up there of course) and any amendment should be looked at, and if it is deemed to be beneficial for the area they represent vote for it, not just toe the line.

Too many of our MPs are career politicians seeing Westminster as a way to future gains, shoehorned in to constituencies where they have zero concept of what really goes on nor really care, its a mess, and its not getting better, we need to seriously look at the selection process for MPs.
Click to expand...
I think you have to consider the alternative of free votes and no party manifestos.

We saw how that works in the Brexit deal debates under May (once she twigged that "Brexit means Brexit" wasn't a policy). Umpteen different proposals were put to Parliament and none could get a majority. In the end, to "get Brexit done", it took the worst example ever of forcing dissenters out of Parliament by a PM insisting on a loyalty test and removing talent, experience and expertise from his party and from Parliament. (And getting Brexit done despite most people voting for parties against Brexit or offering a second referendum.)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top