General Election - December 12th, 2019

[Banned Tosspot]

Corpses cannot stand for leadership, it's in the rules

You should read some conspiracy websites.

 

[west didsblue]

Corpses cannot stand for leadership, it's in the rules

IDS was the Tory leader for a while so that’s patently not true.

 

[gordondaviesmoustache]

Corpses cannot stand for leadership, it's in the rules

That rules Manuel out.

 

[Rascal]

Oh, I understand it alright. It’s just another example of politicians saying one thing and doing another. That’s not just aimed at Labour and Corbyn by the way.

This is no slight at you pal, but the narrative in the media ignores this simple way that our democracy works. A party gets hung out to dry for a manifesto promise that it makes that it is under no obligation to undertake and then turn into the MPs saying one thing and meaning another. This of course is simplifying the whole process and in effect demonising Parliament. Which serves vested interests not the interests of the electorate. Of course we all want honesty, we are an honest people mostly and I think the demonization of any party based on a manifesto promise it has no need to make is never good for democracy.

Also a manifesto cannot see the future, events happen unforeseen that can render a manifesto pledge unworkable. An example for instance would be a manifesto that pledged to get rid of the armed forces, the party making the pledge wins the election, but the next day Switzerland invades the Isle of Wight. Parliament would abandon its pledge immediately and keep the armed forces to defend the Isle of Wight from Swiss aggression as it was an unforeseen event.

That would be an example of Politicians saying one thing and doing another. A bit extreme I know, but my point stands I hope.

 

[The perfect fumble]

Corpses cannot stand for leadership, it's in the rules

It didn't stop Michael Howard! Only daylight does that.

 

[M18CTID]

This is no slight at you pal, but the narrative in the media ignores this simple way that our democracy works. A party gets hung out to dry for a manifesto promise that it makes that it is under no obligation to undertake and then turn into the MPs saying one thing and meaning another. This of course is simplifying the whole process and in effect demonising Parliament. Which serves vested interests not the interests of the electorate. Of course we all want honesty, we are an honest people mostly and I think the demonization of any party based on a manifesto promise it has no need to make is never good for democracy.

Also a manifesto cannot see the future, events happen unforeseen that can render a manifesto pledge unworkable. An example for instance would be a manifesto that pledged to get rid of the armed forces, the party making the pledge wins the election, but the next day Switzerland invades the Isle of Wight. Parliament would abandon its pledge immediately and keep the armed forces to defend the Isle of Wight from Swiss aggression as it was an unforeseen event.

That would be an example of Politicians saying one thing and doing another. A bit extreme I know, but my point stands I hope.

Mate, there are plenty of manifesto pledges that have been broken on all sides down the years but this topic dwarfs all those in terms of the amount of people who voted. Changing their stance from Leave to Remain is going to annoy and confuse a lot of Labour voters for sure, and it isn’t a minor titbit in a manifesto that can be swept under the carpet.

 

[Rascal]

Mate, there are plenty of manifesto pledges that have been broken on all sides down the years but this topic dwarfs all those in terms of the amount of people who voted. Changing their stance from Leave to Remain is going to annoy and confuse a lot of Labour voters for sure, and it isn’t a minor titbit in a manifesto that can be swept under the carpet.

I understand that, but the party is beholden to the members and it is the members who vote on policy.

Labour did not win the election, so it has every right to change tack on policy and alter it according to events. That is democracy.

 

[blueinsa]

Mate, there are plenty of manifesto pledges that have been broken on all sides down the years but this topic dwarfs all those in terms of the amount of people who voted. Changing their stance from Leave to Remain is going to annoy and confuse a lot of Labour voters for sure, and it isn’t a minor titbit in a manifesto that can be swept under the carpet.

Only the ideologically pure 500,000 momentum/members matter in reality.

The rest of us that have voted Labour all our lives can get to fuck.

Best of luck becoming a Government with a majority with those 500,000.....

 

[meltonblue]

I do agree that anyone in opposition can change their manifesto if they want to as ultimately their original one failed and they are not beholden to it. It doesn’t sit comfortably for me though when a backbencher who regularly voted against his own party’s pledges due to core principles doesn’t then keep as principled when in power. That’s what has caused some of the issues for labour recently, as it leads on to people not knowing whether the leader believes in their own party’s policies or not.

 

[Rascal]

Only the ideologically pure 500,000 momentum/members matter in reality.

The rest of us that have voted Labour all our lives can get to fuck.

Best of luck becoming a Government with a majority with those 500,000.....

Momentum has an estimated 40k members(2018 figures), not 500K and is a campaign group, and not all of the 40K are Labour Party members. You can be a member of momemtum without being a Labour Party member and vice versa.

Momentum was also initially Brexit neutral, although with many of the members in my opinion being to the left of Corbyn they were more likely to be LEXIT supporters.

If you are going to tell lies, try and tell good ones.