Labour MPs To Split From Party?

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:48 pm

South West Claret. wrote:This so called split has already happened before when the so called gang of 4 left to join the then Liberal Party to create the Dim Libs, and look where that got them...and more importantly us!

All that splits do is give the Con Artists more chance of getting in again, they just love the chance of benefiting from their “Devide and Conquer” tactics that they have been using for hundreds of years.

Calling everyone you don't agree with childish names. Tick.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:49 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I'm not biting that. Im sure you are just as aware he's a commy. If on the slim chance you're not, just stick your head out of your shell.

You're not answering because you don't know why you think he's a Commy, you just do. Because that's what you've been told to believe.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 12:53 pm

Its ironic that the "let's stay in the EU and pretend we can reform it from within " strand of Labour MPs are unwilling to adopt the same position in their own party.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 1:55 pm

randomclaret2 wrote:Its ironic that the "let's stay in the EU and pretend we can reform it from within " strand of Labour MPs are unwilling to adopt the same position in their own party.

It's ironic that you're criticising a strand of Labour MPs for leaving their party instead of trying to overturn the results of two leadership elections.

But then intellectual consistency has never been a burden to you lot.

randomclaret2 · Post by **randomclaret2** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:01 pm

Brilliant...

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:02 pm

Thank you.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:09 pm

I really do wish there was a dislike button

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:11 pm

KateR wrote:I really do wish there was a dislike button

Pressing ALT+F4 activates the 'dislike' option on a thread

Paul Waine · Post by **Paul Waine** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:16 pm

If it be your will wrote:They're already being called The Dead Centre Party.

Hope it sticks.

Ah, welcome back, iibyw. I've not seen you post for a long time.

Sproggy · Post by **Sproggy** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:20 pm

KateR wrote:I really do wish there was a dislike button

Click on someone's user name if you're logged in. You get the option to "friend" or "Foe" them. Clicking Foe hides the content of anything they post.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:32 pm

thatdberight wrote:Nor, going back, when Shaun Woodward crossed the house to Labour in 1999. Not the norm, as you say.

Just thought I'd answer this as it is a constitutional point. It hasn't got anything to do with norms or what many people might think is right. When you vote for someone in any election, be it general or by-election you are voting for a person not a party (you may think otherwise as many do but it is not the case), the party system is NOT recognised in parliament. After a general election the Queen calls for 'the person who can commnand a majority in the house'. The party system developed over the years but the fact is, whether we like it or not, an MP does not have to be loyal to any party whatsoever. It does seem in this day and age a tad deceptive but that is the case. An MP can 'change sides' as often as they like without breaking any rules or laws. The whip system is there to try to maintain some kind of party discipline but they can indeed be completely ignored (albeit at the risk of losing any possible promotions and/or party priviledges - blackmail has also been suspected in the past as well).

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:32 pm

These seven MPs stood on a Labour Party ticket back in 2017 - hardly a lifetime ago. I suppose they'll do the decent and honest thing by resigning their seats so they can re-stand as independents. Nope, thought not.

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:37 pm

thatdberight wrote:Calling everyone you don't agree with childish names. Tick.

Calling some/everyone you don’t agree with what most people think of them is just pragmatic.

houseboy · Post by **houseboy** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 2:42 pm

thatdberight wrote:UK (whatever your view on it) in the midst of its most important political decision / crisis for 45 / 60 / 75 years (take your pick) and one of two major parties facing biggest schism since... I can't remember when 7 sitting MPs left a party. And you didn't think the 'B' word would get a look-in?

Not on every other thread on a football forum. It seems like anyone who has an interest (which indeed I have massively but NOT on here) wants to start his own thread to make sure that his views are clearly seen as opposed to the 10 thousand other posts on other threads. And my point was in this case if you want to start YET ANOTHER thread on here mark it clearly then it can be safely avoided by those who don't want to talk to others who are just as ill-informed as they are. The fact is everyone (with a few exceptions) on here thinks they are a bloody expert on something that even the experts can't agree on.

Please note my comment is only in response to a reply - I have no interest in talking about Brexit on here any longer and haven't done for some time.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:09 pm

Sproggy wrote:Click on someone's user name if you're logged in. You get the option to "friend" or "Foe" them. Clicking Foe hides the content of anything they post.

you learn something new every day, thank you

However I want to read what they have to say and let them know, just as much as I do when I use the like which is quite often.

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:11 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote:Pressing ALT+F4 activates the 'dislike' option on a thread

it deletes things (I think) I really want to dislike when I do same as I do with the like button, I don't really want to miss any other doozies that come out do I

claretonthecoast1882 · Post by **claretonthecoast1882** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:21 pm

Surprised these MP's aren't being praised for leaving a racist party by the regularly offended

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:34 pm

claretonthecoast1882 wrote:Surprised these MP's aren't being praised for leaving a racist party by the regularly offended

Labour, a racist party. The party opf equality is a racist party.

Oh god. The stupid. It burns.

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 3:36 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:No by-elections called when those two Conservative MPs changed to UKIP.
Probably should be one like, but its not the norm when MPs become independants.

On the contrary, when Douglas Carswell and Mark Reckless switched their allegience from the Conservatives to UKIP, both of them resigned their positions as Members of Parliament, triggering By-Elections in which they stood for their new Party . These were held on 9th October 2014 in Clacton, with Carswell being re-elected under his new banner, and Mark Reckless won back his seat in Rochester & Strood on 24th November 2014 ....

Whilst I know you disagree with their politics, Lancs, I'm sure you'll concede that they did the honorable thing on that occasion. I wouldn't hold your breath waiting for any of this " Gang of 7 " to follow suit !!

gtclaret · Post by **gtclaret** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 4:27 pm

bobinho wrote:MP’s should NOT be allowed to resign, or leave the party they are a member of, until the end of their term.

They asked for our votes, they got them, now get on with it until the next GE.

And they should not be allowed to vote against party policy that was announced pre election and they stood for. Same of course would apply to Corbyn himself who did do 500 times

South West Claret. · Post by **South West Claret.** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 5:11 pm

AndyClaret wrote:It's kind of ironic that the peoples vote lot don't want the people to have the final say when it against them.

I prefer to call the next ref. an “Informed Referendum” as what has come out in the public domain is more than we were told before we had it by both sides, but that’s by the by.

What makes you say that above AC because all I want from a referendum is people to have a say after examining “all the facts” up to now. The fact that we will all have to live with the results of in or out is something else.

basil6345789 · Post by **basil6345789** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:10 pm

I think we would be just as uninformed if detail was what you're after.
You have to decide from your beliefs, philosophies and principles, like we want to govern our own country, make our own laws and paddle our own trading canoe.
It's not possible to have all the implementation strategies, design and details beforehand.

Steve-Harpers-perm · Post by **Steve-Harpers-perm** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:26 pm

Good start for Angela Smith! Has our country ever had a more inept set of MP’s! Like a real life episode of The Thick of It!

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 7:31 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:No by-elections called when those two Conservative MPs changed to UKIP.

Probably should be one like, but its not the norm when MPs become independants.

Yes there was. Carswell held one and won. About 2014?

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:11 pm

Foulthrow wrote:Yes there was. Carswell held one and won. About 2014?

See post 69 " Foulthrow ", Lancs in " Fake news " shocker !

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:12 pm

Wasn't that a general election though?

Clarets4me · Post by **Clarets4me** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:18 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Wasn't that a general election though?

No, the General Election was in May 2015, if you'll recall !

Lancasterclaret · Post by **Lancasterclaret** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:20 pm

Fair enough!

Have a biscuit!

thatdberight · Post by **thatdberight** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:22 pm

Lancasterclaret wrote:Fair enough!

Have a biscuit!

Typical Labour policy. Offers a biscuit. Turns out it's your own biscuit. There's no magic biscuit tree.

elwaclaret · Post by **elwaclaret** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:25 pm

houseboy wrote:Just thought I'd answer this as it is a constitutional point. It hasn't got anything to do with norms or what many people might think is right. When you vote for someone in any election, be it general or by-election you are voting for a person not a party (you may think otherwise as many do but it is not the case), the party system is NOT recognised in parliament. After a general election the Queen calls for 'the person who can commnand a majority in the house'. The party system developed over the years but the fact is, whether we like it or not, an MP does not have to be loyal to any party whatsoever. It does seem in this day and age a tad deceptive but that is the case. An MP can 'change sides' as often as they like without breaking any rules or laws. The whip system is there to try to maintain some kind of party discipline but they can indeed be completely ignored (albeit at the risk of losing any possible promotions and/or party priviledges - blackmail has also been suspected in the past as well).

Not often done, but famously Churchill crossed the house from Whig... Liberal to Conservative

Foulthrow · Post by **Foulthrow** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:30 pm

Clarets4me wrote:See post 69 " Foulthrow ", Lancs in " Fake news " shocker !

Sorry, didn’t read the entire thread before replying

Billy Balfour · Post by **Billy Balfour** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 8:38 pm

'Funny tinge', eh? Some of them can't even go in front on the TV cameras for more than five minutes without putting their foot in it.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Mon Feb 18, 2019 9:02 pm

Imploding Turtle wrote: Labour, a racist party. The party opf equality is a racist party.

Oh god. The stupid. It burns.

Unless you've been living under a stone for the last 2 years, it's patently obvious that in Corbyns Labour party, some are more equal than others.
It should be a broad church, it has to be a broad church to have any glimmer of hope in a GE. Yet on a weekly basis moderate Labour MPs are harangued by their CLPs at the behest of momentum.
Frank Field, a champion for pensioners and a long serving party stalwart, who's done far more for the party and the people than Corbyn ever did, marginalised because he doesn't follow the script.
I held a membership card for 35 years, I've never changed my views or beliefs, but like many moderate Socialists I could never vote Labour.

People say the gang if 4 never achieved anything, but they're wrong. They forced the Labour party to look inwards at what the problems within the party were. Would we have had OMOV, without them, would we have got New Labour without them.

I don't think these 7 will alter Labour today. Corbyn is too myopic to change course and Momentum would rather be a blip on the edge of the house, than nothing at all.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:14 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:Unless you've been living under a stone for the last 2 years, it's patently obvious that in Corbyns Labour party, some are more equal than others.
It should be a broad church, it has to be a broad church to have any glimmer of hope in a GE. Yet on a weekly basis moderate Labour MPs are harangued by their CLPs at the behest of momentum.
Frank Field, a champion for pensioners and a long serving party stalwart, who's done far more for the party and the people than Corbyn ever did, marginalised because he doesn't follow the script.
I held a membership card for 35 years, I've never changed my views or beliefs, but like many moderate Socialists I could never vote Labour.

People say the gang if 4 never achieved anything, but they're wrong. They forced the Labour party to look inwards at what the problems within the party were. Would we have had OMOV, without them, would we have got New Labour without them.

I don't think these 7 will alter Labour today. Corbyn is too myopic to change course and Momentum would rather be a blip on the edge of the house, than nothing at all.

Every politic party has an "in crowd" and favourites. Tony Blair's Labour Party was no different, and nor is May's Tory Party. If you travel back to Corbyn's beginning as leader, you'll remember that he put together a shadow cabinet consisting of MPs from all parts of the party - and fifty-fifty gender split too. This led to many of them attempting to oust him less than a year later.

Fundamentally it's about whether power should reside with the membership, or with MPs. Do we want to go back to the time under Blair when power was centralised, decisions forced on them (Kitty Usher, anyone?) and the party membership largely ignored? Or should things be opened up more to members? If you want it to be more democratic, then MPs have to expect their CLPs to be more vocal - though having said this only a small number of MPs have faced these sorts of issues. If however an MP wants to work against, and try to unseat a leader of the party (one very popular with the membership), then they can have absolutely no complaints if members of their own CLP try to deselect them. What's good for the goose, and all of that.

As for Frank Field, one issue he created for himself (and if you look it up you'll see he'd angered his CLP in a number of ways) was in writing for the Sun - considering the fact he's a Merseyside MP.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 7:18 am

And to add - lots of people left the Labour Party under Blair, and some have left it because of Corbyn (though in all a large net gain). But the fact remains that if you don't like Corbyn, your best hope of getting him replaced is by joining or re-joining the Labour Party and voting against him. Simply criticizing from the sidelines won't achieve anything.

Caballo · Post by **Caballo** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:36 am

https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-47286766 Timing is everything

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 9:38 am

AndrewJB wrote:And to add - lots of people left the Labour Party under Blair, and some have left it because of Corbyn (though in all a large net gain). But the fact remains that if you don't like Corbyn, your best hope of getting him replaced is by joining or re-joining the Labour Party and voting against him. Simply criticizing from the sidelines won't achieve anything.

It's a fair point about leaving, but I really believe the Labour party, as is is defunct dead. A bunch of left wingers fighting for the working class man, without even knowing that the fight they are in died 35 years ago. Working class man no longer wears a flat cap and walks his whippet. He has ambitions to own his own home, enjoy foreign holidays, to see his kids succeed at school and in life. We don't push kids up chimneys anymore. Just like the unions pulling the strings again, the party is living in the past.
There has to be a centralised party, and it needs to be a new one. I don't think the gang of 7 are that party . It may take a few years to get there, but something is coming. I think the Tories are in for a shake up as well, but due to the pig in a blue rosette syndrome, will survive.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:23 am

Colburn_Claret wrote:It's a fair point about leaving, but I really believe the Labour party, as is is defunct dead. A bunch of left wingers fighting for the working class man, without even knowing that the fight they are in died 35 years ago. Working class man no longer wears a flat cap and walks his whippet. He has ambitions to own his own home, enjoy foreign holidays, to see his kids succeed at school and in life. We don't push kids up chimneys anymore. Just like the unions pulling the strings again, the party is living in the past.
There has to be a centralised party, and it needs to be a new one. I don't think the gang of 7 are that party . It may take a few years to get there, but something is coming. I think the Tories are in for a shake up as well, but due to the pig in a blue rosette syndrome, will survive.

"ambitions to own his own home, enjoy foreign holidays, to see his kids succeed at school and in life"

How's that going for the working class lately?

Say what you like about the current Labour party, and I could say a lot, but when i read opinions like yours you seem completely divorced from what is actually blighting the current working class if you think that Labour aren't fully aware of what the working class want. It's as if you read that the Labour party want to re-nationalise the railways, after a clearly failed privatisation, and think that because that was once the way they were run back in the 70s or 80s that everything else Labour wants must be from that era too.

I asked you to explain why you thought Corbyn was a "Commy" and you refused to answer, but maybe you'll be able to answer this one. What is it about Labours policies that makes you think they are not aware that the modern working class person wants to enjoy owning their own homes, or enjoy foreign holidays, or see their kids succeed at school and in life?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 10:57 am

Caballo wrote:https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-merseyside-47286766 Timing is everything

"What can we do to make the public think we are not a party full of moon bats.
I know, let's let Derek Hatton re-join"

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:02 am

Damo wrote:"What can we do to make the public think we are not a party full of moon bats.
I know, let's let Derek Hatton re-join"

Hardly the worst re-admittance to a party in recent years. Pretty sure the Tories re-admitted someone much worse recently just for their vote.

Also, this guy is 71?

Damo · Post by **Damo** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:08 am

Imploding Turtle wrote:Also, this guy is 71?

Perfectly inline with the recruitment policy for the party hierarchy then

KateR · Post by **KateR** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:41 am

damn if that guy is 71 I want to know what face cream or surgeon he is using !!

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 11:58 am

KateR wrote:damn if that guy is 71 I want to know what face cream or surgeon he is using !!

right? I'm half his age and look twice his age.

Imploding Turtle · Post by **Imploding Turtle** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:03 pm

From his Wiki entry:

Hatton joined the rate-capping rebellion in 1985 as the council refused to make a rate increase. In June, the council changed tactics and set an illegal "deficit budget" which committed it to spending £30 million in excess of its income, claiming that the excess represented grant "stolen" by central government. Once adopted by the Liverpool District Labour Party and 49 councillors, this policy catapulted Hatton and the city council into massive media attention and conflict with the then-Conservative government.

Hatton was expelled from the Labour Party in 1986 for belonging to Militant, which had earlier been found to be in breach of the Labour Party's constitution. Hatton argued that Militant was a legitimate Marxist tendency within the Labour Party, but the National Executive Committee voted to expel him by 12 votes to 6.[2]

Why is this such a big deal? We just voted to leave the EU to "stick it to the establishment" (by pocking our own eyes out), so why is everyone acting like this is a scandal? Or is it only ok when right-wingers "stick it to the establishment"?

Guich · Post by **Guich** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:03 pm

I was on a table with Derek Hatton at a Football Awards event a couple of years ago. Sat in between us was a lovely lady less than half his age and he was clearly excited. He wrote his phone number on her event programme and then someone swapped it....allegedly

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 12:11 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:It's a fair point about leaving, but I really believe the Labour party, as is is defunct dead. A bunch of left wingers fighting for the working class man, without even knowing that the fight they are in died 35 years ago. Working class man no longer wears a flat cap and walks his whippet. He has ambitions to own his own home, enjoy foreign holidays, to see his kids succeed at school and in life. We don't push kids up chimneys anymore. Just like the unions pulling the strings again, the party is living in the past.
There has to be a centralised party, and it needs to be a new one. I don't think the gang of 7 are that party . It may take a few years to get there, but something is coming. I think the Tories are in for a shake up as well, but due to the pig in a blue rosette syndrome, will survive.

If you're looking for a centrist party (although we might debate on what centrist actually is), what's wrong with the LibDems? If we had a PR system, you'd see parties spring up that more closely reflect your opinions, and you'd be able to vote for them, secure in the knowledge that every single vote, regardless of where you live, counts.

Who is fighting the battles of forty years ago? Where is that bit in the last Labour Manifesto? If anyone is doing that, it's the Tories defending our privatised utilities and public transport. Only they don't defend them with their previous arguments; "They'll be more efficiently run, and these savings will be passed on to the consumer..." - the arguments they used to sell them off in the first place. They can't deny that Britons have the highest cost of rail travel in Europe, and probably the lowest satisfaction level, so they justify this burden on the British public (to enrichen foreign owners), by saying it's too expensive to re-nationalise (begging the question; what happened to the money we got for selling it originally?). It's the Tories that are actually clinging on to failed ideas, and so after one company has already gone bust, the privatisation of our parole services continues.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 4:08 pm

AndrewJB wrote:If you're looking for a centrist party (although we might debate on what centrist actually is), what's wrong with the LibDems? If we had a PR system, you'd see parties spring up that more closely reflect your opinions, and you'd be able to vote for them, secure in the knowledge that every single vote, regardless of where you live, counts.

Who is fighting the battles of forty years ago? Where is that bit in the last Labour Manifesto? If anyone is doing that, it's the Tories defending our privatised utilities and public transport. Only they don't defend them with their previous arguments; "They'll be more efficiently run, and these savings will be passed on to the consumer..." - the arguments they used to sell them off in the first place. They can't deny that Britons have the highest cost of rail travel in Europe, and probably the lowest satisfaction level, so they justify this burden on the British public (to enrichen foreign owners), by saying it's too expensive to re-nationalise (begging the question; what happened to the money we got for selling it originally?). It's the Tories that are actually clinging on to failed ideas, and so after one company has already gone bust, the privatisation of our parole services continues.

I agree with you about the Tories and privatisation, or their version of it. Renationalising isn't the answer. Making the people in charge accountable is the only solution I can think of.
Where I liked New Labour, and I'm not arguing they were perfect, is that they understood that there was a need for Labour to embrace big businesses. Without encouraging entrepreneurs, rewarding peoples endeavours and enterprise, there is no progress. Having them on the inside was far more effective than having the Unions inside.
I'm not anti union, I've been a member of one branch or another most of my working life, and I've been a shop steward but they should stick to looking out for conditions in the workplace, rather than trying to run the country. Too many have ideas that would improve the lot of the workforce, but cripple the business, and all that leads to is the dole. There is a middle way, that helps the workers, but also allows businesses to flourish, and enjoy the benefits of those successes. If it isn't Win Win, it's a loser.

AndrewJB · Post by **AndrewJB** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:33 pm

Colburn_Claret wrote:I agree with you about the Tories and privatisation, or their version of it. Renationalising isn't the answer. Making the people in charge accountable is the only solution I can think of.
Where I liked New Labour, and I'm not arguing they were perfect, is that they understood that there was a need for Labour to embrace big businesses. Without encouraging entrepreneurs, rewarding peoples endeavours and enterprise, there is no progress. Having them on the inside was far more effective than having the Unions inside.
I'm not anti union, I've been a member of one branch or another most of my working life, and I've been a shop steward but they should stick to looking out for conditions in the workplace, rather than trying to run the country. Too many have ideas that would improve the lot of the workforce, but cripple the business, and all that leads to is the dole. There is a middle way, that helps the workers, but also allows businesses to flourish, and enjoy the benefits of those successes. If it isn't Win Win, it's a loser.

I think it's important for governments to embrace business - particularly small business, which is the real engine of our economy, but I'm curious why you singled out big business to be embraced? When I lived in Canada I would find myself in conversations with politically conservative minded people who would insist to me that "big government is bad" - but have no problem with big business.

Plenty of business people offer their thoughts on how the country could be improved (rather than just getting on running their businesses), so I don't see why union people, or anyone else, should be excluded from the discussion. Ideas aren't a bad thing, and if their ideas are different from those of business leaders, then there will be a compromise somewhere in between.

You say you're against nationally owned services like utilities, or rail, yet there's nothing wrong with a country owning its own infrastructure (it's the norm in a lot of successful European countries). Considering these things are mostly owned by foreign companies, it could be seen as taking back control. State owned railways could be better for business. Knowing their workforce is going to get in on time every day, and not feel extremely stressed, or suffer from "commuter poverty" - would be worth something to many HR departments. I think it's short sighted to run every level of a complex economy as profit making entities.

Spiral · Post by **Spiral** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 5:39 pm

Like them or loathe them, the Tories know how to circle the wagons when it matters. Electoral commission apparently looking into The Independent Group over its structure and financing, trying to work out whether it's a group or an actual party. No real clear and obvious policy deviations besides disagreement with internal party policy, policing and culture...perhaps that'll develop but we'll see. If it's about the people's vote campaign then they are (and have been) acting prematurely, and it's bad politics to not see that a second referendum is (should be) a last resort to avoid leaving without a deal. Whether you like or hate Corbyn (and I'm not supporting the bloke, here) it's obvious this is more of an elaborate - and opaquely-financed, according to reports - publicity stunt intended to land a bruise on the Labour leadership than it is a sincere attempt at speaking to those who feel politically homeless, as they put it. There's nothing in and of itself wrong with what they're doing, taking their reasons for splitting at face value, but let's be honest, arguing with Trots inside the party isn't exactly a new phenomena for Labour, and folks might see the manner of the split, the timing etc. and read it as opportunism, an attempt to steal a march on the LibDems as the people's vote party. I think they might have just buried their careers.

Colburn_Claret · Post by **Colburn_Claret** » Tue Feb 19, 2019 8:04 pm

AndrewJB wrote:I think it's important for governments to embrace business - particularly small business, which is the real engine of our economy, but I'm curious why you singled out big business to be embraced? When I lived in Canada I would find myself in conversations with politically conservative minded people who would insist to me that "big government is bad" - but have no problem with big business.

Plenty of business people offer their thoughts on how the country could be improved (rather than just getting on running their businesses), so I don't see why union people, or anyone else, should be excluded from the discussion. Ideas aren't a bad thing, and if their ideas are different from those of business leaders, then there will be a compromise somewhere in between.

You say you're against nationally owned services like utilities, or rail, yet there's nothing wrong with a country owning its own infrastructure (it's the norm in a lot of successful European countries). Considering these things are mostly owned by foreign companies, it could be seen as taking back control. State owned railways could be better for business. Knowing their workforce is going to get in on time every day, and not feel extremely stressed, or suffer from "commuter poverty" - would be worth something to many HR departments. I think it's short sighted to run every level of a complex economy as profit making entities.

The main reason I'm against renationalisation is the cost. We wasted a fortune in the selling price, we'd waste another fortune on buying them back. That alone wouldn't solve the problems, the investment needed on top to get them to measure up to their counterparts on the continent would be huge. I'm not certain, but I always thought a lot of them ran at a loss. I wouldn't care if we could break even, but running at a loss would be unacceptable.

I agree small businesses are important, I singled out big business because the larger the business the larger the benefit could be.

I'm not bothered about the Union having a voice in politics, that's fine, but they want the power. To me that's the tail wagging the dog. There is no common ground between the McCluskeys of this world and the CBI, they would forever be at each others throats. Any party that causes division within the country is doomed to failure from the day it takes office, it's just a matter of time.
You are never going to please everybody, but it has to be fair, and seen to be fair for people to give it a chance.