Syria bombing

[RedZed]

when was the last time a bomb achieved anything positive?

1982 Operation Black Buck?

 

[Phil.]

"When was the last time a bomb achieved anything positive"?

Well the bucket of sunshine dropped on Nagasaki was pretty effective in stopping Japan's shennanigans.
The 22,000 lb "Grand Slam" dropped on Bielefeld Viaduct was pretty effective in shutting of a rail supply line.

But I do know what you're getting at.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

6)
While many suggest that their local MP represents the views of their constituency, that's not right. The first loyalty of a local MP is to the party, not to the constituency.

If that be the case, why bother letting the electorate bothering to vote for someone to represent them and their views. Loyalty of a local MP is to the party, not to those who cast their vote, you say. This puts me in mind of what was the case in East Germany and a number of the Warsaw Pact countries, prior to the fall of a certain ideology.

Still, it is interesting to note that you appear to hold to that particular ideal. I do not know your age, I am 70 and I well remember what was occurring in real life in my younger days in the land of "The Iron Curtain group of states".

 

[Oswyntail]

....However if an MP doesn't want to be deselected by the constituency party at the next election they should generally follow the lead of the party they claim to represent. .....

No - they represent the constituency, all the constituency, and not just the party of which they are a member. Of course, there are some constituencies where, if the sitting party put a gerbil up as a candidate it would get voted in (funny how few people agree that situation is terrible). But, in most constituencies, thee will be a broad range of views, held by a broad range of people. So a candidate is selected who can represent that broad view, but with a party leaning.
If you could only vote for a candidate if you supported the party manifesto in every detail, no one could ever vote (except a few idiots/party hacks)

 

[Arglwydd Golau]

.....and making room for even more MP's who espouse "the Gospel according to Corbyn"...

A most novel way to get rid of the moderate MP's in the Labour Party and proving if you can bully those Labour Party MP's who, do not forget, were voted into office by their electorate, you will not end up with "the broad church" of the Labour Party so often spoken about, but a narrow-agenda hard left group of Socialists to whom the 1970 decade still burns ever so bright in their memory.

Two questions, Paul.
1) What is a 'moderate'?
2) The 1970's is oft quoted in relation to Jeremy Corbyn, anyone who was active politically in that decade has to be at least 60 now. Young people who have flocked to Jeremy Corbyn's support have no knowledge of the 1970's. Perhaps you can provide evidence that what you say about Corbyn's supporters is true?

 

[Tetchytyke]

No - they represent the constituency, all the constituency, and not just the party of which they are a member.

Constitutionally, yes, but in reality it is much more grey than you are making out.

They should represent everyone, not just the people who voted for them. But, assuming the electorate are literate, they should be representing everyone through the prism of the electoral promises they made- the party they represent being one of those promises. I know constitutionally there's nothing wrong with what Shaun Woodward did in 1997, but nobody can say he was keeping the promises he made to the people of Witney nor can they say he was representing them according to their wishes.

Of course, there are some constituencies where, if the sitting party put a gerbil up as a candidate it would get voted in (funny how few people agree that situation is terrible).

Using the Electoral Reform Society's data (published immediately before the 2015 election), 368 seats (out of 658) are "safe" seats, i.e. somewhere where you could get a gerbil voted in.

Like many, it appears you're trying to present this as a Labour phenomenon. However the Electoral Reform Society believe immediately prior to the 2015 election 190 of those safe seats were actually Conservative strongholds, with only 150 being Labour strongholds (and that's naturally decreased with the SNP surge). And plenty- including the Electoral Reform Society- seem to be dissatisfied with the current situation, more so in recent times with UKIP's number of MPs being completely out of step with their share of the popular vote.

I also think this is probably off-topic and should be in the thread I made about Oldham.

 

[Oswyntail]

Constitutionally, yes, but in reality it is much more grey than you are making out.

They should represent everyone, not just the people who voted for them. But, assuming the electorate are literate, they should be representing everyone through the prism of the electoral promises they made- the party they represent being one of those promises.

It should be greyer still. Why should a member elected with a majority of 1 vote vote in the same way every time as one with a majority of 10,000? There should be no concept of party within Parliament, but, failing that, all votes should be free....

Like many, it appears you're trying to present this as a Labour phenomenon.

Not at all. Perhaps you are feeling paranoid about the number of gerbils on the Labour benches, though.

I also think this is probably off-topic and should be in the thread I made about Oldham.

No, this is the right place. After the Syria vote, there has been much talk of "traitors", "turncoats", and deselection because MPs voted against the wishes of a few party members (who always represent a tiny minority of the electorate). These self-obsessed hacks need to be reminded just who the MP is representing.

 

[miami]

If that be the case, why bother letting the electorate bothering to vote for someone to represent them and their views. Loyalty of a local MP is to the party, not to those who cast their vote, you say. This puts me in mind of what was the case in East Germany and a number of the Warsaw Pact countries, prior to the fall of a certain ideology.

I didn't say it's a good thing, but why isn't every vote a free vote? Why have a party whip?

Sure, some rebel, but on the whole MPs vote for what their party says so. I'm fortunate that my local MP is slightly principled, I agree with his views on education for example, which lost him his shadow-cabinet seat. However like you I live in a safe seat, it matters not if I vote for him, or for Labour, or for Lib Dems, or for UKIP.

Still, it is interesting to note that you appear to hold to that particular ideal. I do not know your age, I am 70 and I well remember what was occurring in real life in my younger days in the land of "The Iron Curtain group of states".

Are you sure? Were you there? From what I understand it was terrible (although a Latvian friend of mine says it wasn't, I suspect it was fine for some, bad for others, and lots of propaganda to drum home whatever message was required).

However one policy of the Warsaw pact - the spying state - is an ever creeping reality today, no matter if it's Blair or Cameron in charge. I don't want the state spying on me, I consider it a fascist move. Therssa May is a big proponent of such spying.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It should be greyer still. Why should a member elected with a majority of 1 vote vote in the same way every time as one with a majority of 10,000? There should be no concept of party within Parliament, but, failing that, all votes should be free....

I'd agree about removing or reducing the power of the Whips Office, but on the other hand if someone is standing on behalf of the Something Must Be Done Party or Careful Now Party then they are making promises based on that nomination. You cannot ethically present yourself as one thing to win votes and then decide to be something else when you get your feet under the desk.

I think people like Woodward breached those promises and his behaviour was completely dishonourable.

After the Syria vote, there has been much talk of "traitors", "turncoats", and deselection because MPs voted against the wishes of a few party members (who always represent a tiny minority of the electorate). These self-obsessed hacks need to be reminded just who the MP is representing.

The MP might be "representing" the whole constituency, but the MP gained his or her nomination from the local constituency party. I see no issue with a local constituency party reminding them of this fact.

If they don't agree with the local constituency party they're free to resign from it at any time they want. And if the local constituency party doesn't agree with them then the party are free to deselect them at the next election. I see no issue with either situation.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Are you sure? Were you there? From what I understand it was terrible (although a Latvian friend of mine says it wasn't, I suspect it was fine for some, bad for others, and lots of propaganda to drum home whatever message was required).

However one policy of the Warsaw pact - the spying state - is an ever creeping reality today, no matter if it's Blair or Cameron in charge. I don't want the state spying on me, I consider it a fascist move. Therssa May is a big proponent of such spying.

Whilst I was not there, being born in Manchester in 1945, my youngest aunt actually lived in Poland all her life, but she certainly rejoiced at the fall of Communism and was alive to see that event occur.

Once again, I take up the matter of using the word fascist out of context with you. I notice your cunning move to not now accusing Theresa May of espousing such a political system, replacing her name by that of Therssa May...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However one policy of the Warsaw pact - the spying state - is an ever creeping reality today, no matter if it's Blair or Cameron in charge. I don't want the state spying on me, I consider it a fascist move.

Come on. First you state spying is a Communist (Warsaw Pact) methodology, then you say it is a Fascist "move".

There is a rather large differences between the political aspirations of both those two political systems.

 

[fowler9]

Whilst I was not there, being born in Manchester in 1945, my youngest aunt actually lived in Poland all her life, but she certainly rejoiced at the fall of Communism and was alive to see that event occur.

Once again, I take up the matter of using the word fascist out of context with you. I notice your cunning move to not now accusing Theresa May of espousing such a political system, replacing her name by that of Therssa May...:roll:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Come on. First you state spying is a Communist (Warsaw Pact) methodology, then you say it is a Fascist "move". I think they would meet up pretty well.

There is a rather large differences between the political aspirations of both those two political systems.

I'd say for the people there isn't really a big difference between the far left and the far right. Lets draw a big line which would of course have a left extreme and a right extreme. Bend that line until it is a circle. Maybe a few arguments about semantics.

 

[Oswyntail]

....Come on. First you state spying is a Communist (Warsaw Pact) methodology, then you say it is a Fascist "move".....

Communism and Fascism are not altogether exclusive, and it is open to either - and indeed anyone - to use such tools as they require. Either ideology in its purest form is impractical, but it is interesting that, while "Fascist" has lost much of its meaning and is very much a catch-all political insult, "Communist" is much less debased.
Of course, the real problem is in the left wing/right wing metaphor which, as has been pointed out, these days works neither at the extremes nor in the centre.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Communism and Fascism are not altogether exclusive, and it is open to either - and indeed anyone - to use such tools as they require. Either ideology in its purest form is impractical, but it is interesting that, while "Fascist" has lost much of its meaning and is very much a catch-all political insult, "Communist" is much less debased.
Of course, the real problem is in the left wing/right wing metaphor which, as has been pointed out, these days works neither at the extremes nor in the centre.

Perhaps, at the age of 70 and being a Classics as well as a Mathematics scholar of almost 50 years ago covering the period culminating in the 1966 award of First in Mathematics at Manchester University, I did study the Fascist movement in some depth. In the mid 1920's there were both British Fascisti movements and National Fascisti movements, but it was the Mussolini 1930's period in Italy where the name took on a national and international significance.

To me, Classically speaking, the term Fascist emanates from the usual visual image of Fascis, which is normally shown as an image of a leather strap bound bundle of wooden rods that has an axe with its blade emerging. Incidentally, in a room at Dunham Massey Hall, there is a large tapestry set allegorically in Roman times where such an item is shown as being carried.

Howsoever, I do despair to see the term "Fascist" being used willy-nilly by those with no real understanding of its correct meaning and it is very likely that some of these also use the term "Tories" without the knowledge that the Tories as a political party became defunct in the early years of the 19th century. Thankfully, these same people do not make any comments about the "Whigs" being still around in 2015.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Howsoever, I do despair to see the term "Fascist" being used willy-nilly by those with no real understanding of its correct meaning

Indeed it does refer to a very specific political ideology. I roll my eyes when people refer to Conservative politicians as "fascist", but when referring to UKIP it is probably a lot more accurate.

it is very likely that some of these also use the term "Tories" without the knowledge that the Tories as a political party became defunct in the early years of the 19th century. Thankfully, these same people do not make any comments about the "Whigs" being still around in 2015.

Someone's reformed the Whig Party

http://whigs.uk/

Joking aside, "Tory" and "Whig" started out as insults long before the creation of political parties. It's complicated, but generally speaking it's fair to say that the "Tory Party" largely became the Conservative Party under Peel in 1834, although the liberal element of the Tory Party moved over when the "Whig Party" morphed into the Liberal Party during the 1860s.

All of which is a long-winded way of saying using Tory as a colloquial name for the Conservative Party is backed up by history.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Of course, the real problem is in the left wing/right wing metaphor which, as has been pointed out, these days works neither at the extremes nor in the centre.

The left/right axis hasn't worked for a very long time, and I think the libertarian/authoritarian axis is generally more useful.

When people talk of the "far right" they mean authoritarian- the BNP, for instance, are many things but economically right-wing isn't one of them. It's the same with the "far left"- the Chinese Communist Party these days is many things but economically left-wing isn't one of them.

As for what things were like behind the Iron Curtain, I think it depends on where you were and what you were, as everything does in life. I was fairly recently at a family wedding in Weimar and there was plenty of Ostalgie, especially amongst the older people, yet coming from Bradford I know a fair few Poles and Ukrainians who fled the USSR in the 60s. Some people did well under Communism and so they miss it; some did badly and are glad to see it go. It's the same with any totalitarian state, be it right wing or left wing; there are plenty of Spaniards who still miss Franco.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

What is a 'moderate'?

One who is not an extremist.

 

[laseandre]

One who is not an extremist.

Apparently it now means "someone who wants to bomb a middle eastern country." The guy advocating pacifism is now an extremist apparently.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

Apparently it now means "someone who wants to bomb a middle eastern country." The guy advocating pacifism is now an extremist apparently.

Where on earth do you get your dictionary definitions of the words "moderate" and "extremist" from....

 

[Tetchytyke]

One who is not an extremist.

Many seem to be referring to Jeremy Corbyn as an "extremist" for saying such outlandish things as Careful Now and Down With This Sort of Thing.

Meanwhile, those who want to bomb the bejesus out of Syria are being hailed as "moderate".

An excellent bit of Newspeak.

 

[fowler9]

But Jeremy Corbyn wants us all to live in a country like North Korea or Soviet Russia (Except he doesn't). What is one to do?

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

But Jeremy Corbyn wants us all to live in a country like North Korea or Soviet Russia (Except he doesn't). What is one to do?

Be like I am and wait to see how the time to the next General Election will see the type of power base establishment within the Labour Party so develops in that time period. Best not to pre-judge matters but see what actual reality brings forth in that respect.

They use to say that John Major was "grey" as a politician (well, until the involvement with Edwina Currie,"The Egg Lady"), but Jeremy Corbyn (and Ken Livingstone) seem to have brought "greyness" to the level of an art form.

 

[St Rollox]

They use to say that John Major was "grey" as a politician (well, until the involvement with Edwina Currie,"The Egg Lady"),

John Major was an old fox.