Religion and Ethics Forum
General Category => Politics & Current Affairs => Topic started by: Nearly Sane on May 22, 2023, 05:28:50 PM
-
So possibility of a recall by election. It's worth noting that the people on the committee who originally voted for a suspension of less than 10 days which would not have allowed a recall were the SNP member, and the Tories. The self interest of the SNP is obvious but the Tories were of course trying to set a precedent on such an issue which would mean that Johnson might get less than 10 days for any similar charge.
One other thing to note is the length of time taken here os absurd.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65671806
-
Absurder and absurder
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-65702313
-
And Starmer happy to lie about the situation
https://twitter.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1662041145738706944?t=p2sUTjbLTJNUD53amITxQA&s=19
-
So the 30 day suspension approved. Not quite as sure as the report is that a by election is almost certain now. Likely, I think, but a recall petition is something that needs a fair bit of work to achieve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65702252
-
So the 30 day suspension approved. Not quite as sure as the report is that a by election is almost certain now. Likely, I think, but a recall petition is something that needs a fair bit of work to achieve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65702252
In 2019 about 29,000 people voted for a party other than the SNP - a recall petition only needs about 8000 to trigger a by-election. I think it is pretty well locked on. There have been three similar recall petitions since the act was passed - two were successful with roughly double the number of signatures needed at least.
The Antrim one is the anomaly - but NI politics is weird and doesn't easily map onto the rest of the UK.
I suspect she may simply jump before she is pushed, by resigning as an MP, but if she does hold out for a recall petition she will find the recall petition is comfortably passed.
-
In 2019 about 29,000 people voted for a party other than the SNP - a recall petition only needs about 8000 to trigger a by-election. I think it is pretty well locked on. There have been three similar recall petitions since the act was passed - two were successful with roughly double the number of signatures needed at least.
The Antrim one is the anomaly - but NI politics is weird and doesn't easily map onto the rest of the UK.
I suspect she may simply jump before she is pushed, by resigning as an MP, but if she does hold out for a recall petition she will find the recall petition is comfortably passed.
Voting isn't the equivalent of signing up for a recall petition. And you seem to have missed that my qualification isn't saying that it isn't likely to happen, rather that I think 'pretty certain' is an overstatement.
And none of that addresses Starmer lying about the constituents being unrepresented since Ferrier was suspended, or do you think that he thinks, and that it is true that those in Islington haven't been represented since Corbyn's suspension?
-
Voting isn't the equivalent of signing up for a recall petition.
Which is why I compared the situation with previous recall petitions.
In Peterborough in the previous general election approx. 24,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 19,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got nigh on 80% of those voter numbers.
In Brecon in the previous general election approx. 20,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 10,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got 50% of those voter numbers.
Even in North Antrim - in the previous general election approx. 17,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 7,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got over 40% of those voter numbers.
In Rutherglen the petition only needs to get about 27% of those voter numbers to be successful.
-
Which is why I compared the situation with previous recall petitions.
In Peterborough in the previous general election approx. 24,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 19,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got nigh on 80% of those voter numbers.
In Brecon in the previous general election approx. 20,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 10,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got 50% of those voter numbers.
Even in North Antrim - in the previous general election approx. 17,000 people voted for parties other than Labour (whose MP was then subject to the recall) - in the petition 7,000 signed the petition for recall. So the petition got over 40% of those voter numbers.
In Rutherglen the petition only needs to get about 27% of those voter numbers to be successful.
Which for a lot of words ignores what I wrote, again
-
Which for a lot of words ignores what I wrote, again
No it doesn't ignore what you wrote.
In the spectrum of probabilities you imply a successful recall petition is 'likely' but not 'almost certain'. I think you are wrong and the BBC is correct that it is 'almost certain' - and I have given the evidence to back this up based on the three previous ones. This one needs to get a far smaller proportion of the non incumbent parties supporters, just 27% to be successful, while previous ones have attained 40%, 50% and 80%.
To me the only way there isn't a successful recall petition is if Ferrier stands down as an MP.
The interesting question isn't if she will be able to continue as an MP, but whether the incumbent party, the SNP are able to hold onto the seat with a new candidate in a by-election. This was the case in Peterborough, but not in Brecon where the Tories put up Davies again, but he lost. Surely the SNP would be mad to allow Ferrier to stand in a by-election.
-
No it doesn't ignore what you wrote.
In the spectrum of probabilities you imply a successful recall petition is 'likely' but not 'almost certain'. I think you are wrong and the BBC is correct that it is 'almost certain' - and I have given the evidence to back this up based on the three previous ones. This one needs to get a far smaller proportion of the non incumbent parties supporters, just 27% to be successful, while previous ones have attained 40%, 50% and 80%.
To me the only way there isn't a successful recall petition is if Ferrier stands down as an MP.
The interesting question isn't if she will be able to continue as an MP, but whether the incumbent party, the SNP are able to hold onto the seat with a new candidate in a by-election. This was the case in Peterborough, but not in Brecon where the Tories put up Davies again, but he lost. Surely the SNP would be mad to allow Ferrier to stand in a by-election.
Well apart from still ignoring the comment on Starmer lying, you never mentioned definition of what 'pretty certain' as opposed to likely even meant till now. So yes, you did, and do ignore what is being written
BtW if you think the SNP are supporting Ferrier here, you are just showing your ignorance of Scottish politics.
-
Well apart from still ignoring the comment on Starmer lying,
Other opinions are available.
But actually you never mentioned Starmer at all in the post (reply3) which I was replying to. So if you want to move the goalposts that's up to you, but if it is all the same to you I'll play according to the goalpost position on the post I was replying to.
... you never mentioned definition of what 'pretty certain' as opposed to likely even meant till now.
Nor did you - but the difference is that I actually provided some evidence on how previous recall petitions have played out to support a view that a petition will be successful. You on the other hand seem to base your just 'likely' but not 'pretty certain' on absolutely nothing.
BtW if you think the SNP are supporting Ferrier here, you are just showing your ignorance of Scottish politics.
Oh - here we go again. Firstly where did I ever claim that the SNP would back her as a candidate if she loses a recall petition. Oh, I didn't - what I said was that they'd be mad to do so, just as the Tories were mad to do so in Brecon. But to be fair to the Tories they were breaking new ground - the SNP would have the history of what happened in Brecon. And of course the SNP aren't supporting Ferrier as they've kicked her out (as Labour did in Peterborough, but the Tories didn't in Brecon).
However none of this has anything to do with specific knowledge of Scottish politics, rather than westminster politics and the experiences of recall petitions (which we have experience in England, Wales and NI so far).
-
Other opinions are available.
But actually you never mentioned Starmer at all in the post (reply3) which I was replying to. So if you want to move the goalposts that's up to you, but if it is all the same to you I'll play according to the goalpost position on the post I was replying to.
Nor did you - but the difference is that I actually provided some evidence on how previous recall petitions have played out to support a view that a petition will be successful. You on the other hand seem to base your just 'likely' but not 'pretty certain' on absolutely nothing.
Oh - here we go again. Firstly where did I ever claim that the SNP would back her as a candidate if she loses a recall petition. Oh, I didn't - what I said was that they'd be mad to do so, just as the Tories were mad to do so in Brecon. But to be fair to the Tories they were breaking new ground - the SNP would have the history of what happened in Brecon.
However none of this has anything to do with specific knowledge of Scottish politics, rather than westminster politics and the experiences of recall petitions (which we have experience in England, Wales and NI so far).
So your ignoring what I said about Starmer didn't happen till I said something about Starmer???
And you missed reply no2?
-
So your ignoring what I said about Starmer didn't happen till I said something about Starmer???
And you missed reply no2?
Did I reply to reply 2 - hmm. Nope my comment was about the likelihood of a successful recall petition in response to reply 3.
But onto other matters - you compared Ferrier to Corbyn - poor comparison - Ferrier has been suspended from parliament as well as from the SNP, as far as I'm aware Corbyn has never been suspended from parliament, only from the Labour party. So there isn't equivalence.
-
Did I reply to reply 2 - hmm. Nope my comment was about the likelihood of a successful recall petition in response to reply 3.
But onto other matters - you compared Ferrier to Corbyn - poor comparison - Ferrier has been suspended from parliament as well as from the SNP, as far as I'm aware Corbyn has never been suspended from parliament, only from the Labour party. So there isn't equivalence.
So you said I didn't mention something, because when I did a later reply wasn't about that?
And then you ignore the point of the comment? So to help ypu out. Was Rutherglen represented while Ferrier wlis an MP,
Is Islington represented while Corbyn is an MP?
-
So you said I didn't mention sonething, because when I did a later reply wasn't about that?
You didn't mention it in the post I replied to - that you might have mentioned it in another post is irrelevant - if I'd wanted to discuss that matter I'd have replied to that post, but I didn't.
And then you ignore the point of the comment? So to help ypu out. Was Rutherglen represented while Ferrier wlis an MP,
Is Islington represented while Corbyn is an MP?
Is Corbyn suspended from parliament or just from the Labour party. Has he had the likelihood of being suspended from parliament hanging over his political career for months/years. Answer no:yes:no
Is Ferrier suspended from parliament or just from the SNP. Has she had the likelihood of being suspended from parliament hanging over her political career for months/years. Answer yes:yes:yes
It really isn't hard to see the difference.
And also while I am no fan of Corbyn (I resigned from the party because of him), he has represented Islington through thick and thin for 40 years. Ferrier had a brief spell as Rutherglen MP for less than 2 years from 2015 to 2017. Since her re-election in late 2019 she has been mired in this controversy (with its pretty obvious conclusion hanging over her) for all but the first few months.
I imagine the people of Rutherglen will be glad to see the back of her, either through the recall petition or if she does the honourable thing and just resigns as an MP.
As I said earlier the interesting thing here is whether the SNP can hold the seat at a by-election. I think that is pretty unlikely given the recent turmoil in the SNP although not impossible if they were to select the right candidate.
-
You didn't mention it in the post I replied to -
I did. Try reading the posts again, and stop lying
-
I did. Try reading the posts again, and stop lying
Reply 3 in full:
'So the 30 day suspension approved. Not quite as sure as the report is that a by election is almost certain now. Likely, I think, but a recall petition is something that needs a fair bit of work to achieve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65702252'
Hmm - no mention of Starmer. Oh and just for completeness the BBC link doesn't mention Starmer beyond the analysis mentioning a by-election being a significant test for him and Sarwar. Certainly no quote from Starmer.
I replied to this comment as I did not agree with your view on the likelihood of the recall being successful, which I did in reply 4. When you replied to my comment on reply3 you then mention Starmer - I ignored this as it was completely irrelevant to the point I was making - namely the likelihood of a recall petition being successful.
NS - perhaps you hadn't realised that when someone comments on another poster's post they aren't obliged to also comment on any previous post on the same thread. Nor if a poster goes off on an irrelevant tangent to the point the two were discussing is that person obliged to comment on, or even quote, that irrelevant part.
Oh and you do love accusing others of lying when they aren't, don't you Chip. Just for reference a lie is deliberately/knowingly telling a demonstrable falsehood (such as implying that reply 3 mentioned Starmer) - it isn't an opinion you disagree with, such as disagreeing with Starmer's opinion on whether the people of Rutherglen had been represented well.
-
So let's move back on to matters more interesting than your ability to start a fight in an empty room.
What do you think the SNP's chances are of holding the seat in the by-election which is almost certain to happen.
This really is high stakes for both SNP and Labour - for the SNP to lose, particularly if they lose badly, would embed the chaos of the last few months with the voters.
If Labour fail to regain the seat (remember they held it as recently as 2017-19) would suggest that any resurgence in Scotland had stalled before it started. Labour clearly have pretty well all the trump cards to play, including a candidate in place, so a defeat would be all the worse.
My view is that Labour should win, and they should win comfortably. You can see how this provides an easy opportunity for voters to give the SNP a good kicking for what they've put everyone through, but safe in the knowledge that a by-election victory for Labour doesn't change all that much. The SNP could, however upset the apple-cart but they key issue will be whether they have a really exciting candidate - ideally local and a bit of a star. But somehow this seems unlikely or that person would already be the MP, given that Ferrier is hardly a long-standing MP.
-
Reply 3 in full:
'So the 30 day suspension approved. Not quite as sure as the report is that a by election is almost certain now. Likely, I think, but a recall petition is something that needs a fair bit of work to achieve.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-65702252'
Hmm - no mention of Starmer. Oh and just for completeness the BBC link doesn't mention Starmer beyond the analysis mentioning a by-election being a significant test for him and Sarwar. Certainly no quote from Starmer.
I replied to this comment as I did not agree with your view on the likelihood of the recall being successful, which I did in reply 4. When you replied to my comment on reply3 you then mention Starmer - I ignored this as it was completely irrelevant to the point I was making - namely the likelihood of a recall petition being successful.
NS - perhaps you hadn't realised that when someone comments on another poster's post they aren't obliged to also comment on any previous post on the same thread. Nor if a poster goes off on an irrelevant tangent to the point the two were discussing is that person obliged to comment on, or even quote, that irrelevant part.
Oh and you do love accusing others of lying when they aren't, don't you Chip. Just for reference a lie is deliberately/knowingly telling a demonstrable falsehood (such as implying that reply 3 mentioned Starmer) - it isn't an opinion you disagree with, such as disagreeing with Starmer's opinion on whether the people of Rutherglen had been represented well.
Yep really sorry, I meant reply 3 in the sense of 3rd post on the thread. Would say knock yourself out but I see you already have.
-
Yep really sorry,
Apology accepted.
I meant reply 3 in the sense of 3rd post on the thread.
Then I think you need to read what others actually write and what comments of yours they are replying to before you start making unfounded accusations of lying - and you do that far too often NS. And not just against me, but others - see my next comment.
-
And none of that addresses Starmer lying about the constituents being unrepresented since Ferrier was suspended ...
You need to base your accusations on what Starmer actually said - not your misrepresentation.
Look at the link and watch the video:
https://twitter.com/ginadavidsonlbc/status/1662041145738706944?t=p2sUTjbLTJNUD53amITxQA&s=19
Starmer did not say that the constituents of Rutherglen were unrepresented, he did not say they had no representation (a claim you imply in reply13). No - what he said was that they 'had no effective representation'. There is a world of difference between saying they were unrepresented than having no effective representation. The latter is clearly a opinion expressed about the quality of the representation. Now others might disagree but it is a perfectly legitimate opinion to consider that Ferrier is unable to effectively represent her constituents.
The point being that firstly you misrepresented what Starmer actually said and then used that misrepresentation to accuse him of lying which isn't appropriate when discussing someones opinion, which is, err, just an opinion and not something that can be definitively determined to be true or false, which is clearly the precursor for an accusation of lying.
Bottom line - Starmer did not lie - be expressed an opinion - you might disagree with him but that doesn't mean he lied.
Second bottom line - you misrepresented what Starmer actually said - and we can all see that misrepresentation as we can all watch the video and compare his actual words to your misrepresentation.
-
Voting isn't the equivalent of signing up for a recall petition. And you seem to have missed that my qualification isn't saying that it isn't likely to happen, rather that I think 'pretty certain' is an overstatement.
And none of that addresses Starmer lying about the constituents being unrepresented since Ferrier was suspended, or do you think that he thinks, and that it is true that those in Islington haven't been represented since Corbyn's suspension?
If a constituency MP is suspended then that constituency is unrepresented. It's not a lie but it's also not uncommon for constituencies to be unrepresented. If an MP dies, they don't hold the by-election the next day. If an MP goes to Australia to take part in IACGMOOH, they don't necessarily hold a by-election because the constituency is unrepresented. If the MP is a lazy fucker or a senior government member or some combination of the two, they don't hold a by-election.
-
If a constituency MP is suspended then that constituency is unrepresented. It's not a lie but it's also not uncommon for constituencies to be unrepresented. If an MP dies, they don't hold the by-election the next day. If an MP goes to Australia to take part in IACGMOOH, they don't necessarily hold a by-election because the constituency is unrepresented. If the MP is a lazy fucker or a senior government member or some combination of the two, they don't hold a by-election.
No, they are represented by the MP. They elect an MP not a party. If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.
-
I am going to partially walk back on some of the previous post.
Starmer said that Ferrier's constituents have had no effective representation for three years. This can only be referring to her suspension from the SNP in 2020. He called it a fact but I would argue that being an effective MP is not contingent on being a member of a political party. In fact, I could make an argument that not being a member of a political party could make you more effective in representing the interests of your constituents.
Jeremy Corbyn has also been suspended from his political party for three years and so Starmer should be equally concerned for the effective representation of Corbyn's constituents. Corbyn's and Ferrier's positions are very similar but with the difference that Ferrier will be subject to a recall petition and so may lose her job before the next general election. There can be no recall of Corbyn because he doesn't meet any of the triggering conditions for a recall petition. Starmer and the Labour NEC have already done as much as they can to get rid of him.
-
No, they are represented by the MP. They elect an MP not a party. If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.
Our posts crossed, but just to clarify: Ferrier is suspended from parliament. She is also suspended from the SNP. It was the former suspension to which I refer.
-
Our posts crossed, but just to clarify: Ferrier is suspended from parliament. She is also suspended from the SNP. It was the former suspension to which I refer.
Completely agree with your 'walk back'.
-
If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.
Who said they were, certainly not Starmer except as part of your misrepresentation of what he actually said which was that that had no effective representation. That seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate opinion - Jeremy P has suggested an alternative opinion.
For the record I do think there are a number of reasons why an MP in Ferrier's position will really struggle to be able to represent her constituents effectively. And that her ability to do this as an independent MP may be markedly more difficult than other independent MPs of the current and the past - e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart or those with a long-standing support network both within and outside of parliament, such as Corbyn and Clarke.
And as much as we might wish it to be otherwise our current parliamentary system is based on MPs being members of political parties and if they aren't their ability to represent becomes much harder due to inability to access resources for research, briefings etc (through easy access to government for those in the party in power and Short monies for those from other parties), positions of influences (e.g. select committee membership) which typically are appointed through party lines.
Perhaps most significantly to be able to represent your consistuents effectively you need to have access through informal routes to ministers etc to be able to make points raised by constituents and gain insight. Given the circumstances I doubt Ferrier's parliamentary colleagues would be willing to give her the time of day!
-
Who said they were, certainly not Starmer except as part of your misrepresentation of what he actually said which was that that had no effective representation. That seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate opinion - Jeremy P has suggested an alternative opinion.
For the record I do think there are a number of reasons why an MP in Ferrier's position will really struggle to be able to represent her constituents effectively. And that her ability to do this as an independent MP may be markedly more difficult than other independent MPs of the current and the past - e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart or those with a long-standing support network both within and outside of parliament, such as Corbyn and Clarke.
And as much as we might wish it to be otherwise our current parliamentary system is based on MPs being members of political parties and if they aren't their ability to represent becomes much harder due to inability to access resources for research, briefings etc (through easy access to government for those in the party in power and Short monies for those from other parties), positions of influences (e.g. select committee membership) which typically are appointed through party lines.
Perhaps most significantly to be able to represent your consistuents effectively you need to have access through informal routes to ministers etc to be able to make points raised by constituents and gain insight. Given the circumstances I doubt Ferrier's parliamentary colleagues would be willing to give her the time of day!
So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'. And your defence of it is the Old Boy's Network? Thank you for showing your misogyny.
-
So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'.
No it isn't - it completely changes the meaning.
If I said Britain has had no effectively government for the last few years, that is an opinion that you, I and Jeremy P might all share. That is entirely different from saying that Britain has had no government for the last few years. One asks whether something exists, the other whether something that exists works or is effective.
And your defence of it is the Old Boy's Network? Thank you for showing your misogyny.
Not at all - the reason why Ferrier's situation is different from Corbyn, Clarke, Stewart (and let's throw in Soubrey, Allen and Wollaston) and Bell, Taylor is that these MPs were either elected as independents or left/were expelled from their traditional parties because of misdemeanors against their party, rather than misdemeanours against parliament. In the former case those MPs may still retain significant parliamentary support, perhaps from other parties. That isn't the case if your misdemeanours is against parliament itself.
And while you might not like it being able to work effectively with your colleagues is key to all workplaces and doesn't necessarily represent an old boys network - I struggle to see how Ferrier is able to do that.
-
So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'.
And do you accept that you misquoted and misrepresented Starmer's words by removing the key word effective.
-
No it isn't - it completely changes the meaning.
If I said Britain has had no effectively government for the last few years, that is an opinion that you, I and Jeremy P might all share. That is entirely different from saying that Britain has had no government for the last few years.
Not at all - the reason why Ferrier's situation is different from Corbyn, Clarke, Stewart (and let's throw in Soubrey, Allen and Wollaston) and Bell, Taylor is that these MPs were either elected as independents or left/were expelled from their traditional parties because of misdemeanors against their party, rather than misdemeanours against parliament. In the former case those MPs may still retain significant parliamentary support, perhaps from other parties. That isn't the case if your misdemeanours is against parliament itself.
And while you might not like it being able to work effectively with your colleagues is key to all workplaces and doesn't necessarily represent an old boys network - I struggle to see how Ferrier is able to do that.
Oh look, you only mentioned women after I had pointed out your misogyny. And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.
-
And do you accept that you misquoted and misrepresented Starmer's words by removing the key word effective.
No.
-
No.
Crikey you really are operating in your own reality.
I think we can all see that Starmer (in your own link) says they have had no effective representation, yet you misquote and misrepresented this as Starmer saying that they were unrepresented. He never said that and the two things (what he actually said and your misrepresentation of what he said) are different things.
-
Crikey you really are operating in your own reality.
I think we can all see that Starmer (in your own link) says they have had no effective representation, yet you misquote and misrepresented this as Starmer saying that they were unrepresented. He never said that and the two things (what he actually said and your misrepresentation of what he said) are different things.
So the 'effective' only applies beyond tautology ad already pointed out because you are racist and sexist.
-
And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.
Really - can you provide a link please to a parliamentary process involving accusations of racism by Rory Stewart. Or a police and judicial process based on accusation s of racism against Rory Stewart.
Stewart ended up as an independent as he was kicked out of the tory party for rebelling against the government whip in a vote - that is clearly a misdemeanour against the party not against parliament.
-
Really - can you provide a link please to a parliamentary process involving accusations of racism by Rory Stewart. Or a police and judicial process based on accusation s of racism against Rory Stewart.
Stewart ended up as an independent as he was kicked out of the tory party for rebelling against the government whip in a vote - that is clearly a misdemeanour against the party not against parliament.
Sorry, I was on Bob Stewart. Too many suspended Tories.
-
Sorry, I was on Bob Stewart. Too many suspended Tories.
As far as I'm aware Bob Stewart hasn't been suspended by the Tories. Is this something else you've got wrong - really stacking them up over the past 24 hours.
-
As far as I'm Bob Stewart hasn't been suspended by the Tories. Is this something else you've got wrong - really stacking them up over the past 24 hours.
I know that 'as I am Bob Stewart' is just missing 'aware' but did make me laugh. You are right, it appears the Tories haven't suspended him. Given the charges, I sort of presumed they would but Tories...
-
I know that 'as I am Bob Stewart' is just missing 'aware' but did make me laugh. You are right, it appears the Tories haven't suspended him. Given the charges, I sort of presumed they would but Tories...
I am definitely not Bob Stewart!!
Corrected now.
-
Oh look, you only mentioned women after I had pointed out your misogyny.
There is no misogyny as the issue has absolutely zero to do with the sex of the individuals involved. If Ferrier had been a man exactly the same points would be relevant.
So that's yet another thing you've got wrong - add it to the growing list.
-
And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.
Oh dear, oh dear.
Completely ill founded accusation of racism - based on your inability to read my post properly before making accusations and misrepresentation.
I think you will find that in reply 26 it was clear I was talking about Rory Stewart:
'... e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart ...'
Yet another thing you've got wrong - are you on a sponsored-get-stuff-wrong session Chip.
-
Oh dear, oh dear.
Completely ill founded accusation of racism - based on your inability to read my post properly before making accusations and misrepresentation.
I think you will find that in reply 26 it was clear I was talking about Rory Stewart:
'... e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart ...'
Yet another thing you've got wrong - are you on a sponsored-get-stuff-wrong session Chip.
so my apology for getting the Tory Stewart wrong meant nothing to you.
-
I am definitely not Bob Stewart!!
Corrected now.
Mistakes happen. But you don't think that.
-
No, they are represented by the MP. They elect an MP not a party. If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.
I don't think that's correct in any meaningful practical sense rather than in a purely procedural manner.
The ballot paper lists both the name of the candidate and the party they are representing. While it is true that a person is elected we cannot know for certain whether individual voters are making their decision primarily (or exclusively) on the basis of the person, primarily (or exclusively) on the basis of the party that they are standing for or a mixture of both.
That said the lack of success of independent candidates, including those that may state no party affiliation on the ballot paper strongly suggests that the party, and not the person, is the primary motivator.
Think of it this way - do you think Ferrier would have been elected in 2019 if under her name on the ballot paper it didn't say 'The Scottish National Party candidate' (or similar wording)? I think we know the answer to that.
So there is a completely legitimate argument that when a person is elected that do so on the basis and understanding that they represent a particular party. So although constitutionally they cannot be kicked out of the commons if they are expelled from the party they were elected for, or cross the floor, there is a reasonable argument that their 'contract' with the voters no longer has legitimacy as one part of the reason they were elected (the party they stood for) is no longer valid. And the ability of an MP to represent their constituents is surely based on the legitimacy of their representation, both as an individual and on the basis of the party they stood on behalf of, both of which were on the ballot paper.
And I think the electors also recognise that the legitimacy is gone - on the basis that it is hard to think of an MP, elected as the candidate for one party subsequently standing with the same constituents (i.e. in the same constituency) being elected for another party (having crossed the floor) or as an independent. Perhaps there are examples, but I can't think of any recently.
If the electorate put great store on the person rather than the party then surely those individuals would romp home in the same constituency at the next election standing either for another party or as an independent.
-
so my apology for getting the Tory Stewart wrong meant nothing to you.
You have't apologised for calling me racist though, have you.
Over to you Chip.
-
Mistakes happen. But you don't think that.
So it was purely a 'mistake' when you failed to include the word 'effective' when talking about Starmer. So perhaps, like me, you'd like to correct your mistake which would of course that your accusation that he was lying no longer has validity as it was based on your misquoting/misrepresentation of what he actually said.
So it was purely a mistake when you accused me of racism on the basis of thinking I was talking about some completely different MP (despite the fact that my post clearly said Rory). In which case your accusation is completely unfounded and you'll want to apologise to me no doubt.
-
And I think the electors also recognise that the legitimacy is gone - on the basis that it is hard to think of an MP, elected as the candidate for one party subsequently standing with the same constituents (i.e. in the same constituency) being elected for another party (having crossed the floor) or as an independent. Perhaps there are examples, but I can't think of any recently.
Actually trawling through the lists there are two - both Conservative to UKIP defections - Carswell and Reckless - interestingly both recognised they had no electoral legitimacy as UKIP MPs having been elected as Conservatives, so both triggered by elections, which they won. Carswell won again at the next general election as UKIP but Reckless was booted out a few months later when the electorate in Rochester appeared to consider the party affiliation to be rather more important than the candidate name.
-
You have't apologised for calling me racist though, have you.
Over to you Chip.
Yep, I did and you are still a misogynist
-
Yep, I did
No you didn't - all you did was recognise that you mistook Bob and Rory - you made no mention of your accusation of racism and certainly didn't apologise. But you can make up for that right now.
and you are still a misogynist
No I'm not as the sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing.
-
No you didn't - all you did was recognise that you mistook Bob and Rory - you made no mention of your accusation of racism and certainly didn't apologise. But you can make up for that right now.
No I'm not as the sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing.
Except for your blatant sexism
-
Except for your blatant sexism
What blatant sexism?
The sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the point - therefore there can be no sexism, blatant or otherwise.
-
What blatant sexism?
The sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the point - therefore there can be no sexism, blatant or otherwise.
The sexism where you gave a set of men who were 'competent' in an old boy's club and decided Ferrier failed.
-
The sexism where you gave a set of men who were 'competent' in an old boy's club and decided Ferrier failed.
Oh dear - wrong yet again.
Let's not forget that I never mentioned an old boy's club - that was you, not me Chip.
I provided a number of potential reasons why Ferrier (or any other MP in a similar position) may struggle to effectively represent her (or his) constituents. None are based on the sex of that individual. To reiterate.
1. As she (or he) has been thrown out of their party and are now independent they will no longer benefit from Short monies (or equivalent for a party in government) - this amounts to approx. £20k per year to support research, develop briefings and generally support the MP's ability to perform their parliamentary work, which includes representing their constituents.
2. A lot of the work of MPs involves developing good professional working relationships with other MPs to gain confidence and goodwill which is used to support private conversations where issues relating to constituents can be raised and matters discussed with those in more senior positions of influence etc. That is a key way in which MPs are able to support and represent their constituents and is, frankly pretty similar to most professional roles. Ferrier had been an MP for just a few months prior to the covid issue breaking meaning she'd have had very little time to develop those relationships - she was an MP briefly for less that 2 year to 2017, but again this is a short period of time and many MPs will have changed. This is nothing to do with her sex, simply that she hadn't had the time (sometime decades - e.g. Clark, Beckett etc) to develop those relationships and goodwill.
3. Westminster politics is tribal - so typically MPs will have support of their 'tribe' but if they are kicked out of their own tribe, the question arises as to whether they are likely to continue to engender goodwill from some within their previous 'tribe'/party, and/or engender goodwill from those of other parties. This links to 2 above. But here again Ferrier has an issue. I cannot see the issue she was thrown out over engendering goodwill anywhere in the commons, no-one is going to be saying to her 'good on you, glad to see someone standing up for breaking covid rules'. Compare that to 2019 when 21 tories (almost all men out of interest) had the whip removed for voting against the government on brexit - including Clarke, Stewart (and for completeness Greening). While they had been officially thrown out of their party there would be some tories and plenty in other parties who would extend them goodwill and support as they agreed with them on the issue that they were thrown out over. Not the case for Ferrier.
Now not one of those issues has anything fundamentally to do with the MPs sex - it would apply just as much to a man as to a woman. Now you might argue that 2 has elements of an old boy's network and therefore that it is more difficult for a woman to develop those professional relationships compared to a man. But if that were the case then it would reflect sexism on the part of the commons as an institution, not on the part of me if I suggested it.
So, no NS, there is no sexism or misogyny in my arguments, you are wrong just as you were spectacularly wrong in your accusation that I was racist. I still await an apology on that latter matter.
2.
-
So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'. And your defence of it is the Old Boy's Network? Thank you for showing your misogyny.
I think you've gone off the deep end, NS. Whatever else PD says, "informal routes to ministers" is not the same as an "old boys' network" and there is no reason in the modern era why the "old boys' network" should consist entirely of boys. Even if it did, it doesn't make PD misogynistic to argue that having access to it makes you more effective as an MP.
-
I think you've gone off the deep end, NS. Whatever else PD says, "informal routes to ministers" is not the same as an "old boys' network" and there is no reason in the modern era why the "old boys' network" should consist entirely of boys. Even if it did, it doesn't make PD misogynistic to argue that having access to it makes you more effective as an MP.
So what is it about Ferrier that makes her unique in Prof D's views as nor able to represent her constituents compared to all the men he mentioned?
-
So what is it about Ferrier that makes her unique in Prof D's views as nor able to represent her constituents compared to all the men he mentioned?
I have seen nothing to suggest that PD thinks the men he has mentioned are or were any less hamstrung as MPs by being suspended from their party.
-
I have seen nothing to suggest that PD thinks the men he has mentioned are or were any less hamstrung as MPs by being suspended from their party.
Apart from what he wrote.
-
So what is it about Ferrier that makes her unique in Prof D's views as nor able to represent her constituents compared to all the men he mentioned?
Oh dear - back on the misrepresentation cool-aid I see.
Where did I ever suggest that Ferrier's situation is unique - oh yes, I never did.
What I did do is indicate a number of reasons why it may be more challenging for an MP elected on the basis of being the member of a particular political party to continue to represent their constituents effectively if they are subsequently kicked out of that party and become an independent.
I then gave some examples of others suspended from political parties who (for various reasons) might find it a little easier to continue to represent their constituents - largely associated with built up reputation/goodwill and the nature of the act that led to their suspension.
While eveyone's situations are a bit different there are also others whose ability to represent their constituents would be equally (or even more) compromised due to their supension from the party they were elected on behalf, the reasons for the suspension and their (lack of) built up respect/goodwill. The three who most obviously spring to mind in the reasonably recent past are Jarad O'Mara, Charles Elphicke and Fiona Onasanya.
Cue NS accusing me of racism, sexism and prejudice against disabled people as that list includes a woman, a black person and a disabled person!!!
-
Oh dear - back on the misrepresentation cool-aid I see.
Where did I ever suggest that Ferrier's situation is unique - oh yes, I never did.
What I did do is indicate a number of reasons why it may be more challenging for an MP elected on the basis of being the member of a particular political party to continue to represent their constituents effectively if they are subsequently kicked out of that party and become an independent.
I then gave some examples of others suspended from political parties who (for various reasons) might find it a little easier to continue to represent their constituents - largely associated with built up reputation/goodwill and the nature of the act that led to their suspension.
While eveyone's situations are a bit different there are also others whose ability to represent their constituents would be equally (or even more) compromised due to their supension from the party they were elected on behalf, the reasons for the suspension and their (lack of) built up respect/goodwill. The three who most obviously spring to mind in the reasonably recent past are Jarad O'Mara, Charles Elphicke and Fiona Onasanya.
Cue NS accusing me of racism, sexism and prejudice against disabled people as that list includes a woman, a black person and a disabled person!!!
oh look, accused of sexism, so you then put up a list that has a woman on it! Nice illustration of your sexism.
-
oh look, accused of sexism, so you then put up a list that has a woman on it! Nice illustration of your sexism.
I trust you are trying to be humorous - albeit not very successfully.
Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of racism.
-
I trust you are trying to be humorous - albeit not very successfully.
Still waiting for that apology for accusing me of racism.
Your trust is misplaced. Your sexism is obvious.
-
Your trust is misplaced. Your sexism is obvious.
Yawn
-
Yawn
Indeed, your obvious sexism is tedious
-
So far I've really only mentioned the Westminster elements that might mean Ferrier may well struggle to effectively represent her constituents. But there are also issues in the constituency too.
In order to represent his or her constituents an MP must engage effectively with them, typically about 100,000 people. This is pretty well impossible on a direct one-to-one basis so MPs will use other routes. First an MP will use activists, which may also include other elected representatives - e.g. councillors, members of devolved assemblies etc as extra eyes and ears - knocking on doors, meeting people in a variety of situations. That knowledge will be fed back to the MP. When an MP is kicked out of her party they lose that base of activists unless they are more loyal to him or her than the party. In Ferrier's case, considering the misdemeanour she's been kicked out for I cannot image many activists being prepared to 'pound the streets' on her behalf, which would also involve having to step back from the SNP. Councillors, MSPs etc will not be allowed to formally support a non-SNP MP unless they also resign from the SNP, which I don't think any have. So her ability to engage by using extra 'eyes and ears' will be massively diminished.
Another common way in which MPs engage is through visits and meeting - opening a new school building, giving a short talk at the local business leaders forum, turning up at the local food bank etc etc. Under normal circumstances this is both good publicity (for both the MP and the organisations) plus gives a great opportunity for quiet conversations on matters of concern etc. I imagine those invites will have dried up - imagine the conversation amongst a school governing board:
'Who should we invite to open the new building?'
'Hmm - we could ask the MP'
'What, disgraced, convicted, double suspended Ferrier - not sure that's going to send a great message to the kids or parents'
'Oh yes, and we'd get terrible coverage in the local rag'
'And she's almost certainly not going to be our MP in a couple of months, so any messages we could get across will simply be lost'
'What's the name of our local MSP again?'
So no invite - and if she reaches out no doubt plenty of those requests will be quietly declined.
The lifeblood of engagement with constituents, involving activists and visits, meeting etc will be cut off for a disgraced, convicted, suspended MP.
-
So far I've really only mentioned the Westminster elements that might mean Ferrier may well struggle to effectively represent her constituents. But there are also issues in the constituency too.
In order to represent his or her constituents an MP must engage effectively with them, typically about 100,000 people. This is pretty well impossible on a direct one-to-one basis so MPs will use other routes. First an MP will use activists, which may also include other elected representatives - e.g. councillors, members of devolved assemblies etc as extra eyes and ears - knocking on doors, meeting people in a variety of situations. That knowledge will be fed back to the MP. When an MP is kicked out of her party they lose that base of activists unless they are more loyal to him or her than the party. In Ferrier's case, considering the misdemeanour she's been kicked out for I cannot image many activists being prepared to 'pound the streets' on her behalf, which would also involve having to step back from the SNP. Councillors, MSPs etc will not be allowed to formally support a non-SNP MP unless they also resign from the SNP, which I don't think any have. So her ability to engage by using extra 'eyes and ears' will be massively diminished.
Another common way in which MPs engage is through visits and meeting - opening a new school building, giving a short talk at the local business leaders forum, turning up at the local food bank etc etc. Under normal circumstances this is both good publicity (for both the MP and the organisations) plus gives a great opportunity for quiet conversations on matters of concern etc. I imagine those invites will have dried up - imagine the conversation amongst a school governing board:
'Who should we invite to open the new building?'
'Hmm - we could ask the MP'
'What, disgraced, convicted, double suspended Ferrier - not sure that's going to send a great message to the kids or parents'
'Oh yes, and we'd get terrible coverage in the local rag'
'And she's almost certainly not going to be our MP in a couple of months, so any messages we could get across will simply be lost'
'What's the name of our local MSP again?'
So no invite - and if she reaches out no doubt plenty of those requests will be quietly declined.
The lifeblood of engagement with constituents, involving activists and visits, meeting etc will be cut off for a disgraced, convicted, suspended MP.
All this is true but currently moot because she is suspended as an MP. After that she will be subject to a recall petition. If 10% of the electorate sign it, she's gone. Will 10% of the electorate sign the petition? Well, the constituency has about 80 thousand on the electoral roll and about 28 thousand people voted against Ferrier at the last election. I think there's a good chance that eight or nine thousand people can be persuaded to sign the petition.
-
All this is true but currently moot because she is suspended as an MP.
True, but the precise current position involving suspension from parliament is recent. She's been convicted, disgraced and suspended from the SNP since late 2020/early 2021. The loss of her SNP-activist base will have been ongoing since then, as, I would image, will the lack of invites to the kinds of events I suggested since her conviction and community sentencing. If you were looking for someone to open your school/hospital etc would you really be inviting someone who so grievously broke the law that others followed at grave cost. What kind of message would that send. What kind of bad publicity would that attract.
After that she will be subject to a recall petition. If 10% of the electorate sign it, she's gone. Will 10% of the electorate sign the petition? Well, the constituency has about 80 thousand on the electoral roll and about 28 thousand people voted against Ferrier at the last election. I think there's a good chance that eight or nine thousand people can be persuaded to sign the petition.
I think it is pretty locked on that the recall petition will be successful - and I gave the evidence from the previous three recall petitions - these attracted 40%, 50% and 80% of the number of voters who'd voted for other parties in the previous election. For this petition to be successful they only need to attract 27% of those voting against her last time to sign.
-
If 10% of the electorate sign it, she's gone.
Not necessarily so in theory.
A recall petition just triggers a by-election - there is nothing to stop the previous MP from standing, either for their previous party if they haven't been kicked out, or as an independent. I don't think there is any chance that she'd be readmitted to the SNP, but she could stand as an independent and if she has sufficient support could be re-elected.
As I said, this is theoretical - back in the real world there isn't a cat in hell's chance of her re-election following a successful recall petition.
-
Katy Loudon to be the SNP candidate in event of by election
https://twitter.com/GlennBBC/status/1667204328602365952?t=DOrRlwhp39YW0B-H8adjug&s=19
-
And some disquiet on the short list for Labour's candidate
-
Not necessarily so in theory.
A recall petition just triggers a by-election - there is nothing to stop the previous MP from standing, either for their previous party if they haven't been kicked out, or as an independent. I don't think there is any chance that she'd be readmitted to the SNP, but she could stand as an independent and if she has sufficient support could be re-elected.
As I said, this is theoretical - back in the real world there isn't a cat in hell's chance of her re-election following a successful recall petition.
Which is why I said "she's gone". Standing as an independent, the only thing she is going to do is maybe split the SNP vote.
-
Recall petition successful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66376464
-
Recall petition successful
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66376464
In more surprising news it is being reported that bears defecate where there are trees.
-
Whoever is elected, they will be the last MP for the current constituency
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66376495
-
Alba not putting up candidate
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-66630395
-
The runners
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-66395472
-
And they're off
Labour will win despite the attempts of the neighbouring Labour North Lanarkshire Council
https://www.religionethics.co.uk/index.php?topic=20437.0