Labour leadership

[youngian]

So Hilary Benn fancies the crown, like his father he knows how to combine pulpit moralising with Machiavellian manoeuvring. As the Syrian debate was mainly a pragmatic one about ways and means his rhetoric was irrelevant. Any Labour MP who was swung by it has somewhat questionable judgement.

 

[killer b]

No-one was swung by anything that was said in the house yesterday - the list of Labour MPs who voted for war is a list of the Blairite rump of the party. It's a challenge to Corbyn's leadership as much as anything else.

 

[youngian]

It's a challenge to Corbyn's leadership as much as anything else.

And a dire issue to define yourself by. Corbyn was on the right side of the argument regardless of what MPs may think about the quality of his leadership. As even Ed Miliband could have applied the whip on that vote, Corbyn's lack of authority is to blame

 

[nino_savatte]

The Tories thought Benn's speech was so good, that it now resides on Conservative Home. Seriously, you can't make this shit up.
WATCH: Hilary Benn’s electrifying speech for air strikes – and against his leader | Conservative Home

Oh, and it's Hilary with one 'L'.

 

[killer b]

And a dire issue to define yourself by. Corbyn was on the right side of the argument regardless of what MPs may think about the quality of his leadership. As even Ed Miliband could have applied the whip on that vote, Corbyn's lack of authority is to blame

You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.

They knew how many were voting against the party yesterday morning. They've known for days, since before he decided not to whip. That's why he decided not to whip - look at those names. There's no way they were going to play ball whatever.

 

[nino_savatte]

That cunt Benn said something different last month. Then, he was against bombing. So what happened?

Labour’s opposition to any British involvement in military action against Islamic State (Isis) in Syria has intensified, despite the massacre in Paris.

Shadow Foreign Secretary Hilary Benn said the co-ordinated attacks on the French capital, which left at least 127 dead, were an “act of war” – but all but ruled out backing UK air strikes in response.
Hilary Benn has said Labour won't back air strikes on Syria

 

[teqniq]

I hope that comes back to bite him on the arse

 

[youngian]

You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.

He should have whipped but Corbyn doesn't have the authority to carry it through. And will have even less if Labour gets a drubbing in Oldham.

And for all of Benn's melodramatic rhetoric, Cameron and the Labour bombers don't feel strongly enough about removing ISIS to upset the Saudis and cut a deal with Assad and the Russians.

 

[billy_bob]

You think Corbyn should have whipped? What would that have achieved? The same vote, but 11 resignations from his cabinet and probably the loss of his chief whip, I reckon.

They knew how many were voting against the party yesterday morning. They've known for days, since before he decided not to whip. That's why he decided not to whip - look at those names. There's no way they were going to play ball whatever.

I'm surprised by how many people I've had to point this out to in the last day or two. Whipping would have done nothing but given the Tories even more to crow about. Might even have been enough to prompt some floor-crossing.

 

[rekil]

Only 3 "Killary Benn" mentions on the twitter. For shame.

 

[youngian]

"The Brutus costume and knife you ordered has just come in Sir "

 

[ViolentPanda]

ViolentPanda, if you believe the Commons to be undemocratic, what would you replace it with? Legislatures elected under proportional systems, where legislators' place on a party list hinges on loyalty, ain't models of independence.

Legislatures elected under any party-based system cannot be (or even approach being) independent.
I'd replace both Houses of Parliament with fixed-term appointees. The appointees would be chosen by lot in each "constituency" area, and would only function as representatives for the majority solicited opinion of the people in that constituency, and only on national issues. I'd have local and regional governance through a similar system.
Before you whine about how appointees wouldn't know what they're doing, I'd use the tried and trusted system of having a "clerk" or clerks to guide representatives on points of law and protocol - something that's been successfully done in Magistrate's Courts for several hundred years.

As for the effectiveness of debates, of course bills are drafted to maximize success, including bills, like the right to die bill, that fail. It says nothing either way about how effective debates are. They might be wholly ineffective, but that's not been shown, just asserted.

The fact of a parlous volume of proof that debate does influence the majority of bills may not be evidence per se, but one can reasonably conclude, in the absence of any effective argument against the ineffectiveness, that it is so.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Pretty much my feelings.

OK, accepting the ineffectiveness of Commons' debates arguendo, how should the British legislature be reformed to improve matters?

First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.

 

[ViolentPanda]

That cunt Benn said something different last month. Then, he was against bombing. So what happened?

A sniff of power.

 

[nino_savatte]

A sniff of power.

Innit.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Innit.

I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.

 

[nino_savatte]

I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.

At least Oliver Baldwin had the courage of his convictions and joined the Labour Party instead of following his old man into the Tories. Benn is a disgrace.

 

[belboid]

First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.

no 'is' [/pedant]

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

I'd replace both Houses of Parliament with fixed-term appointees. The appointees would be chosen by lot in each "constituency" area, and would only function as representatives for the majority solicited opinion of the people in that constituency, and only on national issues. I'd have local and regional governance through a similar system.
Before you whine about how appointees wouldn't know what they're doing, I'd use the tried and trusted system of having a "clerk" or clerks to guide representatives on points of law and protocol - something that's been successfully done in Magistrate's Courts for several hundred years.

Wouldn't these 'clerks' become a de-facto ruling class, manipulating the decision-making process in their favour? The court system in this country is the most class-ridden part of society.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Wouldn't these 'clerks' become a de-facto ruling class, manipulating the decision-making process in their favour? The court system in this country is the most class-ridden part of society.

If their pronouncements were open to public scrutiny and censure, would they be eager to manipulate the process?

 

[flypanam]

Only 3 "Killary Benn" mentions on the twitter. For shame.

What about Stella Greasey?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

If their pronouncements were open to public scrutiny and censure, would they be eager to manipulate the process?

What mechanism would be put in place to provide this public scrutiny?

 

[ViolentPanda]

What mechanism would be put in place to provide this public scrutiny?

Next you'll be asking me whether chairs in both chambers will be padded or not!

What mechanism? Publication (in all media forms) of debate and guidance, and the ability of individuals to require explanation if guidance deviates from established norms/acceptable practice. Why that mechanism? Because public scrutiny of the minutiae of rule and governance is anathema to the ruling classes and their puppets. It constrains the guide as well as the decision-makers/legislators to directing their attention to the public interest, not their own. If you knew that maybe 100,000 individuals or more would scrutinise every bit of guidance, and/or every legislative decision, how prepared would you be to sell your liberty and/or your reputation?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Next you'll be asking me whether chairs in both chambers will be padded or not!

Don't be so silly. It'd clearly have to be unpadded with spikes!

What mechanism? Publication (in all media forms) of debate and guidance, and the ability of individuals to require explanation if guidance deviates from established norms/acceptable practice. Why that mechanism? Because public scrutiny of the minutiae of rule and governance is anathema to the ruling classes and their puppets. It constrains the guide as well as the decision-makers/legislators to directing their attention to the public interest, not their own. If you knew that maybe 100,000 individuals or more would scrutinise every bit of guidance, and/or every legislative decision, how prepared would you be to sell your liberty and/or your reputation?

If guidance does end up deviating from these norms, what will the response be? Would the public get to vote out the clerks?

 

[ItWillNeverWork]

Also, how would these norms be established?

 

[redcogs]

Corby knew that the blairite nobs wouldn't tolerate Party policy and they voted accordingly. he should have whipped em, then sacked the fuckers for being contemptuous of basic democracy and the party membership.

Best to go down fighting.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Also, how would these norms be established?

Precedent and positive reinforcement.

 

[Pickman's model]

I acknowledge that it's a cuntish thing for me to say, but I'm glad his dad didn't live long enough to see his son grovelling in such wholehearted self-abasement to power.

as is his dad no doubt.

 

[Diamond]

First thing we do is, let's kill all the lawyers.

You do realise that under your system, as absolutely ridiculous as your proposals are, you are, nonetheless, a lawyer?

You know, as in you are determining the law...?

 

[ViolentPanda]

Don't be so silly. It'd clearly have to be unpadded with spikes!



If guidance does end up deviating from these norms, what will the response be?

I'd advocate the bastinado, but the liberals would get upset.

Would the public get to vote out the clerks?

That's what democracy is (and should be) about - the ability of the public to exercise a check on their legislature. Not necessarily a vote, but perhaps something like a recall system where they get to attempt to justify their decision/raise the merits of it. If they're found wanting, then they should be put before a tribunal and justice should take its' course.
Or we could subject them to trial by ordeal.