|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 29, 2024 21:37:34 GMT
There was a local scandal when Corbyn was first selected.
If that had gone the other way, how different would politics look now?
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2024 22:12:59 GMT
At 70, I wonder if actually it's time for Diane Abbott to stand down and enjoy retirement. Corbyn will probably be the MP of Islington North until he literally drops dead. Diane is pretty much the same viewpoint as JC and if he wants to carry on then she maybe has the same idea. Dame Margaret Beckett is only now standing down aged 81 so she was re-elected as a Labour MP in 3 elections where she is older than Diane is now. Also the great Dennis Skinner of a similar political ilk to JC and Diane was an MP until he was 87. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 29, 2024 22:18:33 GMT
There was a local scandal when Corbyn was first selected. If that had gone the other way, how different would politics look now? Hadn't there been a couple of defections to the SDP and reading about it he beat Paul Boateng to be the Labour candidate in 1983. Paul was elected as an MP in 1987 so he got into Parliament at the next election. |
|
1,519 posts
|
Post by mkb on May 30, 2024 1:04:49 GMT
Personally I would put an upper limit on the ages of those seeking to stand as MPs. 70 at the date of the election is as old as I would set it. That way we wouldn't have any MPs over the age of 75. Similarly I would have an upper age limit for peers. 80 would not be unreasonable there. After that point they would retain their titles but lose voting rights. We have lower limits so upper limits are not unfair. What tosh! If someone still has a good brain and is making a valuable contribution, what on earth has their age got to do with anything? There are plenty of MPs -- actually former MPs as of today -- well under 70, who lack the necessary skills. People should be judged on their ability, not their age. The lower age limit of 18 is in place for a different reason. Clearly there are many 16 & 17 year olds who can outperform some older people, so it's not about ability. It's more likely down to the legal status of under 18s as "children". Personally, I think our representatives should have a body of experience and wisdom gained as an adult to draw upon, so I'd make the lower age limit much higher. |
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 1:25:23 GMT
I'm not against an upper age limit for MP's but some get elected at a later age. I'd say you cannot stand in an election aged over 75 that way you could still have people sitting until they are nearly 80. The oldest first time elected MP in 2019 was 68 years old and the current oldest sitting MP is 84 years old.
A lot of older peers retire from the House of Lords and I'd be careful at putting an upper age limit on them as there is a lot of knowledge and experience there with some active members into their 90's. But being a constituency MP is a lot harder work than being a member of the House of Lords.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 30, 2024 8:33:26 GMT
There was a local scandal when Corbyn was first selected. If that had gone the other way, how different would politics look now? Hadn't there been a couple of defections to the SDP and reading about it he beat Paul Boateng to be the Labour candidate in 1983. Paul was elected as an MP in 1987 so he got into Parliament at the next election. My Mum was good friends with Paul Boateng's mother and the family. They came to the my Mum's mayoral dinner at the end of the years service. At the time he was working in the home office with Jack Straw who had gone on holiday and left Paul Boateng to deal with something the press were getting very excited about. Anyway, at the reception I got the Boateng's a pre dinner drink and explained I didn't know where Mum was. She'd gone missing mingling and talking in the crowd. So I said to Paul 'She's gone missing but still, you're used to being left in the lurch'. Paul laughed and said 'Satire, I thought I was going to have a night off on safe ground here'. |
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 30, 2024 8:36:15 GMT
I've been without a mobile signal for a week and returned home to find I have the choice between voting for the Labour Party candidate or Jeremy Corbyn. I'd pretty well given up activism but this is too surreal to not be out there doorknocking in Islington North! I'm going down this weekend. Going to try to get down once a week and ramp it up as we get closer to the election |
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 30, 2024 8:48:42 GMT
he beat Paul Boateng to be the Labour candidate in 1983 I didn't know that - Boateng had a far better CV and more interesting background than Corbyn, who comes across like a superannuated angry student but without the university grades. On the age limits: I don't think people have enough life experience when young so I think a lower limit of late 20s. If people want to know the pressures on children or young adults, they can talk through it with them, but they shouldn't be making policy. Older people - honest health and capacity assessments, the sort Biden would not pass and I don't think Abbot would these days either. I also think MPs with very young families (babies, pre-school etc) should not go in for high office jobs while their children are young. Their attention won't be fully on the job - they won't even be sleeping - and it's not fair on the children or partner. That's not anti-family, btw, it's the opposite - I think parenting should take priority. Ed Miliband won the Labour leadership just as his wife was having a baby - he couldn't hit the ground running, and he shouldn't have run for that position knowing something so massive was about to happen in his personal life (I voted for him, btw, but wouldn't had I known that). |
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 30, 2024 9:20:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 30, 2024 10:13:51 GMT
We need MPs with a range of ages and backgrounds. I'd say sensible MPs will know when to retire, and that there are opportunities to contribute politically after being an MP. But I don't think we can force it onto people.
Tempted as I might be to increase the minimum age, it's rare for new MPs to be that young, and having a handful isn't a problem, and should be considered an asset. I don't accept that MPs are able to talk to young people in order to represent them any more than I would have accepted the idea that men were able to represent the interests of women at the ballot box. The presence of MPs with young families in Parliament is vital if we are to have a parliament that is representative. How can we expect employers to provide a family friendly work environment if we rule that it's too much effort for the government to do so.
Parliament has got a bit better, but there's a long way to go. Changes to the sitting hours, and an overhaul of the time-wasting voting process would help.
Besides, a lot of MPs that became MPs at a reasonable age haven't much world experience either. They studied a version of political science at uni, then took a job as a researcher or assistant to an MP. They may have stood as a paper candidate once or twice, until getting approved for a seat where they have a fighting chance of winning. First Past the Post, which favours careerists by limiting opportunities for many potentially good MPs in their home constituencies, and effectively removes meaningful choice from voters, needs to be replaced by a system like STV in multi-member constituencies. That would be the most democratic way of improving the quality of MPs.
|
|
|
|
Post by aspieandy on May 30, 2024 10:46:18 GMT
It'll be interesting to see what Labour's plans to reform the House of Frauds look like - close the shambles down and pack them off to Leeds or similar would be my solution, with a simple advisory vote. Country urgently needs a counterbalance to all-things Westminster.
|
|
3,040 posts
|
Post by crowblack on May 30, 2024 11:21:23 GMT
I don't accept that MPs are able to talk to young people in order to represent them any more than I would have accepted the idea that men were able to represent the interests of women at the ballot box. The presence of MPs with young families in Parliament is vital if we are to have a parliament that is representative. MPs yes, but I don't think it's wise at high level like cabinet, leader, if they have very young and attention-requiring, sleep-depriving children. It's also a very pressurised environment for sensitive teenagers if their parents are the public face of very unpopular decisions. I don't think the private school/posh postcode/Oxbridge PPE / big business funded Think Tank or bag carrier to MP route is producing an intake with much actual lived experience, wise heads or diversity either. |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 30, 2024 12:56:06 GMT
It'll be interesting to see what Labour's plans to reform the House of Frauds look like - close the shambles down and pack them off to Leeds or similar would be my solution, with a simple advisory vote. Country urgently needs a counterbalance to all-things Westminster. We need a revising chamber, and while on paper the House of Lords is undemocratic, it's been more representative of how people vote than the House of Commons in recent years. It's also been far more sensible and compassionate too. I'd like to see a revised House of Lords at some point, but making the House of Commons more democratic is far more urgent and will bring more benefit. IMO those who bang on too much about abolishing the Lords are too often looking for an easy solution to a complex problem, and giving cover to those who enjoy the lack of democracy in our primary chamber and, as a consequence, government. In the short-term we can ditch the remaining hereditary peers, and maybe some other minor tweaks, but anything too involved will take too long and be too much of a distraction to the work that needs doing with marginal benefits. |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 30, 2024 14:36:43 GMT
I do wonder if some MPs are the sort of people who just don't want to retire. Fine if you're still in good health but there comes a point where you're not fit enough to continue.
|
|
5,118 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 30, 2024 15:05:02 GMT
2 words why you shouldn't have too young mps and that is William Wragg.
|
|
2,348 posts
|
Post by theglenbucklaird on May 30, 2024 16:10:48 GMT
With the possible exception of electoral reform there has not been much talk of issues and what is important to you and what could influence your vote.
So, what are the three issues most important to you.
1. Environment including climate change
2. NHS
3. Welfare and benefits
|
|
5,118 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 30, 2024 17:20:05 GMT
Another Tory MP has crossed the floor.
|
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on May 30, 2024 21:28:55 GMT
2 words why you shouldn't have too young mps and that is William Wragg. A guy who looks at porn has to resign but a joke like Wragg was allowed to retain his seat when he had committed fraud and possibly compromised other MPs security. The one rule I would also bring in is that anyone who resigns the whip or switches parties triggers a by-election. I wouldn't have this rule if the whip is removed as it would allow parties to weed out any dissenting voices. |
|
|
|
Post by marob on May 30, 2024 21:45:24 GMT
But isn’t it the principle that you’re casting your vote for an individual candidate not whatever party, if any, they have next to their name?
I said before I had my reservations about Starmer… well, scratch that. I’ve always voted Labour, I thought I always would. But not anymore.
He just keeps showing time and again that he’s every bit as untrustworthy as Johnson, and Streeting shouldn’t be allowed anywhere near what’s left of the NHS.
|
|
5,118 posts
|
Post by Phantom of London on May 30, 2024 23:18:57 GMT
2 words why you shouldn't have too young mps and that is William Wragg. A guy who looks at porn has to resign but a joke like Wragg was allowed to retain his seat when he had committed fraud and possibly compromised other MPs security. The one rule I would also bring in is that anyone who resigns the whip or switches parties triggers a by-election. I wouldn't have this rule if the whip is removed as it would allow parties to weed out any dissenting voices. And that is the point, being young and very naive he comprised the security of other members of the house, it matters not that he was on a gay or straight dating site, it matters he caused a massive security breach. If it wasn’t for the general election, there would’ve been a by-election in his constituency, he would’ve faced recall by the privileges sub committee. I disagree with you on your second point, when you go and vote you vote for the person and not the party, it is your constituency electorate that put you there and only them can take it away, it is a massive part of our constitution. In the same way when the whip gets removed, the political party cannot sack the mp and replace them with someone else, only the electorate can do that. |
|
|
|
Post by jojo on May 31, 2024 9:18:33 GMT
With the possible exception of electoral reform there has not been much talk of issues and what is important to you and what could influence your vote. So, what are the three issues most important to you. 1. Environment including climate change 2. NHS 3. Welfare and benefits I was resisting getting into the nitty-gritty because I could talk at length and I'm not sure people want this to turn into a campaigning thread. However, I do have views .... I'm a pragmatist, and while I could give a long shopping list of things I'd like to see, some of those are unachievable, at least in the short-term. Voting at an election is like using public transport. There's unlikely to be a choice that will take you to exactly where you want to go, exactly when you want to be there, so you select the option that takes you in the general direction. We've had years of mis-management, so the first thing on my shopping would be to stop doing so many expensive and stupid things that only exist to create a dog-whistle headline in a right-wing paper and won't achieve what they claim it will achieve. The Rwanda policy is a case in point. Very, very expensive and entirely ineffective - even if you don't mind the cruelty of it all. The economy needs to work for people, not the other way around. We're all skint right now, and while governments can and should borrow at reasonable rates to invest, we need an economy that works for normal people and allows small and medium-sized businesses to thrive, which is good for jobs and good for the tax base. Trickle down economics is a sham. The current administration have prioritised the wealth of their chums and very big businesses, which means lots of our money goes into off-shore accounts or super-yachts in Monaco instead of being spent in local high streets or even on trips to the theatre. I'd change how business rates work, so that out of town and internet shopping warehouses to reduce the fair advantage they have over high street and local independent shops. And work with other countries to limit the unethical 'tax efficient' accounting that be contrived by the big chains and multi-nationals. I'd revise the current windfall tax on oil and gas companies so the loophole that means they pay less if they invest in planning killing new oil and gas is ended, but allow it for investment in renewables and the shift to a lower carbon business model. I'd rebalance VAT. I'm realistic enough to know the government of the day needs to maintain the tax income from VAT - at least in the short term, but I'd like to see a full rethink of what is considered to be a luxury good. In particular, basic items that we want people to buy to keep themselves healthy, and not being a burden on the NHS, like toothpaste, should not have VAT. There's been talk of ditching VAT on installing insulation within existing homes. I'm not sure where we are with that, but I'd extend the VAT reduction/elimination to the installation of domestic solar panels and heat pumps etc. I'd change planning rules to require all new builds to be very energy efficient from the start, and a presumption that they will have solar panels and heat pumps, and remove the ban on on-shore wind. It can still be subject to strict planning requirements, but realistically strict ones. And build more social housing. I'm not for banning second homes, but local authorities need more powers to protect local residents from being priced out by holiday lets and in London there are too many new properties being built for foreign investors which are left empty. Our unreliable railways are bad for business, as well as individuals and the planet. The current government prioritised tax breaks for air travel, because in their mind the only businesses that count are ones that use planes for business trips. I'd undo that. I'd not ban private jets, but I'd add a levy that might dissuade a few and generate a bit of income that can be invested in public transport. I know it's partly due to international law, but it's time aviation fuel was taxed, at least at the same rate as diesel for trains. Again, use income generated to invest in our railways and buses. The NHS is a big one. Everyone knows we need to invest in more nurses and doctors, but we also need better HR and IT. Clinical staff who take on management roles are not properly supported, and it causes the kind of misery that cannot be fixed by pay rises alone. But all public sector workers deserve fair pay, not least because they are the ones who are shopping in the local high streets and contributing towards the local economy if they can afford a night out. Being more specific, the effective ban on any cannabis related medicine needs to end. It's ridiculous that parents of children with severe epilepsy are having to pay thousands of pounds for private prescriptions. My friend's mum's friend has MS and her grandson has to go to the local drug dealers to get cannabis to relieve her symptoms. Who does that help? Water companies? I wouldn't renationalise them at this point in time. That would be expensive, means the state absorbs the risk and take too long for action. I like the LibDem proposal to turn them into Public Benefit Companies, which I think will turn things around more quickly. That needs to be done alongside giving the regulator (Environment Agency) more resources. OFWAT is not fit for purpose and needs replaced. I wouldn't rule out renationalisation in the future, but I'm more interested in what will be effective. Also we still have nationalised water in Scotland and we have polluted water ways. SEPA (Scotland's Environment Agency) is also under-resourced, and it's too tempting for the government of the day to turn a blind eye or make excuses for mistakes made by nationalised companies. |
|
7,251 posts
|
Post by Jon on May 31, 2024 13:37:39 GMT
Diane Abbott is free to stand as the Labour MP for Hackney North but there is a side of me wondering if she may end up standing down anyway.
|
|
|
|
Post by oxfordsimon on May 31, 2024 15:14:03 GMT
That would be the dignified response
But she will stand.
|
|
|
|
Post by marob on May 31, 2024 15:33:47 GMT
If the story’s true, it was agreed she was supposed to be reinstated, announce she was stepping down, they’d issue some blandishments thanking her for decades of service, and then off she’d go.
Instead they briefed the media against her.
I hope she does stand, and I hope she wins.
|
|
5,030 posts
|
Post by Someone in a tree on May 31, 2024 16:50:06 GMT
|
|
