Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    :rofl:
    I've come across it in three question time threads now, and it still made me giggle. But uke gave the best answer for this :yep:
    Clearly I'm just that funny
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    What does the labour party thing about privatisation of the transport for london network?
    Nick, i'd also like to hear your personal views on this.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by paperclip)
    What does the labour party thing about privatisation of the transport for london network?
    Nick, i'd also like to hear your personal views on this.
    In a major city such as London, it is vital that all transport services are centrally planned and managed to provide the best service possible for commuters. This isn't something which can be achieved with no regulation as companies will simply seek to boost profits. Bus wars will break out around the capital, we would lose our co-ordinated fare schemes and the public will lose out.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    What is the ideological difference between the Labour Party and the Socialists?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    What is the ideological difference between the Labour Party and the Socialists?
    TSR Labour has always been a party which believes that regulating a market-driven economy would be the best way to create economic growth without increasing inequality. I suspect the Socialists would argue that the two cannot really co-exist and would prefer a command system. If I am wrong in my assumption, feel free to correct me!
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Metrobeans)
    TSR Labour has always been a party which believes that regulating a market-driven economy would be the best way to create economic growth without increasing inequality. I suspect the Socialists would argue that the two cannot really co-exist and would prefer a command system. If I am wrong in my assumption, feel free to correct me!
    I think it's reasonable to say we don't think the two can really co-exist (although we do have social democrats in our ranks). I don't think that all of us believe in command economies as a preferable final outcome.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I think it's reasonable to say we don't think the two can really co-exist (although we do have social democrats in our ranks). I don't think that all of us believe in command economies as a preferable final outcome.
    So would you say that the Socialist Party is anti-capitalist?
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    So would you say that the Socialist Party is anti-capitalist?
    Broadly, yes.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    What are your feelings towards devolution within the UK?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Do you think it wrong that your Party's NEC stated that any Labour MP found to have broken the rules on expenses would be deselected and then have Hazel Blears carry on despite even the Prime Minister calling her claims "totally unacceptable"? Is it the case that the NEC's rules were only meant to make us think the Labour Party was going to do something about this mess but in reality it never was?
    Offline

    13
    (I'm not following you around, Tony, honest!)

    As a RL Labour member and candidate (who signed the open letter to the NEC on expenses), but a TSR Socialist, I'm gonna chuck in my twopennor'th here without speaking in any way for the TSR Labour Party.

    I think it's absolutely right that any MP found breaking the rules should be deselected, and I'm glad the NEC has taken action on this. Gordon Brown was being pressed on exactly what you asked at the press conference last night, and I think what he said was quite reasonable. We don't want or need a public witch hunt, with sackings and deselections right now (which I note hasn't happened in the Tory or Liberal parties either) but if Hazel Blears is found to have done wrong, then she should be deselected.

    I also suspect her days as a minister are numbered.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    First off: ARRGHH!! I really hate the new thing of saying "It's right that..." and variations on that theme that has become the vogue in politics at the moment. It's not your fault, obviously, but it drives me mad. If it's right then tell me why it's right not simply state that it is. Labour ministers are the worst at this as far as I can tell and the rot probably started with them. But God it's annoying.

    Anyway, moving on. If Brown has said her claims were "totally unacceptable" how much longer do we need to wait? The NEC has this rule in place so it should be acted on. Who is going to decide whether she's done something wrong? The Fraud Squad? If her Party leader believes she's done something wrong isn't that cause enough to deselect her under the rules of the Party, rules brought in specifically for this crisis? What does he mean that here shouldn't be a witch-hunt? The NEC brought in these rules specifically for this scandal of MPs nicking more of our money than we thought they were. If it isn't going to be used now then in what way isn't it is just a joke intended to make pretend to the voters that Labour cared but in reality it doesn't?

    I think that one of two things is going to happen: Either no MPs will be deselected at all and the entire thing was a cheap attempt to con the public even more or else some MPs will be deselected but only backbenchers and junior members of the Party. The "big-guns" will be spared and it will be one rule for the top brass one rule for the rest, much like the MPs themselves have had going on.

    In short, I'm unconvinced by that answer.
    Offline

    13
    Well, I think there needs to be a process to figuring out whether she's done wrong, as it probably shouldn't just be Gordon Brown's decision. I don't know what process was decided on, or if they've decided on one yet. But when it is, and if she's found to have broken/bent/fiddled/whatever the rules by that process, then she should be deselected and sacked as a minister.

    I hope that it won't just be a couple of backbench defaulters who'll be kicked out, but that anybody found to have done wrong by whatever process is eventually decided on has the whip removed from them PDQ.

    Out of curiosity, have the Liberals or Tories given any indication of how they're going to decide who's being sacked/made to pay money back?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Still don't like it to be honest. "Some process" for finding out sounds like another "independent inquiry" that Brown loves so much. He seems to send ever problem off to someone else to look at when it suits him to sweep it under the carpet. Frankly if the MP had to pay the money back that is a good enough indication that what they took was wrong.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    Still don't like it to be honest. "Some process" for finding out sounds like another "independent inquiry" that Brown loves so much. He seems to send ever problem off to someone else to look at when it suits him to sweep it under the carpet. Frankly if the MP had to pay the money back that is a good enough indication that what they took was wrong.
    Interestingly, you're right. Gordy has said "I've called for independent scrutiny for every claim made over the last four years, deciding how much should be paid back."
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by Jace Falco)
    Interestingly, you're right. Gordy has said "I've called for independent scrutiny for every claim made over the last four years, deciding how much should be paid back."
    I think that's separate from any internal Labour party process.

    It's clear that MPs can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so an external regulator is clearly required.

    Internally, the party should go through and create a reports on every members expenses, and the party should appoint a panel that represents all the membership to decide whether there was any impropriety on any of them. Local parties should get copies of the reports too...
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I think that's separate from any internal Labour party process.

    It's clear that MPs can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so an external regulator is clearly required.

    Internally, the party should go through and create a reports on every members expenses, and the party should appoint a panel that represents all the membership to decide whether there was any impropriety on any of them. Local parties should get copies of the reports too...
    In other words the Labour Party wants to have a long drawn out inquiry which will report in six months or more when everything has calmed down. As I see it, if an MP has paid back their claims then they know that what they claimed for was wrong. And if you have a policy to deselect those people then deselect them now.

    This is just dishonesty from the Labour Party, as I see it, pretending to be doing something to punish people but in reality not going to, or at least not punish those who aren't entirely expendable.
    Offline

    13
    (Original post by UniOfLife)
    In other words the Labour Party wants to have a long drawn out inquiry which will report in six months or more when everything has calmed down. As I see it, if an MP has paid back their claims then they know that what they claimed for was wrong. And if you have a policy to deselect those people then deselect them now.

    This is just dishonesty from the Labour Party, as I see it, pretending to be doing something to punish people but in reality not going to, or at least not punish those who aren't entirely expendable.
    All that will do is create an atmosphere in which no MP will pay back any claims (which may or may not have been accidental - see Jacqui Smith's porn, or my own MPs cocked up mortgage claim) for fear of it being seen as being an admission of guilt.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    I think that's separate from any internal Labour party process.

    It's clear that MPs can't be trusted to regulate themselves, so an external regulator is clearly required.
    I think that it's unfair to generalise on this - I think there are a large number (probably a majority) of MPs that didn't abuse the system. Now that it's out in the public eye, I think an internal but completely open regulator would suffice - obviously chaired by MPs that haven't abused the system at all. I'd like to think that there are still some MPs that can be trusted.

    Internally, the party should go through and create a reports on every members expenses, and the party should appoint a panel that represents all the membership to decide whether there was any impropriety on any of them. Local parties should get copies of the reports too...
    Agreed - what happens to the MPs though once they are found to have acted improperly? Are they referred to the regulator, or are they dismissed from the party? Or both? Should the regulator be able to ask the CPS to prosecute based on their findings?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Alasdair)
    All that will do is create an atmosphere in which no MP will pay back any claims (which may or may not have been accidental - see Jacqui Smith's porn, or my own MPs cocked up mortgage claim) for fear of it being seen as being an admission of guilt.
    Paying it back is an admission of guilt and the choice should be to pay back what was stolen and resign/lose your job or else face a criminal prosecution for theft.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: December 8, 2017
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What's your favourite Christmas sweets?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.