Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    There is no lack of material to criticize you with, but for sake of decency, I won't delve into on your Question Time
    If you have any questions about the Labour Party, be they competence related or otherwise, I will gladly deal with them.
    Offline

    15
    (Original post by TopHat)
    If you have any questions about the Labour Party, be they competence related or otherwise, I will gladly deal with them.
    Do you have enough active members in your party who will contribute with debates and discussion in the MHoC?

    Last term, there was a serious lack of debating by a majority of the Labour party. I'm not saying all, but it seemed as if there was a vacuum where there should have been 7 or 8 or so members contributing.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Do you have enough active members in your party who will contribute with debates and discussion in the MHoC?

    Last term, there was a serious lack of debating by a majority of the Labour party. I'm not saying all, but it seemed as if there was a vacuum where there should have been 7 or 8 or so members contributing.
    We have a list of 14 MPs, more or less all of whom will be capable of contributing to debates throughout the period. The only exceptions are those with substantial exams - we have some people in their final year of university. They will be voting, but will be absent from debates in the May-June period, for understandable RL reasons.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Do you have enough active members in your party who will contribute with debates and discussion in the MHoC?

    Last term, there was a serious lack of debating by a majority of the Labour party. I'm not saying all, but it seemed as if there was a vacuum where there should have been 7 or 8 or so members contributing.
    As someone who has expressed a wish to become a Labour MP, I can say that I plan on being fully active right through the exams period, despite sitting 3 highers and an advanced higher.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MacCuishy)
    Do you have enough active members in your party who will contribute with debates and discussion in the MHoC?

    Last term, there was a serious lack of debating by a majority of the Labour party. I'm not saying all, but it seemed as if there was a vacuum where there should have been 7 or 8 or so members contributing.
    This has already been asked, and the answer is still yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    that just illustrates the lack of any substantial material with which to actually criticise us.
    Indeed. It's difficult to criticise a party that offers any lack of substantial material in terms of legislation, activity, discussion or leadership.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Indeed. It's difficult to criticise a party that offers any lack of substantial material in terms of legislation, activity, discussion or leadership.
    Please, take your complaints to the electorate. Our 4 seat plurality seems to disagree with you.
    • Wiki Support Team
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Wiki Support Team
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Please, take your complaints to the electorate. Our 4 seat plurality seems to disagree with you.
    You know that you didn't earn that, right?

    I'm sure you know the significance that external, RL, factors indubitably had.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by TopHat)
    Please, take your complaints to the electorate. Our 4 seat plurality seems to disagree with you.
    Yeah. Saying that you don't care that you're useless doesn't make you any less useless.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by JPKC)
    You know that you didn't earn that, right?

    I'm sure you know the significance that external, RL, factors indubitably had.
    I think we'll leave that to the electorate.


    The Labour party won fair and square and you know it.


    Everybody and their dog expected a Tory victory. Even some Labour figures believed we were a goner, but not only did we hold on but we gained a seat and swelled our plularity of the popular vote, all this with a former Labour MP on the ballot sheet as an independent.


    Sure, maybe the previous government could have been more active, but it's for the electorate to decide who "earned" the right to be in government and on this occasion it is the Labour party.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah. Saying that you don't care that you're useless doesn't make you any less useless.
    Well it's pretty obvious that the alternative provided by the opposition parties wasn't enough to convince the electorate.


    Maybe try holding the government to account?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    Well it's pretty obvious that the alternative provided by the opposition parties wasn't enough to convince the electorate.


    Maybe try holding the government to account?
    Yeah, they tried, and instead of facing the VonC, your leader bailed and called an election. There is no mechanism other than VonC for the model opposition to hold the government to account.

    But that's not really the point. The fact that you were an awful government isn't really the point, it's that you were awful participants in the MHoC. I don't know about anyone else, but my disdain would be as scornful were you in government or not - the fact you were meant to be the government yet you never passed a single bill just brought the issue front and center. This House is only enjoyable and worthwhile whilst it's active, and last term your party was either not bothered about participating, or too mentally doughy to work out how. The fact you're replying to me suggests it's not the latter.

    This thread's meant to be for questions, so here's one: Do you have reason to think this won't happen again this term (I know you have enough members to fill the seats etc etc, but presumably you'd have thought that at the end of the last election too...) and, if the answer is yes, do you have a programme of legislation you want to enact?

    Genuinely, I'd love nothing more (in the context of the mhoc, obviously) that your answer to the two above questions is "yes", and that'd be the case whether you are in government or not.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    Whilst you may have indeed won the favour of the electorate i suspect that without the confidence of the House (which you may ironically have been able able to build had you accepted the result of any VoNC and remained active afterward) that you will find it very difficult to form a stable government without having to give away hugely important positions.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah, they tried, and instead of facing the VonC, your leader bailed and called an election. There is no mechanism other than VonC for the model opposition to hold the government to account.

    But that's not really the point. The fact that you were an awful government isn't really the point, it's that you were awful participants in the MHoC. I don't know about anyone else, but my disdain would be as scornful were you in government or not - the fact you were meant to be the government yet you never passed a single bill just brought the issue front and center. This House is only enjoyable and worthwhile whilst it's active, and last term your party was either not bothered about participating, or too mentally doughy to work out how. The fact you're replying to me suggests it's not the latter.

    This thread's meant to be for questions, so here's one: Do you have reason to think this won't happen again this term (I know you have enough members to fill the seats etc etc, but presumably you'd have thought that at the end of the last election too...) and, if the answer is yes, do you have a programme of legislation you want to enact?

    Genuinely, I'd love nothing more (in the context of the mhoc,
    obviously) that your answer to the two above questions is "yes", and that'd be the case whether you are in government or not.
    I'm not going to answer your questions because I wasn't an MP last term however I do want to bring up the VONC. It was a desperation move to try and undermine the electorate.


    Besides, I think the real issue is the lack of vision shown by the Conservative party. Their campaign pretty much turned into an all out attack on the Labour government while Labour provided a vision for the future.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Whilst you may have indeed won the favour of the electorate i suspect that without the confidence of the House (which you may ironically have been able able to build had you accepted the result of any VoNC and remained active afterward) that you will find it very difficult to form a stable government without having to give away hugely important positions.
    We'll have to wait and see about that. Any government formed to exclude the party which easily topped the poll would be an affront to the democratic nature of the house.
    Offline

    7
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    We'll have to wait and see about that. Any government formed to exclude the party which easily topped the poll would be an affront to the democratic nature of the house.
    A Government needs the Confidencfe of the House to form a Government
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Mr Dangermouse)
    We'll have to wait and see about that. Any government formed to exclude the party which easily topped the poll would be an affront to the democratic nature of the house.
    I don't understand this.

    Imagine this scenario, 3 parties standing: Labour, Socialist & Conservative. The vote is split like this.

    Conservative: 45%
    Labour: 35%
    Socialists: 20%

    Is it really an affront to democracy for a Labour-Socialist coalition to take government? Not at all. The coalitions that can be formed are the things that should determine government, not necessarily led by the largest party. I presume it requires some integrity on the part of parties in not jumping into coalitions that they wouldn't believe their voters would want just for power - but if they don't have that integrity then I guess they won't get voted for the next time. So this is why we have seats apportioned and the largest coalition gets government - because that's the democratic way to do it.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by CyclopsRock)
    Yeah, they tried, and instead of facing the VonC, your leader bailed and called an election. There is no mechanism other than VonC for the model opposition to hold the government to account.
    We felt that the VoNC would not truly reflect the opinion of the electorate. Imagine, just for a moment we hadn't called an election, and the Conservatives had formed a Coalition. Would that really have been what the public wanted? We thought not, and so decided to call an election to put that theory to the test. Turns out we were right. There was a bigger swing towards us than any other Party. Looks like the electorate didn't even want the VoNC to me.

    But that's not really the point. The fact that you were an awful government isn't really the point, it's that you were awful participants in the MHoC. I don't know about anyone else, but my disdain would be as scornful were you in government or not - the fact you were meant to be the government yet you never passed a single bill just brought the issue front and center. This House is only enjoyable and worthwhile whilst it's active, and last term your party was either not bothered about participating, or too mentally doughy to work out how. The fact you're replying to me suggests it's not the latter.
    It's so dull to have to go over this again. The first as that we were by no sans the only inactive party. Prior to Rakas21 calling a VoNC in the previous Tory leader, the Tory Party was just as inactive as ours. The Lib Dems also had a leader replaced. This was by no means uncommon or confined to the Labour Party. Once, like many other parties, we had replaced our leader, we were just as active as other parties - need I remind you we came joint first in the Speaker's Motion/Bill contest? We accept that we has an activity problem, but to act like we've comitted some heinous sin when a) the rest of the House suffered the exact same problem and b) we recovered to fine form by the time of the Speaker's Competition just makes you seem petty and a little bitter.

    As for beig able to pass bills, that's no fault of our own. Given we are not a majority party, we are dependent upon other parties, and the Socialist Party, who'd often support our bills, were truly inactive, that makes things a little difficult. The other factor was Tory partisanship. We were willing to work alongside and even vote for other parties - see the Education Motion. In contrast, the Tories opposed everything we did, regardless of content. That kind of electoral gridlock is hard to overcome and is another reason we called the election.

    This thread's meant to be for questions, so here's one: Do you have reason to think this won't happen again this term (I know you have enough members to fill the seats etc etc, but presumably you'd have thought that at the end of the last election too...) and, if the answer is yes, do you have a programme of legislation you want to enact?
    We have both active members and sufficient legislation. Whether we choose to form government or not, we are more than capable of fulfilling our role as the largest party.

    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Whilst you may have indeed won the favour of the electorate i suspect that without the confidence of the House (which you may ironically have been able able to build had you accepted the result of any VoNC and remained active afterward) that you will find it very difficult to form a stable government without having to give away hugely important positions.
    As does any plurality party.
    Offline

    4
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by jesusandtequila)
    I don't understand this.

    Imagine this scenario, 3 parties standing: Labour, Socialist & Conservative. The vote is split like this.

    Conservative: 45%
    Labour: 35%
    Socialists: 20%

    Is it really an affront to democracy for a Labour-Socialist coalition to take government? Not at all. The coalitions that can be formed are the things that should determine government, not necessarily led by the largest party. I presume it requires some integrity on the part of parties in not jumping into coalitions that they wouldn't believe their voters would want just for power - but if they don't have that integrity then I guess they won't get voted for the next time. So this is why we have seats apportioned and the largest coalition gets government - because that's the democratic way to do it.
    The Labour party won so its only fair that we have the first chance to prove we can govern.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    That's not to say we don't think other coalitions have a right. If, say, a Conservative-Libertarian coalition were to form should we decide not to form government, we would respect the democratic right of that government. We simply feel that as the largest party and the beneficent of the largest popular swing, Labour should have first try at forming such a Coalition.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
Turn on thread page Beta
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: April 19, 2018
Poll
Do you agree with the proposed ban on plastic straws and cotton buds?

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

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