Parliamentary Election Hustings

[leenewham]

I would have liked to have gone and would have gone if I could.

Quite a different answer to Jim 'rather have a curry than talk to the people who I want to vote for me' Dowd.

[stuart]

even though the quality of local candidates is not going to affect my vote

So you would have encouraged Tatton conservatives to vote for Hamilton and not Bell in 1997?

Stuart

[michael]

Stuart / Robin,
Not sure what your problem is. For some people there will be a policy (or party allegiance) that overrides all other considerations. For example, if your priority was to save Beckenham Golf Course there is only one candidate with a clear unambiguous policy, the quality of the other candidates is really secondary to that.
In reality, and given our political system, I suspect most people vote for parties and policies rather than candidates. And on the whole I think that is a good thing because we are voting for a manifesto for running the country, not a friend to have a drink down the pub.

[Tim Lund]

even though the quality of local candidates is not going to affect my vote

So you would have encouraged Tatton conservatives to vote for Hamilton and not Bell in 1997?

Stuart

If I'd wanted the Conservatives to win nationally, of course.

[Robin Orton]

[...] we are voting for a manifesto for running the country, not a friend to have a drink down the pub.

Who I might or might not want to have a pint with is neither here nor there. Who I am voting for is someone to represent this community in the House of Commons (from French 'commune' = 'community').

What his or her political affiliation is obviously very important, but not to the exclusion of everything else. If all we were voting on was a manifesto for running the country, why bother with constituencies at all? Why not just put our cross by the name of a party, and let each party then choose people to sit in Parliament in numbers proportionate to the respective number of votes cast?

Or, come to that, why bother with Parliament at all? Why not just vote for a Leader? There are precedents.

[michael]

why bother with constituencies at all? Why not just put our cross by the name of a party, and let each party then choose people to sit in Parliament in numbers proportionate to the respective number of votes cast?

I wouldn't have a problem with such a system. Better still vote for a party and a representative (GLA style, I think). I quite like thinking that I'm represented by an individual but that other members from the same and from other parties also have an interest in my area. No more 'tell me your postcode before I reply'.

[Robin Orton]

Well, if you're happy to be governed by a body partly composed of unelected party hacks appointed by their Politburo, fine...

Ah, just thought. We already are. It's called the House of Lords.

[Tim Lund]

In next year's London Mayoral election, the capacity of the candidates will matter. The difference is that areas the size of parliamentary constituencies might need good constituency ombudspersons, but regions like London or the UK need leadership.

[sparticus]

The point has already been well made. For better or worse we have a 'representative' democracy- we vote for someone to represent us in parliament, and for me, whilst I would never compromise the possibility of a Labour victory, other things being equal I want a representative whose views more or lesreflect my own, and who I can respect, and Dowd fails on both counts. The trend towards seeing British general elections as a purely national contest has, I think, impoverished our democracy and certainly made it less colourful- Tom Driberg or more recently the estimable Bob Marshal Andrews wouldn't get a look in these days. In a constituency like ours, my vote cannot affect the outcome this time round, but if enough people vote for alternative candidates it might make the local Labour Party start thinking that an alternative candidate might be a good thing next time.

Funnily enough, I do have some sympathy for a principled decision not to share a platform with fascists. That's different, by the way, from organisations or institutions banning speakers they don't approve of. Whether Dowd's decision to withdraw from the hustings was principled I'll leave others to judge. What is disgraceful is that there has been no opportunity to subject all candidates to public scrutiny. If Dowd decided to withdraw from the hustings on the principle that he wouldn't share a platform with fascists, then he should have provided a public meeting. I may have missed it, but it is extraordinary that we now don't have the opportunity to see, confront and debate with those who claim the privilege of representing us.

[Robin Orton]

The difference is that areas the size of parliamentary constituencies might need good constituency ombudspersons, but regions like London or the UK need leadership.

.

I don't subscribe to the Führerprinzip, I'm afraid. (Oh dear, have I just provided more evidence to support Godwin's Law?) What I want is good, wise and accountable government, not 'leadership'.

And MPs aren't (or shouldn't be) ombudspersons (although they obviously have a role in defending their constituents against the incompetent, arbitrary or tyrannical exercise of executive power.) Their primary job is to make good laws and to hold the executive to account.

Leastways, that's how it were when I were a lad.

Funnily enough, I do have some sympathy for a principled decision not to share a platform with fascists. [...] What is disgraceful is that there has been no opportunity to subject all candidates to public scrutiny. If Dowd decided to withdraw from the hustings on the principle that he wouldn't share a platform with fascists, then he should have provided a public meeting. I may have missed it, but it is extraordinary that we now don't have the opportunity to see, confront and debate with those who claim the privilege of representing us.

I absolutely agree.

[Tim Lund]

The difference is that areas the size of parliamentary constituencies might need good constituency ombudspersons, but regions like London or the UK need leadership.

.

I don't subscribe to the Führerprinzip, I'm afraid. (Oh dear, have I just provided more evidence to support Godwin's Law?) What I want is good, wise and accountable government, not 'leadership'.

Leadership just happens to be one of the things which matter to me - I was not excluding having coherent policies which would, if implemented, advance the common good, and a commitment to constitutional government. All I was trying to say was that, at some levels, I think personal qualities matter. Maybe you would have been happier with the term character than leadership, but I make no apology in this context.

[stuart]

I suspect most people vote for parties and policies rather than candidates. And on the whole I think that is a good thing because we are voting for a manifesto for running the country, not a friend to have a drink down the pub.

Yes this is true. I vote not for the manifesto (which makes Estate Agency brochures look understated) but for the spirit of the party. When push comes to shove in unexpected circumstances are they likely to take the decision I would prefer?

But, and its an enormous but, the constituency MP counts. There should be a tension between the individual and the party. That's why we have whips. The whips are trying to get conformity, the MP is trying to do what's right for their electorate. It ends up as a messy compromise. Unless the MP is faceless lobby fodder, unless the MP is fighting to change policies for the better or representing a special interest (like a niche disability) in the HoC.

Plus the MP is the social worker of last resort. When government has failed, when local government has failed, when everyone has failed the citizen then your MP is there to try and fix. Some go to extraordinary effort to right wrongs.

That's why the individual MP still counts - or should count. We saw some good candidates last night. We had no chance to measure them against the sitting MP. People here think our current MP has failed on all counts except delivering one vote for the party many would want to form the government. I think it sad that just one of these three attributes should trump the other two. I think we have a case when, no matter how much you support the Labour Party, you can put in place a man who is no good at the other two. Indeed no good to the party.

Sometimes you need to censure those you want to support because they have lost the plot and the future depends on refinding it. But if people want to persuade me to grit my teeth one more time - than do try and persuade me. I did note that JD in his correspondence didn't even try. That's really bad politics.

Stuart

[Tim Lund]

Perhaps we are just too deferential round here. Here's what they conduct themselves in Lichfield



Source here

and what they missed

[Tim Lund]

People here think our current MP has failed on all counts except delivering one vote for the party many would want to form the government. I think it sad that just one of these three attributes should trump the other two

I think these were the three headings for your MP job spec

1. Division lobby bot
2. Social worker of last resort - a.k.a good constituency ombudsperson
3. Campaigner

but what about

• developer of policy
• scrutineer of legislation
• (potential) leader - of department of state or even the country

Not everyone is cut out for all these, but overall, I'd like MPs to be doing more of 4 to 6 than 2 & 3. If an MP is no good at 4 - 6, but compensates by being a good constituency MP, that's a bonus for the constituents, but maybe not fair on those elsewhere whose MPs are more talented.

I agree some responsibility for particular areas is good, because it helps keep policy discussions real, but I'd prefer something like the blend of of local and party list candidates which we have with the GLA. Michael is right to criticise MPs' inability to take up issues of people outside their constituencies - how can that be right?

I think we are seeing the disintegration of the traditional Westminster model, and I am more interested in thinking how it can be reformed than making an issue of one particular MP's failings.

[SquashedCommuter]

My wife and I went to the 38 Degrees hustings this evening. It was well organized and everyone behaved themselves; there was some heckling, but it was quite polite. Standing room only. A pretty left-wing audience, which seemed to include a lot of teachers and probably other public sector workers.

You are absolutely right there.

All the candidates' speeches and answers to questions attracted some applause, the only exception being Dr George Whale (Liberty-GB), who, whenever he sat down, did so to complete silence from the audience; I thought this was a dignified and impressive response.

I thought I did hear applause, for example when Dr George Whale made comments on the secretive TTIP. Generally the "right-wing" are more composed, thoughtful and serious about politics and right-wing audiences tend to be more likely to listen quietly and reflect intellectually rather than get emotionally excitable. Also the left-wing seem to develop cult following tendencies in politics which it seems TUSC is especially exploiting and explains why so any of the audience were left-wing socialist funded by taxpayers.

However I definitely can't agree that whenever he sat down he did so in silence. Take his comments on having a referendum on something that 45% of the population support. That he is the only candidate giving this 45% a say is proof of the left-wing extremism of politics in Lewisham and the complete lack of democracy.

Actually I disagree with Liberty GB on their policy here. I don't think there should be a referendum. I think capital punishment for murder should re-instated without a referendum because murdered people can't vote.

It was difficult to take Dr Whale as other than a joke, a sort of pantomime demon king figure who eggs on the children in the stalls to hiss at him.

Dr George Whale had the courage to raised some very serious issues against an extremist left-wing audience. Few would have the courage these days when freedom of speech is under threat and diversity of anything except diversity of thought is encouraged.

For example on anti-white racism we hear the exclamation "it doesn't exist!" which implies that racism is only from whites onto non-whites which in itself is a racist exclamation which proves the point!

When pressed, the example he went on to use the example of white girls being terribly systematically abused by a certain group which was something so terrible to even mention. Yet these atrocities were allowed to continue just because of the same left-wing attitude displayed by the people who completely ignored this tragedy because it threatened their left-wing ideology of "equality and diversity" ("I am. Me too. Me too. I am sorry to everyone that you had to listen to something as offensive as that. Woohoo clap clap").

I am sorry that the girls had to experience something so offensive as that and hope the left-wing don't allow such atrocities to continue because they see Dr George Whale a greater threat to society than militant Islamic ideology.

Just the fact that Labour needed to go back to the actions of a bunch of vulgar lunatics from a completely different political party some 38 years ago in an attempt to smear Dr George Whale, just shows how far-wrong (and out of touch with the real political threats) Labour politics is today.

[alywin]

His poor record in parliament, his physical manhandling of Bob Marshal Andrews in the lobby because he had the temerity to vote against a government terrorism bill on principle, his slavish voting record when Labour were in power including his support for the Iraq war, his refusal to condem Purelake over the Greyhound debacle and his oafish behaviour, his sense of entitlement and contemptuous behaviour towards his constituents, all mean that I simply cannot bring myself to support him. It's telling, I think, that there are very few Labour posters around in Lewisham West and Penge, compared with the other two Lewisham constituencies, and I suspect that there are many more out there that share the views on this forum.

Thank you. That was more information than I managed to glean when, as a relatively newly-enforced LWP constituent, I asked about his record a few weeks ago.

As one of those dread things, a permanently floating voter, I might well have been prepared to vote Labour, since as a party they hadn't actually put themselves out of contention in the way certain others had. However, like various other people on this page, I also believe in choosing the candidate I believe mostly likely to do a good job of representing this constituency - and I don't believe JD to be that person.

I wish I had been able to attend these hustings, but unfortunately, having been unable to get on this forum for the last couple of days, I was unaware of the event until it was too late. Not to mention that I was at work yesterday evening, and would have had no chance of making it to Honor Oak in time.

[sparticus]

For heaven's sake, I know local Labour Party members, including elected members, read this forum, will one of you please come forward and defend Jim Dowd and try and persuade me to vote for him!

[alburt.c]

mayby jim veri busy for this meetings. same at meny other place also
labur probly eesie win for sydenham i think

[Pally]

mayby jim veri busy for this meetings. same at meny other place also
labur probly eesie win for sydenham i think

Yes I suspect Labour will win again!! That does not justify his complacency and lack of engagement. And yes, I also wish someone would come on this forum from the Labour group locally and defend him and maybe persuade others to vote for him (or not!) ....but I suspect complacency is also the problem there too!

[Tim Lund]

I have tried to join the local Labour Party online on three occasions in the last couple of years. Initially because as I had recently retired I decided it would be good to become active in local politics again. No response. I spoke to two of the local councillors, one when being canvassed for the last local elections, and another at a residents meeting, and was assured on both occasions that someone would be in touch, nothing happened. If Labour want to turn supporters into members and members into activists they are going about it in a very strange way indeed.

Just saw this link tweeted by one of the FH Labour Councillors

https://join.labour.org.uk/