Labour Party, Lib Dem Party - where to now.

Richard Murphy's take on "aspiration".

www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2015/05/31/aspiration-doesnt-do-it-for-me-but-care-definitely-does/

Believe it or not, I agree with him.

According to the article, he only has to be suspended for 10 days. It's the standards committee that decides. Then if he is suspended the recall comes into play, when it is voted on by the house first. He's not going to have many people on his side in it, I wouldn't think. They want to be seen as whiter than white still.

Oh - read too quickly - he has to be suspended first? No chance then

Didn't know that dj - 10% expect the SNP could organise that quite quickly

I agree he did lie very blatantly Granny Twice.

The recall of MPs is actually law now, but he needs to be suspended from parliament for a minimum of 21 days, or be in prison.
Interesting to see if he gets suspended next week.
Then 10% of his electorate need to call for a bye-election. I think that could easily happen if he is suspended, but perhaps the Tories would like to have a grateful Libdem onside.

Gg - yes there should be a recall system. But what I think makes this case particularly poor is that he stood as a candidate knowing he had lied. They are now stuck with him for 5 years - it's very comtemptuous of the electorate isn't it? I know he's not the only one but that doesn't alter his behaviour

I think whether he goes or stays is down to his constituents. What a pity they can't recall him and vote on this.

I feel sorry for the people of Shetland and Orkney who voted for him. There was a near 24% swing from Libdem to SNP, and he won by less than a thousand votes. It will go SNP if there is a byelection.

He's greatly diminished IMO. He won't resign of course.

www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/may/23/alistair-carmichael-liberal-democrats-byelection-threat-leak-snp-sturgeon

Do you think he should resign?
I do. He lied over and over again.
I do not think he should be an MP.

Here's an interesting take on the election results. It just shows the bias in the mainstream media.

uk.businessinsider.com/uk-general-election-vote-statistics-how-the-left-gained-2015-5

Well that tells me!

Yikes. I am not like that in real life, but I will definitely give it more thought.

If you read your posts and edit out ' maybe, perhaps, probably, on the other hand, but what do I know, ' etc your audience might find your opinions rather more definite and convincing and would accord you more respect. To put it rather harshly, grow up and get a grip!

I didnt realise I was being woolly, but perhaps I am. hmm.

On the other hand, I thought myself , this week, about something in my life, that I was being a bit too hard to please, so that bit is probably true actually.

Not really. You seem to be trying too hard to please, soontobe.

You are obviously reading up on things, and putting tentative opinions cloaked as questions forward. Nothing wrong with that, but if your comments are too woolly you might not get any responses!

But on the other hand, I could do with some more knowledge somtimes. The thread last night about lawyers and HRA. I was probbaly right, but couldnt be bothered to post or look things up more, so withdrew from it. See my dilemma?

It is a question. Most definitely a question. I am not sitting on the fence on this.
My opinion [I sometimes dont say my opinion as I get the distinct impression from some posters, that I am not intelligent enough] is that if unions help put the party too far to the left, the Labour party will have trouble getting back in power.
My other opinion is that some very left wing posters dont care so much about that.

Am I "allowed" to say my opinions more yeah!

mcem -

Sorry soon but once again I don't understand your post. Is it a statement of your opinion or a question? Or is it, once again, your way of avoiding committing yourself to one side or the other ie polishing your 'sitting on the fence' technique?

But what about the unions' power?
It is a case of, if it takes Labour too far to the left, so they dont get power again, so be it?

I agree, Gracesgran.

Fri 22-May-15 12:11:38 A really well reasoned post Eloethan

There are unions who give the movement a bad name. I can say this as an ex-Union rep for NAEIAC. Having tried to work with one public sector union in particular, I was left wondering whether the support of their members was their first priority, of whether the officials just wanted power and dissention.

My Union, together with two other smaller ones, were able to sit down and thrash out this particular issues (safety in the work place) but the biggest union was simply out to air old grievances. They refused to work with the smaller unions. I was left disgusted by their attitude and language.

Unions are still neccesay. What ought to have moved on is the way they deal with issues and the type of person at the top. All too often no one wants the job of union rep., as it is extra work, so the more extreme element can take control. Or those who are on a power trip.

soontobe I thought I'd already addressed the point re the political leanings of unions. It's hardly a secret that the Labour Party has an affinity with the Unions, though their relationship is much looser now than in the past. Unions are unlikely to have much in common with the Conservative Party which has never championed the rights of employees and which has opposed the introduction of many progressive changes including the minimum wage and the obligation of employers to supply gender pay gap figures. Over the last five years of Conservative/Lib Dem rule, workers' rights have been further eroded.

Speaking personally, Anya, I believe I try to put forward opinions supported by evidence, rather than just to sneer at political figures or make snippy remarks that are clearly designed to provoke a response.