Democracy - help me out here!

I agree with most of what you've written absthame. The trouble is (and I'm sure you're aware of this), nobody with any power has the will to make such changes. Current populism is possibly even worse than the established parties. It needs a rebellion by fair-minded people, who can see how democracy is being undermined. Unfortunately, because such people tend to be tolerant, they're actually not the people best placed to be rebels.

Unfortunately I believe that you are right foodstuff. But as I always say, one very small step in the right direction, in a generation is all it takes given time

Sorry growstuff not foodstuff.......I do hate autocorrect

I would agree with much of what you suggest, absthame. I would go further and suggest that political parties should be state funded ( and accountable for the money they receive) and not permitted to receive donations from organisations or individuals; this would, I think, make them concentrate on policies which they believe are good for the country as a whole, not for their donors.

On the other hand, I'm finding this fear of the Labour Party on the grounds of revolutionary Marxist Leninism to be quite odd. As GG2 said, the current LP policies are nothing to fear. What do you think might happen should the LP under Corbyn get into government? What might it do? Overthrow our democratic parliamentary system? I think they're certainly getting pointers as to how to do it at the moment...

'Boris Johnson has asked the attorney general, Geoffrey Cox, whether parliament can be shut down for five weeks from 9 September in what appears to be a concerted plan to stop MPs forcing a further extension to Brexit, according to leaked government correspondence.
An email from senior government advisers to an adviser in No 10 – written within the last 10 days and seen by the Observer – makes clear that the prime minister has recently requested guidance on the legality of such a move, known as prorogation. The initial legal guidance given in the email is that shutting parliament may well be possible, unless action being taken in the courts to block such a move by anti-Brexit campaigners succeeds in the meantime.

Sign up to our Brexit weekly briefing
Read more

On Saturday Labour and pro-Remain Tory MPs reacted furiously, saying that the closure of parliament, as a method for stopping MPs preventing a potentially disastrous no-deal Brexit, would be an affront to democracy and deeply irresponsible, particularly given the government’s own acceptance of the economic turmoil no-deal could cause.
Shadow Brexit secretary Keir Starmer said: “Any plan to suspend parliament at this stage would be outrageous. MPs must take the earliest opportunity to thwart this plan and to stop a no-deal Brexit.”
The prominent Tory remainer and former attorney general Dominic Grieve added: “This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons. It may be possible to circumvent the clear intention of the House of Commons in this way but it shows total bad faith. Excluding the house from a national crisis that threatens the future of our country is entirely wrong.”

Dominic Grieve said: ‘This memo, if correct, shows Boris Johnson’s contempt for the House of Commons.’
Johnson has said he is “not attracted” to the idea of proroguing parliament and that he wants a Brexit deal, but has repeatedly refused to rule it out. After becoming prime minister he immediately promoted Dominic Raab, the first senior Tory to propose the idea of shutting parliament to get Brexit through, to the post of foreign secretary.
The email shows that the feasibility of a five-week parliamentary shutdown is under active consideration, from soon after the date on which parliament returns on 3 September, until the eve of the last EU summit before Brexit, on 17 and 18 October, when it will be too late for MPs to block no deal. The revelation will also anger EU leaders as Johnson makes his international summit debut at the G7 in Biarritz this weekend.
Johnson was due to meet US president Donald Trump for talks on Sunday, with Brexit and international trade high on the agenda. He will also meet EU council president Donald Tusk who said on Saturday that he would not cooperate with Johnson on a no-deal Brexit, but rather wanted to find a way forward with him to secure a deal on issues including the Irish backstop.
Tusk said as G7 leaders gathered that he was “willing to listen to ideas that are operational, realistic and acceptable to all EU member states, including Ireland, if and when the UK government is ready. The one thing I will not cooperate on is no deal, and I still hope that prime minister Johnson will not like to go down in history as ‘Mr No Deal’.”...from The Observer. Why is there not a public outcry about this? This isn't democracy; it's a dictatorship. I'm appalled and, quite frankly, terrified. Oh and also rumours of an emergency budget, something else that the leave campaign used against remain in the run up to the referendum...[but it's ok now...]

I have no fears of the Labour party without the current leadership cabal. With it, yes believe that they will destroy our democracy, initially by understanding the independence of the courts, they have done it by ignoring party conference decisions that they disagree with and destroying the independence of the NEC, then attacking our parliamentarians, recalling and deselecting them. They will weight the electoral system such that large cities and towns will have even more representations than the populations can justify, at the same time reduce representation in areas where they are less popular and they will extend the length of parliament. Introduce antisidition laws.

That is the usual routes trodden by those anti-democratic governments around the world. Why would that old Stalinist -Leninist behave any different? Please don't say because this is Britain, we are not that special afterall our two main political leaders are Johnson and Corbyn, that says it all........ Two guys with Peter Pan delusions and fixations with younger ladies

Sorry undermining courts. Not understanding

How are they going to undermine the independence of the courts?

Are you privy to their plans or just speculating?

I'm afraid I'm far more scared of what the tories, under the direction of Cummings, are planning to do in the next few weeks, probably culminating in the imposition of the Civil Contingencies Act and martial law, than I am of Labour government.

I am pleased that you at least have an answer to my question; it's more than anyone else has managed.

We need a Labour Government

Absolutely spot-on ! Barry Gardiner nails it square in the head!! But I guarantee that this con-niving govt will do everything it can to avoid answering this truthfully!! They indeed rely on the underhanded clauses of contracts , to fulfill their ‘ideological agenda

Barry Gardiner on what Labour will do to keep our NHS safe from Trump and on why Johnson needs to do a lot more than just talk.

twitter.com/iNdiGoDocToRDee/status/1165556292959821824?s=20

Mmm. It is good to have another point of view absthame but like Maizie I would have to ask if what you say has any factual basis. I understand that leopards do not change their spots but I just don't see anything of what you say actually happening.

Of course, I am not privy to the LP and don't have an in-depth knowledge of its workings but so far the only thing I could accuse the leadership of would be being overly democratic where the membership is concerned and really that cannot be a criticism.

He knows his brief Grany, that's for certain. I was disappointed to see Sophy Ridge suggest something had changed because Johnson and Trump both declared "the NHS is Safe". She is not a stupid woman and must know this isn't true.

Of course, we will be "allowed" to keep our NHS as a state-run entity rather than an insurance-based one but that is really not, and never was the point. Because the Tories (and it has to be said, the Lib Dems) started down the road of separating various parts of the running of the NHS into privately run entities these areas can now come under that various rules that the USA will want to be included. This will put up the costs to the NHS and I have no doubt, that will be shortly followed by an argument from the right that we "need" to move to an insurance-based medical system and thus a two-tier system.

absthame

You make some interesting points. Can I politely pursue them with you. . You posted:-

Sat 24-Aug-19 22:11:25
"So what is the answer?

I believe that no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information"

What constitutes 'organisation'?

Are you saying a newspaper Group should not be permitted to also own a news channel, Internet companies etc. They should only be ' allowed' to have holdings/shares in one single company and that company is restricted to choosing whether it is a newspaper, social media company or TV Producer/Channel.

That is censorship of the press / the media surely.

Under those rules either The Guardian or The Observer would have to go as they are both owned by The Scott Trust.

Reach plc, formerly Trinity Mirror publishes Regional Papers, Daily Mirror, Sunday Mirror, The Sunday People, Daily Express, Sunday Express, Daily Star, Daily Star Sunday, Scottish Daily Record and Sunday Mail and the magazine OK!. Since purchasing Local World, it has gained 83 print publications.

Which paper would be allowed under the 'no one organisation should be permitted control of more than one national source of news information' dictat.?

Then you have politically motivated ' organisations' who have newspapers /magazines/social media outlets how does it work for that side of what we in the 21st century deem as being our ' Source for Information'?

Get rid of the open press and swallow the Dark Web of lies and misinformation which we know exists and sadly some people swallow hook line and sinker.
---

I equally believe that no person should be permitted to serve more than 3 terms in elected office, this will reduce the risk of corruption or being absorbed into the establishment.

Agree.
-----

I believe that it should be illegal for an organisation or person to lobby for profit, their own or that of the ones that they represent.

Cash for questions comes to mind. How does that work for the Unions who are major lobbyists? This is a cross party problem. Lobbying is a bit of a tightrope to walk at times.
---

MPs should be provided with an adequate salary and that the only office facilities and staffing permitted are those provided by Parliament, something that they currently barely undertake and is the route of our current distrust of MPs. No outside source should be permitted to providemembers with staff or facilities.

Not sure on that one. ' Nepotism' is something I would go along with getting rid of. People in ' high places' hold dear to having their family and friends as staff so I think it would be contested by MP's. Constituency staff are for the most part needed by the MP to understand the constituency and politics they represent, a trust should be formed
----.

MPs, while serving should not be permitted to earn monies outside their parliamentary salary

Not so clear cut. A politicians job is so insecure and why should a doctor for example still not practice to keep their professional life current. MP's have families / responsibilities, maybe financial commitments and need to be able to support them it is not viable to expect our MP's to lose sources of revenue to become an MP.
--

Ministers including the PM should not receive any payment beyond their pay as an MP, this would stop governments buying votes.

Not sure what you mean by ' would stop governments buying votes.'

Thank you.

POGS, their is much I can agree with and in your questioning of in regard to your above post @14:10 today.

However, in one area I feel you are incorrect. In that, you state that the trades unions "lobby in parliament" which is not the case.

The Labour Party was born out of the trades unions in the early nineteen hundreds and within that the trade unions have always been an integeral part of the Labour party by way of representation on it's National Executive Committee.

During the Tony Blair dominance of the party the representation of the unions on that committee was virtually abolished, but under the leadership of Jeremy Corbyn that representation has been restored. The forgoing now brings many to refure to Labour as the "Labour Movement.

Representation on the National Executive Committee (NEC) is as follows:-

The NEC is structured so as to represent all key stakeholders in the Party and movement.

Chair: Wendy Nichols
Vice Chair: Andi Fox
Leader: Jeremy Corbyn MP
Deputy Leader: Tom Watson MP
Treasurer: Diana Holland
Shadow Frontbench: Jon Trickett MP
Shadow Frontbench: Rebecca Long-Bailey MP
Shadow Frontbench: Diane Abbott MP
Shadow Scottish Frontbench: Richard Leonard MSP
Welsh Labour Representative: Mick Antoniw AM
EPLP Leader: Richard Corbett MEP
Young Labour: Lara McNeill
BAME Labour: Keith Vaz MP
Div. I – Trade Unions: Keith Birch (Unison)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Jim Kennedy (Unite)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Andi Fox (TSSA)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Pauline McCarthy (Bakers)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Michael Wheeler (Usdaw)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Wendy Nichols (Unison)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Andy Kerr (CWU)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Sarah Owen (GMB)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Jayne Taylor (UNITE)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Cath Speight (GMB)
Div.I – Trade Unions: Ian Murray (FBU)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Mick Whelan (ASLEF)
Div. I – Trade Unions: Joanne Cairns (USDAW)
Div. II – Socialist Societies: James Asser
Div. III – CLPs: Huda Elmi
Div. III – CLPs: Yasmin Dar
Div. III – CLPs: Rachel Garnham
Div. III – CLPs: Ann Henderson
Div. III – CLPs: Jon Lansman
Div. III – CLPs: Navendu Mishra
Div. III – CLPs: Claudia Webbe
Div. III – CLPs: Darren Williams
Div. III – CLPs: Pete Willsman
Div. IV – Labour Councillors: Nick Forbes
Div. IV – Labour Councillors: Alice Perry
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: George Howarth MP
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: Margaret Beckett MP
Div. V – PLP/EPLP: Shabana Mahmood MP

In addition, the PLP Shadow Chief Whip (Nick Brown MP), and PLP Chair (John Cryer MP) attend ex-officio without a vote.

Don't voters count as key stakeholders?

growstuff, in regard to your post @-14:57 today, bodies such as the Labour National Executive Committee (NEC) are for elected members and affiliate representatives of the whole Labour Movement in the country.

The National Delegate Conference along with the NEC bring forward policies that are then presented to the British electorate at times of election for acceptance or rejection as they see fit.

The electorate are the ultimate in all that is decided.

Grandad

"However, in one area I feel you are incorrect. In that, you state that the trades unions "lobby in parliament" which is not the case."
-

I find that an odd statement..

To clarify, are you stating as a fact Unions ' do not lobby' in Parliament?

GRANDAD

RE The NEC list you posted and Div. 111

This division are ALL from Momentum except Willsman who had the Momentum backing taken away by this time.

Yasmine Dar (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Claudia Webbe (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Jon Lansman (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Rachel Garnham (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Huda Elmi (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Darren Williams (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Ann Henderson (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Nav Mishra (Momentum/CLPD/CLGA slate)
Peter Willsman (CLPD/CLGA slate)

There are some interesting personalities above especially surrounding DESELECTIONS and ANTISEMITISM in the Labour Party.

POGS Quote [Grandad
"However, in one area I feel you are incorrect. In that, you state that the trades unions "lobby in parliament" which is not the case."
-
I find that an odd statement.
To clarify, are you stating as a fact Unions ' do not lobby' in Parliament?] End Quote.

POGS the Trades Unions have no need to "lobby in Parliament" as they are an integral part of the Labour Party. In that, they hold seats on the Labour Party/Movement National Executive Committee, and within the Annual Delegate Conference and therefor are involved in all policy-making and day to day running of the Labour Party and broader movement.

So, if the Trade Unions were to lobby in Parliament, who would they lobby, the Conservative Party?

I am sure they would get a great reception there.

'POGS the Trades Unions have no need to "lobby in Parliament" as they are an integral part of the Labour Party.'
---

www.unison.org.uk/about/what-we-do/about-trade-unions/

'Trade unions may also represent their members’ interests outside the workplace. For example, trade unions may lobby the government or the European Union on policies which promote their objectives.'
---

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transparency_of_Lobbying,_Non-party_Campaigning_and_Trade_Union_Administration_Act_2014

Why would you mention the Trades Union with regard to lobbying if they simply do not' lobby '.
---

Look up a Trade Union and it will mention' lobbying ' including lobbying the government.

So I simply cannot agree Unions do not lobby in Parliament.

POGS, then we shall just have to agree to disagree as I believe the "facts" speak for themselves in the Parliamentary setup.

I understand that, Grandad. However, it seems to me that the Labour Party tangles itself up in procedures and forgets that it needs to win an election.

What I mean by "ordinary voters" is people like me. I've only once ever voted Labour and the party needs votes from people like me.

The Labour Party produces a lot of hot air and gets so many things wrong because it really doesn't understand issues. Maybe some of them should get out of their committees and find out what their potential voters want.

PS. Polls vary, but the latest one is that they're 12 points behind the Conservatives, which is a scandal considering what a shower the Conservatives are. Labour should be walking it!

growstuff, in regard to your post @22:04 today, I believe you have to look back to the Blair era to appreciate the position the Labour Party/movement has taken up at the present time.

In the above, Blair and his cohorts took the funds of the Labour Party grassroots membership and the affiliated membership and in that paid little or no notice of their thoughts, motions and resolution to central office or the delegate conference.

Blair and Brown set up a close ring within the national executive committee (NEC) that had total allegiance to their views to the exclusion of all else. Blair never once attended a trade union conference and often the NEC did not even respond to Constituency party letters etc. Not one section of the Tory Anti-trade union legislation was revoked and that especially was repugnant to the affiliated membership.

With the Election Jeremy Corbyn, all the above has changed and the grassroots membership and affiliated membership have once again been fully incorporated into the Party structure and decision making.

Therefore the grassroots activists within the Labour movement have now a structure, leader and set of policies that they overwhelmingly support and those policies and leadership will be put to the electorate in any forthcoming election for acceptance or rejection.

It is y view that should the present leadership and policies be rejected by the electorate, even then little or nothing will change. Those grassroots party activists and affiliate activists will not once again be totally ignored while they fund the Parliamentary Party as has been the case in the past. The Labour Party/Movement are where they are and will remain in that stance whether the electorate accepts that or not into the future, with polls meaning little or nothing.

"The Labour Party/Movement are where they are and will remain in that stance whether the electorate accepts that or not into the future"

As far as I'm concerned, that just about sums up Labour's attitude, as I see it, and is why you won't be getting my vote. As it happens, my vote doesn't matter because I live in a constituency with a massive Conservative majority. However, there are many other people like me, left of centre and wanting a fairer society, who won't vote Labour while you carry on being so intransigient. It's absolutely tragic because we have a diabolical government, who will carry on by default because Labour won't shift. There are real people who will suffer.

growstuff
"The Labour Party/Movement are where they are and will remain in that stance whether the electorate accepts that or not into the future"

This is a good thing Labour are a people's movement for the people, making a difference.

'Those grassroots party activists and affiliate activists will not once again be totally ignored while they fund the Parliamentary Party as has been the case in the past'.

So it's up to the electorate to make their decision who they will vote for based on the polices of each party. Making a fairer society for the many not the few. I know who I will be voting for. Grass roots Socialist Labour back to its roots.