Robert Jenrick has been sacked

Jenrick is the MP of one of my sons and DS has nothing good to say about him. As for saying that his defection has nothing to do with personal ambition .....! BTW I refuse to speak Farage's name in any other way than rhyming with 'Garidge'.

Not one of our Cabinet or Shadow Cabinet have any moral backbone. Meanwhile Reform use the same tactics used in 1930s Germany.
Read Sally Carson the Crooked Cross. Written in the 1930s.
Broad left coalition is the only thing that will stop all this scapegoating and toadying to Trump.
And then there’s Mogg asking for proof of treachery! Sickening.

eazybee would you suggest that the UK PM should not be present at these meetings? Like it or lump it, he is the PM, and is doing what is expected of the PM in attending and representing the UK. What you think of him (or indeed the Labour Party) is in that respect, immaterial.

So he was part of a failed government but only admitted it was 'failed' after he left it? He is just another self serving lump who will trample on everybody and anybody to get power for his own ends. Like Farage, Jenrick has been caught with his hands dipping into public money he's not entitled to. Jenrick is joining the party that has become the last resting place of duplicitous rogues, friends of Russia and wealthy ex Tories who want to hang onto their money at all costs. They are as far removed from 'serving the public' as it's possible to get.

Starmer achieves little at these meetings except a collection of photographs shaking important people's hand.
There must be someone in the labour Party with a talent for world affairs, and understanding of the underlying politics, and the ability to work with others rather than simply toadying up to them.
I cannot think of anyone but then I have little knowledge of the Labour party apart from the doleful front bench, but I suspect Starmer does not encourage brains about him; they would show him up.

As if Reform wasn’t bad enough already with convicted felon MPs, Nigel Farage, and his band of hideous minions?

sundowngirl

"He is not the best but he has hit the ground running and working hard!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Starmer is never here - 37 international trips. He would rather try to play the big statesman on the world stage than be concerned about what is happening in his own country.

Criticise Starmer for those things he has done wrong. Criticising him for representing the UK on the world stage in such volatile times is frankly silly. Any UK PM would be doing the same thing, and we would all be criticising them for dereliction of duty if they didn’t.

nanna8
Starmer was very left-wing in his youth, and edited a Trotskyist magazine, allegedly.
Many people are more radical in their youth. Most become less radical, more realistic as they get older, but not all.

However, he seems to have moved more to the centre now.
In fact, sometimes he seems to be unsure what ideology he represents.

Sundown girl I have seen him at almost every PMQT so he is in the country for Wednesday !!!
Plus a world leader has to represent their country surely for specific events? I mean he didn’t go to FIFA for a peace prize did he ??
Doesn’t a PM delegate work to his cabinet ministers as do most heads of organisations delegate to heads of departments ! Just an observation

sundowngirl

"He is not the best but he has hit the ground running and working hard!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Starmer is never here - 37 international trips. He would rather try to play the big statesman on the world stage than be concerned about what is happening in his own country.

I’m pretty sure that Starmer would wish world affairs to be less volatile so he could spend more time in this country. He works very hard at improving this countries relationships with other countries, some of which were damaged by the previous government eg Truss’s remark about France.

"He is not the best but he has hit the ground running and working hard!" 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Starmer is never here - 37 international trips. He would rather try to play the big statesman on the world stage than be concerned about what is happening in his own country.

No idea where IP came from! up

4allweknow

It's a job and like many other folk a politician is entitled to change employment. Moving to another party does make a mockery of the election system in that Jenrick's constituents are now Reform supporters !

No, this does not make Jenrick's constituents Reform supporters and yes, it does make a mockery out of the system that this can happen.

A politician is allowed to change jobs, yes, by resigning as an MP and taking IP a different career eg as a journalist, TV star on reality shows like Strictly, "Peace Envoy", pothole filler in chief.
We do need more pothole fillers.

Starmer is no more a Marxist than me!! He is not the best but he has hit the ground running and working hard!
Nanna8 perhaps you didn’t know what we had to endure in the years leading up to Starmer becoming PM ? I would suggest that Truss, Cameron, Johnson, May have much more to answer for !
As for Jenrick, what a two faced, self centred , lying toad he is ! He is totally untrustworthy ! I feel for any constituency where their elected MP changes sides! They should be made to stand as independents or a by election should be held !

How many more Conservatives will desert to Reform this year I wonder?🤔

It's a job and like many other folk a politician is entitled to change employment. Moving to another party does make a mockery of the election system in that Jenrick's constituents are now Reform supporters !

I'm late to the table on this but defecting politicians of any political party should have the courage of their convictions and face the electorate again. I would feel very let down if I voted for Conservative and then found I had a member of the Tory Party. Similarly if I voted Labour and they went over to the Green Party. The only place I might have some respect for them is if they were Independent but even then, I think you should have a voice about their new political persuasions. Let's face it, most people are voting for the party rather than the person.

Tories have always been ‘back stabbers’!
They all have such big egos, self centred & full of self importance!
None of them care about the British people for whom they are paid to serve
I’m fed up with them all -

MaizieD

Petition calling for an automatic by-election when MPs cross the floor

petition.parliament.uk/petitions/737660

Thank you Maizie. I wonder why Labour wouldn't agree to this being introduced now?

I agree with your statement - what weasels the Tory party are / as for Farage he’s a despicable character . Him & his henchmen Tice , sniggering behind the MP putting the case forward to ban Groke - what sort of people think social media should have child abuse & misogyny integral of use ?

Hopefully Boris and Liz will soon defect to Reform too and then we can start building up a new Conservative Party where hopefully they work for the country rather than their own personal ambitions.
I certainly won’t be voting reform when it is full of people that put their own careers first.

Bloody hell. They make me sick.

No Graphite that part was requesting discussion. Discussion seems to be what many/some would prefer. None of this is a criticism of you; just an attempt to unravel what makes thing uncomfortable for some. I'm hope you don't mind me using this as an example. I'm trying to work my own way through the discussion/debate thing myself. I think one of the problems is that British English relies on body language and nuance that cannot be replicated online.

The issue is that the paragraph about Labour’s attitude to PR is written as a statement of fact rather than as a viewpoint or question. In this case it’s also factually incorrect. When something is presented that way, it pushes the conversation into debate mode, because people feel they need to challenge or defend the claim. That’s different from inviting discussion, which would frame it as an open question or acknowledge uncertainty. As written, it’s not asking for input, it’s asserting a belief and looking for support for it.

I asked AI if it could reframe your original paragraph for discussion and this is what it suggested. I'm learning too so dont please think I'm intending to offend.

There are different interpretations of Labour’s current stance on PR compared with its 2022 Conference position, and it isn’t clear that everyone agrees on what has changed or why. Rather than treating this as a settled fact, it might be more useful to explore how people see Labour’s position, what they think motivates it, and how PR (or the lack of it) could affect representation and future elections. I’m interested in hearing different perspectives rather than arguing a fixed conclusion.

My point about the by-election argument made on the basis that voters are no longer getting what they voted for is that FPTP never represents voters fairly anyway. Maybe equally is a better word. The person sent to Westminster is rarely anyone who polls above 50% or even close. The majority of voters’ wishes are not represented.

I’ve lived for over 40 years in a constituency which had returned a Tory every election since 1950. In 2024, it finally swung. The Tories don't represent me at national level. Where was my representation for 40 years?

If Kruger and Jenrick each submit to a by-election they will either win or lose. And what would that achieve? If they won they would have a mandate for their extremist views … but it’s very unlikely to be from the majority of their constituents.

If they lose, four other parties will have one or two new MPs. This will make next to no difference to how Parliament functions for the next three and a half years because of the massive majority that Reform voters handed to Labour in 2024.

Reform has no power in Parliament. Meantime, I’d rather see Kruger and Jenrick sweat for the next three years, having to kowtow to Farage, not knowing if and when he will turn on them or if they will be out on their backsides come 2029 if not sooner if they fall foul of his dictatorship.

I do see the point about having a by-election if it were to make a material difference to how Parliament works, but under what circumstancess could it be with the current composition of the HoC? Unless hundreds of Labour MPs are about to cross the floor, Kruger's and Jenrick's defections make not a jot of difference. The entire Tory benches could join Reform and Labour would still have a huge majority.

DAR - when I ask people to explain, I am not trying to stifle debate as you seem to be suggesting. I would genuinely like to know what practical difference two by-elections would make.

There will be records showing to what extent Reform MPs do or don't support the Tories (or any other party) in debate and divisions. On most non-controversial issues, MPs have a free vote. Is there any evidence that Kruger's voting preferences have changed since he defected or that his defection has made any material difference to how Parliament works?

Institute of Government on defections:

www.instituteforgovernment.org.uk/explainer/mps-who-change-party-allegiance

You can see there that here have been earlier Private Members Bills on this issue that went nowhere. Few in Parliament have an appetite probably because it happens so infrequently that it make little material difference. Another GE will come along where the public can have its say again.

Petition signed. Numbers ticking along nicely.