UK MP Jo Cox dies after reports of shooting and stabbing in West Yorkshire
253 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537914]Anti government... Marxists...
What? you mean Socialists? or anarcho communists? Marxists are pretty heavy on government, even if its a commune government.[/QUOTE]
Marx believed the state would at some point become unnecessary.
Lenin and the bolsheviks believed this would happen through violence and force. Other (european) communists/marxists believed this would happen naturally over time through democracy.
[QUOTE=X-JIDE;50537943]Yeah I was angry, and I rushed into that I already regret what i said. Can you blame me, I just want to know what justification he had in killing her.[/QUOTE]
He was mentally unstable and radicalised, that can do a lot to a person
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50537841]She was outspoken about supporting refugees and as pro remain.
She was assassinated by a white nationalist (police search of flat came up with links to american neo nazis along with race war literature)[DEL] who shouted "britain first" while doing it.[/DEL] [DEL]Britain First is a nationalist/far right/race war advocating group in the UK who are opposed to refugees but also happen to be very much pro brexit.[/DEL]
The leave camp are obviously nothing to do with this; but he shared views with [DEL]and associated himself with Britain First who are pro leave[/DEL].
He might have attacked her for either reason [DEL]but its likely he attacked for both reasons.[/DEL] Just a sick lonely radical loser, [DEL]tbh tho I think Britain First should be considered terrorists already,[/DEL] [DEL]using violence and fear to push their agenda and spreading a hateful ideaology that has lead to people being murdered.[/DEL][/QUOTE]
Yes, but how does that change anything for the EU leave or stay camp?
also redacted the stuff in your post that is either unrelated, unsubstantiated, drawing conclusions from hearsay or has been proven to either be inserted due to bad reporting or political absorbsionism.
Also note how you think the brittain first camp draws responsibility to the point of calling them terrorists... [U]are you insane?[/U]
Again... if i would go out now and kill a poltician and yell out 'remember the 50 gays', and police would find out im a gay person... would that mean being gay is a terrorist act or organization????????? fuck no it wont.
Britain first is a political party that have played the game they play completely political... they have no ties to terrorist or white nationalist organizations... Im not even British nor do i hold any sympathy for those parties and i know this.
Rethink your political views... they are dogmatic and do not run parallel with reality.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50537945]Marx believed the state would at some point become unnecessary.
Lenin and the bolsheviks believed this would happen through violence and force. Other (european) communists/marxists believed this would happen naturally over time through democracy.[/QUOTE]
Yes, he said that, but in his book the communist manifesto that he co-wrote with English the need for an organic commune state that overlooks EVERYTHING is made quite clear... When he said 'the state' he meant the current forms of government in charge... not the concept of 'a government that rules'.
did you even read the book? Did your parents? I dont want to be hostile here, but its bad enough when people in the US think McCarthyism is reality... Attacking democratic socialism and anything even remotely related to it for the reason of 'defending meh freedoms', we dont need self exclaimed Marxists sprouting misinformation.
edit:sorry i thought you were that other guy, but you were just a random putting in his opinion.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537949]Yes, but how does that change anything for the EU leave or stay camp?
also redacted the stuff in your post that is either unrelated, unsubstantiated, drawing conclusions from hearsay or has been proven to either be inserted due to bad reporting or political absorbsionism.
Also note how you think the brittain first camp draws responsibility to the point of calling them terrorists... [U]are you insane?[/U]
Again... if i would go out now and kill a poltician and yell out 'remember the 50 gays', and police would find out im a gay person... would that mean being gay is a terrorist act or organization????????? fuck no it wont.
Britain first is a political party that have played the game they play completely political... they have no ties to terrorist or white nationalist organizations... Im not even British nor do i hold any sympathy for those parties and i know this.
Rethink your political views... they are dogmatic and do not run parallel with reality.[/QUOTE]
i think you need to read up on britain first some more if you don't think they have ties to white nationalist organisations considering that britain first is a white nationalist organisation
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50537964]i think you need to read up on britain first some more if you don't think they have ties to white nationalist organisations considering that britain first is a white nationalist organisation[/QUOTE]
Its a British nationalist organization, there is no race or colour of skin in any of their political talking points... Their objections are on a cultural basis... not a race basis.
people like you are just injecting a false narrative to their political message. I dont agree with their political message, but that does not mean you or i should buy what is clearly just false information.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537949]
Yes, he said that, but in his book the communist manifesto that he co-wrote with English the need for an organic commune state that overlooks EVERYTHING is made quite clear... When he said 'the state' he meant the current forms of government in charge... not the concept of 'a government that rules'.
did you even read the book? Did your parents? I dont want to be hostile here, but its bad enough when people in the US think McCarthyism is reality... Attacking democratic socialism and anything even remotely related to it for the reason of 'defending meh freedoms', we dont need self exclaimed Marxists sprouting misinformation.
edit:sorry i thought you were that other guy, but you were just a random putting in his opinion.[/QUOTE]
Just want to point out, I never 'self exclaimed' to be a Marxist
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537973]Its a British nationalist organization, there is no race or colour of skin in any of their political talking points... Their objections are on a cultural basis... not a race basis.
people like you are just injecting a false narrative to their political message. I dont agree with their political message, but that does not mean you or i should buy what is clearly just false information.[/QUOTE]
paul golding was a member of the national front for fucks sake
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50537974]Just want to point out, I never 'self exclaimed' to be a Marxist[/QUOTE]
I was talking about your parents, also i meant 'self proclaimed'... spell-check ugh
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Cloak Raider;50537981]paul golding was a member of the national front for fucks sake[/QUOTE]
And cameron fucked a dead pig once, doesn't make the CUP a pro zoophilia or pro necrophilia party either...
Parties stand for what the party stands for... members and even leading members set aside their personal political views so they can together fight for something they all jointly agree on, even if for different base reasons.
It makes sense a nationalist party would attract some moderate white nationalists, just as some socialist party might attract some communists or even anarcho communists (or someones parents...)
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537982]
Parties stand for what the party stands for... members and even leading members set aside their personal political views so they can together fight for something they all jointly agree on, even if for different base reasons.
It makes sense a nationalist party would attract some moderate white nationalists, just as some socialist party might attract some communists or even anarcho communists (or someones parents...)[/QUOTE]
They encourage wearing paramilitary uniforms, and Jim Dowson - who has ties to Ulster Loyalists in Northern Island - has said '"One thing I agree with Mr Choudry on, there is such a concept as a just war, a holy war. He calls it Jihad. We call it a crusade,"
Also I don't understand why you're being shitty about my parents, that just seems like a really snide thing to do that takes away from the point of the argument
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537949]Yes, but how does that change anything for the EU leave or stay camp?
also redacted the stuff in your post that is either unrelated, unsubstantiated, drawing conclusions from hearsay or has been proven to either be inserted due to bad reporting or political absorbsionism.
Also note how you think the brittain first camp draws responsibility to the point of calling them terrorists... [U]are you insane?[/U]
Again... if i would go out now and kill a poltician and yell out 'remember the 50 gays', and police would find out im a gay person... would that mean being gay is a terrorist act or organization????????? fuck no it wont.
Britain first is a political party that have played the game they play completely political... they have no ties to terrorist or white nationalist organizations... Im not even British nor do i hold any sympathy for those parties and i know this.
Rethink your political views... they are dogmatic and do not run parallel with reality.[/QUOTE]
Britain first are a group who preach hatred.
This guy shared many of the same views and allegedly (I believe he did till the bbc or a reputable news source can confirm otherwise, most evidence looks like he did) associated himself with them.
He might have been a messed up guy but imo an ideology acts as the catalyst to make a messed up guy turn into a messed up murderer.
Britain first go round london in an armoured car intimidating locals. Their leader got banned from london for a while for violence and hatred. They have "training trips" to the national parks. They aren't fully political, they might be trying to legitimise but the core of their ideology and the thing which appeals most to their followers is hatred and xenophobia. They are political in the way that freikorps were. Britain First in the inheritor of the people from EDL and BNP who in turn inherited the people from Combat18 and National Front - not all of them are racists but many are and the fact they associate with racists happily is worrying and makes me question their ethics.
Not sure it will change anything for remain or leave. Logically it shouldn't but perhaps it might. Maybe people will realise the groups/ideology linked to the fringes of the leave campaign - maybe people will feel pity or disgust and vote in protest against that.
I'll ignore your 50 gays comment, I don't fully understand your point but I'm not sure its worth discussing.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537982]I was talking about your parents, also i meant 'self proclaimed'... spell-check ugh
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
And cameron fucked a dead pig once, doesn't make the CUP a pro zoophilia or pro necrophilia party either...
Parties stand for what the party stands for... members and even leading members set aside their personal political views so they can together fight for something they all jointly agree on, even if for different base reasons.
It makes sense a nationalist party would attract some moderate white nationalists, just as some socialist party might attract some communists or even anarcho communists (or someones parents...)[/QUOTE]
cool, now imagine if cameron was previously a member of a pig-fuckers only group, which espoused the benefits of pig-fucking, before going off and forming a party that holds a lot of the same views as the pigfuckers, while having a strange absence of pigs among them, while somehow obtaining a large member-base of pigfuckers
would i be right in saying that it was a pigfuckers only party? no
would it be reasonable to think that the group that is led by a pigfucker, who shares a whole lot of views with the previous pigfucker group, which happens to attract a whole lot of pigfuckers as their member-base might, functionally, be a group of pigfuckers? yes
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50538006]They encourage wearing paramilitary uniforms, and Jim Dowson - who has ties to Ulster Loyalists in Northern Island - has said '"One thing I agree with Mr Choudry on, there is such a concept as a just war, a holy war. He calls it Jihad. We call it a crusade,"[/QUOTE]
This exactly.
Britain first wants a religious war. Jihadists want a religious war. Nazis want a race war.
They're all violent extremists who don't belong in civilised society.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50537982]
It makes sense a nationalist party would attract some moderate white nationalists, just as some socialist party might attract some communists or even anarcho communists (or someones parents...)[/QUOTE]
A far extreme socialist party might attract those extreme socialists. Just like a far extreme nationalist party does attract the most extreme nationalists.
I guess they have to be represented somewhere but they use violence, fear and misinformation to spread their message. People are free to hold nutty and violent opinion providing they never act on them and don't use misinformation to spread them(that bit is imo) britain first both acts on it, spreads it and encourages others to act on it. all this said how are they not terrorists?
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538016]This exactly.
Britain first wants a religious war. Jihadists want a religious war. Nazis want a race war.
They're all violent extremists who don't belong in civilised society.[/QUOTE]
Possibly... yes, but thats not the same as what you said before... that they are white nationalists and racists.
You do know there are white muslims, arabian christians, and all sorts of people... right? You are saying 'look at this Christian oriented nationalist party condoning Christian nationalist things, they are racist'
I mean, what...
To me its starting to look like you are just projecting your own biases and racism on others, as in you feel Christianity or Islam is a race. I could be wrong, and am open to your defense.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538016]
A far extreme socialist party might attract those extreme socialists. Just like a far extreme nationalist party does attract the most extreme nationalists.[/QUOTE]
If socialism does not have the politcal support for a decent platform (like in the 90s with the USA) then you can pretty much expect extreme socialists to put aside their differences and join up the moderate socialists in their party, hoping that once the moderate socialist party points are reached, they will have more leeway and political support to create a platform for their more extreme beliefs.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538016]
I guess they have to be represented somewhere but they use violence, fear and misinformation to spread their message.[/QUOTE]
It is to me clear so does their opposition, since you are basically touting point after point about how racist they are while not providing any substance on their racism... only their nationalism
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538016]
People are free to hold nutty and violent opinion providing they never act on them and don't use misinformation to spread them(that bit is imo) britain first both acts on it, spreads it and encourages others to act on it. all this said how are they not terrorists?[/QUOTE]
could you give me some facts on this? you haven't as as of yet.
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50538006]They encourage wearing paramilitary uniforms, and Jim Dowson - who has ties to Ulster Loyalists in Northern Island - has said '"One thing I agree with Mr Choudry on, there is such a concept as a just war, a holy war. He calls it Jihad. We call it a crusade,"[/QUOTE]
Thats still not a racist comment, the crusades were wars to repel a religious and cultural invasion... Who harboured the crusaders in the middle east? Christians and jews... white Christians and jews? no, Arabic Christians and jews...
Its an incredibly dumb statement to make, since there is a lot of negative stuff tied to the crusades, especially the later ones. and the Jihad as called out by isis and all quaida IS a direct mirror to the crusades, but only the military side of it...
But again... its not racist. they oppose a culture, not a race or ethnicity.
[QUOTE=strayebyrd;50538006]
Also I don't understand why you're being shitty about my parents, that just seems like a really snide thing to do that takes away from the point of the argument[/QUOTE]
I guess you have a point, my apologies. Im going to cool down a bit now, i get really riled up from this blatant antipropaganda that people sprout and that personal attack was completely unwarranted.
[QUOTE=Blizzerd;50538089]Possibly... yes, but thats not the same as what you said before... that they are white nationalists and racists.
You do know there are white muslims, arabian christians, and all sorts of people... right? You are saying 'look at this Christian oriented nationalist party condoning Christian nationalist things, they are racist'
I mean, what...
To me its starting to look like you are just projecting your own biases and racism on others, as in you feel Christianity or Islam is a race. I could be wrong, and am open to your defense.
[/quote]
I admit you're right their core message isn't officially racism. Sorry for that I was wrong.
Many of their supporters are racist though, the groups views attract racists and white nationalists. Their members go round harassing ethnic minorities in london, they have targetting Sikhs and hindus with violence and harassment, they might care about religion but its more a thinly veiled excuse to beat on others. Their founder was banned from london for a while for partaking in that harassment.
As for you calling me racist projecting his views. Lol.
Islam isn't a race but since the majority of its followers are of an ethnic minority in britain attacks on minorities are often covered up with "Im not racist i just dont like their religion". See Sikh thing above (same thing happened in america where racists targetted them with the excuse of disliking muslims)
Britain First uses rhetoric like "they're out breeding us" or express concern about multi racial couples. That's their official message. How is a group so concerned with genetics not racist?
[quote]
If socialism does not have the politcal support for a decent platform (like in the 90s with the USA) then you can pretty much expect extreme socialists to put aside their differences and join up the moderate socialists in their party, hoping that once the moderate socialist party points are reached, they will have more leeway and political support to create a platform for their more extreme beliefs.
[/quote]
You're right here. When the entire system moves in 1 direction previously moderate groups are sidelined and marginalised into groups with the extremists. Britain First aren't moderate and never were though, they might have some moderate members, my uncle is sympathetic to their cause but their core was inherited from BNP and EDL who in turn inherited from C18 and National front. They're further right than has been considered moderate for a long time, their ideology (targetting a religion/ethnic minorities) hasn't been accepted by the mainstream since Oswald Mosley's BUF.
[quote]
It is to me clear so does their opposition, since you are basically touting point after point about how racist they are while not providing any substance on their racism... only their nationalism
[/quote]
See above.
[quote]
could you give me some facts on this? you haven't as as of yet.
[/quote]
They use fake announcements on facebook to play to peoples fears.
[url]http://metro.co.uk/2016/03/29/britain-first-just-fell-for-a-blatantly-false-news-article-about-easter-towns-5781498/[/url]
Also that poster about a little blonde girl attacked my muslims. The story wasn't true and the girl's family didn't even know the photo was being used by britain first.
They lie and mislead people.
Their message is xenophobia. (hate muslims/EU) (and unofficially ethnic minorities)
their method is violence and intimidation (look what they do in london)
This is awful, her poor husband and children must be in so much pain.
Has any more info come up about Tommy Mair? Facts, not theories.
[QUOTE=Vasili;50538408]Has any more info come up about Tommy Mair? Facts, not theories.[/QUOTE]
[url]https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/06/16/alleged-killer-british-mp-was-longtime-supporter-neo-nazi-national-alliance[/url]
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[url]http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2016/06/an-mp-murdered-shocking-yes-but-not-at-all-surprising-the-portents-were-there-this-was-coming.html[/url]
[QUOTE]Most of those who abuse MPs on Twitter, or dash off aggressive e-mails to their parliamentary addresses, or shout at them in their surgeries are not mentally ill. Anger with Parliamentarians is sometimes justified, as during the expenses scandal. In very many respects, our political system itself is unwell. But there is something distorted about much of the rage expended on our MPs, just as there is something disproportionate about some of the problems now dumped on their doorsteps: planning disputes, rows with neighbours, family fallings-out – matters that lie either within the province of local councillors or not within that of politicians at all.
All this is part of another wider story – of a society in which families are more fractured, technology more pressing, media more frantic, neighbours less familiar, and values more diverse. Globalisation may make the world around us seem bigger, but our own private worlds are sometimes smaller. Senses of proportion shrink too. More people live in a bubble. The world of those old Times guides was left behind long ago. Wartime commonality, economic structures, class identity – all are either gone utterly or changed irrevocably. For MPs, constituency work fills the gap that the seepage of power from Westminster has left. They are morphing into social workers.
Here lies the paradox. No generation of Parliamentarians has ever worked harder in their seats than this one. But none has grappled with higher expectations. Amidst a culture with attention deficit disorder, life has become more dangerous for MPs and their staff. Andrew Pennington, an aide to a former Liberal Democrat MP, was killed in 2000. Fifty-two MPs have reportedly “had their property interfered with or damaged, including the slashing of car tyres, paint stripper poured over their vehicles and bricks thrown through their windows”. Some are stalked. Alarm systems are being installed; hotlines to the police put in.
This is the background noise of our politics, the ambient sound, which the Mairs’s of our age are tuned into. The terrible murder of Jo Cox may thus be shocking – and it is: deeply – but it is not at all surprising. The portents have long been there. This has been coming. The same report that contained those statistics of abuse was horribly prescient: “it is fixated loners rather than terrorists who pose the greatest risk to MPs”. Now one is dead – murdered outside her surgery, itself a symbol of her commitment to her constituents. This site honours the memory of an MP whose politics was different from ours, and who was clearly one of the very best of them.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE]Cox’s murder comes at a tense time. The EU referendum takes place in less than a week. Some Remainers are already seeking, in the wake of her death, to delegitimise objections to uncontrolled immigration. A few Leavers are taking refuge in that well-worn shelter in times of stress: conspiracy theory. Meanwhile, MPs will try to get the public to take a second look at what they do – have a second think. Cox’s husband, speaking in the wake of his loss, said that “we must unite against the hatred that killed her”. Yes, where hate is, murder may out. But mental illness seems in this case to have opened the door for it.
Today, we should ask some big questions about the way in which we treat MPs. Where does the balance lie between criticising and abusing them – thus deterring good people from politics? We have gated communties. Will we end up with gated politicians, insulated from constituents for their own protection? “The loveless men and homeless boys are out there and angry,” writes Carol Ann Duffy. “Nightly people end their lives in the shortcut./ Walk in the light, steadily hurry towards me./ Safely, safely, safe home. (Who loves you?)/ Safely, safely, safe home.” Jo Cox is not coming home. Her murder is a bleak moment for Britain. And there are many more loveless men out there.[/QUOTE]
Conservatives, Lib Dems and Ukip have all announced they will not contest the by-election to replace her, allowing Labour to keep the seat
[QUOTE=smurfy;50538723]Conservatives, Lib Dems and Ukip have all announced they will not contest the by-election to replace her, allowing Labour to keep the seat[/QUOTE]
so what's going to happen? Will labour nominate an MP to fill the spot and there won't be any election or will an independent/Greens candidate try to contest
[QUOTE=fruxodaily;50538773]so what's going to happen? Will labour nominate an MP to fill the spot and there won't be any election or will an independent/Greens candidate try to contest[/QUOTE]
there will be a symbolicelection presumably but almost no candidates standing other than the new Labour MP
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50538820]there will be a symbolicelection presumably but almost no candidates standing other than the new Labour MP[/QUOTE]
Contesting such a by-election is pretty much PR suicide, no one is going to do it.
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50538820]there will be a symbolicelection presumably but almost no candidates standing other than the new Labour MP[/QUOTE]
I wonder who they'll put forward to it.
Typically parties put forward otherwise unelectable MPs to safe seats when they really want that person in government (Gove for example, at the time unknown, unqualified, controversial, uncharismatic)
even though this guy didn't shout "Britan First" this will affect the vote.
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538860]I wonder who they'll put forward to it.
Typically parties put forward otherwise unelectable MPs to safe seats when they really want that person in government (Gove for example, at the time unknown, unqualified, controversial, uncharismatic)[/QUOTE]
I think that is a bit of a strange pick for an unelectable MP...
Gove was more well known than most MPs when he was elected, having been a fairly high-profile journalist at The Times with close links to many in high positions. All though he was hardly well known by the public, most MPs (with very few exceptions) aren't at the time of their election.
In terms of being unqualified, the only position which can really 'qualify' you to be a politician is being a councilor, which in my view comes with its own problems (my friend criticises our local MP, a former councilor, for not being interested enough in national rather than constituency politics).
In terms of uncharismatic, that depends on who you talk to. If you ignore the problems caused by his demonisation by teachers during his time as education secretary, almost everyone who has spoken to him has commented on him being interesting to speak to (perhaps dangerously so for a politican), charming and polite.
There are much better examples of terrible MPs. Gove is clearly (to me) very intelligent, even if you disagree with his politics. Many have spoken positively of him personally, which shows he has a degree of charisma, and he is still a better speaker than most MPs, because Gove is an acceptable public speaker whilst many MPs are absolutely dire (if you listen to a debate, it is shocking how bad many MPs are at public speaking).
[QUOTE=FlashMarsh;50538922]I think that is a bit of a strange pick for an unelectable MP...
Gove was more well known than most MPs when he was elected, having been a fairly high-profile journalist at The Times with close links to many in high positions. All though he was hardly well known by the public, most MPs (with very few exceptions) aren't at the time of their election.
In terms of being unqualified, the only position which can really 'qualify' you to be a politician is being a councilor, which in my view comes with its own problems (my friend criticises our local MP, a former councilor, for not being interested enough in national rather than constituency politics).
In terms of uncharismatic, that depends on who you talk to. If you ignore the problems caused by his demonisation by teachers during his time as education secretary, almost everyone who has spoken to him has commented on him being interesting to speak to (perhaps dangerously so for a politican), charming and polite.
There are much better examples of terrible MPs. Gove is clearly (to me) very intelligent, even if you disagree with his politics. Many have spoken positively of him personally, which shows he has a degree of charisma, and he is still a better speaker than most MPs, because Gove is an acceptable public speaker whilst many MPs are absolutely dire (if you listen to a debate, it is shocking how bad many MPs are at public speaking).[/QUOTE]
Yeah I definitely have bias about this and it shows.
Just he was put into a tory constituency where people vote tory regardless of the person, policy or belief; nowhere near where he had ever lived. The tory party obviously wanted him in and didn't want to risk him being contested. He would be interesting to speak to and I understand he is an idealist but I fear none of his ideas will end well, no teachers approve of the changes he made and the push for academies and his advocacy of private prisons scares me to no end. Also the whole death penalty thing, it sorta concerns me but he'll never how the power to change it. Also the coauthoring of "direct democracy" implies he has some agenda to change the NHS which I think is unnecessary - its been rated among the best in the world and its biggest issue is lack of funding because the budget has been effectively frozen despite increases in population - seeing his other intentions regarding privatisation to education and prisons, I fear he would want to privatise the NHS.
[QUOTE=Headhumpy;50538830]Contesting such a by-election is pretty much PR suicide, no one is going to do it.[/QUOTE]
there'll be some nutter who will consider it, but in all honesty and if legal to do so, the election should be declared a labour win if no one steps forward other than labour (which is the 99% outcome)
Somebody is going to have big shoes to fill in that election.
Imagine if Britain First contests the election
This thread is a prime example of how little empathy this forum has sometimes.
Still better than Facebook I guess.
[QUOTE=Shadow801;50540508]This thread is a prime example of how little empathy this forum has sometimes.
Still better than Facebook I guess.[/QUOTE]
What are you even talking about
[editline]17th June 2016[/editline]
[QUOTE=mdeceiver79;50538982]Just he was put into a tory constituency where people vote tory regardless of the person, policy or belief; nowhere near where he had ever lived. The tory party obviously wanted him in and didn't want to risk him being contested.[/QUOTE]
There are huge problems with the idea of people only sitting in constituencies where they live though (or even only constituencies near where they live). Gove was originally from Aberdeen, presumably strongly Labour originally, then lived in (I presume) London, which is also dominantly Labour. Any of these constituencies would have given him almost no chance of being elected. The same would apply to myself if I wanted to run as an MP - I may be perfectly qualified and a good potential MP, but as a Conservative I am not going to get myself elected in Dulwich and West Norwood, my current constituency, because there is a Labour majority of nearly 20,000 and has never been held since its creation by a non-Labour MP. As such it makes a lot of sense why an MP which a party wants to have elected because they think they would be a good MP should be allowed to be elected in a place where they actually stand a chance instead of in effect rejecting large numbers of potentially great MPs due to an accident of birth.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.