|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2021 12:05:20 GMT
This murder has been most distressing but I do not feel that not too much should be read into it as a political or possible terrorist act. The MP was not high profile nor had he been a spokesman for any attitudes or policies marking him out for retaliation as an icon of some sort of political stance.
This is not a very violent nation and most violence is domestic, sexual or criminal community related. The few offences against politicians must be viewed as one-off attacks by people with very disturbed minds, in other words the mentally ill, for purposes internal to their confused, damaged or sick minds.
I doubt that the underlying reasons are ever more than just illness, because such actions are virtually always quite irrational and pointless. They may be made to appear to be caused by the background of political division and dissent, or extremism of left or right, or Brexit, or Anti-Semitism, or Islamic fundamentalism or incipient terrorism and allied 'racism'? But I think the simple answer is that the perpetrator was seriosly ill. That illness attaches to some cause inside the head of the perpetrator or the crass end (now the majority) of the media and even the authorities.
I know that many here see this as trying to hide from unpalatable facts, the rise of this or that, nasty trends, ill-speaking by other politicians, and so much else! For me it is far simpler. We have a population full of damaged people with bad experiences that have rendered them problematic to say the least of it. It is not the dawn of a dark age, but merely the wages of a modern society with fewer controls and restraints and more exposure to bad behaviour and degraded lifestyle. It is in a manner inevitable that damaged people will cause random damage. We shall easily survive this and deal with it up to a point.
|
|
|
|
Post by John Chanin on Oct 19, 2021 12:06:06 GMT
Although again, if you put Maldon in with Chelmsford, Tiptree then sits awkwardly. You can't find a set of boundaries that doesn't place a small town or large village in an awkward situation. Unless of course you redraw boundaries from scratch, which is never going to happen. Edit: Tiptree is of course in Colchester District, so this is not an issue. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,763
|
Post by right on Oct 19, 2021 12:18:12 GMT
This murder has been most distressing but I do not feel that not too much should be read into it as a political or possible terrorist act. The MP was not high profile nor had he been a spokesman for any attitudes or policies marking him out for retaliation as an icon of some sort of political stance. This is not a very violent nation and most violence is domestic, sexual or criminal community related. The few offences against politicians must be viewed as one-off attacks by people with very disturbed minds, in other words the mentally ill, for purposes internal to their confused, damaged or sick minds. I doubt that the underlying reasons are ever more than just illness, because such actions are virtually always quite irrational and pointless. They may be made to appear to be caused by the background of political division and dissent, or extremism of left or right, or Brexit, or Anti-Semitism, or Islamic fundamentalism or incipient terrorism and allied 'racism'? But I think the simple answer is that the perpetrator was seriosly ill. That illness attaches to some cause inside the head of the perpetrator or the crass end (now the majority) of the media and even the authorities. I know that many here see this as trying to hide from unpalatable facts, the rise of this or that, nasty trends, ill-speaking by other politicians, and so much else! For me it is far simpler. We have a population full of damaged people with bad experiences that have rendered them problematic to say the least of it. It is not the dawn of a dark age, but merely the wages of a modern society with fewer controls and restraints and more exposure to bad behaviour and degraded lifestyle. It is in a manner inevitable that damaged people will cause random damage. We shall easily survive this and deal with it up to a point. Agree, and self radicalisation - which preys on the mentally ill - was seen as a very likely symptom of the lockdown, with outcomes such as this and probably more deadly attacks later. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2021 12:44:20 GMT
It was before I was born, but wasn't your decision to stand controversial even then? I think it's right it remains uncontested fwiw. We don't want to set the precedent that a way to change the incumbent party in a given seat is to assassinate its sitting member. Our system is adversarial and partisan by its, and human, nature, if a message is sent that, despite those deep and fractious differences, the entire spectrum is united in disgust then I think that's exceptionally powerful. Assassinating the sitting member will only change the incumbent Party if the voters decide to do that (which they could still do in Southend even if all the mainstream Parties stand down). I am OK with matching the actions taken in Batley and Spen in similar circumstances as a message though. I see elections and by-elections to be in the province of the public and not of the political parties at all. It is up to us how they are conducted and who stands and when they stand. I don't think that the parties should have any say at all in the conduct, timing or organization of by-elections, and that there should be a timetable from vacancy being noted to election being held. Those elections are ours and not theirs. Once elected then the MPs form a parliament and they must be the arbitrators of standing orders and control, timing of sttings, punishments and suspensions and expulsions, plus the formation of governments. The Governments must collate around a PM and form ministries and develope policy. That will all be dependent on factions and interests usually but not entirely based in the existence of political parties. Then Parliament examines the proposals and the conduct of Government and holds it to account as far as the numbers permit. But those elections are 'Ours'! So this by-election should be fought at a given interval in time from the date of death of the MP. The cause of that death is entirely irrelevent to the process and the result of that death and the response to that death is in no way within 'The Gift' of the political parties. It is not for them to control the timing nor the reaction, nor to make it a virtual 'Non Contest' however good or sensitive their feelings may be. It is not within their gift, not their business, not their show. They are merely actors. We own and control that stage. They must not be permitted to close down our election by a form of Lockdown. All by-elections should be fought as proper elections because they are OUR choice of OUR MP. It is nothing to do with those parties at all. This is OUR matter relating to our representative and must not be a stitch-up by the smug and sentimental political parties. This by-election should be and must be properly fought with a proper choice for that electorate. Else the incumbent party has an undemocratic free ride to impose any time-serving hack of their choice without hindrence. These matters are about US the electorate and never about THEM the established parties. I opt for a full election with all parties standing as I do in all and every such case. |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Oct 19, 2021 13:15:14 GMT
Assassinating the sitting member will only change the incumbent Party if the voters decide to do that (which they could still do in Southend even if all the mainstream Parties stand down). I am OK with matching the actions taken in Batley and Spen in similar circumstances as a message though. I see elections and by-elections to be in the province of the public and not of the political parties at all. It is up to us how they are conducted and who stands and when they stand. I don't think that the parties should have any say at all in the conduct, timing or organization of by-elections, and that there should be a timetable from vacancy being noted to election being held. Those elections are ours and not theirs. Once elected then the MPs form a parliament and they must be the arbitrators of standing orders and control, timing of sttings, punishments and suspensions and expulsions, plus the formation of governments. The Governments must collate around a PM and form ministries and develope policy. That will all be dependent on factions and interests usually but not entirely based in the existence of political parties. Then Parliament examines the proposals and the conduct of Government and holds it to account as far as the numbers permit. But those elections are 'Ours'! So this by-election should be fought at a given interval in time from the date of death of the MP. The cause of that death is entirely irrelevent to the process and the result of that death and the response to that death is in no way within 'The Gift' of the political parties. It is not for them to control the timing nor the reaction, nor to make it a virtual 'Non Contest' however good or sensitive their feelings may be. It is not within their gift, not their business, not their show. They are merely actors. We own and control that stage. They must not be permitted to close down our election by a form of Lockdown. All by-elections should be fought as proper elections because they are OUR choice of OUR MP. It is nothing to do with those parties at all. This is OUR matter relating to our representative and must not be a stitch-up by the smug and sentimental political parties. This by-election should be and must be properly fought with a proper choice for that electorate. Else the incumbent party has an undemocratic free ride to impose any time-serving hack of their choice without hindrence. These matters are about US the electorate and never about THEM the established parties. I opt for a full election with all parties standing as I do in all and every such case. But in reality we don't choose do we? The Parties select the candidates, in most seats only one of them has a chance and in almost all the rest it is between two choices. The by-election will be held soon enough and all the Parties except the Tories will exercise their right not to put up a candidate. Voters do not have a right to see a candidate from any or all Parties, only to vote. |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 19, 2021 13:17:56 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to |
|
ilerda
Conservative
Posts: 1,096
|
Post by ilerda on Oct 19, 2021 13:25:11 GMT
The only real way to do that would be to move to an American system of parties where there isn't really a central authority and people can just register themselves as a member and/or candidate of whichever party they choose. Then it would be possible for individuals to contest an election with a party label, rather than a party contesting an election by attaching their label to a particular individual.
Even the it wouldn't amount to compulsion, you'd merely be increasing the likelihood of a candidate from a particular party standing at said election.
|
|
|
|
Post by East Anglian Lefty on Oct 19, 2021 13:48:41 GMT
Although again, if you put Maldon in with Chelmsford, Tiptree then sits awkwardly. You can't find a set of boundaries that doesn't place a small town or large village in an awkward situation. Unless of course you redraw boundaries from scratch, which is never going to happen. Edit: Tiptree is of course in Colchester District, so this is not an issue. Yes, but it has strong links to the south towards Maldon. The point is that you will get small settlements near the boundaries of districts, and wherever you draw the line you are going to cut some ties. |
|
neilm
Non-Aligned
Posts: 25,023
|
Post by neilm on Oct 19, 2021 13:50:59 GMT
I don't think Tiptree really sees itself as part of Colchester.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2021 14:31:16 GMT
Good news. Purely because Milton Keynes are also bidding in the Platinum Jubilee City Contest, and until the news this afternoon, I had thought Southend the sure-fire winner..... I felt MK had the better claim. Neither have any claim whatsoever to such status. If the title is to be scattered to anywhere large or anywhere with marginal seats or a loud-mouthed demand, then 'city' will become meaningless piffle, especially after stripping it away from real cities like Rochester. |
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979 
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Oct 19, 2021 15:05:06 GMT
I hope not. I'd like to see them take the opportunity to streamline the UA boundaries in South Essex. Something like: - Abolish Rochford and incorporate all/most of into the new City of Southend Unitary Authority. - Abolish Castle Point, with the Hadleigh wards going into the expanded Southend, and the Canvey bit into an expanded Basildon. I'd be tempted to fit (South) Woodham Ferrers into the new Southend too, as it feels more Southendy than Chelmsfordy.
My own plans for local government reorganisation envisage larger UAs in Essex (and elsewhere) so Southend would be included in a large South Essex along with Rochford, Castle Point, Basildon and Thurrock. West Essex would cover Chelmsford, Brentwood, Epping Forest, Harlow and Uttlesford and East Essex would cover Maldon, Braintree, Colchester and Tendring. Southend would be the administrative centre of South Essex (Chelmsford and Colchester fulfilling that role for the other two authorities). Of course South Woodham Ferrers is situated at the meeting point of all three of these proposed areas and is likely to feel out of place whichever one it is in, but I always feel it important to disrespect existing borough boundaries in these situations and there would be a strong case (if supported locally) to include this in the South Essex UA (possibly along with Rettendon and Runwell as otherwise there would be no direct road links)
The only issue I'd have with that is that we'd have a City within 'South Essex' rather than in its own right, which feels slightly odd.
I guess this is what they have done with 'Cheshire West and Chester', but this is a part of the country I know absolutely fuck all about. Does anybody know how residents of the City of Chester generally felt about being part of something bigger? Was the fact that it wasn't simply 'Cheshire West' a sweetener in some way?
The other way of doing it is Carlisle, which is simply called Carlisle and not 'Cumbria North and Carlisle' but still includes all the rural bits at that end of the county. Then again, rural parts of a city? that doesn't feel right either.
Anyway, I'd rather go back to first principles: Every City *must* have an Anglican Cathedral; and everywhere with an Anglican Cathedral *must* be a City.
|
|
sirbenjamin
IFP
True fame is reading your name written in graffiti, but without the words 'is a wanker' after it.
Posts: 4,979
|
Post by sirbenjamin on Oct 19, 2021 15:10:40 GMT
Unless of course you redraw boundaries from scratch, which is never going to happen. Edit: Tiptree is of course in Colchester District, so this is not an issue. Yes, but it has strong links to the south towards Maldon. The point is that you will get small settlements near the boundaries of districts, and wherever you draw the line you are going to cut some ties.
Indeed, apart from cases where you have obvious natural boundaries, like a wide river with few crossings... except that these seem to be routinely ignored, like North/NW Lincolnshire being lumped into the 'Yorkshire and Humber' region in some post-Humberside monstrosity. Or indeed the 'Lancaster and Fleetwood' seat/Borough of Wyre.
Or M****y B***s.
|
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 19, 2021 15:57:45 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to The political parties are at liberty to adopt any attitude to candidature that they like but should not convey a joint 'corporate' party political view that the election should not happen, should not create an opportunity for change of party and that others should not stand. I think that they are creating a wholly unacceptable precedent of an anti-democratic form of stitch-up, again, in a manner they never used to do. |
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,763
|
Post by right on Oct 20, 2021 13:20:26 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to Not in favour of it, but it could easily I suppose if the party name and emblem are unclaimed by the national party by a certain amount of days before the poll, then the first person to claim them would be able to stand in its name. So (say) -23 days for the first refusal, and then -20 days for someone else to take the ticket. You'd get some proper nutters, but the parties would be guaranteed to be represented. Perhaps this treatment should only be for parties with MPs. It would crimp the ability of parties to stand down in each others favour. |
|
|
|
Post by carlton43 on Oct 20, 2021 14:57:41 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to Not in favour of it, but it could easily I suppose if the party name and emblem are unclaimed by the national party by a certain amount of days before the poll, then the first person to claim them would be able to stand in its name. So (say) -23 days for the first refusal, and then -20 days for someone else to take the ticket. You'd get some proper nutters, but the parties would be guaranteed to be represented. Perhaps this treatment should only be for parties with MPs. It would crimp the ability of parties to stand down in each others favour. I like that suggestion very much indeed. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 20, 2021 17:39:28 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to The political parties are at liberty to adopt any attitude to candidature that they like but should not convey a joint 'corporate' party political view that the election should not happen, should not create an opportunity for change of party and that others should not stand. I think that they are creating a wholly unacceptable precedent of an anti-democratic form of stitch-up, again, in a manner they never used to do. Ever since parties first emerged there have been all manner of stand downs and pacts. It wasn't until the 1980s that the three largest were contesting almost every British seat - and still sometimes didn't stand against the Speaker or in Northern Ireland. Parties have always been free to choose to not stand in a seat if they wish. |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Oct 20, 2021 17:42:32 GMT
Yes I'm intrigued in how carlton43 proposes compelling parties to contest an election when they don't want to Not in favour of it, but it could easily I suppose if the party name and emblem are unclaimed by the national party by a certain amount of days before the poll, then the first person to claim them would be able to stand in its name. So (say) -23 days for the first refusal, and then -20 days for someone else to take the ticket. You'd get some proper nutters, but the parties would be guaranteed to be represented. Perhaps this treatment should only be for parties with MPs. It would crimp the ability of parties to stand down in each others favour. How would you prevent any random nut job getting a nomination for a party they don't even agree with? At the last election your proposal would have protected the Brexit Party but what would have stopped people who wanted to discredit the Greens taking nominations where they otherwise have no candidate (yes I know the antics of certain leading figures mean they don't need it)? Or SNP candidates in England? And so forth... |
|
|
|
Post by greenhert on Oct 20, 2021 17:47:08 GMT
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,763
|
Post by right on Oct 20, 2021 17:55:30 GMT
Not in favour of it, but it could easily I suppose if the party name and emblem are unclaimed by the national party by a certain amount of days before the poll, then the first person to claim them would be able to stand in its name. So (say) -23 days for the first refusal, and then -20 days for someone else to take the ticket. You'd get some proper nutters, but the parties would be guaranteed to be represented. Perhaps this treatment should only be for parties with MPs. It would crimp the ability of parties to stand down in each others favour. How would you prevent any random nut job getting a nomination for a party they don't even agree with? At the last election your proposal would have protected the Brexit Party but what would have stopped people who wanted to discredit the Greens taking nominations where they otherwise have no candidate (yes I know the antics of certain leading figures mean they don't need it)? Or SNP candidates in England? And so forth... I didn't say I was in favour, just that it wasn't impossible |
|
|
|
Post by Pete Whitehead on Oct 20, 2021 18:04:49 GMT
I don't know why you find that 'shocking'? It was entirely expected that this outfit would be among the fringe parties contesting this by-election |
|
