Margaret Ferrier: Covid train trip MP loses appeal over Commons ban

[Nearly Sane]

Our posts crossed, but just to clarify: Ferrier is suspended from parliament. She is also suspended from the SNP. It was the former suspension to which I refer.

Completely agree with your 'walk back'.

[ProfessorDavey]

If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.

Who said they were, certainly not Starmer except as part of your misrepresentation of what he actually said which was that that had no effective representation. That seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate opinion - Jeremy P has suggested an alternative opinion.

For the record I do think there are a number of reasons why an MP in Ferrier's position will really struggle to be able to represent her constituents effectively. And that her ability to do this as an independent MP may be markedly more difficult than other independent MPs of the current and the past - e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart or those with a long-standing support network both within and outside of parliament, such as Corbyn and Clarke.

And as much as we might wish it to be otherwise our current parliamentary system is based on MPs being members of political parties and if they aren't their ability to represent becomes much harder due to inability to access resources for research, briefings etc (through easy access to government for those in the party in power and Short monies for those from other parties), positions of influences (e.g. select committee membership) which typically are appointed through party lines.

Perhaps most significantly to be able to represent your consistuents effectively you need to have access through informal routes to ministers etc to be able to make points raised by constituents and gain insight. Given the circumstances I doubt Ferrier's parliamentary colleagues would be willing to give her the time of day!

[Nearly Sane]

Who said they were, certainly not Starmer except as part of your misrepresentation of what he actually said which was that that had no effective representation. That seems to me to be a perfectly legitimate opinion - Jeremy P has suggested an alternative opinion.

For the record I do think there are a number of reasons why an MP in Ferrier's position will really struggle to be able to represent her constituents effectively. And that her ability to do this as an independent MP may be markedly more difficult than other independent MPs of the current and the past - e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart or those with a long-standing support network both within and outside of parliament, such as Corbyn and Clarke.

And as much as we might wish it to be otherwise our current parliamentary system is based on MPs being members of political parties and if they aren't their ability to represent becomes much harder due to inability to access resources for research, briefings etc (through easy access to government for those in the party in power and Short monies for those from other parties), positions of influences (e.g. select committee membership) which typically are appointed through party lines.

Perhaps most significantly to be able to represent your consistuents effectively you need to have access through informal routes to ministers etc to be able to make points raised by constituents and gain insight. Given the circumstances I doubt Ferrier's parliamentary colleagues would be willing to give her the time of day!

So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'. And your defence of it is the Old Boy's Network? Thank you for showing your misogyny.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'.

No it isn't - it completely changes the meaning.

If I said Britain has had no effectively government for the last few years, that is an opinion that you, I and Jeremy P might all share. That is entirely different from saying that Britain has had no government for the last few years. One asks whether something exists, the other whether something that exists works or is effective.

And your defence of it is the Old Boy's Network? Thank you for showing your misogyny.

Not at all - the reason why Ferrier's situation is different from Corbyn, Clarke, Stewart (and let's throw in Soubrey, Allen and Wollaston) and Bell, Taylor is that these MPs were either elected as independents or left/were expelled from their traditional parties because of misdemeanors against their party, rather than misdemeanours against parliament. In the former case those MPs may still retain significant parliamentary support, perhaps from other parties. That isn't the case if your misdemeanours is against parliament itself.

And while you might not like it being able to work effectively with your colleagues is key to all workplaces and doesn't necessarily represent an old boys network - I struggle to see how Ferrier is able to do that.

[ProfessorDavey]

So the use of 'effective' there is a tautology 'effectively'.

And do you accept that you misquoted and misrepresented Starmer's words by removing the key word effective.

[Nearly Sane]

No it isn't - it completely changes the meaning.

If I said Britain has had no effectively government for the last few years, that is an opinion that you, I and Jeremy P might all share. That is entirely different from saying that Britain has had no government for the last few years.
Not at all - the reason why Ferrier's situation is different from Corbyn, Clarke, Stewart (and let's throw in Soubrey, Allen and Wollaston) and Bell, Taylor is that these MPs were either elected as independents or left/were expelled from their traditional parties because of misdemeanors against their party, rather than misdemeanours against parliament. In the former case those MPs may still retain significant parliamentary support, perhaps from other parties. That isn't the case if your misdemeanours is against parliament itself.

And while you might not like it being able to work effectively with your colleagues is key to all workplaces and doesn't necessarily represent an old boys network - I struggle to see how Ferrier is able to do that.

Oh look, you only mentioned women after I had pointed out your misogyny. And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.

[Nearly Sane]

And do you accept that you misquoted and misrepresented Starmer's words by removing the key word effective.

No.

[ProfessorDavey]

No.

Crikey you really are operating in your own reality.

I think we can all see that Starmer (in your own link) says they have had no effective representation, yet you misquote and misrepresented this as Starmer saying that they were unrepresented. He never said that and the two things (what he actually said and your misrepresentation of what he said) are different things.

[Nearly Sane]

Crikey you really are operating in your own reality.

I think we can all see that Starmer (in your own link) says they have had no effective representation, yet you misquote and misrepresented this as Starmer saying that they were unrepresented. He never said that and the two things (what he actually said and your misrepresentation of what he said) are different things.

So the 'effective' only applies beyond tautology ad already pointed out because you are racist and sexist.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.

Really - can you provide a link please to a parliamentary process involving accusations of racism by Rory Stewart. Or a police and judicial process based on accusation s of racism against Rory Stewart.

Stewart ended up as an independent as he was kicked out of the tory party for rebelling against the government whip in a vote - that is clearly a misdemeanour against the party not against parliament.

[Nearly Sane]

Really - can you provide a link please to a parliamentary process involving accusations of racism by Rory Stewart. Or a police and judicial process based on accusation s of racism against Rory Stewart.

Stewart ended up as an independent as he was kicked out of the tory party for rebelling against the government whip in a vote - that is clearly a misdemeanour against the party not against parliament.

Sorry, I was on Bob Stewart. Too many suspended Tories.

[ProfessorDavey]

Sorry, I was on Bob Stewart. Too many suspended Tories.

As far as I'm aware Bob Stewart hasn't been suspended by the Tories. Is this something else you've got wrong - really stacking them up over the past 24 hours.

[Nearly Sane]

As far as I'm Bob Stewart hasn't been suspended by the Tories. Is this something else you've got wrong - really stacking them up over the past 24 hours.

I know that 'as I am Bob Stewart' is just missing 'aware' but did make me laugh. You are right, it appears the Tories haven't suspended him. Given the charges, I sort of presumed they would but Tories...

[ProfessorDavey]

I know that 'as I am Bob Stewart' is just missing 'aware' but did make me laugh. You are right, it appears the Tories haven't suspended him. Given the charges, I sort of presumed they would but Tories...

I am definitely not Bob Stewart!!

Corrected now.

[ProfessorDavey]

Oh look, you only mentioned women after I had pointed out your misogyny.

There is no misogyny as the issue has absolutely zero to do with the sex of the individuals involved. If Ferrier had been a man exactly the same points would be relevant.

So that's yet another thing you've got wrong - add it to the growing list.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I see you think Stewart being charged for racism is just a 'misdemenour against his party'. So racist as well.

Oh dear, oh dear.

Completely ill founded accusation of racism - based on your inability to read my post properly before making accusations and misrepresentation.

I think you will find that in reply 26 it was clear I was talking about Rory Stewart:

'...  e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart ...'

Yet another thing you've got wrong - are you on a sponsored-get-stuff-wrong session Chip.

[Nearly Sane]

Oh dear, oh dear.

Completely ill founded accusation of racism - based on your inability to read my post properly before making accusations and misrepresentation.

I think you will find that in reply 26 it was clear I was talking about Rory Stewart:

'...  e.g. those elected as an independent, such as Martin Bell, those kicked out of their party for policy reasons, such as Ken Clarke or Rory Stewart ...'

Yet another thing you've got wrong - are you on a sponsored-get-stuff-wrong session Chip.

so my apology for getting the Tory Stewart wrong meant nothing to you.

[Nearly Sane]

I am definitely not Bob Stewart!!

Corrected now.

Mistakes happen. But you don't think that.

[ProfessorDavey]

No, they are represented by the MP. They elect an MP not a party. If an MP changes party the electorate are not unrepresented.

I don't think that's correct in any meaningful practical sense rather than in a purely procedural manner.

The ballot paper lists both the name of the candidate and the party they are representing. While it is true that a person is elected we cannot know for certain whether individual voters are making their decision primarily (or exclusively) on the basis of the person, primarily (or exclusively) on the basis of the party that they are standing for or a mixture of both.

That said the lack of success of independent candidates, including those that may state no party affiliation on the ballot paper strongly suggests that the party, and not the person, is the primary motivator.

Think of it this way - do you think Ferrier would have been elected in 2019 if under her name on the ballot paper it didn't say 'The Scottish National Party candidate' (or similar wording)? I think we know the answer to that.

So there is a completely legitimate argument that when a person is elected that do so on the basis and understanding that they represent a particular party. So although constitutionally they cannot be kicked out of the commons if they are expelled from the party they were elected for, or cross the floor, there is a reasonable argument that their 'contract' with the voters no longer has legitimacy as one part of the reason they were elected (the party they stood for) is no longer valid. And the ability of an MP to represent their constituents is surely based on the legitimacy of their representation, both as an individual and on the basis of the party they stood on behalf of, both of which were on the ballot paper.

And I think the electors also recognise that the legitimacy is gone - on the basis that it is hard to think of an MP, elected as the candidate for one party subsequently standing with the same constituents (i.e. in the same constituency) being elected for another party (having crossed the floor) or as an independent. Perhaps there are examples, but I can't think of any recently.

If the electorate put great store on the person rather than the party then surely those individuals would romp home in the same constituency at the next election standing either for another party or as an independent.

[ProfessorDavey]

so my apology for getting the Tory Stewart wrong meant nothing to you.

You have't apologised for calling me racist though, have you.

Over to you Chip.

[ProfessorDavey]

Mistakes happen. But you don't think that.

So it was purely a 'mistake' when you failed to include the word 'effective' when talking about Starmer. So perhaps, like me, you'd like to correct your mistake which would of course that your accusation that he was lying no longer has validity as it was based on your misquoting/misrepresentation of what he actually said.

So it was purely a mistake when you accused me of racism on the basis of thinking I was talking about some completely different MP (despite the fact that my post clearly said Rory). In which case your accusation is completely unfounded and you'll want to apologise to me no doubt.

[ProfessorDavey]

And I think the electors also recognise that the legitimacy is gone - on the basis that it is hard to think of an MP, elected as the candidate for one party subsequently standing with the same constituents (i.e. in the same constituency) being elected for another party (having crossed the floor) or as an independent. Perhaps there are examples, but I can't think of any recently.

Actually trawling through the lists there are two - both Conservative to UKIP defections - Carswell and Reckless - interestingly both recognised they had no electoral legitimacy as UKIP MPs having been elected as Conservatives, so both triggered by elections, which they won. Carswell won again at the next general election as UKIP but Reckless was booted out a few months later when the electorate in Rochester appeared to consider the party affiliation to be rather more important than the candidate name.

[Nearly Sane]

You have't apologised for calling me racist though, have you.

Over to you Chip.

Yep, I did and you are still a misogynist

[ProfessorDavey]

Yep, I did

No you didn't - all you did was recognise that you mistook Bob and Rory - you made no mention of your accusation of racism and certainly didn't apologise. But you can make up for that right now.

and you are still a misogynist

No I'm not as the sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing.

[Nearly Sane]

No you didn't - all you did was recognise that you mistook Bob and Rory - you made no mention of your accusation of racism and certainly didn't apologise. But you can make up for that right now.
No I'm not as the sex of the individuals is completely irrelevant to the issues we are discussing.

Except for your blatant sexism