NationStates

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Corbyn is respecting his fellow Labour party members by not resigning. His fellow MPs are disrespecting those Labour members.

So then why shouldn't Labour MPs respect the vote of the Labour party? Why are you do adamant that not only the government but private individuals and businesses respect the Brexit referendum vote, but also adamant that Jeremy Corbyn disregard the Labour leadership election?

So if he faces a leadership challenge as he probably will he should refuse to respect the result?

If he faces a leadership challenge, it will be the same procedure as when he was elected in the first place. It will be put to the Labour party members who will vote for their candidate. I suspect that no-one has any doubts that Jeremy will win a second election. If not a first-round wipeout like in September, he'll probably win in the second or third round, because he's not as popular as he originally was, and no denying that.

Of course, he might lose. In which case - as his argument has always been, "the majority of Labour members voted for me", he will step down. Because he will clearly no longer have the mandate he claims to.

The only way in which he is likely to lose is being left off the ballot.
And I would argue he has every right to claim that being maliciously removed from the ballot (for it would be malicious) would render the result illegitimate.

And as I said earlier, I do hope that if he is removed from the ballot, Labour burns.
It'll deserve it.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Yeah who cares about how the people voted! Lets cut jobs and wipe out wealth and move our corporate hq because we don't like the result. Thats not how adults act that's how a child throwing a tantrum acts.

Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

No its not. When you are a party leader you have to have the confidence of your fellow MP's if you don't you face a vote of no confidence. So if a party leader is unpopular with the caucus they should just suck it up and work with someone whose plans and ideas they don't like?

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

No its not. When you are a party leader you have to have the confidence of your fellow MP's if you don't you face a vote of no confidence. So if a party leader is unpopular with the caucus they should just suck it up and work with someone whose plans and ideas they don't like?

Because that's their job.

Why should my family members have continued to suck it up and work in DWP when Ian Duncan Smith was shitting down on them from on high with plans and ideas they didn't like, or my friends in teaching when Gove and now Morgan do so, and no-one else did?
Oh yeah, because it was their fucking job.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

No its not. When you are a party leader you have to have the confidence of your fellow MP's if you don't you face a vote of no confidence. So if a party leader is unpopular with the caucus they should just suck it up and work with someone whose plans and ideas they don't like?

yes

the conservatives just fucking tanked the goddamn country and "opposition having stupid spat fight" is in the headlines

Imperializt Russia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
So if he faces a leadership challenge as he probably will he should refuse to respect the result?

If he faces a leadership challenge, it will be the same procedure as when he was elected in the first place. It will be put to the Labour party members who will vote for their candidate. I suspect that no-one has any doubts that Jeremy will win a second election. If not a first-round wipeout like in September, he'll probably win in the second or third round, because he's not as popular as he originally was, and no denying that.

Of course, he might lose. In which case - as his argument has always been, "the majority of Labour members voted for me", he will step down. Because he will clearly no longer have the mandate he claims to.

The only way in which he is likely to lose is being left on the ballot.
And I would argue he has every right to claim that being maliciously removed from the ballot (for it would be malicious) would render the result illegitimate.

And as I said earlier, I do hope that if he is removed from the ballot, Labour burns.
It'll deserve it.

If I was party leader and lost a no confidence vote I would resign and If the people vote him in again they deserve to lose the election.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

No its not. When you are a party leader you have to have the confidence of your fellow MP's if you don't you face a vote of no confidence. So if a party leader is unpopular with the caucus they should just suck it up and work with someone whose plans and ideas they don't like?

And compromise with them. No two people will agree 100% politically, everyone has to compromise. This isn't hard.

San Lumen wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:If he faces a leadership challenge, it will be the same procedure as when he was elected in the first place. It will be put to the Labour party members who will vote for their candidate. I suspect that no-one has any doubts that Jeremy will win a second election. If not a first-round wipeout like in September, he'll probably win in the second or third round, because he's not as popular as he originally was, and no denying that.

Of course, he might lose. In which case - as his argument has always been, "the majority of Labour members voted for me", he will step down. Because he will clearly no longer have the mandate he claims to.

The only way in which he is likely to lose is being left on the ballot.
And I would argue he has every right to claim that being maliciously removed from the ballot (for it would be malicious) would render the result illegitimate.

And as I said earlier, I do hope that if he is removed from the ballot, Labour burns.
It'll deserve it.

If I was party leader and lost a no confidence vote I would resign and If the people vote him in again they deserve to lose the election.

Yes, but you'd also intentionally break the markets and lose millions of not billions of other people's money if you were a financier or a stockbroker, so why does your opinion matter?

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Corbyn is respecting his fellow Labour party members by not resigning. His fellow MPs are disrespecting those Labour members.

So then why shouldn't Labour MPs respect the vote of the Labour party? Why are you do adamant that not only the government but private individuals and businesses respect the Brexit referendum vote, but also adamant that Jeremy Corbyn disregard the Labour leadership election?

So if he faces a leadership challenge as he probably will he should refuse to respect the result?

He shouldn't face a leadership challenge because his fellow MPs should respect the result of the election that made him leader. You can't just ignore the results of a vote because you don't like them. You can't hold a second vote because you didn't win.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:
So if he faces a leadership challenge as he probably will he should refuse to respect the result?

He shouldn't face a leadership challenge because his fellow MPs should respect the result of the election that made him leader. You can't just ignore the results of a vote because you don't like them. You can't hold a second vote because you didn't win.

So if your fellow MP's don't have confidence in you who cares? a no confidence vote and a referendum are not the same thing.

You know if Trump, coupled with Brexit, wins people everywhere may suddenly think that Democracy isn't such a good idea since democracy led to those decisions and start making Fascist or at the least non-elective regimes ....
Wait...
I, A MONARCHIST, MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE AGAIN IF THAT HAPPENS!

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He shouldn't face a leadership challenge because his fellow MPs should respect the result of the election that made him leader. You can't just ignore the results of a vote because you don't like them. You can't hold a second vote because you didn't win.

So if your fellow MP's don't have confidence in you who cares? a no confidence vote and a referendum are not the same thing.

They're both non-binding policy-suggestion tools that have no direct consequences.

Great Feng wrote:You know if Trump, coupled with Brexit, wins people everywhere may suddenly think that Democracy isn't such a good idea since democracy led to those decisions and start making Fascist or at the least non-elective regimes ....
Wait...
I, A MONARCHIST, MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE AGAIN IF THAT HAPPENS!

Constitutions are supposed to limit what the people can vote on. Besides, if Trump wins it doesn't mean you're totally powerless. That's why we have separation of powers after all.

Imperializt Russia wrote:

San Lumen wrote:So if your fellow MP's don't have confidence in you who cares? a no confidence vote and a referendum are not the same thing.

They're both non-binding policy-suggestion tools that have no direct consequences.

Well they both should both are votes. one is a vote of the people the other is a vote of MP's. One shouldnt matter more than the other.

Norstal wrote:

Great Feng wrote:You know if Trump, coupled with Brexit, wins people everywhere may suddenly think that Democracy isn't such a good idea since democracy led to those decisions and start making Fascist or at the least non-elective regimes ....
Wait...
I, A MONARCHIST, MIGHT HAVE A CHANCE AGAIN IF THAT HAPPENS!

Constitutions are supposed to limit what the people can vote on. Besides, if Trump wins it doesn't mean you're totally powerless. That's why we have separation of powers after all.

Well if someone removes Trump non-democratically the Trumpies would get angry and maybe rebel, so we'd have a civil war, and they would claim that he won democratically, which would be technically true, so thus, we'd have a crisis concerning Democracy in the USA and a potential civil war.
That's what I think may lead many people to abandon the concept of democracy, because they don't want another Trump in power or they may admit that sometimes the majority is wrong, whether that is true or not, and then democracy won't seem like a feasible form of government anymore.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

No its not. When you are a party leader you have to have the confidence of your fellow MP's if you don't you face a vote of no confidence.

When you're running a business you have to act in the best interests of that business, not in the interests of the British economy, not according to the results of a British referendum. If you don't you get fired or the whole business goes under.

So if a party leader is unpopular with the caucus they should just suck it up and work with someone whose plans and ideas they don't like?

So if a business would lose money by staying in Britain or by keeping its sterling, they should just suck it up and lose money?

---

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:He shouldn't face a leadership challenge because his fellow MPs should respect the result of the election that made him leader. You can't just ignore the results of a vote because you don't like them. You can't hold a second vote because you didn't win.

So if your fellow MP's don't have confidence in you who cares?

Yes. They should work with their leader because he is the leader the members chose.

a no confidence vote and a referendum are not the same thing.

There shouldn't be a no confidence vote, because Labour MPs should respect the leadership election. You can't have a second election if you don't like the winner just like you can't have a second referendum if you don't like the result. That's not how democracy works. You've said so yourself.

San Lumen wrote:

Imperializt Russia wrote:They're both non-binding policy-suggestion tools that have no direct consequences.

Well they both should both are votes. one is a vote of the people the other is a vote of MP's. One shouldnt matter more than the other.

Oh, but a vote of the Labour party members, that doesn't mean anything, eh? That election wasn't binding, hmm?

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Yeah who cares about how the people voted! Lets cut jobs and wipe out wealth and move our corporate hq because we don't like the result. Thats not how adults act that's how a child throwing a tantrum acts.

Who cares about how the members of the Labour party votes? Let's oust Corbyn and have literally anyone else as leader because we don't like the result.

That's not how adults act. That's how children throwing tantrums act.

That's politics. They don't believe that Corbyn represents their views and wanted Corbyn to be more enthusiastic for remaining in the EU.

Ifreann wrote:

San Lumen wrote:Well they both should both are votes. one is a vote of the people the other is a vote of MP's. One shouldnt matter more than the other.

Oh, but a vote of the Labour party members, that doesn't mean anything, eh? That election wasn't binding, hmm?

That doesn't prevent future leadership elections, which can be held with the support of enough MP's.

Geilinor wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Oh, but a vote of the Labour party members, that doesn't mean anything, eh? That election wasn't binding, hmm?

That doesn't prevent future leadership elections, which can be held with the support of enough MP's.

Same as this referendum result doesn't prevent future referenda, and certainly doesn't prevent businesses from acting to remain profitable. Despite San Lumen's insistence that this referendum be final and binding not only on the British government but on the entire global economy. Almost as though I'm deliberately making the comparison to highlight their quite different feelings about democracy when the results are not to their liking.

Ifreann wrote:

Geilinor wrote:That doesn't prevent future leadership elections, which can be held with the support of enough MP's.

Same as this referendum result doesn't prevent future referenda, and certainly doesn't prevent businesses from acting to remain profitable. Despite San Lumen's insistence that this referendum be final and binding not only on the British government but on the entire global economy. Almost as though I'm deliberately making the comparison to highlight their quite different feelings about democracy when the results are not to their liking.

You don't get do overs if you don't the outcome of referendums and elections. That's not the same as a leadership election for a party leader. They have to maintain the confidence of their rank and file members.

And bankers and wealthy executives and investors should respect the results of a referendum and not wipe out wealth or cut jobs or threaten to move their HQ's bequest they are displeased with the outcome. I never said results should be different when I don't like the outcome. I was in favor of leave but if the people had voted remain I would have disappointed but respectful of democracy. Apparently many in the business world are unable to do that.

San Lumen wrote:

Ifreann wrote:Same as this referendum result doesn't prevent future referenda, and certainly doesn't prevent businesses from acting to remain profitable. Despite San Lumen's insistence that this referendum be final and binding not only on the British government but on the entire global economy. Almost as though I'm deliberately making the comparison to highlight their quite different feelings about democracy when the results are not to their liking.

You don't get do overs if you don't the outcome of referendums and elections. That's not the same as a leadership election for a party leader. They have to maintain the confidence of their rank and file members.

And bankers and wealthy executives and investors should respect the results of a referendum and not wipe out wealth or cut jobs or threaten to move their HQ's bequest they are displeased with the outcome. I never said results should be different when I don't like the outcome. I was in favor of leave but if the people had voted remain I would have disappointed but respectful of democracy. Apparently many in the business world are unable to do that.

There won't be a do-over. This is, barring any unforeseen future perfidy, final. May says so, Juncker/Hollande/Merkel etc. say so. People are being very salty about this.

That's not how that works. In general, markets have no votes, and no need to respect them. Nowadays, with globalization, markets don't even have nationalities or loyalties, and will do as they please wherever they please.

Olerand wrote:

San Lumen wrote:You don't get do overs if you don't the outcome of referendums and elections. That's not the same as a leadership election for a party leader. They have to maintain the confidence of their rank and file members.

And bankers and wealthy executives and investors should respect the results of a referendum and not wipe out wealth or cut jobs or threaten to move their HQ's bequest they are displeased with the outcome. I never said results should be different when I don't like the outcome. I was in favor of leave but if the people had voted remain I would have disappointed but respectful of democracy. Apparently many in the business world are unable to do that.

There won't be a do-over. This is, barring any unforeseen future perfidy, final. May says so, Juncker/Hollande/Merkel etc. say so. People are being very salty about this.

That's not how that works. In general, markets have no votes, and no need to respect them. Nowadays, with globalization, markets don't even have nationalities or loyalties, and will do as they please wherever they please.

I;m glad there won't be a do over as it would be an affront to democracy to have another referendum.

On your second point perhaps they shouldn't be able to do whatever they please whenever they please.

San Lumen wrote:

Olerand wrote:There won't be a do-over. This is, barring any unforeseen future perfidy, final. May says so, Juncker/Hollande/Merkel etc. say so. People are being very salty about this.

That's not how that works. In general, markets have no votes, and no need to respect them. Nowadays, with globalization, markets don't even have nationalities or loyalties, and will do as they please wherever they please.

I;m glad there won't be a do over as it would be an affront to democracy to have another referendum.

On your second point perhaps they shouldn't be able to do whatever they please whenever they please.

Well, you start that global revolution and we will follow. Meanwhile, in the present time, they do.

Olerand wrote:

San Lumen wrote:I;m glad there won't be a do over as it would be an affront to democracy to have another referendum.

On your second point perhaps they shouldn't be able to do whatever they please whenever they please.

Well, you start that global revolution and we will follow. Meanwhile, in the present time, they do.

Debt default would be a way to start it but no one has the guts to do it. However that's outside the realm of this discussion and i don't want to thread jack.

Good Day To All Governmental Chief Executives(President) I've Been Busy Traveling And Just Red This Post Its Very Interesting But I Think The U.S. Has A Role In This Somewhere ?