It is wrong, twice. Plenty voted to leave without fully understanding the issues or were taken astray by populist rhetoric. People just didnt know. You cant blame them for that.
Leaving was always going to be damaging. The only question was how much. Putting Johnson in charge made sure we were in proper trouble
So is it not somewhat strange that Alan Johnson, who was in charge of the Labour Remain campaign, afterwards stated;
Everyone else needs to make their own assessment as to whether more could have been done to prevent this disastrous result. I will certainly do this, as I hope will the Leaderās Office. At times it felt as if they were working against the rest of the Party and had conflicting objectives.
I was proud to work with some great people who tried their very best to get the result we all wanted. Nobody in the Leadership had the right to undermine their efforts.
I wouldnāt put too much stock in what was said in frustration in the immediate aftermath of the result. When I say Corbyn was active, thatās just factually true. There was a comparison done at the time, and Corbyn did more public campaigning appearances than any other figure in the remain camp by some margin.
I think the issue is the tactics and the message. Corbyn went straight into his comfort zone - rallies to people who already supported him. And he took a more nuanced tone of acknowledging the problems in the EU and the need to reform, which was certainly more realistic that the main campaignās fingers in ears cheerleading, but didnāt cut through.
The UK (along with most of the west) has signed a UN statement calling for an immediate ceasefire on the Israel Lebanon border.
Thatās really welcome, but it is noticeable how quick off the mark everyone has been compared the Gaza.
Pointless. Israel definitely wonāt listen, and Hezbollah probably wonāt either.
Not about being quick of the mark, they have refused to call for a ceasefire at all in Gaza.
They did in the end. Took them a while though.
Is the country ready for a debate on political funding though? I wouldnāt say I fully agree with her words either, any more than Iād agree with Streeting. I think the truth lies somewhere in between, and also depends on your definition of buying a politician. If itās to get them to do your bidding on an issue that financially benefits you personally, then Iād say that loads of people donate for causes they genuinely believe in, even if I disagree with them. Just look at the anti-abortion causes in the US as an example.
Whether we should, as a society, permit people with more money to have louder voices is a completely different issue.
Individual, or corporation make a financial or material donation to a politician or political party.
That donation influences a decision the politition or political party makes, which directly benefits the person or organisation making the donation.
The decision made is not necessarily to the benefit of the people they have been elected to represent the best interests of.
It happens, across ALL parties and a huge number of MPās.
Its fucking wrong.
In the base case, it happens because as far as Iām aware, thereās no public funding for political parties? They have to raise money somehow.
Secondly, Iām not sure weāre agreeing on what kind of donations. Donations in kind, like clothes or match tickets and the like Iām more wary of. If itās financial contributions to the party then I think itās a greyer area than you suggest.
I wonder if there a radicalisation process for MPs (or wanna be MPs) who are weaned onto/are addicted onto a path that is Ā« mutually Ā» beneficial? Is the path different between parties?
I wonder too. Iām sure @Mascot has alluded to it being cultural, but I guess thereās also a point where if you start off in the party, you have to get used to fundraising, and from there the lines become blurrier? I think anything where the individual benefits rather than a party is ethically wrong though.
My perspective would be that there is not anything wrong with lobbying. In a way it is a way to allow the making of an informed decision. Ultimately we need a way to make it more transparent and accountable.
The words transparent or transparency being used regularly lately like theyāre some kind of get out of jail free card.
Not to mention some of the fucking lamest explanations imaginable.
What the Tories got away with was gross, some of the stuff currently being highlighted by the media is OTT nitpicking, but some is downright wrong.
But, whether I steal a fiver or a grand from you, Iām still a fucking lowlife thieving cunt.
Maybe lack of transparency should be a get into jail card?
I discovered one interesting factlet today. Apparently, many of the events that Labour politicians declared as they were work related but paid for by a third party were also attended by Conservative ministers. However, there is a clause that ministers donāt have to declare these.
I vaguely recall this being a big issue around the time that Johnson had the flat redecoration scandal? There being separate rules for ministers and MPs.
When? I must have missed that. Weāre still arming the genocide ffs.
Just last week the UK gov abstained on a UN motion re the West Bank occupation that was in accordance with all international agreements
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1838952547039519231?s=46&t=Tk6buFVfyHeITdfFRWCVMg
https://x.com/zarahsultana/status/1838974704754844008?s=46&t=Tk6buFVfyHeITdfFRWCVMg
Honestly it feels like this is the only Labour MP left with any courage and integrity