I'm a bit disappointed really - Page 4

Eric · 19-12-2011, 19:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by accyman

i proibably didnt word it too well or as well as you did but i was aiming for what you said.Graham jones denied us our say beacsue apparently he felt we didnt deserve a vote on the E.U despite saying previously on two occasions that he would back our right to have a vote.Iv stated before that regardless of what people think about the E.U wether it be for or against it we deserve our say on the matter regardless and graham jones did his bit in taking that opportunity away from us.

lets face it there was no personal belief that he thought it was best we didnt get a vote the spinless git folded to his party leaders demands that he vote a particular way and in doing so screwed the people of hynburn on a democratic say.

Of course some decisions have to be made by a MP we cant have a vote on every decision but on matters as big a magnitude as the EU we damn well shoudl get a referendum and be allowed to have our say either way

if he had stood up to milliband i would have voted for him as an indipendant or even as a member of another party if push came to shove if milliband had sacked him from labour but theres no way in hell he will get my vote now.

Yup ... I think this whip thing needs some serious re-thinking ...

mobertol · 19-12-2011, 19:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

The main criticism that I would have about an MP who is acting like yours, is that he seems to place his personal beliefs and his political career before his responsibilities as an MP.

As a Labour MP he is also bound by the Rules and Regulations of his party - whose broad outline of policies, beliefs and common aims are determined at an Annual National Conference. I have had a re-read of the Labour Party Constitution and can see why he probably feels he has acted within the premises of his party and can sleep peacefully with his chosen course of action.

See Clause 4, paragraph 2 c and Clause 4 paragraph 3.

Labour Party Rules

This does not mean that i agree with his chosen course of action - it takes a certain kind of courage to be a rebel...

mobertol · 19-12-2011, 20:05

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric

Yup ... I think this whip thing needs some serious re-thinking ...

Sorry but i couldn't resist this Eric- please forgive my frivolousness in the face of such a serious topic

JCB · 19-12-2011, 20:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

This does not mean that i agree with his chosen course of action - it takes a certain kind of courage to be a rebel...

Accrington/Hyndburn has no history of MPs that could be referred to as rebels .

All the MPs of my lifetime Walter Scott-Elliot , Harry Hynd , Arthur Davidson , Ken Hargreaves , Greg Pope , and Graham Jones have , apart from a few minor issues , followed their Party's policy .

accyman · 20-12-2011, 02:37

following party policy sounds about as weak an excuse as i was only following orders.

if he thought as he stated twice to the people of his constituancey that we should be allowed a referendum and his party policy was against us having one then surely he is in the wrong party ?

where is the detailed party policy because i want to see for myself if the words " labour must vote against any posibility of a referendum" are in there.

If it is in there that they dont think we should be allowed a referendum then their MP's or candidates shouldnt be running around saying they will welcome one.Also if it is in there they didnt push it in their manifesto when wanting to win an election because if they had they would have lost the election on a much greater scale and we certainly woudlnt have a lib dem as deputy primeminister

Wynonie Harris · 20-12-2011, 08:21

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

I have had a re-read of the Labour Party Constitution and can see why he probably feels he has acted within the premises of his party and can sleep peacefully with his chosen course of action.

Well, I don't see how he can sleep peacefully with it, as he came on here a couple of weeks before the vote and said he was happy with the idea of a referendum or words to that effect. So why did he vote against it and has he not explained the inconsistency of his actions, despite being asked to on numerous occasions?

If he supports our membership of the UK, that's OK, he's entitled to his opinion, but why does he not want to give us, the voters, a say on the matter?

garinda · 20-12-2011, 08:36

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wynonie Harris

If he supports our membership of the UK, that's OK, he's entitled to his opinion, but why does he not want to give us, the voters, a say on the matter?

Probably because, as he stated, 95% of us 'don't give a toss about Europe'.

Which means he's wrong...once again.

jaysay · 20-12-2011, 09:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

As a Labour MP he is also bound by the Rules and Regulations of his party - whose broad outline of policies, beliefs and common aims are determined at an Annual National Conference. I have had a re-read of the Labour Party Constitution and can see why he probably feels he has acted within the premises of his party and can sleep peacefully with his chosen course of action.

See Clause 4, paragraph 2 c and Clause 4 paragraph 3.

Labour Party Rules

This does not mean that i agree with his chosen course of action - it takes a certain kind of courage to be a rebel...

This is nothing to do with Labour Party Rules, its about representing the people put you in parliament to represent them. I remember back in 1990 during the Community Charge debate, our then MP Ken Hargreaves refused to toe the Party line, because it did untold harm to local people, just a shame Jones didn't have the bottle to do the same, I just hope his 30 pieces of silver are worth it

jaysay · 20-12-2011, 09:14

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Probably because, as he stated, 95% of us 'don't give a toss about Europe'.

Which means he's wrong...once again.

Thats probably why he and his ilk find it hard to come on her and explain their actions, would appear Accyweb has outlived its usefulness

garinda · 20-12-2011, 09:22

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaysay

Thats probably why he and his ilk find it hard to come on her and explain their actions, would appear Accyweb has outlived its usefulness

Shame.

Probably too democratic.

jaysay · 20-12-2011, 09:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Shame.

Probably too democratic.

Well we do give our members a chance to have a say and even give them the opportunity to VOTE in a pole from time to time, something which seems is not on the agenda once they've been elected

mobertol · 20-12-2011, 13:30

Re: I'm a bit disappointed really
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda

Probably because, as he stated, 95% of us 'don't give a toss about Europe'.

Which means he's wrong...once again.

Thats probably why he and his ilk find it hard to come on her and explain their actions, would appear Accyweb has outlived its usefulness

Quote:

Originally Posted by garinda

Shame.

Probably too democratic.

Actually, he was on here yesterday evening between about 10 and 10-30 - I "saw" him reading this thread and the other one "Did G-Jones do the right thing.." he took his time and it must have made pretty uncomfortable reading. Don't think he posted any comments -but he should have got your message by now!

Shame none of you were around to challenge him

Less · 20-12-2011, 13:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

Re: I'm a bit disappointed really
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda

Probably because, as he stated, 95% of us 'don't give a toss about Europe'.

Which means he's wrong...once again.

Thats probably why he and his ilk find it hard to come on her and explain their actions, would appear Accyweb has outlived its usefulness

Actually, he was on here yesterday evening between about 10 and 10-30 - I "saw" him reading this thread and the other one "Did G-Jones do the right thing.." he took his time and it must have made pretty uncomfortable reading. Don't think he posted any comments -but he should have got your message by now!

Shame none of you were around to challenge him

I saw him come on yesterday, how if he doesn't post anything are we supposed to challenge him?
If I had sent him a PM & he took time out & answered it, Members aren't allowed to divulge the contents of a PM.

Just a shame he did spend some time looking through, but couldn't be 95% bothered/was hurt by the reaction/didn't understand the fuss.

cashman · 20-12-2011, 13:46

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

Re: I'm a bit disappointed really
Quote:
Originally Posted by garinda

Probably because, as he stated, 95% of us 'don't give a toss about Europe'.

Which means he's wrong...once again.

Thats probably why he and his ilk find it hard to come on her and explain their actions, would appear Accyweb has outlived its usefulness

Actually, he was on here yesterday evening between about 10 and 10-30 - I "saw" him reading this thread and the other one "Did G-Jones do the right thing.." he took his time and it must have made pretty uncomfortable reading. Don't think he posted any comments -but he should have got your message by now!

Shame none of you were around to challenge him

Ive seen him online a few times lately,once checking out the "Bus Station" thread, so its safe to say,he knows damn well what many ex labour sympathisers on here think, what really dissapoints me,is the fact he aint had the balls to explain his change of mind.

so theres no doubt in my mind he got the message, obviously don't give a toss,cos after all its only 5% of the public in his tiny mind.

Wynonie Harris · 20-12-2011, 13:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by mobertol

Shame none of you were around to challenge him

So, what's the point of challenging people who we "see" reading threads? I've challenged Bernard Dawson more than once when I've seen him reading the Kashmir thread to explain why he and the council voted the way they did. No answer every time.

Afternoon, Bernard.