Labour MP murdered in shooting/stabbing incident

[TheKnightWho]

There weren't 9 far-right candidates at all.

I can both see why she was heckled and the turnout was low- the principle of democracy has been undermined in this vote, with the respectable parties refusing to field candidates.

Are you serious? A by-election where they refused to field candidates against Labour precisely because a murderer tried to subvert our democracy, and you're saying the fact that the parties didn't field candidates is the issue here? I am continually amazed by how warped some people's priorities are.

The fact that you actually support the heckling is downright insulting to the memory of Jo Cox.

 

[Busaholic]

the principle of democracy has been undermined in this vote.

I think you'll find 'the principle of democracy' was rather seriously undermined by the murder of the MP elected only last year.

 

[jon0844]

There weren't 9 far-right candidates at all.

I can both see why she was heckled and the turnout was low- the principle of democracy has been undermined in this vote, with the respectable parties refusing to field candidates.

Wow.

You do realise that when there's the next vote, as would have taken place if there hadn't been a murder part way through, the main parties WILL stand then?

 

[Dent]

I think you'll find 'the principle of democracy' was rather seriously undermined by the murder of the MP elected only last year.

Your point being? Another instance where democracy was also undermined does not in any way change the concern about democracy being undermined in this instance by serious parties failing to field candidates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You do realise that when there's the next vote, as would have taken place if there hadn't been a murder part way through, the main parties WILL stand then?

None of which changed the fact that they failed to stand in this vote, which caused concerns that this vote was not as democratic as it could have been.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Your point being? Another instance where democracy was also undermined does not in any way change the concern about democracy being undermined in this instance by serious parties failing to field candidates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


None of which changed the fact that they failed to stand in this vote, which caused concerns that this vote was not as democratic as it could have been.

Because it wouldn't have existed with a murder. The main parties all agreed to explicitly stand against that anti-democratic act by ensuring it had absolutely no effect on the House of Commons.

 

[tony_mac]

It shouldn't be difficult to work out that it would be a bad thing for society if political advantage could be gained from the murder of one's opponents.

 

[jon0844]

None of which changed the fact that they failed to stand in this vote, which caused concerns that this vote was not as democratic as it could have been.

I would imagine most of the general public were happy with this, so surely that's democracy in action?

I can't believe anyone would have agreed to stand (well, we saw who did but disregard them) as would be their democratic right.

Assuming the other big parties had put up candidates, I wonder if anyone (well, many as there'd be some) would have voted for them. Personally, I'd have voted for the same party as the victim as a mark of respect.

 

[Dent]

Because it wouldn't have existed with a murder.

That does not address any of the points I made.

The main parties all agreed to explicitly stand against that anti-democratic act by ensuring it had absolutely no effect on the House of Commons.

The concept of "standing against" an undemocratic act by conspiring to make this vote into another undemocratic act is rather illogical.

 

[TheKnightWho]

That does not address any of the points I made.



The concept of "standing against" an undemocratic act by conspiring to make this vote into another undemocratic act is rather illogical.

No, your attitude that what you are saying is patently obvious and that objection to it must be absurd because clearly voting and democracy can only ever go together is what is illogical here.

The point is that it cancelled out the effect of the by-election entirely. Normally that would be inappropriate, even where an MP has died, but when that MP died at the hand of someone who anti-democratically opposed her and everything we as a country stand for then it makes a far stronger point to cancel out everything they attempted to do.

 

[jon0844]

Such actions give me faith in democracy, which at the moment seems to be a bit all over the place.

 

[Dent]

I would imagine most of the general public were happy with this, so surely that's democracy in action?

Denying people a meaningful vote just because you would imagine that most of them agree with you is hardly "democracy in action".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, your attitude that what you are saying is patently obvious and that objection to it must be absurd because clearly voting and democracy can only ever go together is what is illogical here.

At no point did I express this "attitude" that you imaging I have.

Voting is the mechanism by which democratic representation is achieved, so it is perfectly logical statement that denying people a fair vote is denying them fair democratic representation.

 

[Busaholic]

Denying people a meaningful vote just because you would imagine that most of them agree with you is hardly "democracy in action".
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


At no point did I express this "attitude" that you imaging I have.

Voting is the mechanism by which democratic representation is achieved, so it is perfectly logical statement that denying people a fair vote is denying them fair democratic representation.

How would you feel about living in the Buckingham constituency then?

 

[Dent]

How would you feel about living in the Buckingham constituency then?

Relevance?

 

[Busaholic]

Relevance?

The main political parties do not stand against the Speaker - when Farage broke the tradition in 2010 he was rewarded with his plane crashing.

 

[Dent]

The main political parties do not stand against the Speaker - when Farage broke the tradition in 2010 he was rewarded with his plane crashing.

That is another example of a lack of democratic representation. What relevance does it have to the lack of democratic representation in the vote being discussed here?

The same issue also existing somewhere else does not make it any less of an issue in any of the places it exists.

 

[47802]

I wasn't overly happy that the other main parties didn't stand and quite a few other people in the area were not either in the end I decided to vote although clearly many didn't.

While I agree there is an argument to say that the person who murdered Joe Cox shouldn't be allowed to change the makeup of parliament, but on the other hand we did have a by-election to choose a new MP and the political landscape has somewhat changed since 2015, from my own viewpoint now that Corbyn is Labour Leader there is no way I could vote Labour.

If there had been a consensus which there should have been, that no one should stand against Labour then that would have been fine in my view, but the fact that some candidates decided to stand then I think the bigger parties should have stood as well.

 

[AlterEgo]

I wasn't overly happy that the other main parties didn't stand and quite a few other people in the area were not either in the end I decided to vote although clearly many didn't.

While I agree there is an argument to say that the person who murdered Joe Cox shouldn't be allowed to change the makeup of parliament, but on the other hand we did have a by-election to choose a new MP and the political landscape has somewhat changed since 2015, from my own viewpoint now that Corbyn is Labour Leader there is no way I could vote Labour.

If there had been a consensus which there should have been, that no one should stand against Labour then that would have been fine in my view, but the fact that some candidates decided to stand then I think the bigger parties should have stood as well.

I don't think that following the unpleasant and opportunistic leads of the National Front, the BNP, some joke candidates and the bizarre English Democrats would have been a good idea for any mainstream party.

 

[Iskra]

Are you serious? A by-election where they refused to field candidates against Labour precisely because a murderer tried to subvert our democracy, and you're saying the fact that the parties didn't field candidates is the issue here? I am continually amazed by how warped some people's priorities are.

The fact that you actually support the heckling is downright insulting to the memory of Jo Cox.

It is an issue, of which there are many. I am not the only person who has expressed their disappointment at the lack of their electoral options in this vote, a number of others have in the local media. Two wrongs don't make a right, murder or no murder.

You're just jumping on the outrage bandwagon with your last comment. I didn't say I support the heckling, I said I can see why she was heckled. Those are two very different comments. I have not insulted the memory of Jo Cox, I've not even mentioned her. I'd also like to ask you to exercise some decorum and keep your faux-outrage to yourself. Jo's murder was a lot closer to home for me than you probably care, but electoral choice is paramount in a democratic society, the reasons for the election, less so.

Your point being? Another instance where democracy was also undermined does not in any way change the concern about democracy being undermined in this instance by serious parties failing to field candidates.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


None of which changed the fact that they failed to stand in this vote, which caused concerns that this vote was not as democratic as it could have been.

Thank you.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is an issue, of which there are many. I am not the only person who has expressed their disappointment at the lack of their electoral options in this vote, a number of others have in the local media. Two wrongs don't make a right, murder or no murder.

You're just jumping on the outrage bandwagon with your last comment. I didn't say I support the heckling, I said I can see why she was heckled. Those are two very different comments. I have not insulted the memory of Jo Cox, I've not even mentioned her. I'd also like to ask you to exercise some decorum and keep your faux-outrage to yourself. Jo's murder was a lot closer to home for me than you probably care, but electoral choice is paramount in a democratic society, the reasons for the election, less so.

Standing in an election which was triggered by the political murder of the incumbent is dreadfully classless.

Your approach mirrors that of the horrendous far right parties which stood, and is directly opposed to more reasonable parties who stayed away. Food for thought.

 

[backontrack]

Funnily enough, I suggested the main parties not standing earlier in the thread and got absolutely slaughtered for it. Does the fact that it's now happened make any of that different, then?

 

[Busaholic]

The last MP to be assassinated in the UK before Jo Cox was Ian Gow, a Conservative MP and Minister of decidedly right wing views, almost thirty years ago. The ensuing by-election was won by the Liberal Democrats, which produced an outcry from some quarters including many Conservatives. The reaction of Ann Widdecombe MP can be found on Wikipedia under their entry on Ian Gow, in the Aftermath section, but the gist of it was that the assassinators, the IRA, had achieved by undemocratic means a change in political representation which should not have been allowed. I rarely shared Widdecombe's concerns and reasoning when she was an MP, but I have to say on this occasion she had a point at the very least.

 

[47802]

The last MP to be assassinated in the UK before Jo Cox was Ian Gow, a Conservative MP and Minister of decidedly right wing views, almost thirty years ago. The ensuing by-election was won by the Liberal Democrats, which produced an outcry from some quarters including many Conservatives. The reaction of Ann Widdecombe MP can be found on Wikipedia under their entry on Ian Gow, in the Aftermath section, but the gist of it was that the assassinators, the IRA, had achieved by undemocratic means a change in political representation which should not have been allowed. I rarely shared Widdecombe's concerns and reasoning when she was an MP, but I have to say on this occasion she had a point at the very least.

Then I think there needs to be either of the following options.

1. Some sort of formal agreement from all parties or maybe even a Law which states in the event of unlawful killing of an MP the replacement MP must be a member of the same political party unless an independent.

2. You have a full election regardless with the knowledge that the winner may not be from the same party.

I would rather have either of those options than the somewhat unsatisfactory situation we ended up with in Batley and Spen.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Then I think there needs to be either of the following options.

1. Some sort of formal agreement from all parties or maybe even a Law which states in the event of unlawful killing of an MP the replacement MP must be a member of the same political party unless an independent.

2. You have a full election regardless with the knowledge that the winner may not be from the same party.

I would rather have either of those options than the somewhat unsatisfactory situation we ended up with in Batley and Spen.

Why? I don't see why it should be that dichotomy.

 

[47802]

Why? I don't see why it should be that dichotomy.

Well perhaps you would like to explain why choosing one of those options is not reasonable and what your solution would be?

My reasoning for the above options is a follows.

If there had been no by election and Labour had chosen another candidate I think most people would have been fine with that.

If however people are being asked to vote then I think they should have a full list of candidates to choose from.

On balance I do favour the latter option on the grounds that while people do largely vote on party lines there is an element of voting for that particular candidate.

 

[TheKnightWho]

Well perhaps you would like to explain why choosing one of those options is not reasonable and what your solution would be?

My reasoning for the above options is a follows.

If there had been no by election and Labour had chosen another candidate I think most people would have been fine with that.

If however people are being asked to vote then I think they should have a full list of candidates to choose from.

On balance I do favour the latter option on the grounds that while people do largely vote on party lines there is an element of voting for that particular candidate.

I already did. A full election is not viable because it would give legitimacy to the killing.

As for making it a law that a same-party MP should replace her, that set a precedent which people would then draw on in other situations ("he died in a tragic accident!") etc. Why not just stick with the informal agreement?

I don't understand this obsession with people having a vote from a full-list of candidates. You can't force parties to stand a candidate in a particular election.

 

[Busaholic]

Anyone with a few hundred spare quid and the ability to get a handful of nominators living in the relevant constituency can stand, and I happen to think that is absolutely right. I can remember about 25 years being asked to sign the nomination papers of someone standing in a council election because he did not want another man standing unopposed. I knew and liked both men, but readily agreed to sign the papers, even though I told the one whose nomination it was that I could not promise to vote for him!

 

[47802]

I already did. A full election is not viable because it would give legitimacy to the killing.

As for making it a law that a same-party MP should replace her, that set a precedent which people would then draw on in other situations ("he died in a tragic accident!") etc. Why not just stick with the informal agreement?

I don't understand this obsession with people having a vote from a full-list of candidates. You can't force parties to stand a candidate in a particular election.

I'm sure you can distinguish between a tragic accident and unlawful killing but I guess from the point view of proof in Law you might have to wait a long time for that so that essentially brings us back to option 2 with a full field of candidates even if it might change the result.

I always believe that if your asking to people to vote even in these tragic circumstances then you should have the full range of candidates available, Many people choose not to vote on Thursday because the candidate of their choice was not available. I voted and ended up voting for one of the fringe candidates 'Corbyn anti', but I clearly wouldn't have done that if the other main parties had stood.

 

[TheKnightWho]

I'm sure you can distinguish between a tragic accident and unlawful killing but I guess from the point view of proof in Law you might have to wait a long time for that so that essentially brings us back to option 2 with a full field of candidates even if it might change the result.

I always believe that if your asking to people to vote even in these tragic circumstances then you should have the full range of candidates available, Many people choose not to vote on Thursday because the candidate of their choice was not available. I voted and ended up voting for one of the fringe candidates 'Corbyn anti', but I clearly wouldn't have done that if the other main parties had stood.

As I said above, you can't force the parties to field candidates.

 

[Tetchytyke]

option 2 with a full field of candidates even if it might change the result.

How does one define a "full field of candidates" then? Labour and the Conservatives, yes, the Lib Dems maybe. But UKIP? Greens? Should the SNP have to stand in every seat? Sinn Fein and the UUP? The Monster Raving Loony Party?

A rule like this would make the General Election in Northern Ireland more interesting, that's for sure.

I see nothing wrong with the major parties choosing not to field a candidate in an election held in such circumstances.

I had more of an issue with people not standing against David Davis in his political stunt by-election in 2008.

I voted and ended up voting for one of the fringe candidates 'Corbyn anti', but I clearly wouldn't have done that if the other main parties had stood.

If you voted for a fringe candidate because your preferred "main party" chose not to stand, then you're an idiot.

 

[ExRes]

It seems rather odd that some posters on here seem unable to understand the meaning of decency and respect, the main parties chose not to attempt to take advantage of the reason for this election, surely no further debate is required