Oh no Rosie

[InandOutlander]

I'm so sad to see her go, she was the shining light within the Labour camp.

And if a gov were to upload videos in the first few weeks MPs should have the ability to cross the floor

They should not be immune to that at any stage

I think Duffield is right, she would have won without Labour, in fact I think they tried to scupper her chances at this election

She was certainly being sidelined before the election. As Kent's only Labour MP, she wasn't invited when Keir Starmer launched the Labour election campaign in Kent.

https://www.mumsnet.com/talk/womens_rights/5081101-rosie-duffield-not-invited-to-labours-electiuon-launch-in-kent

Nobody voting for Labour voted for cuts to WFA - because it was not mentioned in the campaign material; yet it was one of the very first announcements that Labour made on being elected. Starmer thinks he can do anything - without regard to his backbenchers and the people who elected them.

People didn't just want a government wearing a Labour badge; they wanted a government that stood for traditional Labour values; they wanted a government that was going to make life a bit easier and a bit better than it has been for many years for many people.

That is not what they are getting. This is not what they voted for.

I don't think it is too much of a stretch to call Alli an oligarch, @CassieMaddox . At its broadest the term simply means someone who has political power in virtue of being very rich. And if a person gains access as part of an informal quid pro quo in which they use their wealth to confer cash benefits in a PM, that strikes me as meeting the threshold for oligarch, especially if they have a matrix of business interests which generate implicit mutual awareness of further mutual benefit.

And the issue as to whether it is acceptable to resign the whip after being elected on a party banner seems pretty moot to me. Constitutionally it is entirely legit, since MPs are elected as individuals and are intended to act with discretion rather than as delegates.

Additionally, in the last few decades parties have become significantly less acoountable to voters (their manifestos used to be a meaningful set of promises, with certain informal constitutional consequences, not a branding exercise), so if her reason for resigning the whip is that Labour is not keeping promises to voters than it is in theory entirely possible that by resigning her whip she is actually being more true rather than less true to the values/policies that motivated voters when they made their choice.

I think Duffield is right, she would have won without Labour

So why didn’t she, when she had massive and long-term issues with the party that contributed heavily to her resignation weeks later?

And why isn’t she willing to allow her constituents an honest vote now?

I know it’s in the rules that she shouldn’t have to just as the rules allow the gifts that she chose to morally judge. She knows that there is a moral case for a by-election otherwise she wouldn’t have put that guff in her letter about the vote for “independent-mindedness”. And given that her letter was a moral judgement about the hypocrisy of putting financial gain over personal integrity, that really shouldn’t be overlooked.

And the issue as to whether it is acceptable to resign the whip after being elected on a party banner seems pretty moot to me. Constitutionally it is entirely legit

Then you must also be absolutely fine with Keir Starmer’s legitimately declared designer clothes and glasses?

But Duffield isn’t.

She did say on Sunday morning that she didn't receive any party funding for her campaign. She crowd funded and delivered leaflets herself.

I struggled whilst choosing who to vote for, because I wanted Rosie as an MP but didn't want to show support for labour. I imagine Rosie has spoken to her constituency and realises this was true for many.

Her approach is completely opposed to how the labour government are currently presenting, so this split makes sense. She generally cuts through the bullshit and tries to help the (genuinely) marginalised.

No. Because Keir Starmer was very vocal about how accepting large gifts was wrong in relation to Johnson. This makes him a hypocrite.

I don't see Rosie as a hypocrite.

If Rosie has already answered your questions online, why are you wanging on and on and on about her motivation? She's told you what it was. Your very strange preoccupation with her motives is therefore quite bizarre.

You don't seem to understand how the UK Parliamentary system works. MPs can't just resign.

https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06395/

There are many MPs who have changed their party allegiance while sitting as MPs. Some of the people who voted for them will be disappointed because they voted for them because of the party they were a member of at the time. Others will be pleased because they voted for other parties. This is just how it works.

I'm not sure, either, why long-term differences invalidate a decision to resign. There are usually a whole series of points of tension before you reach your last straw, and the last straw can be something relatively minor in itself.

This is not like Christian Wakeford holding forth on Tory MP WhatsApp groups about how Labour are a shower of cunts, and then being embraced by Starmer and Reeves weeks later.

Besides, as mentioned, the Labour manifesto didn't have anything even suggesting the WFA cut, but did have a whole chapter wanging on about Tory and SNP scandals and how Labour would have a squeaky clean ethical government.

My Granny in the late 40's came across issues with Labour & union voting for candidates. So yes a murky business for a long time.

I think it serves to minimise the behaviours of oligarchs in places like Russia and the seriousness of links between those people and UK politicians.

I don't think its appropriate to call a British citizen who's been a success in life an "oligarch". But if it is, let's raise Frank Hester who donated £20m to the Tories, or Anthony Bamford who's donated £8.1 m to the Tories and funded Johnsons wedding.

I have never heard them referred to as "oligarchs". I wonder why.

The point is that donations and gifts to the Tories were pounced on continually - and Tory sleaze was one of the main rallying cries to vote for Labour.

It is not just Lord Ali, either. Peter Hearn who used to donate to the Tories, and other very wealthy individuals have also contributed to Starmer's campaign.

You don't seem to understand how the UK Parliamentary system works. MPs can't just resign.

Of course they can.

Just because they have to give it silly names it doesn’t mean it can’t be done.

I think its all bad, but the crux of the matter really is that Labour declared it so we know about it.

I hope Labour bring in rules to stop it, but posters calling Lord Alli an "oligarch" and implying he's bankrolling Labour have conveniently short memories about the scale and nature of the Conservative donations.

The Tories took another £5m off Hester after the Abbott row. It is "pay to play" in the current Leadership race, to get to the final 2 individuals have to have raised £150,000 in donations each.

I find it pretty hypocritical this is overlooked and Alli is called an "oligarch"
https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jul/26/conservative-leadership-race-spending-cap-raised-to-400000

It's a derail to a thread about Duffield though.

I don't see Rosie as a hypocrite.

Being elected as a Labour candidate then leaving the party once you’ve secured your election, openly stating that it has been on the cards for ages and pretending that constituents would be fine with it to avoid addressing the moral question of why you stood for election for a party that you clearly hate and then ditched them a few weeks later, when £93k per annum is on the table doesn’t look good.

When the letter you admit this in also contains a scathing moral judgement of your colleagues who have also done things that are technically within the rules but morally dubious for personal financial gain…. it certainly looks like hypocrisy.

I agree with everything you've written on here noble

I thought I'd accidentally gone back a few pages then because you really are repeating yourself @noblegiraffe

Presumably she had this in the back of her mind all along but knew she wouldn't get in as an independent.

Labour declared it

Personal clothes as private office expenses?

@noblegiraffe don't get too excited about Cassie's support. Cassie is a familiar name on these boards and would detest Rosie on principle for the outrageous impudence of saying: Men cannot be women.

What a mean post (the bit about don't get too excited about the support of another poster)

Oh, worth repeating in case anyone thought my mind had been changed by such strong arguments as 'she can't resign', 'it's within the rules', or 'she totally wouldn't have had the prospect of losing a £93k job in mind at all when deciding whether to leave Labour before election as the Diane Abbott re-selection farce played out'.

This thread is fascinating though.

Devastated. That has totally ruined my argument.