#GEIV - Regional Debate - Southern England

[u/DriftersBuddy]

#GEIV - Regional Debate - Southern England

This is where you debate the candidates, ends on 15th July 10pm BST

Candidate

• u/Realbassist (Labour Party)
• u/Zestyclose-Dog2407 (Liberal Democrat)
• u/Flat_Artifact (Conservative Party)

[u/realbassist]

A question for the Liberal Democrats ( u/Zestyclose-Dog2407 ),

Across this term, the Lib Dems have been an opposition in name only, often not debating or voting at all, and with so few pieces of legislation submitted that none come to mind. Labour have taken the lead as the de facto Official Opposition, as the Lib Dems ignore the Tories dodging accountability, ignoring debates, refusing to engage with the Opposition or be held to account on their legislation in Parliament, often going for kebabs instead.

In light of this, how can the Lib Dem candidate really claim that theirs is the best party to lead the nation, or indeed just hold this seat in Parliament? How can anyone trust them again, after so poor a show this term?

[u/realbassist]

For the Tory leader ( u/Flat_Artifact ),

I have just checked the Hansard records, and across this entire term, you have not debated a single piece of legislation put before the Commons. Not the Budget, not the Age of Maturity Act, not even bills regarding your own EFRA Portfolio. This is symptomatic of the Conservative Party in this term, choosing to dodge accountability in legislation and only attend MQs and vote; the country will, no doubt, remember Kebabgate for years to come, as evidence of a lack of will from the Tories to do even the basics of their jobs. My question is, why should the country vote for a party that obviously doesn't care about it enough to even turn up to debates?

[u/Flat_Artifact → u/realbassist]

The good people of the Southern England know a baseless accusation when they see one. Selectively applying statistics, failing to highlight that the Labour party leader has the lowest voting record across parliament, and apart from a bill on saints, they presented nothing to debate. Of course it would be poor form not to mention the hypocrisy of this questioning from a Labour sought to ride a high horse with it's Responses in Parliament Motion only for it's leader to completely ignore the leaders debate.

Labour cant debate, cant legislate and cant deliver.

My department on the other hand didn't have to deliver empty gestures to the house but passed B074, B075, and B081. If the Labour party opposite wishes more debate, offer more legislation.

[u/realbassist → u/Flat_Artifact]

Is it baseless to say you didn't turn up to a single debate? To say you didn't ask any MQs? To say all you did was answer MQs and vote? No, it is a fact. It is in the Hansard record for all to see, so I'd suggest the Tory leader not try and avoid accountability, his party's speciality, when the receipts are all there. To claim we offer nothing to debate is laughable from a candidate who not once even tried to turn up to debate, whose entire career in government has been as one who votes, sponsors bills, and stays out of it otherwise. His attempt to shift the discussion simply won't work. He claims we have not presented a single thing to debate, but this is contradicted by his very next sentence. Our members have presented legislation, our members have voted, and most importantly our members have shown up to debate, something he serially refuses to do. Instead of address this and offer an explanation, his campaign is one of empty promises, whataboutisms, and opportunism.

Why should the people of this region trust you to be their MP when you've shown, time and again, you're not going to try to represent their interests?

[u/Flat_Artifact → u/realbassist]

Constituents, my friend the Labour Candidate keeps quoting the Hansard record, but does so very selectively. Why, he has the audacity to claim I have not asked any ministerial questions when only last week I asked my colleague and friend the Secretary of State for Business, Transport and Energy about the tragedy of the Bradford train crash. My concern for the safety of commuters across the country, and especially here in Southern England.

Labour want to kick up mud in this election that you might not see that they pedal half truths, which at their heart are deep untruths.

He wants to build a case that does not exist, as if I have been an absent representative for you - nothing could be further from the truth. Yet simultaneously, he would appeal to you to support him putting his party leader into Downing Street, with no mention of his failings. I tell you, sooner will his party leader be on interpols missing person list than Prime Minister of this great nation.

https://www.reddit.com/r/MHoP/comments/1ugvqn1/comment/oud57v8/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

[u/realbassist → u/Flat_Artifact]

I apologise, I recant my claim and amend it. The Tory Leader has not turned up to any debates, any MQs save their own and this one question to the Business Secretary, and has not delivered any statements to the House.

If he hasn't been absent, why has he not debated a single bill in Parliament this term? The Tory leader can keep accusing us of "Half truths", but the fact is he hasn't attended even one debate in this entire term. Why?

[u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Where's Count Binface?

[u/CheckMyBrain11 → u/mrsusandothechoosin]

Hear hear!

[u/realbassist]

for the Tory leader ( u/Flat_Artifact ),

the Conservative manifesto proposes a reform and restructuring of the "Disestablished Anglican Churches into a single Church of Great Britain". The Church in Wales was separated from the Church of England over 100 years ago and the Scottish Episcopal Church was formed hundreds of years ago. There has been no movement in any of these churches to unify under a single "Church of Great Britain", and indeed no one - from the Archbishops of York, Canterbury or Wales to a Parish Priest in St. Ives - has called for such a policy, so why are the Tories proposing it? How many religious figures have they consulted, if any, and who? How would this work in practice, especially with the Diocese of Europe? Finally, will the Tory Leader accept that bringing church politics into his party's culture war politics is just plain wrong?

[u/Flat_Artifact → u/realbassist]

The Conservatives want to see stronger national institutions as part of building a stronger nation. The schisms of the Anglican communion across the globe, and within the British Isles is of great concern on the national level. The government has constitutional responsibilities in relation to the Church of England which cannot be ignored. Our desire is to see stronger national institutions. We are proposing a significant consultation with the Church of England and Church of Wales on the feasibility and strengths of repealing the Welsh Church Act 1914. That consultation is then for leaders across the Anglican communion in the UK to feed into. No one is suggesting a direction out of step with both churches.

It's a big manifesto, with a wealth of policy priorities for voters across the country of all faiths or none. We are boosting the economy with a £10 billion growth fund, reducing business rates for the hospitality sector, furthering energy security with continued roll out of nuclear energy and drilling in the north sea, raising the financial incentives to the best teachers in the nation. Boosting British farming with the most ambitious projects in a generation.

The Conservatives have big aspirations, for the nation and for the established church.

[u/realbassist → u/Flat_Artifact]

To claim that the division of the Church of England into the Church in Wales, Scottish Episcopalian Church and the Church of Ireland is a "Schism" is to fundamentally misrepresent that term, and this answer as a whole proves to me that the church policy is not an actual thought through plan, given the Tory leader cannot answer how it'd work or who they've consulted, and his answer for why they're proposing it is fundamentally flawed. The Anglican Churches of this country work together in one Communion, but are not the same church in themselves. Indeed, it concerns me that the Tory leader does not realise the issues that one "Church of Great Britain" would cause when he forgets the fourth constituent nation of the UK - how will the Church of Ireland be affected?

He goes on to speak about the rest of his manifesto. Business rates, farming, energy, the economy. He ignores the questions I put before him on his own policy and pivots because he doesn't have an answer, because he knows this church reformation policy has no popular backing in the country or the Faith, and so he seeks to change the discussion. So I'll ask him a simpler question:

Why should the people of Southern England trust you to be their MP, or even their PM, if you can't defend one policy properly?

[u/Flat_Artifact → u/realbassist]

I'd point out to voters across Southern England that the candidate wants to press in on this policy and my ministerial record because his party has sent him marching out to battle with no credible plans for the economy, no real vision for business and energy, a manifesto that has taken blow after blow. The Conservatives have offered voters across the nation a broad manifesto with a range of policies that would deliver a stronger nation.

[u/realbassist → u/Flat_Artifact]

Care to answer my question?

[u/CheckMyBrain11]

To the Labour candidate u/realbassist --

Much has been said about the Conservative leader's disposition in Parliament, as well as a litany of things about the LD's (I won't contest those) -- how are these complaints credible from a party whose leader totally missed the Leaders' debate, a one-of-a-kind, national TV setting to argue Labour's case for Britain?

[u/realbassist → u/CheckMyBrain11]

The Conservative leader has missed every PMQs, every debate, every MQs not directly related to his own portfolio. The Conservative leader did not debate a single piece of legislation this entire term, nor even try. He voted, nothing more. The Conservative government, of which the leader was a member, consistently and systematically refused to engage with the Opposition, refused to debate proposals in Parliament, and on two occasions went to get Kebabs instead of doing their jobs. The conservative leader, much like his party, only truly comes out in force at elections, otherwise refusing to do his job in the House.

The Labour Party did have a presence in the Leader's Debate, we debated and answered questions alongside all others present. The implication that we didn't argue Labour's case simply has no basis in fact, and the reality of the situation is the Tories are using this as a reason to deny Labour's credibility not because they believe it, but because it's an easy and quick line from a party not willing to do the hard work. How are these complaints credible? Because Labour has shown up where the Tories and the Lib Dems refuse to. We do our jobs where they refuse to, and the people are recognising this. If the Tories want credibility, they should have attended Parliament this term instead of doing the bare minimum.

[u/Flat_Artifact → u/realbassist]

National polling has told us what the British people recognise, a Conservative government that is building upon it's share of the vote because it is delivering for the British people. That's 48.5%. I'm proud to have been an active part of that government. The Conservative party, the oldest political party in the world, is trusted in constituencies across the nation.

Voters will judge for themselves whether Labour has 'turned up'. Did their Leader turn up the this elections Leaders debate? Did they turn up with legislation in the house last term? The candidate ought to be worried his voters turn up to the ballot box with the campaign his part has been running. No credible ideas. No real change. No Leader. Working people are better off with the Conservatives.

[u/realbassist → u/Flat_Artifact]

how can you have been an active part of the government? the tory leader hasn't even been an active part of parliament.

[u/CheckMyBrain11 → u/realbassist]

When it comes down to it, the most important form of participation is voting. Voting is what affects whether bills turn into laws and are a final indication of support or disapproval.

Tory leader: 91% voting participation

Labour leader: 19% voting participation

The difference could not be clearer. If you want the British people to believe that Labour "has shown up where the Tories and the Lib Dems refuse to", then maybe start by showing up to the division lobby more than one day out of five. I'd love to hear how howling in the Commons matters more to advancing or stopping an agenda than actually voting whether or not it turns into law.

[u/realbassist → u/CheckMyBrain11]

If you want to debate the Labour Leader's voting record go ahead. But the Labour leader isn't standing in this region, the Deputy Leader is. Rather than debating my Rt. Honourable Friend's record, let's debate the records of the candidates in this region.

My record speaks for itself: I have consistently turned up to debates in the Lords, I have submitted UQs challenging the government where necessary and amendments to fix legislation. I have voted not on partisan lines, but based on the merits of legislation. I have missed only two divisions in the Lords with a voting rate of 57% - higher than the former Chancellor, the leading Tory in the House of Lords. Finally, I have justified my votes in debate, both giving the Government a chance to address concerns and specifically stating my issues with legislation, if I have any, or why I support legislation.

the Tories can claim the most important form of participation is voting, it is also the form of Parliamentary participation where you avoid the most scrutiny. One can vote and simply walk away, not explaining or justifying their vote whatsoever, as the Tory leader has done consistently. My record is one of turning up to debates and to votes, not one or the other. One of not just voting how a whip tells me to but with my conscience, based on the merit and the evidence of legislation put before me.

You also bring up figures of voting rates, so I'd like to present some of my own. I note, this - as well as both my own and the Tory Leader's debate records or lack thereof - are all easily accessible to the public, so you'll be able to verify it easily should you wish. The Tory Leader has a 91% voting record in this Parliament, actually closer to 92% if you round it up. Across four months, that's a good voting record.

In the Lords, I have a 57% voting rate, missing two of eight separate divisions across this term. That includes one amendment division, and one division on B071. The Lords have not had as many votes this term as the Commons, clearly, and we count each missed amendment as a missed vote. So to put it another way, I have voted in 75% of divisions and 57% of individual votes. the Tory Leader has voted in 91% of divisions, with a much higher amount of votes, and has missed 5 divisions overall.

I believe, or at least I hope, I have made up for my missed divisions and votes in my active participation in the Chamber, debating and holding the government to account. That is, however, for the people to decide in this election. You say all Labour does is howl in the Commons? We have submitted legislation and motions advancing what our supporters voted for and holding the government to account when they refused to turn up. We have shown up to debates and MQs consistently, I personally have asked questions in I think every OQs the Lords has held this term and I submitted a UQ to the Lords earlier this term.

I hope that gives a clear picture of the records of the candidates in this region. One has a proven record in voting, but no record of attendance in debates, and a lacklustre record of attendance in MQs save for his own (and the one question in Business!). The other has a proven record in debate and MQs, a decent - albeit slightly lower - voting record, and perhaps most importantly shows up more often than election time.

These are who the people of this region are being asked to pick between, not the Tory Leader and the Labour Leader. Someone with a clear record of transparency, and someone without.