• Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara

Politics, politics, politics (so long and thanks for all the fish)

scaramanga said:
I sincerely doubt anyone voted for parliament to control and restrict the actions of our government whilst refusing a GE.

To my knowledge that's never happened in this country before.
Click to expand...
This is literally why you elect MPs.
And yes it has put UK politics into an unprecedented position which exposed the limitations of FPP when results are very close and the politics get very complicated and Govt acts in poor spirit.

It also highlights the effectiveness of Parliament to act in the national interest first and party second if needed - which is exactly why they are sent to parliament as a constituency representative.

We do desperately need to move to a coalition based system though
 
monkeybarry said:
This is literally why you elect MPs.
And yes it has put UK politics into an unprecedented position which exposed the limitations of FPP when results are very close and the politics get very complicated and Govt acts in poor spirit.

It also highlights the effectiveness of Parliament to act in the national interest first and party second if needed - which is exactly why they are sent to parliament as a constituency representative.

We do desperately need to move to a coalition based system though
Click to expand...
I disagree. The system works just fine if parliament is working to the wishes of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the system works as follows:
  1. Govt acts in a way parliament disagrees with
  2. Govt loses majority
  3. Opposition calls a vonc
  4. Opposition wins election
In this case, parliament is working against the will of the people, so they know they can't take step 3 because 4 wouldn't happen.

That's nothing to do with how close any of the decisions are and everything to do with the fact that the people do not want parliament to take the actions it is taking.
 
ShipOfGoldblum said:
A rule for these times is that anyone who says “the people” as if they are homogeneous is up to no good, rhetorically speaking, and should be ignored,
Click to expand...
That depends entirely on one's definition of no good.

For me, adding to a growing noise that will hopefully result in the removal of the traitors from parliament (democratically or otherwise) is very much a good thing.

It also holds a mirror to the volksvote all those Islington types are so keen on.
 
scaramanga said:
I disagree. The system works just fine if parliament is working to the wishes of the people.

Under normal circumstances, the system works as follows:
  1. Govt acts in a way parliament disagrees with
  2. Govt loses majority
  3. Opposition calls a vonc
  4. Opposition wins election
In this case, parliament is working against the will of the people, so they know they can't take step 3 because 4 wouldn't happen.

That's nothing to do with how close any of the decisions are and everything to do with the fact that the people do not want parliament to take the actions it is taking.
Click to expand...
It has everything to do with how complex and unclear Brexit is.
That is the parliamentary democracy we have and, until an MP is removed (which can happen at constituency level outside of a GE), the votes of the MP ARE the representative actions of their constituents.
That works both ways, for MPs voting against the current deals and trying to stop a non deal from "leave constituencies" and also MPs voting for it in "remain constituencies".
Parliament is acting exactly how parliament is supposed to be.
The statement of the "will of the people" is too simplistic.
Yes, the referendum is the will of the people without clearly defined deliverables.
There has also been an election since, thus any MP elected is also the will of the people (still without defined deliverables) and the power for decision is delegated to them on behalf of their constituents to act in the best best interests of the nation. This power has been given and should be respected. If constituents don't like it, they need to act to change it.
 
scaramanga said:
That depends entirely on one's definition of no good.

For me, adding to a growing noise that will hopefully result in the removal of the traitors from parliament (democratically or otherwise) is very much a good thing.

It also holds a mirror to the volksvote all those Islington types are so keen on.
Click to expand...

Yes, I’m deeply embarrassed by the “people’s vote” slogan. Doesn’t stop me going on their marches, distributing their leaflets or sending them the blacking factory’s takings, but I do wish they’d call it something else. A “fair referendum” maybe, which would be good air cover for sneaking in a franchise extension to 16 year olds and UK citizens living abroad.
 
monkeybarry said:
It has everything to do with how complex and unclear Brexit is.
That is the parliamentary democracy we have and, until an MP is removed (which can happen at constituency level outside of a GE), the votes of the MP ARE the representative actions of their constituents.
That works both ways, for MPs voting against the current deals and trying to stop a non deal from "leave constituencies" and also MPs voting for it in "remain constituencies".
Parliament is acting exactly how parliament is supposed to be.
The statement of the "will of the people" is too simplistic.
Yes, the referendum is the will of the people without clearly defined deliverables.
There has also been an election since, thus any MP elected is also the will of the people (still without defined deliverables) and the power for decision is delegated to them on behalf of their constituents to act in the best best interests of the nation. This power has been given and should be respected. If constituents don't like it, they need to act to change it.
Click to expand...
Constituents can't initiate a recall. Even if they could, I don't believe there is a suitable setup in more than a handful of constituencies to make that work.

The beginning and end of this problem is that MPs seem to think it's more important to do what they want rather than their electorate. The only thing that has stopped the usual measures being taken is the FTPA an act thoroughly unsuitable for our form of democracy and only enacted to tie an irrelevant party into a coalition for a few months.
 
monkeybarry said:
It has everything to do with how complex and unclear Brexit is.
That is the parliamentary democracy we have and, until an MP is removed (which can happen at constituency level outside of a GE), the votes of the MP ARE the representative actions of their constituents.
That works both ways, for MPs voting against the current deals and trying to stop a non deal from "leave constituencies" and also MPs voting for it in "remain constituencies".
Parliament is acting exactly how parliament is supposed to be.
The statement of the "will of the people" is too simplistic.
Yes, the referendum is the will of the people without clearly defined deliverables.
There has also been an election since, thus any MP elected is also the will of the people (still without defined deliverables) and the power for decision is delegated to them on behalf of their constituents to act in the best best interests of the nation. This power has been given and should be respected. If constituents don't like it, they need to act to change it.
Click to expand...

But the will of people was to leave which is why the 2 main parties stood on a manifesto committment to implement the decision so Labour now saying any decision has to have a referendum attached means they aren't respecting what voters elected them to do. If they knew this in advance then there's a fair chance they might have voted for a different party - if for instance Labour said in the 2017 election their policy is what is now then it's reasonable to think the number of votes and MP's returned would be different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back