Fast Pat Posted December 20, 2019 Share Posted December 20, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 6:50 PM Fast Pat - 2019-12-20 6:46 PM Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 6:20 PM John52 - 2019-12-20 5:58 PM Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 5:45 PM Tony Blair as much as I dislike him talked to both sides .. Something we agree on 8-) it was probably the best thing he ever did. Certainly worked better than Margaret Thatcher's 'we don't talk to terrorists', banning them from speaking in the media, or their democratically Elected MPs from taking their seats in Parliament without swearing allegiance to the Unelected English Queen. (Then the next Tory Government going to the other extreme and showering them with YOUR money to buy their votes.) But nobody could accuse M. Thatcher of being a terrorist lover, and she got what SHE needed - an enemy for us to fight. >:-) Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 5:45 PM Mr Corbyn in all his years as chief peace maker didn't and hasn't talked to any Loyalist group ... How do you know ? As his defender prove me wrong ... Bet you can't Bit too easy https://skwawkbox.org/2017/05/25/world-exclusive-corbyn-mowlams-envoy-to-ira-and-loyalists/ HAHAHAHA ... A left wing news blog offering nothing ... Is that it ... C'mon Flacid ... Your hurting real bad but even you can do much better than that And within the article it provides links to the Irish Times and Belfast Telegraph, both respected papers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 6:29 PM John52 - 2019-12-20 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2019-12-20 7:45 AM More Gloaty McGloatface time :D........... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7811241/Independent-Group-Change-agrees-wind-political-party.html Old Sourface has no change and a P45 for Christmas (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Thats what people with a conscience get in BoJo's Government. Anna Soubry did the honourable thing at the cost of her career. But at least she can walk out with her integrity intact and head held high. And find a job where she doesn't have to sacrifice her integrity to keep her career. History will look on her far more kindly than the sycophants that suck up to BoJo to keep their jobs. You gotta laugh ... Chuckle This is someone putting their principles (right or wrong) before their career. If you had honour and integrity you wouldn't find it funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 jumpstart - 2019-12-13 7:45 AM Who is the first emoji.....looks like Big Bojo. Don't suppose its Jacob Rees Mogg as Dominic Cummins seems to have kept him at arms length from the election campaign. Too much like Tory Toffs David Cameron & George Osborne that sunk the remain campaign in places that had born the brunt of Tory Austerity to bail out the city and shower the DUP with their money. But JRM has been let out again now >:-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Birdbrain Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-12-21 5:45 AM Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 6:29 PM John52 - 2019-12-20 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2019-12-20 7:45 AM More Gloaty McGloatface time :D........... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7811241/Independent-Group-Change-agrees-wind-political-party.html Old Sourface has no change and a P45 for Christmas (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Thats what people with a conscience get in BoJo's Government. Anna Soubry did the honourable thing at the cost of her career. But at least she can walk out with her integrity intact and head held high. And find a job where she doesn't have to sacrifice her integrity to keep her career. History will look on her far more kindly than the sycophants that suck up to BoJo to keep their jobs. You gotta laugh ... Chuckle This is someone putting their principles (right or wrong) before their career. If you had honour and integrity you wouldn't find it funny. Yes I would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 John52 - 2019-12-21 5:45 AM Birdbrain - 2019-12-20 6:29 PM John52 - 2019-12-20 6:26 PM pelmetman - 2019-12-20 7:45 AM More Gloaty McGloatface time :D........... https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7811241/Independent-Group-Change-agrees-wind-political-party.html Old Sourface has no change and a P45 for Christmas (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Thats what people with a conscience get in BoJo's Government. Anna Soubry did the honourable thing at the cost of her career. But at least she can walk out with her integrity intact and head held high. And find a job where she doesn't have to sacrifice her integrity to keep her career. History will look on her far more kindly than the sycophants that suck up to BoJo to keep their jobs. You gotta laugh ... Chuckle This is someone putting their principles (right or wrong) before their career. If you had honour and integrity you wouldn't find it funny. Honour & integrity my A*se 8-) ........... Did she NOT campaign under May's manifesto to honour the referendum? *-) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
747 Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 747 - 2019-12-21 4:34 PM Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Bit of a cheap shot, IMO. Some don't, and they get found out, but I still think the majority do. It is necessary to bear in mind that not doing what a constituency favours is a sign of honesty and integrity, and so is placing national interest above personal or constituency interest. We do not elect MPs to be mere delegates for their constituencies, but to further and protect their best interests, balanced against the best interests of the country overall, as they judge them. That is not the same thing as doing what their constituents want, and requires individual honesty and integrity. Were the job of an MP to involve no more than doing as instructed by their constituency (but how would such instruction be conveyed to the MP?) there would be little need for MPs at all. Their role would have been reduced to that of mere cyphers, capable of being fulfilled by any reasonably competent administrator, requiring only a person devoid of opinion or vision. I think we should all lose out were such people then to become Ministers of State, endlessly requiring instruction before being prepared to act. True definition of a jobsworth? Are such people really who we want as our leaders? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-12-21 5:55 PM 747 - 2019-12-21 4:34 PM Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Bit of a cheap shot, IMO. Some don't, and they get found out, but I still think the majority do. It is necessary to bear in mind that not doing what a constituency favours is a sign of honesty and integrity, and so is placing national interest above personal or constituency interest. We do not elect MPs to be mere delegates for their constituencies, but to further and protect their best interests, balanced against the best interests of the country overall, as they judge them. That is not the same thing as doing what their constituents want, and requires individual honesty and integrity. Were the job of an MP to involve no more than doing as instructed by their constituency (but how would such instruction be conveyed to the MP?) there would be little need for MPs at all. Their role would have been reduced to that of mere cyphers, capable of being fulfilled by any reasonably competent administrator, requiring only a person devoid of opinion or vision. I think we should all lose out were such people then to become Ministers of State, endlessly requiring instruction before being prepared to act. True definition of a jobsworth? Are such people really who we want as our leaders? On the contrary surely a constituency MP is there to promote the views of the constituency and the Party he is part off. Their roll is to represent us in Parliament,not their own personal ideas. Certainly their knowledge of particular industries is limited were they to become ministers of state which is why you need the civil service. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 21, 2019 Share Posted December 21, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-12-21 5:55 PM 747 - 2019-12-21 4:34 PM Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Bit of a cheap shot, IMO. Cheap shot or sneering Liberalism on your behalf Brian :-| ........ Take your pick IMO ;-) ........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 I suppose when you get all your views from the gutter press you think everyone's bent. You might think all priests are paedophiles because they are the only ones that make it into the gutter press. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-12-19 3:41 PM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809701/Sore-loser-Stony-faced-Jeremy-Corbyn-endures-walk-shame-grinning-Boris-Johnson.html Now that's a proper Gloaty McGloatface >:-) ......... You've earned it Boris B-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... English roads are more congested and you pay tolls dartford/humber/tyne/mersey/M6 etc Wheras Forth/Clyde/Skye (and Severn for the Welsh) are all free - paid for by bribes from Westminster at your expense So what are you gloating about? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 John52 - 2019-12-22 7:24 AM So what are you gloating about? I'm practicing my best John Major style "Full Gloat" for the 31st January 2020 :D.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 22, 2019 Share Posted December 22, 2019 John52 - 2019-12-22 7:24 AM pelmetman - 2019-12-19 3:41 PM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809701/Sore-loser-Stony-faced-Jeremy-Corbyn-endures-walk-shame-grinning-Boris-Johnson.html Now that's a proper Gloaty McGloatface >:-) ......... You've earned it Boris B-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... English roads are more congested and you pay tolls dartford/humber/tyne/mersey/M6 etc Wheras Forth/Clyde/Skye (and Severn for the Welsh) are all free - paid for by bribes from Westminster at your expense So what are you gloating about? Haven't you heard? He's "won". He doesn't quite know exactly what as each time he's been asked he goes off on some wacko waffle about "losers", Romanians and Corbyn. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 3:22 PM John52 - 2019-12-22 7:24 AM pelmetman - 2019-12-19 3:41 PM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809701/Sore-loser-Stony-faced-Jeremy-Corbyn-endures-walk-shame-grinning-Boris-Johnson.html Now that's a proper Gloaty McGloatface >:-) ......... You've earned it Boris B-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... English roads are more congested and you pay tolls dartford/humber/tyne/mersey/M6 etc Wheras Forth/Clyde/Skye (and Severn for the Welsh) are all free - paid for by bribes from Westminster at your expense So what are you gloating about? Haven't you heard? He's "won". He doesn't quite know exactly what as each time he's been asked he goes off on some wacko waffle about "losers", Romanians and Corbyn. :-| So which Loser are you hoping will become your new leader? ;-) ........... It matters nowt to me as either of the candidates will ensure its Gloaty McGloatface time for us Tories again (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 jumpstart - 2019-12-21 8:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-12-21 5:55 PM 747 - 2019-12-21 4:34 PM Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Bit of a cheap shot, IMO. Some don't, and they get found out, but I still think the majority do. It is necessary to bear in mind that not doing what a constituency favours is a sign of honesty and integrity, and so is placing national interest above personal or constituency interest. We do not elect MPs to be mere delegates for their constituencies, but to further and protect their best interests, balanced against the best interests of the country overall, as they judge them. That is not the same thing as doing what their constituents want, and requires individual honesty and integrity. Were the job of an MP to involve no more than doing as instructed by their constituency (but how would such instruction be conveyed to the MP?) there would be little need for MPs at all. Their role would have been reduced to that of mere cyphers, capable of being fulfilled by any reasonably competent administrator, requiring only a person devoid of opinion or vision. I think we should all lose out were such people then to become Ministers of State, endlessly requiring instruction before being prepared to act. True definition of a jobsworth? Are such people really who we want as our leaders? On the contrary surely a constituency MP is there to promote the views of the constituency and the Party he is part off. Their roll is to represent us in Parliament,not their own personal ideas. Certainly their knowledge of particular industries is limited were they to become ministers of state which is why you need the civil service. Sorry but I don't think so, and will quote Edmond Burke in my support. "An MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. That, so far as I am aware is the long standing, fundamental, principle of British Parliamentary democracy. It is not a case of MPs serving "their own personal ideas", but a case of them acting in a more professional capacity to balance what they judge (bearing the mind the resources that we, as taxpayers, place at their disposal) in the best overall interests of First - country, Second - constituency, and Third - party. They have access to information and advice that we, as their constituents, cannot access. They have a duty to use that information and advice to inform themselves on issues of importance, and on the basis of that information and advice to judge where the best balance between conflicting demands lies. When they vote, it is supposed to be on the basis of their own judgement. They are not party cannon fodder to file into the lobbies on command. They should hear, insofar as it is possible, the opinions of their constituents (which is not a simple thing to arrange, and will almost invariably comprise a variety of views), but they then have to make their own judgement as to what is best overall, and then act accordingly. If they consistently oppose the majority view of their constituents (which means more than just the view of their constituency party :-)) they will not be elected as constituency MP at the next election. That is the final sanction of their electorate. Don't forget they are supposed to be elected as individuals, not as party hacks. When we vote, we are supposed to be voting for the individual, not for the party. If we don't, we degrade our democracy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bulletguy Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-12-23 7:50 AM Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 3:22 PM John52 - 2019-12-22 7:24 AM pelmetman - 2019-12-19 3:41 PM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809701/Sore-loser-Stony-faced-Jeremy-Corbyn-endures-walk-shame-grinning-Boris-Johnson.html Now that's a proper Gloaty McGloatface >:-) ......... You've earned it Boris B-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... English roads are more congested and you pay tolls dartford/humber/tyne/mersey/M6 etc Wheras Forth/Clyde/Skye (and Severn for the Welsh) are all free - paid for by bribes from Westminster at your expense So what are you gloating about? Haven't you heard? He's "won". He doesn't quite know exactly what as each time he's been asked he goes off on some wacko waffle about "losers", Romanians and Corbyn. :-| So which Loser are you hoping will become your new leader? ;-) ........... It matters nowt to me........ Given the noise and palaver you've been making about it, obviously it does matter to you. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Bulletguy - 2019-12-23 6:56 PM pelmetman - 2019-12-23 7:50 AM Bulletguy - 2019-12-22 3:22 PM John52 - 2019-12-22 7:24 AM pelmetman - 2019-12-19 3:41 PM https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-7809701/Sore-loser-Stony-faced-Jeremy-Corbyn-endures-walk-shame-grinning-Boris-Johnson.html Now that's a proper Gloaty McGloatface >:-) ......... You've earned it Boris B-) ......... (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol) ........... English roads are more congested and you pay tolls dartford/humber/tyne/mersey/M6 etc Wheras Forth/Clyde/Skye (and Severn for the Welsh) are all free - paid for by bribes from Westminster at your expense So what are you gloating about? Haven't you heard? He's "won". He doesn't quite know exactly what as each time he's been asked he goes off on some wacko waffle about "losers", Romanians and Corbyn. :-| So which Loser are you hoping will become your new leader? ;-) ........... It matters nowt to me........ Given the noise and palaver you've been making about it, obviously it does matter to you. :-| Only from the point of view of watching Labour make itself unelectable again (lol) (lol) (lol) .......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 23, 2019 Share Posted December 23, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-12-23 5:17 PM jumpstart - 2019-12-21 8:38 PM Brian Kirby - 2019-12-21 5:55 PM 747 - 2019-12-21 4:34 PM Members of Parliament have honesty and integrity? Since when? 8-) Bit of a cheap shot, IMO. Some don't, and they get found out, but I still think the majority do. It is necessary to bear in mind that not doing what a constituency favours is a sign of honesty and integrity, and so is placing national interest above personal or constituency interest. We do not elect MPs to be mere delegates for their constituencies, but to further and protect their best interests, balanced against the best interests of the country overall, as they judge them. That is not the same thing as doing what their constituents want, and requires individual honesty and integrity. Were the job of an MP to involve no more than doing as instructed by their constituency (but how would such instruction be conveyed to the MP?) there would be little need for MPs at all. Their role would have been reduced to that of mere cyphers, capable of being fulfilled by any reasonably competent administrator, requiring only a person devoid of opinion or vision. I think we should all lose out were such people then to become Ministers of State, endlessly requiring instruction before being prepared to act. True definition of a jobsworth? Are such people really who we want as our leaders? On the contrary surely a constituency MP is there to promote the views of the constituency and the Party he is part off. Their roll is to represent us in Parliament,not their own personal ideas. Certainly their knowledge of particular industries is limited were they to become ministers of state which is why you need the civil service. Sorry but I don't think so, and will quote Edmond Burke in my support. "An MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. That, so far as I am aware is the long standing, fundamental, principle of British Parliamentary democracy. It is not a case of MPs serving "their own personal ideas", but a case of them acting in a more professional capacity to balance what they judge (bearing the mind the resources that we, as taxpayers, place at their disposal) in the best overall interests of First - country, Second - constituency, and Third - party. They have access to information and advice that we, as their constituents, cannot access. They have a duty to use that information and advice to inform themselves on issues of importance, and on the basis of that information and advice to judge where the best balance between conflicting demands lies. When they vote, it is supposed to be on the basis of their own judgement. They are not party cannon fodder to file into the lobbies on command. They should hear, insofar as it is possible, the opinions of their constituents (which is not a simple thing to arrange, and will almost invariably comprise a variety of views), but they then have to make their own judgement as to what is best overall, and then act accordingly. If they consistently oppose the majority view of their constituents (which means more than just the view of their constituency party :-)) they will not be elected as constituency MP at the next election. That is the final sanction of their electorate. Don't forget they are supposed to be elected as individuals, not as party hacks. When we vote, we are supposed to be voting for the individual, not for the party. If we don't, we degrade our democracy. Every paragraph then shows you what is wrong with our democracy. An MP has no industry ,no more than us mortal soles. They are images of us .Edmond Burke may well have been an admirable fellow but it is in the past. As are his ideas . Clearly if they do not follow party lines they will have the whip removed. We vote for people but within party’s,that’s why a manefesto is produced for elections. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest pelmetman Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-12-23 5:17 PM Sorry but I don't think so, and will quote Edmond Burke in my support. "An MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. That, so far as I am aware is the long standing, fundamental, principle of British Parliamentary democracy. Which is why we kick the Berks out when they get all pompous thinking they know better than the electorate (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Oh how you liberals must hate democracy :D ............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John52 Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-12-24 8:46 AM Brian Kirby - 2019-12-23 5:17 PM Sorry but I don't think so, and will quote Edmond Burke in my support. "An MP owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion”. That, so far as I am aware is the long standing, fundamental, principle of British Parliamentary democracy. Which is why we kick the Berks out when they get all pompous thinking they know better than the electorate (lol) (lol) (lol) ............ Oh how you liberals must hate democracy :D ............ But you know better than them because you read the Daily Mail *-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
malc d Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 pelmetman - 2019-12-24 8:46 AM Oh how you liberals must hate democracy :D ............ You shouldn't overate democracy. It only works well when the voters are well informed. :-| Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 Democracy doesn’t always mean you get your choice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 jumpstart - 2019-12-23 9:00 PM...………………..Every paragraph then shows you what is wrong with our democracy. An MP has no industry ,no more than us mortal soles. They are images of us .Edmond Burke may well have been an admirable fellow but it is in the past. As are his ideas . Clearly if they do not follow party lines they will have the whip removed. We vote for people but within party’s,that’s why a manefesto is produced for elections. So you want to elect mere party hacks, people who park their brains outside when entering Westminster? Who exercise no judgement? Where then do our prime ministers and cabinet ministers come from? Who then gives them the instructions to follow? Their constituents? But how? Do we have to hold 650 constituency referendums to ascertain what each wants, what instruction the MP is to follow, on every issue as it arises? How could that work? Or do those with unseen influence, the famous "men in grey suits", dictate their terms to the PM and his/her ministers unseen in exchange for party donations, and the cabinet merely instruct their obedient MPs how to vote, on pain of being denied the whip and losing their seats. What I think you have to ask, is who do you really want to run the country? Those you elect to do so, those you tell what to do, or those who tell governments what to do without you seeing who they are, or knowing what they instruct. Our system certainly isn't perfect, and there are many variations of it around the democratic world, but I still think it preferable to any system of direct democracy where public policy would vary according to public whim, which would vary in response to what they read in the papers and see and hear on the broadcast news. Ultimately, do you really want government by a Murdoch? We have suffered for years from policy lurches between left and right, with the resulting loss of industries, millions of pounds of wasted public money, all for one or another political doctrine. What we need is consistency of policy, a broad cross-party agreement on what is needed and how best to provide it, to give long-term policy objectives that can be met as and when finance permits, and can be tuned to accommodate changing circumstances, so that everyone knows where we are headed. That requires people who use their own brains, and the privileged information we pay to provide to them, to make the best collective judgements possible. Not 650 people who sit around waiting for someone to tell them what to think and do. On the same basis, I'd go for a fully elected second chamber as well. Not one elected on party lines, but one elected from among the professions, businesses, and universities, so that we get inputs from those with direct knowledge of how things actually get done, rather than a mixed bag of hereditaries and party politicians who have lost their seats. But hey, that's just me! :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jumpstart Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 Brian Kirby - 2019-12-24 3:33 PM jumpstart - 2019-12-23 9:00 PM...………………..Every paragraph then shows you what is wrong with our democracy. An MP has no industry ,no more than us mortal soles. They are images of us .Edmond Burke may well have been an admirable fellow but it is in the past. As are his ideas . Clearly if they do not follow party lines they will have the whip removed. We vote for people but within party’s,that’s why a manefesto is produced for elections. So you want to elect mere party hacks, people who park their brains outside when entering Westminster? Who exercise no judgement? Where then do our prime ministers and cabinet ministers come from? Who then gives them the instructions to follow? Their constituents? But how? Do we have to hold 650 constituency referendums to ascertain what each wants, what instruction the MP is to follow, on every issue as it arises? How could that work? Or do those with unseen influence, the famous "men in grey suits", dictate their terms to the PM and his/her ministers unseen in exchange for party donations, and the cabinet merely instruct their obedient MPs how to vote, on pain of being denied the whip and losing their seats. What I think you have to ask, is who do you really want to run the country? Those you elect to do so, those you tell what to do, or those who tell governments what to do without you seeing who they are, or knowing what they instruct. Our system certainly isn't perfect, and there are many variations of it around the democratic world, but I still think it preferable to any system of direct democracy where public policy would vary according to public whim, which would vary in response to what they read in the papers and see and hear on the broadcast news. Ultimately, do you really want government by a Murdoch? We have suffered for years from policy lurches between left and right, with the resulting loss of industries, millions of pounds of wasted public money, all for one or another political doctrine. What we need is consistency of policy, a broad cross-party agreement on what is needed and how best to provide it, to give long-term policy objectives that can be met as and when finance permits, and can be tuned to accommodate changing circumstances, so that everyone knows where we are headed. That requires people who use their own brains, and the privileged information we pay to provide to them, to make the best collective judgements possible. Not 650 people who sit around waiting for someone to tell them what to think and do. On the same basis, I'd go for a fully elected second chamber as well. Not one elected on party lines, but one elected from among the professions, businesses, and universities, so that we get inputs from those with direct knowledge of how things actually get done, rather than a mixed bag of hereditaries and party politicians who have lost their seats. But hey, that's just me! :-D https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-key-flaw-in-our-democracy-mps-dont-represent-the-people/ It must be an absolute necessity for MP’s to represent their constituents and our system is of party manifesto which we either like or dislike. Clearly parliament debate is ment to question and inform . But we have the ability to remove a sitting MP if his views or actions deviate to far from what he was voted in for. The second house is a reasonably pointless debating chamber and I agree most are not fit for purpose. We already have industry think tanks, so can’t see the point of a further elected body. I don’t have all the answers but Parliament did itself no favours for the last 3 years in the eyes of many. We already have a modern way to get Parliament to debate a certain topic, this is perhaps a way forward. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brian Kirby Posted December 24, 2019 Share Posted December 24, 2019 jumpstart - 2019-12-24 4:54 PM………………………………. https://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-key-flaw-in-our-democracy-mps-dont-represent-the-people/ It must be an absolute necessity for MP’s to represent their constituents and our system is of party manifesto which we either like or dislike. Clearly parliament debate is ment to question and inform . But we have the ability to remove a sitting MP if his views or actions deviate to far from what he was voted in for. The second house is a reasonably pointless debating chamber and I agree most are not fit for purpose. We already have industry think tanks, so can’t see the point of a further elected body. I don’t have all the answers but Parliament did itself no favours for the last 3 years in the eyes of many. We already have a modern way to get Parliament to debate a certain topic, this is perhaps a way forward. Here's a Wiki biog of Runciman: https://tinyurl.com/vmmcltd I don't disagree with his thesis, but he doesn't posit any real answers. Its easy to list all the problems, but much harder (especially from someone with his background), to come up with solutions. I'm more than happy with the idea of making voting more responsive to the variety of political views, that presently get pushed into left or right wing parties. PR would be good, but we then have to decide on which flavour of PR we want, and we somehow have to wrestle "first past the post" from the two major established parties, in whose interests it just goes on working - I think to the disadvantage of us all. Turkeys and Christmas? However, PR would be pretty much bound to result in perpetual coalitions, which is a form of government many in UK despise and/or distrust - despite the fact that most European countries, which seem to me to get better government than we do, work in that way. Our system is confrontational: winner takes all, whereas theirs requires compromise and agreement. It is the parties that hold the power in UK. Their origins lie in representation of the interests of two opposed groups, broadly of capital, and of labour. These are diametrically opposed, with the interests of each being anathema to the other. The great problem with direct democracy, at least as demonstrated by the Brexit referendum, is that if the choice is binary it will divide the electorate between the two poles on offer, so creating winners and losers. The problem with that outcome was that the winners didn't know how to win, and the losers didn't know how to lose. People hold their opinions on grounds that, for them, are incontrovertible. It is notable that the leave campaign opted to appeal to emotion, while the remain campaign opted to appeal to reason. Neither side, IMO, won the argument, because the emotional arguments did not register with the remain side, and the remain reason did not register with the leave side. That was the result of deciding on a leave/remain referendum, which was a ridiculously blunt instrument to have adopted for so complex an issue. It created the battleground for two opposing mobs to indulge in a dialogue of the deaf. There was no discernible plan for Brexit, no view of what Britain should look like after Brexit, no presentation of which aspects of leave would benefit who, and how, and no presentation of what options might be open to us were we to decide to leave. It would have been far better had the options been set out on the ballot paper, perhaps to be voted for in order of preference alongside remain, and if time had been spent before the referendum to explain the pros and cons of each, so that people could make informed decisions about what future shape for Britain they were voting for. My take on the past tree and a half years is that our MPs were confronted with trying to reconcile the irreconcilable: to meet the desires of those who wanted to leave the EU, while doing the least economic damage to the country, and discovered that meant delivering economic damage to a majority that was uninterested because it either didn't think it would happen, or if it did, that it would happen to someone else. That raises the prospect of us all discovering that Brexit does, indeed cause economic damage, and that the damage afflicts everyone, without distinguishing between those who voted for it and those who voted against. In short that we shall all be poorer as a direct consequence. For me, that raises the possibility that those who voted remain will instinctively say "we told you so", while those who voted leave will say "but you never said the economic damage would affect us". What then for social cohesion? Who then to vote for? It has often been said that, on the one hand the Brexiters did not understand what they were voting for, and on the other hand that the remainers were not democrats because they didn't simply change their minds to agree with the Brexiters. Again, emotion versus reason. Over the next decade or so we shall find out who was right. If the emotions of the Brexiters prove prophetic we shall all prosper, and the rancour should subside. If the reason of the remainers proves prophetic we shall all (mostly :-)) suffer hardship, and the rancour will grow. Brexit, and those who promoted and/or voted for it, have a lot to deliver: not least that direct democracy is superior basis for good government than representative democracy. I'm not optimistic! Merry Christmas. :-D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.