IFISAcava
Member of DD Central
Posts: 3,683
Likes: 3,008
|
Post by IFISAcava on Jan 28, 2019 11:54:12 GMT
Right now I think the chances of us having a no-deal Brexit are approaching certainty. That is what the govt is trying to make everyone think. But very soon, MPs will have to decide to vote for her deal or effectively vote against it and thereby vote for no deal. So MPs like corbyn, cable, cooper and all the other pathetic whiner losers in Parliament will need to make their choice. Deal or no deal. 'pathetic whiner losers' That's the attitude that got us to this impasse and the failure to achieve consensus
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 28, 2019 12:02:31 GMT
That is what the govt is trying to make everyone think. But very soon, MPs will have to decide to vote for her deal or effectively vote against it and thereby vote for no deal. So MPs like corbyn, cable, cooper and all the other pathetic whiner losers in Parliament will need to make their choice. Deal or no deal. 'pathetic whiner losers' That's the attitude that got us to this impasse and the failure to achieve consensus I think the failure to achieve consensus is not because of name-calling but because parliament want the opposite of the people.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 12:13:53 GMT
'pathetic whiner losers' That's the attitude that got us to this impasse and the failure to achieve consensus I think the failure to achieve consensus is not because of name-calling but because parliament want the opposite of the people. Agreed. Article in The Times (print edition, so no link) about some Tory MPs who voted for May's deal now seeking a softer Brexit. Very odd watching the Tories trying to commit electoral suicide. All Labour need to do is stay well clear with no definite position (which they're very good at) and watch the Tories implode.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 12:22:39 GMT
I think the failure to achieve consensus is not because of name-calling but because parliament want the opposite of the people. Agreed. Article in The Times (print edition, so no link) about some Tory MPs who voted for May's deal now seeking a softer Brexit. Very odd watching the Tories trying to commit electoral suicide. All Labour need to do is stay well clear with no definite position (which they're very good at) and watch the Tories implode. Jesus, you people don't seem to understand the first principles of parliamentary democracy. How can you have voted to hand back control to the British Parliament and then be thinking that the parliament "want the opposite of the people"? The Parliament is the expression of the will of the people, which is how we have been governed since Charles I. Did you learn nothing at school?
|
|
registerme
Member of DD Central
Posts: 6,524
Likes: 6,316
|
Post by registerme on Jan 28, 2019 12:58:20 GMT
Two years old but still pretty good:-
|
|
dandy
Posts: 427
Likes: 341
|
Post by dandy on Jan 28, 2019 13:01:01 GMT
Agreed. Article in The Times (print edition, so no link) about some Tory MPs who voted for May's deal now seeking a softer Brexit. Very odd watching the Tories trying to commit electoral suicide. All Labour need to do is stay well clear with no definite position (which they're very good at) and watch the Tories implode. Jesus, you people don't seem to understand the first principles of parliamentary democracy. How can you have voted to hand back control to the British Parliament and then be thinking that the parliament "want the opposite of the people"? The Parliament is the expression of the will of the people, which is how we have been governed since Charles I. Did you learn nothing at school? Most MPs are conniving, in one form or another, to get the opposite of what the people voted for, so I am not sure what your point is. That times have changed? Yes, they have, I agree
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 13:21:39 GMT
Jesus, you people don't seem to understand the first principles of parliamentary democracy. How can you have voted to hand back control to the British Parliament and then be thinking that the parliament "want the opposite of the people"? The Parliament is the expression of the will of the people, which is how we have been governed since Charles I. Did you learn nothing at school? Most MPs are conniving, in one form or another, to get the opposite of what the people voted for, so I am not sure what your point is. That times have changed? Yes, they have, I agree You're not sure what my point is? Well read it again, it's perfectly clear. The UK is a parliamentary democracy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 13:43:46 GMT
Agreed. Article in The Times (print edition, so no link) about some Tory MPs who voted for May's deal now seeking a softer Brexit. Very odd watching the Tories trying to commit electoral suicide. All Labour need to do is stay well clear with no definite position (which they're very good at) and watch the Tories implode. How can you have voted to hand back control to the British Parliament and then be thinking that the parliament "want the opposite of the people"? Quite simple - country voted 52/48 to Leave, MPs are something like 75/25 Remain (see www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-eu-referendum-35616946). Also, MPs generally do what they're told by their party machine which, regardless of whether they're nominally right/left, need have little to do with what people want on specific issues.
Edit: We'll probably need a proportional representation system (the simpler the better) before we get a HoC that really aligns with how people really think. Can't see FPTP MPs agreeing to that for obvious reasons.
|
|
|
Post by captainconfident on Jan 28, 2019 13:54:56 GMT
How can you have voted to hand back control to the British Parliament and then be thinking that the parliament "want the opposite of the people"? Quite simple - country voted 52/48 to Leave, MPs are something like 75/25 Remain. Also, MPs generally do what they're told by their party machine and, regardless of whether they're nominally right/left, have little to do with what people want on specific issues.
First past the post keeps things as they are. Unless/until we have (simplified) proportional representation, I think it's likely to stay as it is now, i.e. not very in-step with popular thinking.
If that had been a binding referendum then your Leavemoaning would have a point. As it wasn't , then it is open for interpretation by our elected representatives. QED These complaints are really below both of your educational dignaties. Brexiteers shouted about handing back power over our laws etc to parliament, and as soon as parliament starts doing its constitutional duty, your mouthpieces call for parliament to be suspended and The Queen to rule over us instead. It is despicable. The referendum was not a football game that You won and someone is trying to "overturn the result". The parliament is debating how to act in your best interests, through the agency of the MP who represents you. If you don't like this system, which I don't, turn your anger on that. As I pointed out to you before, cb25, your stated reason for leaving the EU is "lack of democracy", and I pointed out to you that ther UK system was far less perfect. And here you are, chipping in on the subject of the "betrayal by MPs" who are carrying out their legitimate roles under the UK constitution. You see, you don't like the UK system either, do you? Exactly the point I made to you before.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 14:01:44 GMT
Quite simple - country voted 52/48 to Leave, MPs are something like 75/25 Remain. Also, MPs generally do what they're told by their party machine and, regardless of whether they're nominally right/left, have little to do with what people want on specific issues.
First past the post keeps things as they are. Unless/until we have (simplified) proportional representation, I think it's likely to stay as it is now, i.e. not very in-step with popular thinking.
The parliament is debating how to act in your best interests LOL
|
|
james100
Member of DD Central
Posts: 1,048
Likes: 1,252
|
Post by james100 on Jan 28, 2019 14:13:59 GMT
Most MPs are conniving, in one form or another, to get the opposite of what the people voted for, so I am not sure what your point is. That times have changed? Yes, they have, I agree You're not sure what my point is? Well read it again, it's perfectly clear. The UK is a parliamentary democracy. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_the_United_KingdomI am British born and bred but elected to also take Australian citizenship when the opportunity presented itself. I had to take a test which consisted mostly of questions regarding the governmental/judiciary system and my interface with it, along with the country's official values and what that looks like in an everyday sense. It was explained to me in some detail that this test was necessary to ensure I had sufficient comprehension of how democracy works in Australia to allow me to contribute effectively. The pass mark was 80% because, let's face it, safeguarding the integrity of a democratic system is pretty important else the population won't respect resultant outcomes. Unfortunately I now believe that every single person in this country should have to apply to take this a similar test (and pass it at 80% threshold) in order to retain their right to vote (I understand retrospective rights removal is fair game these days so no moaning about that please). Sitting MPs don't get an exemption btw and a revision workbook would be available for purchase from me at a reasonable price.
|
|
|
Post by bracknellboy on Jan 28, 2019 14:25:04 GMT
Edit: We'll probably need a proportional representation system (the simpler the better) before we get a HoC that really aligns with how people really think. Can't see FPTP MPs agreeing to that for obvious reasons.
Members of Parliament approved a referendum on replacing the current FPTP system - in this case with the AV system. While not truly proportional, it would arguably lead to a more balanced and more proportional system than the current.
In 2011 the referendum was duly held and resoundingly rejected in favour of retaining the existing FPTP system. And none of your slim margins here: a whopping 68/32 split.
Sounds like you would be in favour of retesting the democratic will of the people to see if that position still held true. I'd not have any quibble with that.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 14:29:03 GMT
I suspect that what we see here and in the US - a growing number of people not feeling the main political parties represent their views - is a consequence of a two-party system, especially when the MPs/representatives are 'whipped' (i.e. made to toe the party line).
The best that a number of voters can hope for is that the manifesto of Party X is marginally more in line with the voters' thinking that that of Party Y. However, there can be a growing gulf between what the voters really want and what's on offer. I suspect that's partly why Trump got so much support, lots of people on the right might have agreed that Republicans were slightly better than Democrats but both were way off what those voters really thought.
As to the idea suggested by james100, problem with "you're too stupid to vote" systems is that the people would still be expected to pay tax etc. History suggests that never ends well.
|
|
cb25
Posts: 3,528
Likes: 2,668
|
Post by cb25 on Jan 28, 2019 14:33:04 GMT
Edit: We'll probably need a proportional representation system (the simpler the better) before we get a HoC that really aligns with how people really think. Can't see FPTP MPs agreeing to that for obvious reasons.
Sounds like you would be in favour of retesting the democratic will of the people to see if that position still held true. I'd not have any quibble with that. Absolutely!. Simple system "if party X gets n% of the votes it gets n% of the MPs". If the current mix of MPs indeed represent the views of the public, we'd expect to see the same proportion of MPs under this new system, but I'm sure we wouldn't - we'd get far more on the fringes (far-right, far-left) and probably more coalition governments.
|
|
Nomad
Member of DD Central
Posts: 749
Likes: 505
|
Post by Nomad on Jan 28, 2019 14:36:15 GMT
Sounds like you would be in favour of retesting the democratic will of the people to see if that position still held true. I'd not have any quibble with that. Absolutely!. Simple system "if party X gets n% of the votes it gets n% of the MPs". If the current mix of MPs indeed represent the views of the public, we'd expect to see the same proportion of MPs under this new system, but I'm sure we wouldn't - we'd get far more on the fringes (far-right, far-left) and probably more coalition governments. Coalition governments where very small fringe parties potentially get to call a lot of the shots... That never strikes me as overly democratic!
|
|