The Politics Thread 2019

[G STAR RAM]

16 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

MPs’ job is to vote on their own views. We select them and give them that job for their constituency. Not the majority in their constituency. 

That's a really strange view.

Basically you are saying anyone could masquerade under false pretenses to get elected and then vote completely differently.

[bcnram]

2 hours ago, reverendo de duivel said:

We've gone from a society in the late to mid 70's, when one wage earner could provide for a large family's needs  individually, to a society that needs both parents working full time in well paid employment just to enjoy the blessing/curse of one or two kids!

We've witnessed the greatest transferal of wealth away from the average Joe to the upper echelons of society in the last 30 years than at any point in history, and not even noticed it!

The expectations of the average Joe, Mrs Joe and the little Joeys have also gone up several fold, with housing, holidays, multiple  cars, massive tv’s, computer games, smart phones etc. 

I am not saying that is wrong, it is perfectly the right thing to do with their own money, but it probably accounts for a lot of second wages .

 

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

That's a really strange view.

Basically you are saying anyone could masquerade under false pretenses to get elected and then vote completely differently.

That is clearly not what he is saying though.

The 'people' vote someone in as their MP, who can use their judgement to make the best decisions for their constituents. Should the MP vote for something that they know will harm their constituents? Or should they just do what the people want to make sure they win the next election?

[AndyinLiverpool]

4 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

That's a really strange view.

Basically you are saying anyone could masquerade under false pretenses to get elected and then vote completely differently.

They could. It’s representative democracy. There is a lot to dislike about it but an MP votes and acts according to their own conscience. If their constituents don’t like it, they can vote for someone else. 

It would be much stranger for an MP to be simply a delegate. How, for example, would this delegate, know what the majority in the constituency wanted on all issues?

[AndyinLiverpool]

25 minutes ago, Remy the hare said:

Your hilarious ?

How so?

[G STAR RAM]

4 minutes ago, ariotofmyown said:

That is clearly not what he is saying though.

The 'people' vote someone in as their MP, who can use their judgement to make the best decisions for their constituents. Should the MP vote for something that they know will harm their constituents? Or should they just do what the people want to make sure they win the next election?

 

3 minutes ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

They could. It’s representative democracy. There is a lot to dislike about it but an MP votes and acts according to their own conscience. If their constituents don’t like it, they can vote for someone else. 

It would be much stranger for an MP to be simply a delegate. How, for example, would this delegate, know what the majority in the constituency wanted on all issues?

Yes both fair points.

 

 

[Eddie]

54 minutes ago, Remy the hare said:

Your hilarious ?

He's right.

A Member of Parliament is a representative, not a delegate.

There is a subtle, but important, difference.

[Eddie]

44 minutes ago, G STAR RAM said:

That's a really strange view.

Basically you are saying anyone could masquerade under false pretenses to get elected and then vote completely differently.

It happens quite a lot - but it's usually when the party moves and leaves the member having to make a decision to support their party or their conscience.

[maxjam]

 

[Ambitious]

I voted remain because I saw this coming from a mile off. The question I asked myself: do I see the people in charge of this country as capable enough to get us a better deal outside the EU. Obviously I didn't, although I didn't expect them to be so bad. I expected a reasonable deal which would ultimately mean we were out of the EU in name only. 

I really didn't want a 'no deal' Brexit, but taking it off the table removes any leverage we actually had. The only alternative now is a crap deal with the EU or remain. I'd not at all be surprised to see it the latter, with the last three years being nothing more than a outrageous waste of money that could've paid our EU membership for decades over-and-over. 

I personally don't feel a subject like leaving the EU should be given to the general public anyway. I would say that 30-40% of the country don't know the difference between their, they're and there. I don't see how they can be responsible for voting on something as complicated as whether the benefits of the EU outway the negatives - or vice versa. As I said, I voted based on nothing else other than the lack of trust I had in our own government. I had no idea that the day we decided we were to leave the EU that the strength of the pound would have such a huge crash, which has had an untold detrimental impact on importers across the country. 

It's no surprise that Trump is so pro-brexit when you consider the strength of the pound against the dollar to what it was pre-brexit campaign. 

[ariotofmyown]

5 minutes ago, maxjam said:

 

Such a boring criticism of Corbyn. They have clearly said they will wait until the No Deal legislation has gone through before agreeing to a General Election as agreeing now might cause a No Deal to happen. Especially if Johnson lies again about the date. Desperate from Telegraph.

Anyone read Johnson saying he couldn't bring the rebel Tories back as it would go against the Chief Whip. You know, the one who Johnson told to remove them. I'm almost surprised how quickly Johnson has looked so totally hopeless.

Imagine what the Telegraph would be saying about Corbyn if he has done this prorogue joke and  then sacked 20 odd MPs for voting against him!

[cannable]

1 hour ago, ariotofmyown said:

That is clearly not what he is saying though.

The 'people' vote someone in as their MP, who can use their judgement to make the best decisions for their constituents. Should the MP vote for something that they know will harm their constituents? Or should they just do what the people want to make sure they win the next election?

I’m ducking glad I studied constitutional law four years ago because it’d be a ball ache now. 

As recently as 2015 we were lectured that leaving the EU would be political suicide and as such that’s why it would never happen. I wonder if that’ll become true or not… two PMs gone… 

Edit: this isn’t a direct response to your post, your post just set me off ?

[cannable]

36 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I really didn't want a 'no deal' Brexit, but taking it off the table removes any leverage we actually had.

I agree in theory, but it doesn’t look like Johnson’s been negotiating anyway, so it appears it was his aim and it’s been stopped. 

40 minutes ago, Ambitious said:

I personally don't feel a subject like leaving the EU should be given to the general public anyway. I would say that 30-40% of the country don't know the difference between their, they're and there. I don't see how they can be responsible for voting on something as complicated as whether the benefits of the EU outway the negatives - or vice versa. 

This 1000x over. The whole ‘Dave from Tesco doesn’t understand the intricacies of the EU’ thing has been done to death but there’s literally so many real life examples. For neutrality I won’t mention which way votes went but I had a mate/family vote because;

”I dunno, I just fancy a change”

”vote whatever you vote for me”

”I think I’m gonna vote [X], I don’t see what’ll change anyway” (moving to Canada in five days, annoyed his Jofra Archer t-shirt won’t be delivered in time)

”Greg said he’d buy me a pint of Dark Fruits if I voted [X]” (I’ll show you the message in the group chat if you don’t believe this one)

“I was worried about change” 

A referendum is advisory and the advise came from, by and large, the ignorant. Like, for duck sake, I did a year of constitutional law and a year of EU law and that only scratched the surface. 

[Eddie]

Here's your dictator.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2019/09/04/dominic-cummings-personally-sabotaged-tory-rebels-compromise/

Johnson is the hapless puppet on the end of Cummings's strings.

 

[Stagtime]

Might be a dumb question from the other side of the globe but surely when Britain joined the Eu there was a clause in the agreement saying exactly what would happen if a country leaves.

I thought our politics were ordinary but i think we have a big advantage with voting and referendums.

1/ Voting in any election is compulsory. You don't vote you get fined. Everybody gets a say.

2/ For a referendum to pass you must have a double majority.

At the referendum the proposed alteration must be approved by a 'double majority'. That is:

A national majority of voters in the states and territories.

A majority of voters in a majority of the states (i.e. at least four out of six states).

 

[Remy the hare]

6 hours ago, AndyinLiverpool said:

They could. It’s representative democracy. There is a lot to dislike about it but an MP votes and acts according to their own conscience. If their constituents don’t like it, they can vote for someone else. 

It would be much stranger for an MP to be simply a delegate. How, for example, would this delegate, know what the majority in the constituency wanted on all issues?

Because generally people voted in general elections for a parties polices, manifesto or because their parents voted a certain way. The majority of people don’t have a clue what their local MP thinks. But the referendum was different, it was a yes/no call. The constituents spoke in June 2016 and the local MP should abide by that referendum majority result in their constituency not there own views or personal gains. 

[CWC1983]

5 hours ago, cannable said:

 

This 1000x over. The whole ‘Dave from Tesco doesn’t understand the intricacies of the EU’ thing has been done to death but there’s literally so many real life examples. For neutrality I won’t mention which way votes went but I had a mate/family vote because;

”I dunno, I just fancy a change”

”vote whatever you vote for me”

”I think I’m gonna vote [X], I don’t see what’ll change anyway” (moving to Canada in five days, annoyed his Jofra Archer t-shirt won’t be delivered in time)

”Greg said he’d buy me a pint of Dark Fruits if I voted [X]” (I’ll show you the message in the group chat if you don’t believe this one)

“I was worried about change” 

 

Or the classic on 5 live yesterday when asking people from Stockton about the benefits of a 'no deal'

"it shows how strong we are and the EU dont like that"

 

 

'

[McRamFan]

17 hours ago, ariotofmyown said:

We both share a house. You own all of it and I just rent one bedroom, but use all the facilities in other rooms. I also act like I own the place.

I want to move out of your house and buy your damp and cold garage at the bottom of the garden. But at least it would be mine and I can live in it how I wish without you nagging me.

You offer me 10k for the garage and I can still use the facilities in the house for a large reduction in rent.

I say I'll give you 1k and want the usage of facilities for free.

You say you can't do that as the other tenants would want similar discounts.

I say if you don't accept then I will sleep on the street and be homeless and you'll lose both the 1k for the garage sale and the rent for facilities usage.

You say fine. I live on the street and get ill. I eventually knock on your door and ask for my own room back. You say yes at double the rent. I accept. 

As I expected, it went over the heads of brexiteers.

10 hours ago, Norman said:

Something the EU like imposing too.

 

Please tell me what the EU has imposed on the UK that has made things worse?  Is the fact that you get a minimum of 20 days paid holiday a bad thing? Is it a bad thing that you get sick, maternity, paternity pay?  Do you know the EU wanted to give better protection to self employed people, guess which country thought it was a bad idea...

Go on, tell me what was imposed, being as we have the mother of all veto's, that is a bad thing.  You are, as with a lot of brexiteers, being sucked in to the argument that the EU is to blame for everything.

[i-Ram]

7 hours ago, Ambitious said:

I voted remain because I saw this coming from a mile off. The question I asked myself: do I see the people in charge of this country as capable enough to get us a better deal outside the EU. Obviously I didn't, although I didn't expect them to be so bad. I expected a reasonable deal which would ultimately mean we were out of the EU in name only. 

I really didn't want a 'no deal' Brexit, but taking it off the table removes any leverage we actually had. The only alternative now is a crap deal with the EU or remain. I'd not at all be surprised to see it the latter, with the last three years being nothing more than a outrageous waste of money that could've paid our EU membership for decades over-and-over. 

I personally don't feel a subject like leaving the EU should be given to the general public anyway. I would say that 30-40% of the country don't know the difference between their, they're and there. I don't see how they can be responsible for voting on something as complicated as whether the benefits of the EU outway the negatives - or vice versa. As I said, I voted based on nothing else other than the lack of trust I had in our own government. I had no idea that the day we decided we were to leave the EU that the strength of the pound would have such a huge crash, which has had an untold detrimental impact on importers across the country. 

It's no surprise that Trump is so pro-brexit when you consider the strength of the pound against the dollar to what it was pre-brexit campaign. 

I blame them idiots over they’re in Europe. Laughing at us while they munch away on there bratwurst and snails. Their going to be really sorry when we leave. 

[Wolfie]

3 hours ago, Stagtime said:

Might be a dumb question from the other side of the globe but surely when Britain joined the Eu there was a clause in the agreement saying exactly what would happen if a country leaves.

I thought our politics were ordinary but i think we have a big advantage with voting and referendums.

1/ Voting in any election is compulsory. You don't vote you get fined. Everybody gets a say.

2/ For a referendum to pass you must have a double majority.

At the referendum the proposed alteration must be approved by a 'double majority'. That is:

A national majority of voters in the states and territories.

A majority of voters in a majority of the states (i.e. at least four out of six states).

 

Not really. It was never anticipated that anyone would want to leave, so the only mechanism in writing is the Article 50 - which just says that 2 years after activating, the country will leave.