|
|
Post by ratcliff on Jul 2, 2024 11:57:04 GMT
Being an M.P is a job , that job is to represent their constituents to the best of their ability in competition with some 650 other MPs who are also representing their constituents to the best of their abilities. Everyone who works has a job description with a defined job role that may make them well informed within their own sector , if you need financial advice you consult a financial advisor , you don't consult your local MP . If your arm hurts you consult a doctor , not an MP You appear to think that their job description is widespread non specific information gathering and fulfilling a paternalistic all knowing ''nanny knows best'' job role. It isn't , at best a well rounded MP will be have generalist knowledge ,an MP who has no qualification and has dot worked outside poltics/government will have basic life general knowledge only , an MP who was formerly a house painter and decorator will probably have specialist knowhow in painting and decorating and have general knowledge on other subjects if they are of interest. M.P.'s also have their own lives to conduct , often in the spotlight . Conducting your own life is not restricted to the average voter (whatever that means) Until something like a referendum comes along, and then MPs minds are focused to a greater degree on that referendum. Where they just happen to have people to help with their research, all part of the job. I see you waste much of your post pointing out the obvious, that has nothing to do with debating an issue. There have been three national referenda in the UK where MPs regurgitate whatever the party line is and how they are whipped. What are they doing he rest of the time if referenda are so useful in increasing their own knowledge? If you want to know about polling trends/questions you consult a polling organisation or bookmaker - not an MP I'm still wondering how you believe that being an MP makes you ''better'' informed than others just because there are staff , most businesses/organisations have staff , it's normal |
|
|
|
Post by The Squeezed Middle on Jul 2, 2024 12:23:19 GMT
And no MP in the entire history of the UK Parliament has ever a) lied, or b) been shown to be ignorant of facts? I personally know of no one who simply puts an X in a box without thinking about it; everyone I know well enough to discuss politics with actually discusses politics BEFORE making their voting decision. But you still have NOT answered my first question: " What, EXACTLY, made it wrong to extend the use of Democracy?" Referring me to a vague prior answer that did not actually say EXACTLY what reasons you have for denying the Democratic Process does not cut it. You answer was: " I don't believe in the UK's ability to run an anything like an honest or genuinely debated referendum." Why EXACTLY do you think it impossible for the UK to run "an honest and genuinely debated referendum"? Which EXACT part of that whole process is so flawed as to warrant denying the popular vote to the people?... Well, of course the remnants real issue with the referendum is that it didn't give the result they wanted. And they rationalise this by claiming that leavers were lied to and that if only they'd heard the truth they'd have voted to remain. It's wishful thinking which makes two main assumptions: 1) Remainers weren't also lied to 2) That leaver's based their voting decision on lies And the problem with (1) is the nature of the alleged “lies”. Yes, politicians lie. But most campaign material is also largely opinion based: “We think that this will happen if...” is essentially the basis of all campaigns on both sides. No one can predict the future, so even if they're totally honest they're still just taking a best guess of how things will pan out. And the problem with (2) is that we have a mature electorate quite capable of seeing through the bullshit, hence to what extent they were swayed by campaigning, if any, is an unknown. The same as it is in any election. No that you can debate that with the likes of See2 who is not capable of debate and can only repeat dogma. |
|
|
|
Post by sandypine on Jul 2, 2024 12:49:43 GMT
I disagree, the main substance of the Remain campaign centered around how bad things would be if Brexit came to pass. Little was heard of the positive aspects of EU membership. By contrast the main substance of the Leave side centered around taking back control of the country from foreign/global/financial interests. There is little doubt that a large section of the Remain side certainly 'bigged up' the potential problems, including potential return to violence in NI, (does that constitute a threat?) and the ostracising of the UK from global power. Now within that debate there was much flowery language and hyperbole from many people but the sober discussions, and there were many, highlighted those as the salient points. The referendum was a mess full of lies, insinuated lies and misinformation, with the finger of guilt pointed at both sides. That's the reality. The salient points is what it should have all been about, it wasn't, so cherry picking does not change the reality. For instance I was still pulling posters up 7 years after the referendum for claiming the EU was run by unelected people. An obvious lie apparently swallowed by many who voted Brexit. Indeed it was a mess however that mess was never highlighting the positive of being in the EU it highlighted the negative of being out as a strategy of the Remain group. It is to a degree part truth to say it is run by unelected people as teh Commission are powerful in terms of ensuring the treaties are adhered to unless they are amended, not an easy process. In line with all bureaucracies the rules and regs are inviolable and are used to hog tie countries to the Union and bind the whole. Reforming anything is a slow process and subject to much blocking. The EU is seen by many of our politicians as the next tier up where our democracy takes second place to looking to the future. Not a good situation at all and the distance from decisions to the electorate in teh EU is very distant with power to change strictly controlled and restricted. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 2, 2024 14:44:12 GMT
And no MP in the entire history of the UK Parliament has ever a) lied, or b) been shown to be ignorant of facts? I personally know of no one who simply puts an X in a box without thinking about it; everyone I know well enough to discuss politics with actually discusses politics BEFORE making their voting decision. But you still have NOT answered my first question: " What, EXACTLY, made it wrong to extend the use of Democracy?" Referring me to a vague prior answer that did not actually say EXACTLY what reasons you have for denying the Democratic Process does not cut it. You answer was: " I don't believe in the UK's ability to run an anything like an honest or genuinely debated referendum." Why EXACTLY do you think it impossible for the UK to run "an honest and genuinely debated referendum"? Which EXACT part of that whole process is so flawed as to warrant denying the popular vote to the people?... Well, of course the remnants real issue with the referendum is that it didn't give the result they wanted. And they rationalise this by claiming that leavers were lied to and that if only they'd heard the truth they'd have voted to remain. It's wishful thinking which makes two main assumptions: 1) Remainers weren't also lied to 2) That leaver's based their voting decision on lies And the problem with (1) is the nature of the alleged “lies”. Yes, politicians lie. But most campaign material is also largely opinion based: “We think that this will happen if...” is essentially the basis of all campaigns on both sides. No one can predict the future, so even if they're totally honest they're still just taking a best guess of how things will pan out. And the problem with (2) is that we have a mature electorate quite capable of seeing through the bullshit, hence to what extent they were swayed by campaigning, if any, is an unknown. The same as it is in any election. No that you can debate that with the likes of See2 who is not capable of debate and can only repeat dogma. Wow, we can it seems agree 100% on something. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by andrewbrown on Jul 2, 2024 17:04:18 GMT
And the problem with (2) is that we have a mature electorate quite capable of seeing through the bullshit, hence to what extent they were swayed by campaigning, if any, is an unknown. The same as it is in any election. Sometimes campaigns can make a difference (think Theresa May losing her majority in 2017) but generally agree. I thought that there would be some movement this year, based on a) the Tories being a low place I thought they'd recover a little and b) there's been a lot more undecided voters than normal. You'd think there'd be some movement there, but there hasn't. The only change was Farage deciding to stand has increased support for Reform, at the expense of the Tories. Similarly some disaffected Labour supporters have drifted to LibDems and Greens. Overall though I don't think that will have much, if any, impact on the overall outcome. |
|
|
|
Post by wapentake on Jul 2, 2024 17:25:29 GMT
Plain as the nose on your face you said this Bettter informed ,have advisors? So some ex postmaster and a obscure computer magazine told them for years the system was faulty yet you believe MP’s know better. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 2, 2024 18:53:36 GMT
Plain as the nose on your face you said this Bettter informed ,have advisors? So some ex postmaster and a obscure computer magazine told them for years the system was faulty yet you believe MP’s know better. Well you can be sure New Labour will not be responsible for any of it. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 4, 2024 10:41:27 GMT
Until something like a referendum comes along, and then MPs minds are focused to a greater degree on that referendum. Where they just happen to have people to help with their research, all part of the job. I see you waste much of your post pointing out the obvious, that has nothing to do with debating an issue. There have been three national referenda in the UK where MPs regurgitate whatever the party line is and how they are whipped. What are they doing he rest of the time if referenda are so useful in increasing their own knowledge? If you want to know about polling trends/questions you consult a polling organisation or bookmaker - not an MP I'm still wondering how you believe that being an MP makes you ''better'' informed than others just because there are staff , most businesses/organisations have staff , it's normal Yes it is normal, but not normal for those who learn from whinging about politics to their mates while supping in their local alehouse, or from newspapers like the Mail, Express etc. I had an eye opener 24 years ago. I used to listen to Jimmy Young's phone in programme on the radio while I was driving. A woman phoned in one day commenting on just how awful the Millennium Dome was, giving a number of reasons (opinions) why it was so bad. When she finished Jim asked her if she had visited the Dome, she said no, "but I have read all about it in my newspaper". Now even one individual voting for silly reasons in a referendum, gets away with a vote, that along with the levels of dishonesty on both sides, making the UK a laughing stock in front of the world, is basically why I appose referenda. That some MP may not be worth a carrot, does not alter the fact that as the representatives of many, they do have a responsibility to be politically informed. While many voters do not have such a responsibility. I really do not need obvious advice from you. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 4, 2024 10:48:25 GMT
Plain as the nose on your face you said this Bettter informed ,have advisors? So some ex postmaster and a obscure computer magazine told them for years the system was faulty yet you believe MP’s know better. Your point is out of context to the exchanges that were taking place, my point was the difference between voting in a referenda, and voting for a political representative in Parliament. |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 4, 2024 10:52:55 GMT
Plain as the nose on your face you said this Bettter informed ,have advisors? So some ex postmaster and a obscure computer magazine told them for years the system was faulty yet you believe MP’s know better. Well you can be sure New Labour will not be responsible for any of it. All The Best You are right, New Labour were not responsible for the 2016 referendum. Nothing to do with the tangent taken by wapentake.  |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 4, 2024 11:13:27 GMT
1. It is also included along with other comments in the post at the top of page 65, this thread. 2. My concern was about the referendum. 2 'A' ditto ^ You miss the elephant in the room i.e. MPs have the responsibility to be honest and informed, If they fail to do that in parliament they can be exposed, if all the average voter does is to put their 'X' on the way they vote, even if they do it because of the nonsense over 'bent bananas' so what? that's it. Your final comment is pure bullshit. And no MP in the entire history of the UK Parliament has ever a) lied, or b) been shown to be ignorant of facts? I personally know of no one who simply puts an X in a box without thinking about it; everyone I know well enough to discuss politics with actually discusses politics BEFORE making their voting decision. But you still have NOT answered my first question: " What, EXACTLY, made it wrong to extend the use of Democracy?" Referring me to a vague prior answer that did not actually say EXACTLY what reasons you have for denying the Democratic Process does not cut it. You answer was: " I don't believe in the UK's ability to run an anything like an honest or genuinely debated referendum." Why EXACTLY do you think it impossible for the UK to run "an honest and genuinely debated referendum"? Which EXACT part of that whole process is so flawed as to warrant denying the popular vote to the people? All The Best I don't recognise referendum as an extension of democracy. It is a form of democracy which IMO is beyond this so politically divided country, with so many voters being so easily misled when voting. Example, Thatcher in office for 11 years, she was so bad that despite the electorate being conned into backing her, she was eventually dumped by her own party. |
|
|
|
Post by sheepy on Jul 4, 2024 11:24:03 GMT
And no MP in the entire history of the UK Parliament has ever a) lied, or b) been shown to be ignorant of facts? I personally know of no one who simply puts an X in a box without thinking about it; everyone I know well enough to discuss politics with actually discusses politics BEFORE making their voting decision. But you still have NOT answered my first question: " What, EXACTLY, made it wrong to extend the use of Democracy?" Referring me to a vague prior answer that did not actually say EXACTLY what reasons you have for denying the Democratic Process does not cut it. You answer was: " I don't believe in the UK's ability to run an anything like an honest or genuinely debated referendum." Why EXACTLY do you think it impossible for the UK to run "an honest and genuinely debated referendum"? Which EXACT part of that whole process is so flawed as to warrant denying the popular vote to the people? All The Best I don't recognise referendum as an extension of democracy. It is a form of democracy which IMO is beyond this so politically divided country, with so many voters being so easily misled when voting. Example, Thatcher in office for 11 years, she was so bad that despite the electorate being conned into backing her, she was eventually dumped by her own party. Well, here is some advice for you Einstein, the Establishment for all its misguided intentions looks after its own for doing its bidding through thick and thin even when it is blatantly obvious what they are doing. They are easy to follow because you can bet those who did their bidding will be rewarded in this life for it. |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 4, 2024 12:13:44 GMT
Well you can be sure New Labour will not be responsible for any of it. All The Best You are right, New Labour were not responsible for the 2016 referendum. Nothing to do with the tangent taken by wapentake. So New Labour opening the floodgates of Immigration had absolutely no impact on the call for, or result of, the referendum? I knew you were deluded, but not this deluded. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by ProVeritas on Jul 4, 2024 12:18:44 GMT
And no MP in the entire history of the UK Parliament has ever a) lied, or b) been shown to be ignorant of facts? I personally know of no one who simply puts an X in a box without thinking about it; everyone I know well enough to discuss politics with actually discusses politics BEFORE making their voting decision. But you still have NOT answered my first question: " What, EXACTLY, made it wrong to extend the use of Democracy?" Referring me to a vague prior answer that did not actually say EXACTLY what reasons you have for denying the Democratic Process does not cut it. You answer was: " I don't believe in the UK's ability to run an anything like an honest or genuinely debated referendum." Why EXACTLY do you think it impossible for the UK to run "an honest and genuinely debated referendum"? Which EXACT part of that whole process is so flawed as to warrant denying the popular vote to the people? All The Best It is a form of democracy which IMO is beyond this so politically divided country, with so many voters being so easily misled when voting. Example, Thatcher in office for 11 years, she was so bad that despite the electorate being conned into backing her, she was eventually dumped by her own party. You recognition is not required for a fact to be a FACT. The only reason you oppose Referenda is because you can't control the outcome. You don't want Democracy you want Eurocracy. All The Best |
|
|
|
Post by see2 on Jul 4, 2024 14:19:05 GMT
You are right, New Labour were not responsible for the 2016 referendum. Nothing to do with the tangent taken by wapentake. So New Labour opening the floodgates of Immigration had absolutely no impact on the call for, or result of, the referendum? I knew you were deluded, but not this deluded. All The Best Correct. The country had an expanding economy and a shortage of - skilled, semi skilled, entrepreneurs, professionals, like teachers, plumbers, electricians trained Plasterers, brickies and no doubt more, so if you are going to back date any responsibilities, then lets go back to the destruction of thousands of small businesses as the number of people out of work almost hit 4 million, and the traditional apprenticeship systems were destroyed by the introduction of 'Self Employed'. Be honest, it was a Tory government that decided on a referendum, no one forced them to do it. And in terms of reducing the numbers entering this country it has failed miserably anyway. Even after the elimination of FOM from the EU. You have a good imagination, unfortunately it continues to make you look like an ill-informed fool. |
|
