UKIP - The Future - Volume 4

[s2art]

TKF said:

FiF said:

This one about who the member represents is another one. Clearly if a constituent raises a specific issue then it's the duty of the member to listen and do what they can. That's assuming the subject is something within their purview, countless representations are made which should be taken at councillor level. But the argument from one side seems to be that if someone is elected on the back of various policy statements then because more people didn't vote for them than did then they are wrong to carry out their policies, despite being the candidate with the most votes.

You're better than this FiF. Nobody has said they are wrong to carry out their policies.

The argument began because mrpurple said "you didn't vote for Farage therefore he doesn't represent you" which is patently wrong. MPs and MEPs first and foremost represent the constituents, you know this. They also represent their party during votes. However, as per the start of this discussion, Farage doesn't vote.

But when there are multiple MEPS per constituency it gives individual MEPs more freedom to pursue the policies for which he stood and was voted for.

Farage can follow his own policies in representing those who voted UKIP, secure in the knowledge that there are other MEPs available to represent the views of those who didnt vote UKIP.

[PRTVR]

TKF said:

FiF said:

This one about who the member represents is another one. Clearly if a constituent raises a specific issue then it's the duty of the member to listen and do what they can. That's assuming the subject is something within their purview, countless representations are made which should be taken at councillor level. But the argument from one side seems to be that if someone is elected on the back of various policy statements then because more people didn't vote for them than did then they are wrong to carry out their policies, despite being the candidate with the most votes.

You're better than this FiF. Nobody has said they are wrong to carry out their policies.

The argument began because mrpurple said "you didn't vote for Farage therefore he doesn't represent you" which is patently wrong. MPs and MEPs first and foremost represent the constituents, you know this. They also represent their party during votes. However, as per the start of this discussion, Farage doesn't vote.

Under normal voting I would agree with you, but when a party is elected on a manifest of taking us out, the rules change,I am unsure if it has ever happened before, have we ever had an election where a party wanted to destroy the system they were getting elected to?

[mrpurple]

TKF said:

You're better than this FiF. Nobody has said they are wrong to carry out their policies.

The argument began because mrpurple said "you didn't vote for Farage therefore he doesn't represent you" which is patently wrong. MPs and MEPs first and foremost represent the constituents, you know this. They also represent their party during votes. However, as per the start of this discussion, Farage doesn't vote.

But that is not true is it? So why type the quote marks? This is what I said:

Did you vote for him or UKIP?............I did and could not care one jot about his, or any other EUMP's attendance / voting record in Brussels / Strasbourg.

"So he isn't letting "US" down.... you because you never voted for him and me because I am 100% happy with what he does/ or does not decide to vote on....and if that winds you up then that is fine by me also jester"

Note the "LETTING US DOWN "...........I can't see the "therefore he doesn't represent you" part!!!!!!!!
But you carry on believing your own hype old bean.

[mrpurple]

PRTVR said:

Under normal voting I would agree with you, but when a party is elected on a manifest of taking us out, the rules change,I am unsure if it has ever happened before, have we ever had an election where a party wanted to destroy the system they were getting elected to?

We might find out a bit more of how it works once the SNP get comfy in HOP.

[PRTVR]

mrpurple said:

PRTVR said:

Under normal voting I would agree with you, but when a party is elected on a manifest of taking us out, the rules change,I am unsure if it has ever happened before, have we ever had an election where a party wanted to destroy the system they were getting elected to?

We might find out a bit more of how it works once the SNP get comfy in HOP.

Are you sure about that? I am sure ms Sturgeon said on TV she was not looking to take Scotland out of the union,but she did start to laugh after saying it.

[eharding]

mrpurple said:

Note the "LETTING US DOWN "...........I can't see the "therefore he doesn't represent you" part!!!!!!!!

Look here....

mrpurple said:

...he is representing the majority who by inference voted UKIP and not the minority that you would like him to...

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

[mrpurple]

eharding said:

mrpurple said:

Note the "LETTING US DOWN "...........I can't see the "therefore he doesn't represent you" part!!!!!!!!

Look here....

mrpurple said:

...he is representing the majority who by inference voted UKIP and not the minority that you would like him to...

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

Finger puppets needed sorry.

[s2art]

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

[Wombat3]

s2art said:

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

This is just the most bizarre train of conversation.

The elected representative is responsible for representing every constituent . End-of.

That has nothing to do with how he votes or behaves in the parliament which will be in accordance with the manifesto on which he was elected. In that context OBVIOUSLY he/she is not going to represent the views of all constituents all of the time.

However in terms of dealing with their issues and problems via surgeries etc. (which are, or rather should be, a very significant part of any MEP/MP's work) all constituents are equal (or should be).

[eharding]

s2art said:

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

The basic point raised by mrpurple's opening and subsequent statements aren't about how a particular delegate votes on any one particular piece of legislation - it is about the fundamental concept of representative democracy, and whether, ultimately, an elected representative is accountable to their electorate as a whole, or merely to those who voted for them.

[Wombat3]

eharding said:

s2art said:

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

The basic point raised by mrpurple's opening and subsequent statements aren't about how a particular delegate votes on any one particular piece of legislation - it is about the fundamental concept of representative democracy, and whether, ultimately, an elected representative is accountable to their electorate as a whole, or merely to those who voted for them.

And in the final analysis they will be accountable to all of them, because, come election time, all of them will get a vote as to whether they stay in post. (More obvious than an obvious thing I would have thought!)

[s2art]

Wombat3 said:

s2art said:

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

This is just the most bizarre train of conversation.

The elected representative is responsible for representing every constituent . End-of.

That has nothing to do with how he votes or behaves in the parliament which will be in accordance with the manifesto on which he was elected. In that context OBVIOUSLY he/she is not going to represent the views of all constituents all of the time.

However in terms of dealing with their issues and problems via surgeries etc. (which are, or rather should be, a very significant part of any MEP/MP's work) all constituents are equal (or should be).

I think you underestimate the consequences of Party List Proportional Representation. There is a responsibility to all constituents, but this system puts the emphasis on Party rather than a close link between a MEP and all constituents. Not v surprising really, as I said there are multiple representatives available to any constituent and said constituent can require/request someone who best represents their views if they wish for any particular issue to be dealt with. It is nothing like FPTP when there is only one representative and therefore HE/She MUST represent all the constituents.

Maybe this says it better than I can;

'Party List Proportional Representation
Party-list proportional representation is a voting system designed to achieve proportional representation (PR) In a closed party list system, voters vote directly for the party. Parties make lists of candidates to be elected, and seats get allocated to each party in proportion to the number of votes the party receives. The larger the size of the constituency, the more proportional the result.
There are variations based on this system.
Party Lists are used in Israel, Italy and elsewhere. UK Members of the European Parliament are elected by a closed list system with regional constituencies.
A criticism of Party list PR is that the MPs are not elected directly in a constituency contest. Rather they are appointed by virtue of being on the Party List of candidates. The Party draws up the Party list of candidates. The candidate at the top of the list is elected first. Therefore whereabouts on the list is critical to the candidates' chance of being elected. MPs owe their election to the Party rather than the voters, and this gives the Party considerable power over its MPs. Similarly there are no Constituency MPs, and therefore the system does not provide a close link between an MP and their constituents.'

[eharding]

Wombat3 said:

eharding said:

s2art said:

eharding said:

Also, the argument that a multi-member constituency somehow absolves individual elected members from a duty of representation of the entire electorate, on the basis that some other member is responsible for the representation of those who didn't vote for them is at best specious - particularly when participation levels of the electorate as a whole are so poor. Fundamentally, it is a tacit affirmation of the Russell Brand school of political thought.

I disagree. Yes he has some responsibility to represent the whole constituency, but what is the point of PR and multiple representatives if it doesnt allow said representatives more freedom to follow the policies for which they were elected? Its just not the same as our FPTP single representative model.

The basic point raised by mrpurple's opening and subsequent statements aren't about how a particular delegate votes on any one particular piece of legislation - it is about the fundamental concept of representative democracy, and whether, ultimately, an elected representative is accountable to their electorate as a whole, or merely to those who voted for them.

And in the final analysis they will be accountable to all of them, because, come election time, all of them will get a vote as to whether they stay in post. (More obvious than an obvious thing I would have thought!)

In the final analysis, yes. The issue here is who a representative is deemed accountable to throughout the duration of tenure in office though, rather than at the end of it.

[mrpurple]

Wombat3 said:

And in the final analysis they will be accountable to all of them, because, come election time, all of them will get a vote as to whether they stay in post. (More obvious than an obvious thing I would have thought!)

[mrpurple]

eharding said:

In the final analysis, yes. The issue here is who a representative is deemed accountable to throughout the duration of tenure in office though, rather than at the end of it.

I have no intention of going back through everything to check but I seem to think this all starting because someone was not happy with NF's attendance / voting record and zilch to do with whether he represented an individual or not.... but at my age I forget things very easily.

[eharding]

mrpurple said:

eharding said:

In the final analysis, yes. The issue here is who a representative is deemed accountable to throughout the duration of tenure in office though, rather than at the end of it.

I have no intention of going back through everything to check but I seem to think this all starting because someone was not happy with NF's attendance / voting record and zilch to do with whether he represented an individual or not.... but at my age I forget things very easily.

I can see why the recent "but I thought I'd logged in not ten minutes ago" PH fiasco might give rise to questioning one's short-term memory, but the conversation spans just over 6 hours and one PH page. I think the record shows pretty clearly where you stand on the issue, finger-puppets or no finger-puppets.

[mrpurple]

eharding said:

I can see why the recent "but I thought I'd logged in not ten minutes ago" PH fiasco might give rise to questioning one's short-term memory, but the conversation spans just over 6 hours and one PH page. I think the record shows pretty clearly where you stand on the issue, finger-puppets or no finger-puppets.

My 1st contribution to this:

mrpurple said:

jjlynn27 said:

I guess downing pints of lager is more attractive proposition than actually doing some work.

Ukippers will, no doubt, pick up one of three options, or their variants;

a) But, it was all part of the master plan.
b) The EU is against us so there was no point in showing up
c) dog ate relevant papers and beer was on BOGOF.

Blah blah blah blah.... god you really are a boring barsteward.

[eharding]

mrpurple said:

eharding said:

I can see why the recent "but I thought I'd logged in not ten minutes ago" PH fiasco might give rise to questioning one's short-term memory, but the conversation spans just over 6 hours and one PH page. I think the record shows pretty clearly where you stand on the issue, finger-puppets or no finger-puppets.

My 1st contribution to this:

mrpurple said:

jjlynn27 said:

I guess downing pints of lager is more attractive proposition than actually doing some work.

Ukippers will, no doubt, pick up one of three options, or their variants;

a) But, it was all part of the master plan.
b) The EU is against us so there was no point in showing up
c) dog ate relevant papers and beer was on BOGOF.

Blah blah blah blah.... god you really are a boring barsteward.

As always, a pleasure conversing with you.

[NicD]

Wombat3 said:

This is just the most bizarre train of conversation.

The elected representative is responsible for representing every constituent . End-of.

That has nothing to do with how he votes or behaves in the parliament which will be in accordance with the manifesto on which he was elected. In that context OBVIOUSLY he/she is not going to represent the views of all constituents all of the time.

However in terms of dealing with their issues and problems via surgeries etc. (which are, or rather should be, a very significant part of any MEP/MP's work) all constituents are equal (or should be).

I think you are trying to make a sensible post amongst a train wreck of weirdness. I stopped wasting time on this nonsense some days ago, though look in from time to time.

People with too much time (and possibly alcohol).

[don4l]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

Actually, you make a good point! One meeting in three years is a disgraceful performance.


Who do you think I should vote for at the next election... and why? Please bear in mind that I want the best for my kids who are in their early, mid-twenties.