The Telegraph don't seem to understand democracy any more!

[Kermit power]

Just having a browse around over lunch, I came across this Tabloidesque headline on the Telegraph website.

The 89 MPs who show contempt for referendum voters"

What, you may ask, have these MPs done to deserve such an accusation?

They have dared to vote against Theresa May's amendment supporting Brexit!!!

OK, so there was a referendum. Over 50% of the voters supported leaving. On that basis, I'd expect the motion to pass, and it did. In fact it passed with a far greater margin of victory than the actual referendum did.

In this country, we vote for MPs to represent us in our constituencies, so if an MP's constituency voted in favour of remain, to my mind, that MP would be showing contempt for the referendum voters if they actually supported the amendment!

Conveniently, in the article, they not only list the 89 MPs to be publicly pilloried and shamed, they also list how their constituencies voted in the referendum.

Of those 89 MPs, a grand total of six represent constituencies who voted leave. The remaining 83 all represent constituencies who voted remain, in some cases to the tune of over 70%.

Those 6 MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave are, in my view, quite deserving of the Telegraph's accusations of showing contempt to voters, but I'd say the Telegraph itself is showing greater contempt by chucking this accusation at the MPs who voted in accordance with their constituents' democratically declared wishes.

[paulrockliffe]

I understand what you're saying, but if those MPs voted to delegate the decision to the people, then they should be voting in line with the result. I know that Ken Clarke voted against the referendum bill, but what about the others?

It was a National vote too, so the outcome shouldn't then be translated into a constituency-based result when it's enacted.

[Kermit power]

paulrockliffe said:

I understand what you're saying, but if those MPs voted to delegate the decision to the people, then they should be voting in line with the result. I know that Ken Clarke voted against the referendum bill, but what about the others?

It was a National vote too, so the outcome shouldn't then be translated into a constituency-based result when it's enacted.

If you're going to take that view, then why do we bother with individual constituency MPs at all?

[Phil1]

Kermit power said:

paulrockliffe said:

I understand what you're saying, but if those MPs voted to delegate the decision to the people, then they should be voting in line with the result. I know that Ken Clarke voted against the referendum bill, but what about the others?

It was a National vote too, so the outcome shouldn't then be translated into a constituency-based result when it's enacted.

If you're going to take that view, then why do we bother with individual constituency MPs at all?

For the rest of the time when they don't pass the decision back to the people. They don't get to say, oh it's down to you lot, then when they don't like the answer decide to make the decision after all. Especially when that opposes the decision of the people.

[wc98]

as an ardent leave voter i have to agree with you . whenever the press start an agenda these days you know it is only to benefit themselves.

[Eric Mc]

The UK is constitutionally a bit of a mess. As a result, what is defined as "Democracy" is variable depending on what argument you are putting forward at any given time.

Usually, those who have lost a decision under one version of "democracy" will try to have that decision reversed or at least re-examined under an alternative version.

Because of the wooliness of our "constitution", this is quite easy to do.

[Kermit power]

Phil1 said:

Kermit power said:

paulrockliffe said:

I understand what you're saying, but if those MPs voted to delegate the decision to the people, then they should be voting in line with the result. I know that Ken Clarke voted against the referendum bill, but what about the others?

It was a National vote too, so the outcome shouldn't then be translated into a constituency-based result when it's enacted.

If you're going to take that view, then why do we bother with individual constituency MPs at all?

For the rest of the time when they don't pass the decision back to the people. They don't get to say, oh it's down to you lot, then when they don't like the answer decide to make the decision after all. Especially when that opposes the decision of the people.

So in that case, shouldn't they be directly reflecting the choice of the nation and agreeing between themselves which MPs vote for and against to pass it by as close as they can get to 52/48?

[Einion Yrth]

I'm a pragmatist, so long as it passes I don't care how they sort it out amongst themselves.

[Digga]

In the case of the six who voted against the democratically expressed wishes of their constituents, it's a very poor show IMHO (forget getting re-elected anyway), the other 83 are just doing what they feel is the right thing or are being coerced into by their party superiors.

[AlexHat]

I wasn't surprised that some MP's voted against, I'm more surprised that it passed with such a large majority. At least now we seem to have a timetable of sorts

[paulrockliffe]

Kermit power said:

Phil1 said:

Kermit power said:

paulrockliffe said:

I understand what you're saying, but if those MPs voted to delegate the decision to the people, then they should be voting in line with the result. I know that Ken Clarke voted against the referendum bill, but what about the others?

It was a National vote too, so the outcome shouldn't then be translated into a constituency-based result when it's enacted.

If you're going to take that view, then why do we bother with individual constituency MPs at all?

For the rest of the time when they don't pass the decision back to the people. They don't get to say, oh it's down to you lot, then when they don't like the answer decide to make the decision after all. Especially when that opposes the decision of the people.

So in that case, shouldn't they be directly reflecting the choice of the nation and agreeing between themselves which MPs vote for and against to pass it by as close as they can get to 52/48?

No. Firstly, for the same reason that the result is binary, the MPs vote is binary. It doesn't matter what the margin in the vote is in either case. But the most important point is that the two votes are not equivalent. The public voted to leave the EU, the MPs are voting on whether to enact a decision made by the public.

I don't think that the Telegraph's article is particularly necessary, but any MP that voted to hold the referendum and is now voting against the result deserves to be mocked, ridiculed and booted out at the earliest opportunity.

[ATG]

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

[Digga]

ATG said:

They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Agreed, media in general TBF.

[ATG]

Einion Yrth said:

I'm a pragmatist, so long as it passes I don't care how they sort it out amongst themselves.

Quite. I think the idea that the democratically expressed will of the people is going to be ignored is daft. It would be suicidal.

The only way we aren't going to leave is if the general public changes its mind, and expresses that view clearly at the ballot box.

[Jaguar steve]

ATG said:

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Couldn't agree more. Hard to tell the difference between the DT and the Mail these days.

[anonymous-user]

Little surprise that very few actually read/buy papers these days .
An irrelevance & will soon become extinct. Good.

[Jockman]

The Times has gone the other way. It is questioning absolutely everything to do with brexit and I think it's scoring the govt 3/10 so far for its efforts.

[Pan Pan Pan]

Kermit power said:

Just having a browse around over lunch, I came across this Tabloidesque headline on the Telegraph website.

The 89 MPs who show contempt for referendum voters"

What, you may ask, have these MPs done to deserve such an accusation?

They have dared to vote against Theresa May's amendment supporting Brexit!!!

OK, so there was a referendum. Over 50% of the voters supported leaving. On that basis, I'd expect the motion to pass, and it did. In fact it passed with a far greater margin of victory than the actual referendum did.

In this country, we vote for MPs to represent us in our constituencies, so if an MP's constituency voted in favour of remain, to my mind, that MP would be showing contempt for the referendum voters if they actually supported the amendment!

Conveniently, in the article, they not only list the 89 MPs to be publicly pilloried and shamed, they also list how their constituencies voted in the referendum.

Of those 89 MPs, a grand total of six represent constituencies who voted leave. The remaining 83 all represent constituencies who voted remain, in some cases to the tune of over 70%.

Those 6 MPs who represent constituencies that voted leave are, in my view, quite deserving of the Telegraph's accusations of showing contempt to voters, but I'd say the Telegraph itself is showing greater contempt by chucking this accusation at the MPs who voted in accordance with their constituents' democratically declared wishes.

Yet another attempt to try to divide the result of the referendum. The UK voted to leave the EU. The MPs have now been given three votes on the matter of leaving the EU. The first when they voted 6 to 1 to hold a referendum on whether the UK should remain in or leave the EU in which it was stated in writing that the result would be abided by.
The second was in the referendum itself, where every single politician in parliament was given the opportunity to vote on whether they wanted to remain or leave, and in which the UK voted to leave.
The third vote was concerned with the triggering of article 50 by the end of march 2017.
How many more votes are going to be put in the way of respecting the UK voting public`s wish to leave the EU?
In the referendum the fact that some areas voted to leave, and some to remain is irrelevant, the overall result was that the UK would leave the EU, and meeting that requirement of the people of the UK is and should be what MP`s are focusing on now. they are already past the point where the vote of their particular constituency has any bearing on the matter.

[Don]

Jaguar steve said:

ATG said:

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Couldn't agree more. Hard to tell the difference between the DT and the Mail these days.

That's going a bit far. The DT boils my piss regularly because I actually pay for it and when they print ste it annoys me greatly. On balance, though, the level of quality in comparison to the loo roll that is the Daily Mail is far superior.

I don't think there's any "paper" that's honestly consistently good, these days. The Grauniad is st, the Times is st, the Telegraph is often a bit st, the Daily Mail is a festering excuse for a rag, the Express is vile and The Independent plain isn't. I may be forced into trying the FT.

PITA.

[dbdb]

Jaguar steve said:

ATG said:

The Telegraph's voice had become increasingly shrill and irrational over the years. It's a crying shame. The Press is one of the cornerstones of a democracy, but fewer and fewer newspapers take that responsibility seriously. My fear is that quite a few readers haven't noticed the slide. It's always been the case that a lot of Daily Mail readers are unaware they're reading a comic. Telegraph readers, though, once upon a time could expect pretty reliable journalism, and opinion pieces that challenged their assumptions. But those days seem to be gone. People who I greatly respect will quote complete tripe from the Telegraph and look genuinely surprised to have a supposedly authoritative source questioned. They need to switch their bullst detectors on and recognise how far downhill it has slipped.

Couldn't agree more. Hard to tell the difference between the DT and the Mail these days.

I subscribed to the Telegraph for years (I like to have a physical 'paper delivered) but gave up on it a couple of years ago. It is simply not worth reading anymore. The slide in standards at the Telegraph has been profound and I cannot abide the Daily Mail style tone the newspaper has developed.

I switched initially to subscribing to the Guardian. That didn't last. Whilst I find it a better newspaper than the Telegraph (that really isn't hard) I began to find the Guardian's various hobby horses and viewpoint of the world rather irksome. They also proved incapable of managing my subscription. So I switched to the Times - which I currently read. It isn't perfect, but it is a LOT better than the Telegraph and a lot less irritatimg than the Guardian.