Jeremy Corbyn (Vol. 3)
Discussion
jakesmith said:
That is the purpose of an elected representative and I would rate an MP's ability to form an opinion on what is best, above the average person in the street
Dianne AbbottJeremy Corbyn
Neil Kinnock
Gordon Brown
Tony Blair
John McDonnell
Eric Pickles.......................................................
Agammemnon said:
Dianne Abbott
Jeremy Corbyn
Neil Kinnock
Gordon Brown
Tony Blair
John McDonnell
Eric Pickles.......................................................
TowieJeremy Corbyn
Neil Kinnock
Gordon Brown
Tony Blair
John McDonnell
Eric Pickles.......................................................
Made in Chelsea
The Valleys
Geordie Shore
Beauty School Cop Outs
Big Brother
Kardashians
Geordie Shore
Say Yes to The Dress
Real Housewives of Atlanta
Not just ram packed with hundreds of morons, but watched by millions more morons
jakesmith said:
Towie
Made in Chelsea
The Valleys
Geordie Shore
Beauty School Cop Outs
Big Brother
Kardashians
Geordie Shore
Say Yes to The Dress
Real Housewives of Atlanta
Not just ram packed with hundreds of morons, but watched by millions more morons
How many don't watch any of that crap compared wth how many do?Made in Chelsea
The Valleys
Geordie Shore
Beauty School Cop Outs
Big Brother
Kardashians
Geordie Shore
Say Yes to The Dress
Real Housewives of Atlanta
Not just ram packed with hundreds of morons, but watched by millions more morons
jakesmith said:
NoddyonNitrous said:
jakesmith said:
motco said:
jakesmith said:
motco said:
No, the MP is not there to dictate what he/she thinks might have certain effects, he/she is there to represent the electorate of the constituency and if that constituency is of a particular view then it is the MP's duty to trot off to Westminster and vote for it.
No that is absolutely profoundly wrongThe MP is there to represent our interests not our views or opinions
Representative politics 101
If everyone in a constituency wanted free cigarettes or to legalise dog fights would the MP be obliged to build support for it in law. Of course not.
But what if the electorate make the wrong decision?
Uncle John said:
Tony427 said:
oyster said:
V10leptoquark said:
Oilchange said:
oyster said:
Depends what you mean by blocking it.
If the Lib Dems won a general election and their MPs voted to reverse Brexit - that is democratic is it not?
If the LIb Dems formed a coalition with someone else and one condition of the coalition is another referendum (the 3rd) and the result was then remain - that would also be democratic.
Just voting against something, or campaigning against something isn't anti-democratic.
It would be pointless having elections if we weren't allowed to reverse previous decisions.
Its only democratic if you have implemented the first decision, otherwise its wholly moronic and undemocratic. Bit like replaying the World Cup final because you didn’t like the result.If the Lib Dems won a general election and their MPs voted to reverse Brexit - that is democratic is it not?
If the LIb Dems formed a coalition with someone else and one condition of the coalition is another referendum (the 3rd) and the result was then remain - that would also be democratic.
Just voting against something, or campaigning against something isn't anti-democratic.
It would be pointless having elections if we weren't allowed to reverse previous decisions.
If we had a general election and the minority demanded another because they didn’t like who won, would that be democratic in your eyes?
Its pretty much this in a nutshell.
To be deemed a functioning democracy the enactment and deliverance of the vote result should be seen through. People can of course continue to campaign against it, but no MP should ever go about thwarting, frustrating or blocking the enactment of the result.
Especially (in the case of brexit) as the MPs decided and voted to enact article 50.
'To be deemed a functioning democracy the enactment and deliverance of the vote result should be seen through'
If you mean the 2016 referendum then yes I'm inclined to agree. However the real democratic function is our ability to vote for a different MP if ours does not perform as we want.
'People can of course continue to campaign against it'
Agree
'but no MP should ever go about thwarting, frustrating or blocking the enactment of the result'
If such blocking, thwarting (etc. is done via Parliament then it is well within the rights of the MP to do such. Again, it is the democratic mandate of the electorate to vote out such an MP, if they so desire.
'Especially (in the case of brexit)'
Brexit should not be singled out for a different level of democratic process, more or less than any other topic.
'as the MPs decided and voted to enact article 50'
Correct but this was in the previous Parliament. No Parliament can be binded by the one before. So yes it stands as law right now, but if Parliament now votes differently, then that is democaracy in action.
And again we all have the power to remove such MPs at the ballot box.
I think thats enough "democracy in action" for anybody.
Apart for remainers of course.
Their democracy is a special kind.
I see the snaggle toothed school caretaker was replaced by Marxdonnell on stage at the Church House photo op with all the other leaders as he was ‘trapped’ in meetings......yeah believe that....
You seem to be confusing me for a remainer.
You do know that 90% of the population are not either rabid leavers or remainers?
Agammemnon said:
How many don't watch any of that crap compared wth how many do?
Well, at it's peak more people watched Eastenders, than voted Leave my old chum, in fact the most watched episode had almost as many people watch it as turned out on both sides of the referendumEdited by jakesmith on Tuesday 27th August 20:54
jakesmith said:
OK let's continue with the dog fighting analogy for a moment
Say there was an advisory referendum on allowing dog fights as an example
Everyone votes yes as they love dog fights.
Then, as the fighting is only months away, it turns out that if they go ahead, everyone will have to have 5 dog turds thrown into their front garden, per day. Even those who didn't want dog fighting
This was not known at the time of the referendum.
Would it be such a bad thing to check that people still wanted that?
There might still be many who love dog fights and would put up with it - but surely many more who, when faced with the reality of dog s
t, might appreciate the opportunity to think again
If it was such a compelling thing with such strong feeling then the outcome would be repeated surely
I do love a good old flawed analogy but hell let’s run with it.Say there was an advisory referendum on allowing dog fights as an example
Everyone votes yes as they love dog fights.
Then, as the fighting is only months away, it turns out that if they go ahead, everyone will have to have 5 dog turds thrown into their front garden, per day. Even those who didn't want dog fighting
This was not known at the time of the referendum.
Would it be such a bad thing to check that people still wanted that?
There might still be many who love dog fights and would put up with it - but surely many more who, when faced with the reality of dog s
t, might appreciate the opportunity to think againIf it was such a compelling thing with such strong feeling then the outcome would be repeated surely
Let’s say for the sake of example that indeed apparently voting for the proposed legislation might result in an uptick of dogs
t.In that scenario I would expect parliament, keeping in mind the
1) passing of the dogfighting referendum
2) actual result of that referendum being pro dogfighting
3) manifestos supporting dog fighting in a subsequent GE by all but one party
4) passing of the enacting legislation that said unless parliament passed an ameliorating bill on the effects of dogfighting it would be unregulated dogfighting everywhere from March 2019
To actually work on devising a means of delivering dogfighting and not
A) casting all government attempts to pass the dogfighting bill as a ‘hard Tory dogfighting bill’
B) when looking at how to get out of the morass fail to pass any alternative arrangement apart from one which explicitly enabled the legislation but was unacceptable to the international dog appreciation society and therefore was never going to be recognised.
But strangely enough that’s not what happened. Instead those against dogfighting connived every step of the way to draw out the process so that the public could be asked ‘dogfighting? Doesn’t sound like such a sound idea now eh?’.
Think we’ve thrashed that particular analogy to death...
V10leptoquark said:
True, but again I'll have to agree to disagree with you on a point.
The process of frustrating brexit and the attempts to block it have caused a long delay that has given rise to a succession of MPs leaving or graining their positions. If the brexit delays go on indefinitely (for example) then of course many party positions will change - which only goes to demonstrate a failure of democracy in my view (with respect to enacting the public desire on brexit) - not something as an example to support it.
The intention of the delay is of course so that the losing side of the referendum can play out in hope that there will be another voting event to give a new mandate to remain. At the moment there is no mandate to remain and those MPs that are acting against the referendum result are doing so without a mandate, they are only acting on their personal/party/political agendas (ie. not the public's interest and as such not democratic IMO).
Remember that on the last election both main parties stood on a leave stance. A stance to enact the referendum result (honour it as they put it). This means that the vast majority of MPs in parliament should be acting in the UK's national interest for the best leave option, not acting against this national interest in trying to block the process. So in total one could argue that there have been three democratic events that have supported the UK to leave the EU. 1st the referendum, 2nd parliament voting to trigger article 50 and 3rd the public vote at the last GE, all providing and fully supporting a mandate to leave the EU.
For there to be MPs actively going against that obvious mandate is something that should come back and bite them hard.
This is the bit that makes me most angry at Boris Johnson (and some of his supporters).The process of frustrating brexit and the attempts to block it have caused a long delay that has given rise to a succession of MPs leaving or graining their positions. If the brexit delays go on indefinitely (for example) then of course many party positions will change - which only goes to demonstrate a failure of democracy in my view (with respect to enacting the public desire on brexit) - not something as an example to support it.
The intention of the delay is of course so that the losing side of the referendum can play out in hope that there will be another voting event to give a new mandate to remain. At the moment there is no mandate to remain and those MPs that are acting against the referendum result are doing so without a mandate, they are only acting on their personal/party/political agendas (ie. not the public's interest and as such not democratic IMO).
Remember that on the last election both main parties stood on a leave stance. A stance to enact the referendum result (honour it as they put it). This means that the vast majority of MPs in parliament should be acting in the UK's national interest for the best leave option, not acting against this national interest in trying to block the process. So in total one could argue that there have been three democratic events that have supported the UK to leave the EU. 1st the referendum, 2nd parliament voting to trigger article 50 and 3rd the public vote at the last GE, all providing and fully supporting a mandate to leave the EU.
For there to be MPs actively going against that obvious mandate is something that should come back and bite them hard.
In 2016, the incumbent remain-supporting PM resigned. Up step a Brexiteer obviously.
No - he quit.
No problem, the resultant PM placed a bunch of prominent Brexiteers into the Cabinet and in charge of negotiations.
No - they quit.
Ok no problem, there’s still a chance to Brexit by 31/March.
No, they failed to vote in line with their manifesto promise.
Boris now has another chance. Again the cabinet is loaded with Brexiteers in high places.
There’s genuinely no-one to blame anymore. Get the job done.
Ridgemont said:
I do love a good old flawed analogy but hell let’s run with it.
Let’s say for the sake of example that indeed apparently voting for the proposed legislation might result in an uptick of dogst.
In that scenario I would expect parliament, keeping in mind the
1) passing of the dogfighting referendum
2) actual result of that referendum being pro dogfighting
3) manifestos supporting dog fighting in a subsequent GE by all but one party
4) passing of the enacting legislation that said unless parliament passed an ameliorating bill on the effects of dogfighting it would be unregulated dogfighting everywhere from March 2019
To actually work on devising a means of delivering dogfighting and not
A) casting all government attempts to pass the dogfighting bill as a ‘hard Tory dogfighting bill’
B) when looking at how to get out of the morass fail to pass any alternative arrangement apart from one which explicitly enabled the legislation but was unacceptable to the international dog appreciation society and therefore was never going to be recognised.
But strangely enough that’s not what happened. Instead those against dogfighting connived every step of the way to draw out the process so that the public could be asked ‘dogfighting? Doesn’t sound like such a sound idea now eh?’.
Think we’ve thrashed that particular analogy to death...
So you like dog fighting, and don't mind having dog sLet’s say for the sake of example that indeed apparently voting for the proposed legislation might result in an uptick of dogs
t.In that scenario I would expect parliament, keeping in mind the
1) passing of the dogfighting referendum
2) actual result of that referendum being pro dogfighting
3) manifestos supporting dog fighting in a subsequent GE by all but one party
4) passing of the enacting legislation that said unless parliament passed an ameliorating bill on the effects of dogfighting it would be unregulated dogfighting everywhere from March 2019
To actually work on devising a means of delivering dogfighting and not
A) casting all government attempts to pass the dogfighting bill as a ‘hard Tory dogfighting bill’
B) when looking at how to get out of the morass fail to pass any alternative arrangement apart from one which explicitly enabled the legislation but was unacceptable to the international dog appreciation society and therefore was never going to be recognised.
But strangely enough that’s not what happened. Instead those against dogfighting connived every step of the way to draw out the process so that the public could be asked ‘dogfighting? Doesn’t sound like such a sound idea now eh?’.
Think we’ve thrashed that particular analogy to death...
t in your garden? Off key man.jakesmith said:
Ridgemont said:
I do love a good old flawed analogy but hell let’s run with it.
Let’s say for the sake of example that indeed apparently voting for the proposed legislation might result in an uptick of dogst.
In that scenario I would expect parliament, keeping in mind the
1) passing of the dogfighting referendum
2) actual result of that referendum being pro dogfighting
3) manifestos supporting dog fighting in a subsequent GE by all but one party
4) passing of the enacting legislation that said unless parliament passed an ameliorating bill on the effects of dogfighting it would be unregulated dogfighting everywhere from March 2019
To actually work on devising a means of delivering dogfighting and not
A) casting all government attempts to pass the dogfighting bill as a ‘hard Tory dogfighting bill’
B) when looking at how to get out of the morass fail to pass any alternative arrangement apart from one which explicitly enabled the legislation but was unacceptable to the international dog appreciation society and therefore was never going to be recognised.
But strangely enough that’s not what happened. Instead those against dogfighting connived every step of the way to draw out the process so that the public could be asked ‘dogfighting? Doesn’t sound like such a sound idea now eh?’.
Think we’ve thrashed that particular analogy to death...
So you like dog fighting, and don't mind having dog sLet’s say for the sake of example that indeed apparently voting for the proposed legislation might result in an uptick of dogs
t.In that scenario I would expect parliament, keeping in mind the
1) passing of the dogfighting referendum
2) actual result of that referendum being pro dogfighting
3) manifestos supporting dog fighting in a subsequent GE by all but one party
4) passing of the enacting legislation that said unless parliament passed an ameliorating bill on the effects of dogfighting it would be unregulated dogfighting everywhere from March 2019
To actually work on devising a means of delivering dogfighting and not
A) casting all government attempts to pass the dogfighting bill as a ‘hard Tory dogfighting bill’
B) when looking at how to get out of the morass fail to pass any alternative arrangement apart from one which explicitly enabled the legislation but was unacceptable to the international dog appreciation society and therefore was never going to be recognised.
But strangely enough that’s not what happened. Instead those against dogfighting connived every step of the way to draw out the process so that the public could be asked ‘dogfighting? Doesn’t sound like such a sound idea now eh?’.
Think we’ve thrashed that particular analogy to death...
t in your garden? Off key man.t sounds like a st idea.But I’ve a teensy attachment to democratic principles and consider weasel efforts to wriggle out of honouring expressions of democratic choice by the people by our tribunes to be pretty f
king disrespectful to democracy and, well, the people.If the legislature decide to ask people if they want dogfighting and dogs
t and they vote for it, the least the pols can do is honour that pledge.Ridgemont said:
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m not a dog fighter and more dogst sounds like a st idea.
But I’ve a teensy attachment to democratic principles and consider weasel efforts to wriggle out of honouring expressions of democratic choice by the people by our tribunes to be pretty fking disrespectful to democracy and, well, the people.
If the legislature decide to ask people if they want dogfighting and dogst and they vote for it, the least the pols can do is honour that pledge.
That's the point though isn't it, they didn't ask if people wanted dogfighting and dogst sounds like a st idea.But I’ve a teensy attachment to democratic principles and consider weasel efforts to wriggle out of honouring expressions of democratic choice by the people by our tribunes to be pretty f
king disrespectful to democracy and, well, the people.If the legislature decide to ask people if they want dogfighting and dogs
t and they vote for it, the least the pols can do is honour that pledge.tThey asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogs
tIn most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
oyster said:
This is the bit that makes me most angry at Boris Johnson (and some of his supporters).
In 2016, the incumbent remain-supporting PM resigned. Up step a Brexiteer obviously.
No - he quit.
... blah blah blah.
Failed at the first hurdle there. That's a dishonest representation of what happened isn't it?In 2016, the incumbent remain-supporting PM resigned. Up step a Brexiteer obviously.
No - he quit.
... blah blah blah.
This is what makes me most angry at some Remainers - that, having lost the referendum, they persist in misrepresentation and distortion in the weird belief that this helps the cause of Remaining in the EU. It doesn't, it just makes (some) pro-EU people appear dishonest and unconcerned with democracy. If I were DeepEnd I'd say all Remainers are therefore liars (because they attract people who lie about Brexit).
jakesmith said:
That's the point though isn't it, they didn't ask if people wanted dogfighting and dogst
They asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogst
In most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
Logical fallacy there. tThey asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogs
tIn most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
You are assuming dogs
t with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst. Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
Tuna said:
jakesmith said:
That's the point though isn't it, they didn't ask if people wanted dogfighting and dogst
They asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogst
In most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
Logical fallacy there. tThey asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogs
tIn most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
You are assuming dogs
t with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst. Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
Tuna said:
Logical fallacy there.
You are assuming dogst with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst.
Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
Firstly don’t personalise this, I’m not making anyone do anything or stopping anyone doing anything or stopping a process. I’m simply challenging a view. If it doesn’t stand up to a challenge then it isn’t robust. You are assuming dogs
t with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst. Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
Secondly re assuming dogs
t. Of course we don’t know. There isn’t perfect information or a consensus on outcomes of possibilities, however it’s hard to see anything other than restrictions on our future trade and ability to attract talent to work here in the short to medium stern ie 0–10 or 20 years. It’s not like in the 12 months after we finally leave we will magic up amazing trade deals on better terms than what we had under the Eu and their seasoned negotiators and the massive bargaining power and economies of scale we commanded as part of the block. Would we even have the resource to negotiate this even if our potential partners had the political will, which might take significant time to generate?Your last paragraph is a bit of a stretch isn’t it. I’d say there’s a stronger factual basis to reconsider now, now it seems that no deal is increasingly likely, which will certainly have an unknown impact, than there was 3 years ago when people like my wife’s parents voted after being told it was for £350m a week to the nhs.
Tuna said:
Logical fallacy there.
You are assuming dogst with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst.
Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
This.You are assuming dogs
t with no actual evidence. You refuse to let the process run its fair course because you're convinced that there will be dogst. Other people do not share that belief - but strangely you think your own belief is magically more accurate than theirs.
You are not letting people change their minds, you are attempting to tell them what to think in the hope that you can change their minds for them.
Noone knows for sure what will happen. It's all speculation. A lot of fear mongering. We can argue that it's likely that things will be s
t in the short term due to many factors, but the remainers seem to be focusing on only the negatives, as if every single thing is going to st and will stay st forever. Get a fking grip.What is the actual worst that we will see? What is the worst thing that can affect us day to day? As far as I can tell, nothing. You may have to pay for a visa to visit EU countries. If you're struggling to afford £20 for a visa, perhaps you should reconsider your priorities and not go on holiday. The price of certain commodities may go up. We may struggle to get hold of drugs for 6 months. Who knows. There are no certainties, as there are no uncertainties. But there are a lot of unknowns.
One thing I do know is that there is no way things will go to s
t. Things will change for sure, some in a positive way and some in a negative way (subjectively), but I really can't see us turning into Zimbabwe over Brexit. As I said, noone knows. Just deal with it as it comes. Things have a way of working themselves out. And the fact is, there are people running the country. It's not like a runaway train with no driver.
[quote]
Say there was an advisory referendum on allowing dog fights as an example
Everyone votes yes as they love dog fights.
Then, as the fighting is only months away, it turns out that blah blah
blah etc.
[/quote]
If your analogy is designed to undermine the non advisory EU referendum, it falls at the first hurdle. The result was to be implemented regardless of which way it went. Totally non advisory.
Say there was an advisory referendum on allowing dog fights as an example
Everyone votes yes as they love dog fights.
Then, as the fighting is only months away, it turns out that blah blah
blah etc.
[/quote]
If your analogy is designed to undermine the non advisory EU referendum, it falls at the first hurdle. The result was to be implemented regardless of which way it went. Totally non advisory.
ORD said:
amusingduck said:
They had their opportunity to do that when they voted 10:1 in favour of holding the referendum.
That’s a fair point. But you come up against the problem that many MPs will have assumed that (1) Remain would win or (2) Leave would win and there would be a plan and a deal. Almost nobody expected Leave to win and then implode. 
Those people want another say? They shouldn't have a say on anything ever again!
Those who opposed the referendum are fully vindicated and can do as they please, for they are not stinking hypocrites
jakesmith said:
Ridgemont said:
Oh don’t get me wrong, I’m not a dog fighter and more dogst sounds like a st idea.
But I’ve a teensy attachment to democratic principles and consider weasel efforts to wriggle out of honouring expressions of democratic choice by the people by our tribunes to be pretty fking disrespectful to democracy and, well, the people.
If the legislature decide to ask people if they want dogfighting and dogst and they vote for it, the least the pols can do is honour that pledge.
That's the point though isn't it, they didn't ask if people wanted dogfighting and dogst sounds like a st idea.But I’ve a teensy attachment to democratic principles and consider weasel efforts to wriggle out of honouring expressions of democratic choice by the people by our tribunes to be pretty f
king disrespectful to democracy and, well, the people.If the legislature decide to ask people if they want dogfighting and dogs
t and they vote for it, the least the pols can do is honour that pledge.tThey asked if people wanted dogfighting and pots of gold. People voted for it.
Turns out it's dogfighting and dogs
tIn most situations in life if one reserves the right to change ones mind you
t before the vote, don't you remember Project Dogst? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zy3fPPuR9_0&fe...
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff