Off Topic The politics thread

Agree.. Not what is required..

 

If that is the case, why don't they do the right thing and trigger a bi-election which will allow their constituents to choose. I very much doubt that Sourby would be re-elected.

 

How is that the right thing? Surely the candidate that you vote for is just as important as the party that you vote for? In fact, I think the concept of supporting a political party in the same way that you support a football team, and following them with unflinching loyalty despite anything that they do, is ridiculous. Plus, by triggering a by-election and risking their seat, they potentially prevent themselves for having an effective platform from which to fight the cause that they are standing for by resigning from their parties.

 

It's the right thing as I believe most people vote for the party and whats in their manifesto...not necessarily the individual. The politician represents their constituents, or at least they should do and therefore should give them a say if they want to be represented by the Independent Group.

 

Maybe they do. I don't though. I base it first on the candidate and only secondarily on their party's manifesto. Like I said previously, I admire all 11 of those MPs for making a stand for something that they believe in and for trying to do something different to what the two main parties, both of which are failing badly, are doing. If my MP had joined this group I would be pleased that they had shown credibility and integrity and made a stand for what they felt was right.

 

I love my MP, but hate the leader and believe the manifesto was unrealistic.. This leaves me with a massive dilemma at the next election if my MP sticks with Corbyn's Labour..

 

I get what you're saying. I agree, I couldn't vote Labour at the moment, no matter who the candidate was, as the last thing I want to see is Corbyn as Prime Minister. In fact, that's another reason why I'm glad that this breakaway group has formed as it will (hopefully) either lead to a new credible centre left party or it will seriously reduce Corbyn's support, ultimately leading to his standing down as leader. We need a credible opposition party and under him we just don't have that.

 

No, you don't understand.

In the set of laws and precedents that makes up the UK constitution, a referendum can ONLY be advisory to Parliament and the Government. The governing bodies are obliged to do what they consider best under those circumstances. If any MP believes that they should follow the result regardless, or that this is what they think, that is their prerogative. If they think that the question was not asked correctly, or that the result is in some way ambiguous, or they simply think that a course of action is wrong or damaging then they can/must look for an alternative approach. In either case they do this until they win/lose the legally binding result of a bye- or general-election. We can talk about the validity of this if you want, but it is the current situation. In the Brexit case, the fact that this does not divide nicely along the conventional imposed party lines has created some confusion and excitement (being ironic or sarcastic).

You vote for an MP (in theory at least) to exercise her/his good judgement to get to the ends of what you want, via the principles you expect. Not the detail of daily circumstances.

Any/all of the above may be pulled apart by opinion, recent examples, practical consideration etc. BUT it is how things are setup. For a really good satirical view on this, try to find a copy of the film "the rise and rise of Michael Rimmer" with Peter Cook. Like all such films, biased to some extent, but funny and a good thought-inducer. But both Churchill and Attlee ("referendums are the devices of dictators and demagogues"), so this feeling at least crosses traditional party opinions.

 

I have to question if you really vote for the candidate rather than the party. If the candidate was for the Raving Loony Party would you really vote for them ? I'm sorry, but most people judge the candidate from the banner they campaign under. So the party manifesto is crucial for the majority to choose if the politics of the candidate suits them. These people, both tory and labour, were elected on the basis of their party manifesto and to reject that and to leave their party is not an act of sincerity but one of fraud. If they disagree with the direction their chosen party is going then they should either stay in their party and make their views known from within ... or resign and submit themselves to their constituencies immediately for ratification of their changed policies.

 

Do you? Why? As I have said previously, I think the concept of supporting a political party as if it were a football team is ridiculous. Therefore, what the candidate has to say for themselves is of more interest to me. Its not the sole thing that I base my choices on obviously (e.g. my comments regarding Labour under Corbyn) but it plays a more important role than ridiculous political tribalism.

Most of those MPs that have resigned from their parties have had plenty to say for themselves in the past so their views and how they differ from those of the mainstream of their respective former parties should come as no surprise to their constituents. So its patently obvious that the views that they are expressing now are simply an extension of what they've said previously. The only reason to be upset by their actions is political tribalism.

 

So if I read this right, you are suggesting that these politicians are actually selfish and who give no regard to their constituents, those, who by the way are the very people who elected them. That's okay is it?

 

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying that most of them had already expressed viewed that differed from the mainstream of their parties and their constituents voted for them anyway. How on earth are they selfish?! They're risking their political careers for a cause they believe in.

 

As ever when considering politics, there are two ways, at least, of looking at this.

1 - The idea that any politician has such high principles that they are prepared to risk their career is mind boggling.
Such high mindedness deserves to succeed, but it's unlikely and certainly not in their current constituencies where they will be perceived as unreliable, untrustworthy traitors by many of the voters.

2 - Having previously supported their Party Manifesto and got this far to 'suddenly' turn against them smacks of gross disloyalty to party and the majority of their constituents.
If they want to change their Party the place to do it is from the inside, just like Corbin did.
(Oh dear the irony of that is a killer)

In a country where a basic two party system operates, this is political suicide.

 

The debate about how MP's are supposed to vote is about as old as 'Politics' and has never been resolved.
And it's not a point that usually matters.
MP's vote for their party line and the majority of constituents vote for their Party.

It's the referendum idea that changes or at least highlights the problem.

If some MP has said before he/she is elected, 'if you elect ME I will exercise my personal judgement and vote the way I feel is best for you', then fair enough.
But in fact they seem to usually trot out something along the lines of 'it will be an honour to represent this constituency in Parliament'
Our local MP's are doing the former, not the latter.

As far as I'm aware there are no constitutional laws about such things as Referenda, no doubt because they are such a rarity.
However, since there have been a couple for Scottish Independence there has been at least an acceptance that the result would be mandatory as far as Parliament is concerned.
Can you imagine The Scots voting for independence and The UK Parliament voting against it?
Unthinkable.

The Referendum that took us into Europe in the first place was considered to be Mandatory.

My point is that all the recent referenda have been considered to be mandatory.

The problem is the Politicians.
The SNP cant accept that their population doesn't want to leave The UK and too many UK politicians can't accept that we don't want to be part of a European Super-State.

 

Or you could argue that they're being loyal to their constituents by making a stand against parties who they feel have policies which are detrimental to those constituents.

 

Yes you could argue that but then you would need to explain what major change has taken place sine the last General Election (8/7/2015).
At that time they will have backed their party's Manifesto.
Manifesto's are something of Political Wish Lists, but they do tend to underline what each part stands for.

 

They've explained that haven't they? They don't like the directions in which their parties are heading. MPs aren't required to be a member of any political party. Their job is to represent their constituents. As long as they are doing that, I don't see the problem. If their constituents don't like the standing MP they have the opportunity to change them at the next election.

 

They have come up with excuses, rather than explanations.
I repeat, what MAJOR changes have there been since the last Election, when they would, no doubt, have stood in support of their Party's manifesto.
Anti-Semitism has been spoken of in the Labour Party for some years now.
The 'Leap to the Left' was well under way at that time.
And as for The Tory Party were some members unaware that The PM was intent on following the Referendum verdict and taking the Country out of Europe?

Don't get me wrong, I don't care for some unknown politician who wants to commit political Hari Kari, but I'm not convinced that it's all in the name of some worthwhile cause.

 

David Cameron said he would follow the results of the referendum, but it was never legally binding. No referendums can be in the UK.

If referendum were to be binding, you'd have to follow a system similar to Switzerland (direct democracy). Bearing in mind, it is normal is Switzerland to have multiple referendums on the same issue (and nobody calls it undemocratic to do so ! )

There is no legal obligation for the government to follow the results of the 2nd referendum (first one was in the 70's) and no legal reason not have a 3rd one now (no deal vs deal for example)