The Brexit Party

[MDMetal]

34 minutes ago, coldel said:

That is sovereignty and democracy in play. Democracy dictates that people vote for an MP who then acts as a representative, not a delegate(and the distinction is important), in the house of commons. They typically have three mandates which are to represent all the people of the constituency, the party and the country. They do not have equal weighting. 

 

Democracy does not dictate that this MP cannot change their opinion, nor does democracy dictate they cannot go against the party/constituency if they feel the need of the country is greater as they serve all three mandates. Of course the constituency can vote them out, but that is the risk the MP plays. 

 

This is often not clearly understood by voters who think MP's only have one mandate - they have three and often the weighting changes, the direction changes so on and so forth. Ordering or expecting MP's to do something that is against their freedom to express what they represent, is in effect what you would see in a Putin style 'democracy' 

So just pick the one whose name comes first because if they can change their personal views entirely 180 whats the point in asking me who to pick? There's no mechanism to hold them to account, there's no requirement for them to actually stand on the views they intend to vote on... but they get to decide how to act on a referendum outcome and pretend they stand for their constituents, so how does that work? 

[coldel]

6 minutes ago, MDMetal said:

So just pick the one whose name comes first because if they can change their personal views entirely 180 whats the point in asking me who to pick? There's no mechanism to hold them to account, there's no requirement for them to actually stand on the views they intend to vote on... but they get to decide how to act on a referendum outcome and pretend they stand for their constituents, so how does that work? 

That is democracy, as defined by this country. Sorry it doesn't stand up to your view on what it should be, but that is what it is. On the whole most parties/MPs stick by manifestos which people vote for, but in exceptional circumstances (which this is) MPs can change tact, that is the democratic right of an MP, they are not delegates of those who voted for them (hence the importance of understanding the difference). 

 

Of course the power a voter then has is to not vote for them again, so for an MP to change tact means they have such a strong belief that one of their mandates outweighs the others that they are literally willing to give up their seat. But that's again democracy in play, the power is in parliament and the MPs that stand there, that's what Leave voted for.

[MDMetal]

1 minute ago, coldel said:

That is democracy, as defined by this country. Sorry it doesn't stand up to your view on what it should be, but that is what it is. On the whole most parties/MPs stick by manifestos which people vote for, but in exceptional circumstances (which this is) MPs can change tact, that is the democratic right of an MP, they are not delegates of those who voted for them (hence the importance of understanding the difference). 

 

Of course the power a voter then has is to not vote for them again, so for an MP to change tact means they have such a strong belief that one of their mandates outweighs the others that they are literally willing to give up their seat. But that's again democracy in play, the power is in parliament and the MPs that stand there, that's what Leave voted for.

Which just underscores why people are voting for a brand new party that has one explicit aim...

[coldel]

1 minute ago, MDMetal said:

Which just underscores why people are voting for a brand new party that has one explicit aim...

Which is their democratic right. But as Doc says, as this party has no plan or approach, those that do vote for them should not complain if the resulting process is poorly executed or claim its undemocratic to challenge it.

[TT350]

21 hours ago, docwra said:

So you think we would be best represented in Europe by a party with no policies that admit they will not co-operate with the EU on anything?
A party that despite naming themselves "Brexit" wont have any hand in the negotiation? This is the best chopice for the good of the country?
This is my biggest issue, the Brexit party have absolutely nothing to do with Brexit process yet this seems to be where they are putting their banner out, its disingenuous. 

And as a more extended question, I can see why people would vote to leave as a protest ........... but thats cutting off your nose to spite your face. Rather like voting for the proven liar Farage here, you can make yourself heard but at what cost?

 

The honest answer is, I don't know. 

 

I'm 37 and, the one constant I've observed in life is, the rich get rich, the poor get poorer and, quieter. 

 

I'm not rich and I'm not poor. I see the middle classes and wealthy in an absolute tailspin at the prospect of becoming slightly less wealthy, though.

 

Do I think anyone else will better represent the masses? No, absolutely not. They don't care. As a result I don't care. Pure apathy.

 

There is NEVER going to be a win win situation. There will always be a loser. 

 

Human beings are sometimes logical creatures. Many times we aren't because emotions come into play. That's why democracy has to be totally unyielding to either side.

 

I really don't expect situations to change. The rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer. The politicians will make promises then immediately go back on them. Farage included. I know that man has no integrity. I'm not stupid.

 

As far as cutting off noses to spite faces. Well, you make your bed, you lie in it. 

 

But I maintain that no matter what happens, we should all get through it together for the greater good.

 

I can't throw around facts and figures and % and GDP like most people on here can, all you'll get from me is an observation of human behaviour and patterns.

[docwra]

21 hours ago, MDMetal said:

However what I do have an issue with (and you seem to be saying is just how the system works) my local MP Heidi Allen standing for election last time round as a conservative alongside the party manifesto to enact brexit. 
While she's arguing this is only fair and the people should decide she hasn't actually checked whether that's what the people she represents at a local level actually want.

Who'd have thought it, Heidi Allen is my MP too and I think shes a bit of a hero. 

While initially she kept the party line on Brexit, following May's attempt at bringing the same deal back over and over again she responded to over 60% of her constituents that voted to remain. 
Lets be honest, the Tories arent doing anything else with their parliament at the moment, I dont see why you think you're losing out on any of their policies you actually voted her in on. 

Shes also nailed her colours to the mast on Rees Mogg and the DUP situation, I admire her for actually speaking her mind and not trying to blend into the background. 

[docwra]

1 hour ago, TT350 said:

 

The honest answer is, I don't know. 

Then to be blunt you shouldnt be able to cast a vote, the same as the people that voted for us to leave the EU based on incorrect beliefs or information. 
If you dont actually understand who or what you are voting for how can you make the right choice? You wouldnt get on a plane if the pilot told you he hadnt flown before and asked where the cockpit was ........... 

You say you dont expect things to change, take some time to look at our political and economic policy in 1980, 1990 and 2000, consider we are on the brink of leaving the EU right now - they do change depending on who people vote for.  

 

I dont mean to cause offence but it seems there is a large proportion that are voting for the Brexit Party because they want Brexit when the reality is voting in the X Factor will make as much difference. Thats a bit scary if you ask me. 

 

Edited May 16, 2019 by docwra

[coldel]

To be honest Doc, I would think at least a third of the UK votes in any election without the blindest clue as to what they are voting for, but would happily invest hours of time researching the best microwave oven they can get for a budget of £50 using comparison sites and what not. 

[Ekona]

I've said it before, but I still believe that the majority of people vote for whoever their parents vote for, which is usually based on historic events that have zero to do with anything now. The amount of time I hear miner's strike or winter of discontent mentioned when discussing modern politics is disturbing. No-one even bothers to check anything any more, they tend to sit comfortably in the Tory/Labour/Anyone Else Will Do And It'll Be A Protest Vote camps. 

[Ekona]

49 minutes ago, docwra said:

Shes also nailed her colours to the mast on Rees Mogg and the DUP situation, I admire her for actually speaking her mind and not trying to blend into the background. 

That's interesting Doc, and I tend to follow your opinion when it comes to politicians sticking with something they believe in even if it may be unpopular or career damaging. With that in mind how do you view Rees Mogg himself, in particular to do with his antiquated views on family life? Admiration for sticking with what he believes, or disgust that he cannot get with the modern times?

 

Just to stick myself completely on the fence, I feel both ways about him  

[TT350]

1 hour ago, docwra said:

Then to be blunt you shouldnt be able to cast a vote, the same as the people that voted for us to leave the EU based on incorrect beliefs or information. 
If you dont actually understand who or what you are voting for how can you make the right choice? You wouldnt get on a plane if the pilot told you he hadnt flown before and asked where the cockpit was ........... 

You say you dont expect things to change, take some time to look at our political and economic policy in 1980, 1990 and 2000, consider we are on the brink of leaving the EU right now - they do change depending on who people vote for.  

 

I dont mean to cause offence but it seems there is a large proportion that are voting for the Brexit Party because they want Brexit when the reality is voting in the X Factor will make as much difference. Thats a bit scary if you ask me. 

 

You're right in a lot of what you said. It doesn't offend me. I was irresponsible with my vote and it came from the wrong place at a time when I was quite different as a person not least because I wasn't interested in politics then.

 

Knowing what I know now, I wouldn't be comfortable voting at all because my mistrust of politicians has deepened. 

 

If theres one clear fact that's emerged from all this it's just how spineless and self involved politicians are. That, for me, has been a good eye opener and it will have quite long lasting effects. I hope it'll be much more difficult after this for politicians to just float on the gravy train and not leapfrog from Eton to oxbridge to Whitehall and be a bum in a seat on £80k a year.

 

I would hazard a guess and say working class people simply don't feel they have the power to change anything and that voting doesn't work. But if they see that it does and can work, perhaps in future they'll be more responsible instead of just voting for chaos, such as Brexit is.

 

Really, Brexit is just pent up frustration at the ruling class. Logic seldom comes into it. 

 

Don't worry about causing me offence. I'm not going to fall out with anyone over a difference of opinion on politics. Its human nature and there are far more things we all have in common than things we disagree on. 

 

Although, football is cr@p and I'm 100% correct about that, lol.

 

 

[coldel]

Why do you mistrust politicians? What is it exactly that makes you not trust them? 

 

The fact they haven't come to a consensus on brexit is not because they are being mistrustful, its completely the opposite that they are so far apart in their ideals that they religiously follow they literally cannot come to a consensus. JRM, as much as I detest the ideals he has which belong in the 1960's, is committed to his beliefs on politics. Not being able to implement brexit is not through a lack of trust, its the political system which voters actively placed the process within i.e. parliament. 

 

I am sure there are politicians on the make, like people in any industry. But do bear in mind that with the education many of them have, they could step into much better paid roles than being an MP, £80k is not a big amount of money for someone who is a highly qualified business leader for example, a CEO/MD of a successful business would be paid hugely in excess of that.

[TT350]

Politicians, even on 80k, with all their benefits, have absolutely no idea how the lower two thirds of the population live.

 

I just don't see any politicians that are like me. Who is representing me? They're all from privileged backgrounds for the most part and in their day to day lives I dare say they never meet people like me. They're not interested in people like me because there's nothing to gain from it. Unlike wealthy and influential people. 

 

I'm willing to learn of course. I'd like to learn that there were people like me in Whitehall. Perhaps there are. 

 

And for a lot of people not middle or upper class, I would imagine they feel the same as me. Not represented and simply an afterthought when the wealthy have been catered for. Thrown the scraps.

 

And the education they have, is that worth something simply because of where the qualifications were obtained? IE Oxford? 

 

I remember a caller on LBC who worked at either oxford or cambridge said something along the lines of "I began to detest new term. To see time and again the same knowledge that each of them had that they would one day, in some capacity, rule the country"

 

The old boys club. 

 

I think if that was somehow eliminated, I'd be much more willing to trust the political system. To know that a commoner could stand a chance at being the prime minister because of who he or she is rather than who they knew or who their parents were.

 

I may be so far off and totally naive and ignorant but it's not deliberate so, I'll always keep an open mind. It's the height of stupidity to cling to a belief without being willing to re-examine it when given new information.

 

 

 

[Ekona]

This is why we should pay MPs more, at least double if not triple. We might actually attract some people with half a brain from the private sector that way, people who didn’t go through the Eton way. 

[coldel]

You are generalising on a large scale based on your own prejudices. All the information you need to help you answer the question 'are people like you an MP' is available - I don't know who you are so cannot answer that for you. But then again what do you mean by that? If we all had that view we would need hundreds of thousands if not millions of MPs to fully 'represent me' as there are thousands of types of people that are not you or even in your social/economic/political bracket. People feel unrepresented because they make sweeping assumptions about MPs, they have never bothered to go actually meet and speak to theirs, that they lump all MPs into some pot the second a negative media report pops up about one faking a speeding ticket etc. 

 

Clearly the party's attract a different person to their party, Labour for instance have 65% of their MPs from comprehensive schools, just 20% are from the privileged universities (which disproves above generalisations). If you so keenly want 'people like me' representing you then you should be voting Labour. 

 

What is clear though is that being an MP requires a number of skills many people do not have, and if you have those skills you will in all likelihood be paid a lot less as an MP than in the private sector. 

Edited May 16, 2019 by coldel

[Umster]

1 hour ago, Ekona said:

This is why we should pay MPs more, at least double if not triple. We might actually attract some people with half a brain from the private sector that way, people who didn’t go through the Eton way. 

Disagree. You'll get mercenaries who want the money but don't care about the mess they leave behind after their term in office. Short termism at its worst. 

 

Think IT contractors. 

[MDMetal]

5 hours ago, docwra said:

Who'd have thought it, Heidi Allen is my MP too and I think shes a bit of a hero. 

While initially she kept the party line on Brexit, following May's attempt at bringing the same deal back over and over again she responded to over 60% of her constituents that voted to remain. 
Lets be honest, the Tories arent doing anything else with their parliament at the moment, I dont see why you think you're losing out on any of their policies you actually voted her in on. 

Shes also nailed her colours to the mast on Rees Mogg and the DUP situation, I admire her for actually speaking her mind and not trying to blend into the background. 

Shame then she didn't speak her mind at the point her mind was exactly what were people were using to decide their vote? She's elected because she got the most votes, votes cast based on her views or the views she stood next to. If she feels the people she represents are better represented with another set of views that is also fine but she should go back to those people and check. Principled politicians in the past have done so, why can't she? I think we know the reason, that if given a chance she would be unlikely to be returned to parliament, and if she knows that then surely she can't be expressing the views of her constituents?

[docwra]

4 hours ago, Ekona said:

With that in mind how do you view Rees Mogg himself, in particular to do with his antiquated views on family life? Admiration for sticking with what he believes, or disgust that he cannot get with the modern times?

 

I used to be a bit of a fan, mainly because he does come across as true to his beliefs but some of the utter bullshit he has spewed about Brexit put him on the Boris step for me i.e. a self serving liar with little or no integrity.

JRM consistently bangs on about WTO being economically positive ........ because he conveniently doesnt mention the associated tariffs, even the name ERG suggests the group issomething that they are not. 
He also lied that we can continue on EU terms while negotiating with WTO, there would be lower prices after Brexit and made false claims about Labour, surely not all of these were just "mistakes". 

He also appears to vote for his own interests, the one thing I cant rail against him on is the gay rights thing as I believe he is a religious nut - while I dont agree I wouldnt beat on someone for their religion. 

[docwra]

17 minutes ago, MDMetal said:

 If she feels the people she represents are better represented with another set of views that is also fine but she should go back to those people and check.  I think we know the reason, that if given a chance she would be unlikely to be returned to parliament, and if she knows that then surely she can't be expressing the views of her constituents?

 

1. How would you go back to the people and check? Run your own personally bi-election?
2. Brexit negotiations are happening NOW, she couldnt have waited 2 months while the bi-election happened to make her move as the time would have passed
3. Cambridge is overwhelmingly pro-remain and Ive not seen her depart from any other Tory policies (i.e. what she was voted in on)
4. I can actually see all of the Change MP's going back to their original parties if Brexit doesnt happen. No foul. 

[Ekona]

2 hours ago, Umster said:

Disagree. You'll get mercenaries who want the money but don't care about the mess they leave behind after their term in office. Short termism at its worst. 

 

Think IT contractors. 

I’d rather get people in who had a proven track record of success than people who get in based upon what colour tie they wear. 

[Umster]

28 minutes ago, Ekona said:

I’d rather get people in who had a proven track record of success than people who get in based upon what colour tie they wear. 

Who wouldn't be successful in politics? You either appease the rich or you appease the poor. You just have to know how to get the papers to spin it as a win for everyone. 

 

Like I said, I'd hate to pay a CEO millions if they leave where the share price tanks. No different with a political representative. 

[Ekona]

But there’s many CEOs that go from company to company, and leaving them all better off. They just don’t make the headlines as much as the ones that fail catastrophically. 

 

There might be many people, not just CEOs but those who earn twice what an MP earns without breaking sweat, who could do a great job and would quite like a go, but can afford to drop the money. £80k a year is peanuts for what we expect MPs to do, and the ramifications of their decisions. 

[Umster]

Mehhh I understand your point of view but I don't agree with it. You're not wrong about there being good CEOs who move onto challenges new. 

 

Being an MP is being an ambassador. I don't expect any professional to be paid handsomely for representing their community so why would I want to pay any more for this community steward and representative? It is something you pay forwards not pay back/unto yourself. 

 

I also think we need to discuss expenses and 2nd homes etc. MPs get quite a handsome payday, albeit not inside the monthly pay packet. Pretty sure the majority are lawyers by education, so it's not like they've not had the choice to go chase the money. 

 

If you want to represent me, you should want to do it for the greater good, for beliefs that make you who you are. If you want to represent me for the money, the fame or the hysteria then please move on. 

 

My big issue with politicians is how little transparency there is and how much hypocrisy there is. All across the scale, they take the absolute mickey. Tory's vote against humane housing, Labour votes to kill all competition in the private sector. Let's not even talk about the cost of rebuilding the Houses of Parliament - talk about austerity. 

[Ekona]

Being an MP is a job. Yes it’s serving the public, but it’s no different in that regard from being a nurse or a police officer. Taken in that context, why wouldn’t you want to reward people for serving the community?

 

I disagree with your statement about most MPs being from the legal profession. I’d like to see that backed up with a source if possible. 

 

I actually don't disagree with you though about wanting MPs who do actually just want to help people. That should absolutely be the goal of any MP, and for some I’ve no doubt it is, but going back to my first point it’s now just a job and to expect anything more from our MPs these days just isn’t realistic. I wish it was! 

[coldel]

I would agree with Dan that it is a job, it's not something where people martyr themselves on the fire for the good of everyone else, they still have families to support bills to pay etc. That said there is a public expectation they should be paid pittance, try watching 'The Thick of It' and a scene when new MP Nicola Murray arrives in her office and orders a new chair and has strips torn off her by Tucker the communications director who states that the chair has to go, when he finds out that she plans to send her daughter to a private school he makes he send her to a comp instead...because the public will it, even though she could afford it.

 

In terms of qualifications, most MPs are qualified (over half) in social sciences unsurprisingly. Something like one eighth are qualified in law.