Discussing UK law. Links: swarb.co.uk | law-index | Acts | Members Image galleries

An MP's duty...

For discussion of all matters relating to the UK's departure from the European Union

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby Smouldering Stoat » Sun Feb 05, 2017 10:07 pm

Smouldering Stoat
 
Posts: 6154
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 6:31 pm
Location: Near the Creek.

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby tph » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:04 pm

The problems is that a lot of MP's think that their own opinion is more important than that of the people they represent.

There is also a complete failure of consist values and principles across the political parties. Take the Liberal Democrats for example. They are (as the name suggests) supposed to believe in democracy and would seek proportional representation, yet they are quite happy to vote against a bill which was the result of a process they promote because it does not accord with their policies.
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby Hairyloon » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:24 pm

tph wrote:The problems is that a lot of MP's think that their own opinion is more important than that of the people they represent...

So they should be. It is their job to properly inform themselves of the relevant issues and make an informed opinion based upon them. Whereas most of the voters form their opinions based on the baloney pedalled in the popular press.

I am open to be persuaded as to why a misinformed opinion is as good as a properly informed one...
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9428
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby tph » Sun Feb 05, 2017 11:52 pm

An MP's duty is to represent the people that elected them. If they believe that the people's opinion is wrong they must try and persuade them to change their minds. If they can't do that then they have to fall in line with that view.

To hold the people in contempt and simply disregard their views is the action of a dictator not that of someone who believes in democracy.

Re-read the first line of your first post. Now imagine what a dictator would say when asked why they did what they did.
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 06, 2017 1:29 am

tph wrote:An MP's duty is to represent the people that elected them. If they believe that the people's opinion is wrong they must try and persuade them to change their minds. If they can't do that then they have to fall in line with that view.

Now that is a fair point, but compare it to what has happened.
Parliament did not believe that the people's opinion was wrong: they assumed that the people agreed with Parliament; thus they denied themselves the proper opportunity and motivation to persuade the people and therefore failed to do so.

Not only that, but we know that the public's opinion was based upon a massive pile of misinformation. Perhaps with accurate information they might have come to the same opinion, but it is a clear folly to assume this to be the case.

It is an absolute triumph of anti-intellectualism when we have had so many MP's stand up and say that they dare not assume that their [well informed and intelligent] opinion is better than the voters [misinformed and average intelligence] opinion.
Isaac Asimov wrote:... democracy means that "my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge".

/alt-facts.

To hold the people in contempt and simply disregard their views is the action of a dictator not that of someone who believes in democracy.

I'm tempted to suggest that you show me some evidence that it exists and I'll consider believing in it,but that would be a distraction.

Some people are contemptible: why should we not hold them in contempt? Better I think than rushing over to hold their hand...
But the rest of them, nobody is suggesting that we should disregard their views, those views should absolutely be given proper consideration. The two main issues driving those views were immigration and sovereignty.
On immigration, I understand there are a whole bunch of controls on immigration that we could have used but the Home Secretary chose to not use them. Almost nobody is making this point, and I cannot imagine why, but doesn't it make sense to get a new Home Secretary (which we've done) and try to use the controls that we already have and see if they can make any improvements?

As to sovereignty; the ability to write our own laws, the only real example anyone has given me is that the EU forced us to give prisoners the vote. I think we discussed that here at the time, and quite simply they didn't: it was quite simply another cock up by the then Home Secretary.

So we have immigration, which was substantially the fault of the Home Secretary, and Law making, which was significantly the fault of the Home Secretary, so the obvious answer is to put the Home Secretary in charge of everything...

That is how I see it anyway. Hopefully one of you will point out where I've got it wrong so I can have an epiphany...

Re-read the first line of your first post. Now imagine what a dictator would say when asked why they did what they did.

If they are right, then why is it a problem?
Do you really think that a bad democracy is better than a good dictatorship? How exactly do you define "democracy" in order to make that call?
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9428
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby tph » Mon Feb 06, 2017 8:49 am

You seem to bestow MP's with more intelligence than they perhaps deserve. Both sides of the debate on Europe made claims and put forward arguments which were not correct.

To quote Stephen R Covey "Correct principles are like lighthouses, you cannot break them, you can only break yourself against them". Democracy is a correct principle. If you plot a course (or pursue a policy) which is in conflict with that principle you will eventually end up on the rocks. That's exactly what parliament did with Europe.

Democracy is what legitimises parliaments power. Without it there is no legitimate power.

In a democracy everyone gets a vote regardless of their level of education. That has to be accepted.

If you believe society is largely uneducated ask yourself who sets out the policy for education and who allocates the funding?
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby Hairyloon » Mon Feb 06, 2017 11:15 am

tph wrote:You seem to bestow MP's with more intelligence than they perhaps deserve.

I am working on the (possibly rash) assumption that most of them are above average. There is something very wrong if they are not.
Both sides of the debate on Europe made claims and put forward arguments which were not correct.

Therein lies the crux of the argument: "it was a fair game because both sides cheated." It holds no water. None.

To quote Stephen R Covey "Correct principles are like lighthouses, you cannot break them, you can only break yourself against them". Democracy is a correct principle. If you plot a course (or pursue a policy) which is in conflict with that principle you will eventually end up on the rocks.

It must be nice to see the world so clearly in black and white. Democracy is not a "correct system". It is rubbish, its only saving grace is that it is better than everything else we have tried so far.

Imagine for a moment an important question with a right answer and wrong answer. Imagine the question is a bit tricky and only smarter people are likely to work it out: democracy will give the wrong answer, and that is with a problem tricky enough only to fool someone of average intelligence.

Democracy is what legitimises parliaments power. Without it there is no legitimate power.

"Democracy" is a wide church not everything within that church is legitimate.

In a democracy everyone gets a vote regardless of their level of education. That has to be accepted.

Why does it have to be accepted? It is illogical. There is obviously a huge difficulty in setting out a mechanism by which those votes should be properly weighted, unless you do so simply by dint of putting those votes through an intelligent filtration mechanism, ie an elected representative.

Representative democracy works well enough for most purposes.
Direct democracy works only on the simplest of questions.
What really does not work is when you mix the two together through a total pigs orifice and do what we have done.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9428
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby tph » Tue Feb 07, 2017 8:25 am

It sounds like you want to fiddle the system to produce a particular result. The problem with that is it never works all of the time.

I heard an interesting debate about Brexit on the radio yesterday regarding the educational divide on the vote.

There was a professor at a Scottish university explaining that he voted remain as the university received a lot of funding from European grants and that this secured his work (and his job).

They also had a gentleman who worked in the unskilled labour market who voted leave as he found it very difficult to find work because of the oversupply of unskilled workers due to high levels of European unskilled workers in his area.

Both essentially voted for the same reason, that of protecting their jobs. The difference in educational backgrounds makes little difference and it would be wrong to suggest that one was more valid than the other.
User avatar
tph
 
Posts: 565
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 11:54 pm

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby Hairyloon » Tue Feb 07, 2017 10:08 am

tph wrote:It sounds like you want to fiddle the system to produce a particular result. The problem with that is it never works all of the time.

No system is infallible, but here we have clearly identified and observable failures and we are ignoring them because democracy. It is not a persuasive argument.
I posted in the joke thread recently. It is not a good joke, but there is a parallel with Brexit. The doctor represents the referendum campaign, the surgeon represents parliament and we are currently in waiting for pre-op.
The patient's right to choose is absolutely sacrosanct, but shouldn't the surgeon at least tell him of the underpants theory before he does something irreversible?

I heard an interesting debate about Brexit on the radio yesterday regarding the educational divide on the vote.

There was a professor at a Scottish university explaining that he voted remain as the university received a lot of funding from European grants and that this secured his work (and his job).

They also had a gentleman who worked in the unskilled labour market who voted leave as he found it very difficult to find work because of the oversupply of unskilled workers due to high levels of European unskilled workers in his area.

Both essentially voted for the same reason, that of protecting their jobs. The difference in educational backgrounds makes little difference and it would be wrong to suggest that one was more valid than the other.


It would be wrong to not suggest it. If you are right to suggest that the reasons are equally valid then that point should be easily identified through reasoned discussion.
Surely the professor will be more likely to have substantial savings so he won't be nearly so badly affected by the job loss so his opinion should be discounted...

But surely we should look at it in the national interest: the government keeps telling us that unemployment is exceptionally low and the research suggests that immigration has a negligible effect on wage repression. Thus the labourer's vote is selfish: why should he move 100 miles to get a job just because someone has moved 1000 miles to take the job he used to do?
From the nation's point of view, what is important is that the job gets done.
The professor's vote is quite likely also selfish, but from the nation's perspective, the vote is of whether the job gets done or does not get done.
Take me to your lizard...
User avatar
Hairyloon
 
Posts: 9428
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 3:12 pm
Location: From there to here and here to there... Funny things are everywhere.

Re: An MP's duty...

Postby dls » Tue Feb 07, 2017 1:42 pm

The professor's vote is quite likely also selfish,


It is also very strange. There is in the end only one pot of money. He only gets support from Europe because we (and a few others) pay in more in general than we get out. It suggests a fundamental belief that somehow the EU is more to be relied upon to hand out candy than is the UK government. Since this question has not been asked of the UK government in practice for over forty years, I can see no basis for the opinion.
David Swarbrick (Admin) dswarb@gmail.com - 0795 457 9992
User avatar
dls
Site Admin
 
Posts: 11860
Joined: Thu Nov 01, 2012 1:35 pm
Location: Brighouse, West Yorkshire

PreviousNext

Return to Brexit

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest