"They are all as bad as each other"

inbetween said:
Perhaps the problem with the system is how you have described it, it's based upon voting for a person to represent you however in reality it's centred around one person who you do not vote for. Only the people of Uxbridge voted for Boris Johnson and less than 0.1% of the country voted for him to be the Tory party leader and PM.

It shouldn't be the case but it's a fact that Boris Johnson or any PM for that matter wields far more power than your MP. A party leader has the power to effectively eliminate your MP if they vote in their constituents interests and against the party, this is where the disconnect exists between the voter and the MP. It's because MP's suddenly are forced to consistently vote with their party and not necessarily their constituents or else face consequences.

Just now for example example we have a ridiculous situation where our next PM will likely promise tax cuts just months after that same person voted within the last regime to increase taxes. How is a system that allows this behaviour representative let alone democratic? Did anyone vote for tax increases and then tax cuts 6 months later?

So what is my point, ultimately I think we're kidding ourselves. We do live in a democracy but only to the point where every few years we get to vote for someone. That's where it ends, what that person then does once they're elected is a completely different matter. Most people truly vote for the party and PM who sets the agenda however in 2 months time we'll have a new PM with a new agenda that no-one voted for and the MP's will vote with that PM, it's just farcical really.

The only single issue I've ever seen where democracy has truly been exercised is Brexit and the reason why is because that decision was taken away from MP's. That's why it attracts so much energy on either side because actually this time your vote stood for something and actually did make a big difference.
Click to expand...

This is an excellent response.
 
@OP
Spot on.

My brother, leading up to the 2016 USA presidential election, falsely claimed that Hilary was just as corrupt as Trump. I very much wish that I had more knowledge of each candidate to forcefully disagree with him, though it wouldn't have made a lick of difference. I'm pretty sure that my brother voted for Trump in 2016 and in 2020 - we no longer speak - but I'm pretty sure I'm right in this.
 
inbetween said:
...

The only single issue I've ever seen where democracy has truly been exercised is Brexit and the reason why is because that decision was taken away from MP's. That's why it attracts so much energy on either side because actually this time your vote stood for something and actually did make a big difference.
Click to expand...
And why we'll never do it again.
 
The "just as bad" line of reasoning is an excuse to vote for an extremist who's positions you like because as bad as that person is morally, well the other candidate is just the same - except most often that's not the case at all. The other candidate has often been smeared - creating a much, much worse impression than actual fact.
 
inbetween said:
Perhaps the problem with the system is how you have described it, it's based upon voting for a person to represent you however in reality it's centred around one person who you do not vote for. Only the people of Uxbridge voted for Boris Johnson and less than 0.1% of the country voted for him to be the Tory party leader and PM.

It shouldn't be the case but it's a fact that Boris Johnson or any PM for that matter wields far more power than your MP. A party leader has the power to effectively eliminate your MP if they vote in their constituents interests and against the party, this is where the disconnect exists between the voter and the MP. It's because MP's suddenly are forced to consistently vote with their party and not necessarily their constituents or else face consequences.

Just now for example example we have a ridiculous situation where our next PM will likely promise tax cuts just months after that same person voted within the last regime to increase taxes. How is a system that allows this behaviour representative let alone democratic? Did anyone vote for tax increases and then tax cuts 6 months later?

So what is my point, ultimately I think we're kidding ourselves. We do live in a democracy but only to the point where every few years we get to vote for someone. That's where it ends, what that person then does once they're elected is a completely different matter. Most people truly vote for the party and PM who sets the agenda however in 2 months time we'll have a new PM with a new agenda that no-one voted for and the MP's will vote with that PM, it's just farcical really.

The only single issue I've ever seen where democracy has truly been exercised is Brexit and the reason why is because that decision was taken away from MP's. That's why it attracts so much energy on either side because actually this time your vote stood for something and actually did make a big difference.
Click to expand...


Brexit was directed by just a few rich people who have the financial clout and media to dictate how we voted. Quite a lot feel cheated what with all the lies and shit we're now getting.... Doesnt taste like democracy to me,. But I guess thats for the Brexit thread.
 
  • Like
Reactions: mat
The.Mps may want to.do good at first but I also think it doesn't take long for the corrupt side to surface . I don't think.there are many who.wont of abused the system.
 
Gorton_Tubster said:
Brexit was directed by just a few rich people who have the financial clout and media to dictate how we voted. Quite a lot feel cheated what with all the lies and shit we're now getting.... Doesnt taste like democracy to me,. But I guess thats for the Brexit thread.
Click to expand...
Perhaps but I also think it represented the fully legitimate concerns from the working classes on subjects like immigration and definitely the issue of globalisation. An education piece was needed on the benefits of immigration but unfortunately scare-mongering and social engineering sees us where we are now.

My dad in law voted for Brexit and part of his reason was because 6-7 years ago he worked in the car industry in a job he loved and was made redundant because his work was moved to Europe where labour was cheaper. He went from working in factories of 10,000 people designing and building British cars to factories of robots that now only build foreign brand cars. All of the lucrative skilled design and support work sits in countries elsewhere.

The people worse affected viewed the EU as representative of facilitating the change which was driven by banks and big finance helping foreign profit driven companies to takeover and/or crush British ones. Undermining workers in this way is exactly why the socialists hated EU membership and many of them are glad we're out.

So yeah indeed a very select minority of rich people took advantage and used their influence but I don't think that's purely the reason why it happened. Those people just played to people's prejudices and got what they wanted but those prejudices still had to exist in the first place. There were lies told but the issues on the table were diverse and for many EU membership clearly just didn't give them what they wanted.

Just because we may not of agreed with the result doesn't discount the fact that people had a choice and they made that choice however they saw fit and unlike in general elections the government was essentially forced to take action based upon that decision.... I don't know about you but that's literally the definition of democracy for me.
 
blueinsa said:
Argue as much as you like about are they as bad as each other, the truth is policy wise there is a fag paper between them all because they are all a part of the same system that has always and will always have the rich and poor and the haves and have nots.

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem it matters not a jot for the vast majority.

I’ve seen plenty of governments over my lifetime and the same issues persist.
Click to expand...
And yet, when Corbin tried, the have nots voted for the haves, once again..
 
Rascal said:
I think mate you are looking at it from a party political perspective where as my intention was to look at it from an individual MPs perspective. By that I mean say are Lisa Nandy and Rees-Mogg both in Parliament with the best of intentions. I do honestly believe that they both believe they are there to do good. Now whilst I may fundamentally disagree with both of them on issues and they may be following party guidance as part of collective responsibility that does not change their intentions on entering Parliament. They may have to support what I would consider awful and odious legislation, yet still retain their good intentions. Obviously though the question becomes what are good intentions and the only answer I have to that is the ballot box.

Which takes me back to one of my original concerns, thinking that MPs are all the same is a threat to Democracy and the best way to measure any MPs intentions is through an election and if we begin to consider MPs as being all the same I worry that affects voter turnout, it de-legitimises mandates and support for Parliament falls further. That could create a vacuum and authoritarians exploit vacuums.
Click to expand...
I disagree with you there Rascal. I very much doubt that ex/current hedge fund millionaires are there to do any good for anyone other than themselves and their ilk. Now, it might be that Lisa Nandy is also there to represent herself and her ilk however, there are a lot more people in this country like Lisa Nandy than there are like JRM.

As for your last point, I sincerely hope there is a huge amount of tactical voting at the next election and a progressive alliance just brings in PR, no referendum needed, which should keep the Tories out of government in perpetuity.
 
The Light Was Yellow Sir said:
I disagree with you there Rascal. I very much doubt that ex/current hedge fund millionaires are there to do any good for anyone other than themselves and their ilk. Now, it might be that Lisa Nandy is also there to represent herself and her ilk however, there are a lot more people in this country like Lisa Nandy than there are like JRM.

As for your last point, I sincerely hope there is a huge amount of tactical voting at the next election and a progressive alliance just brings in PR, no referendum needed, which should keep the Tories out of government in perpetuity.
Click to expand...

I’ve been a long term advocate of PR and always will be. I do worry about the amount we’ve regressed over the past decade or so making it less of a success if it were to be implemented though. It relies on greater collaboration and yet we’ve gone backwards in terms of empathy or consideration of other peoples views.
 
I live the UAE now and really don't miss the excuse for politics we have in our country. Most of the politicians come from the same background and you could put a cigarette paper between them.

This may upset a few people on here but I couldn't care less whether Boris was having a drink when he shouldn't have been. I just want them to get on with doing a good job with a bit of personality. All I see at the moment is negativity, negativity and more negativity which is made even worse in a country dominated by left wing ideas. Watching them in the commons is embarrassing.
 
Forzacitizens said:
I live the UAE now and really don't miss the excuse for politics we have in our country. Most of the politicians come from the same background and you could put a cigarette paper between them.

This may upset a few people on here but I couldn't care less whether Boris was having a drink when he shouldn't have been. I just want them to get on with doing a good job with a bit of personality. All I see at the moment is negativity, negativity and more negativity which is made even worse in a country dominated by left wing ideas. Watching them in the commons is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
It wasn’t having a drink that was the problem, it was that they partied on whilst making the rules stopping all other parties and going to family funerals.

Personality is almost irrelevant.

Competence, morality, duty, leadership and foresight are far more important.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It wasn’t having a drink that was the problem, it was that they partied on whilst making the rules stopping all other parties and going to family funerals.

Personality is almost irrelevant.
Click to expand...

Alan Harper's Tash said:
Competence, morality, duty, leadership and foresight are far more important.
Click to expand...

I think loads of people broke the rules and no one is whiter than white. It would be naive to assume so, even with the PM. Personality in being able to connect with the people and not someone out of touch
 
Forzacitizens said:
I live the UAE now and really don't miss the excuse for politics we have in our country. Most of the politicians come from the same background and you could put a cigarette paper between them.

This may upset a few people on here but I couldn't care less whether Boris was having a drink when he shouldn't have been. I just want them to get on with doing a good job with a bit of personality. All I see at the moment is negativity, negativity and more negativity which is made even worse in a country dominated by left wing ideas. Watching them in the commons is embarrassing.
Click to expand...
Dominated by left wing ideas? Are you thick?
 
Forzacitizens said:
I think loads of people broke the rules and no one is whiter than white. It would be naive to assume so, even with the PM. Personality in being able to connect with the people and not someone out of touch
Click to expand...
Loads of people didn’t make the rules though and undermine their own authority.

That picture of the Queen at her husband’s funeral the day after a massive Downing Street party should have killed his political career dead.

Johnson had the amazing ability to relate to absolute arseholes alongside being a banter Prime Minister. Hopefully people will see that this isn’t the answer ever again.
 
Alan Harper's Tash said:
It wasn’t having a drink that was the problem, it was that they partied on whilst making the rules stopping all other parties and going to family funerals.

Personality is almost irrelevant.

Competence, morality, duty, leadership and foresight are far more important.
Click to expand...

It wasn’t even that for me tbh, it’s that he lied about it in parliament. That has to always be a resigning offence.

Admittedly a sitting pm breaking the law has to be too though!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Unread Posts

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top