Brexit and all that shite .... | Page 7 | Vital Football

Brexit and all that shite ....

moonay said:
I generally agree there KDZ, but that does bring up an obvious predicament:
- individuals stand on behalf of a party
- the party has a manifesto, stating policies
- the public vote for party/individual (note the first potential dilemma)
- a referendum comes along
- all parties campaign.........based on their manifesto, or subsequently updated policies
- the public votes, based on their own personal feelings

Now, if the result in any particular constituency doesn't align with the views of their MP, or party, what is the MP, or party to do? Go against their previously stated policies? .........

OR

....... is the referendum result meant to be taken as an indicator of opinion, to allow informed future decisions.

Just a thought.
Click to expand...

You've touched on what for me a big part of the problem - the tying of candidates in what is pretty much a ultra partizan 2 party system - what is best for the local constituents may not be what is best for the overall party or the MP themselves and therefor there is a massive conflict of interst.

The nature of the election system means if you love your latest parties manifesto to get it you may have to cast your vote for a corrupt, lying, incompetent MP for your town. Or if you really think your local MP is a decent, honest, hard working benefit to your community locally but is standing for a national party who have policies you strongly disagree with so you have to vote to remove them.

I think we need a massive reform as our current system is broken because iof the above. I think local MP's should face local primaries to be their parties candidate, or better yet all MP's run as independent for the HoC. Then if we still need to have parties have a new slimmed down and fully elected version of a HoL that collaborates with the local representatives that is maybe proportionally representative of all votes rather than first past the post. That way local people can vote for whichever person they think will best represent their local intersts and then vote for a party to represent the overall policy direction of the country (eg the MPs wouldn't be in charge national of military, police, NHS budgets, etc but parties could be). It's very radical but i think we need a such a radical reform as currently it's the foxes watching the hen houses with too much power centralised in parties leadership and safe seats diminishing making MP's lazy and self serving. Ideally I believe it's much better to have as much local decision making and influence as possible and our current system highlights (espeically with Brexit) how unaccountable our MP's are to the public.

For me basically the MP should be the person who goes to represent what the majority of their constituent want in the HoC. It's not they way it is now but that's what i think it should be. It's not an exact science but i do think you can advise and argue your point locally to see if people can change you mind, but if you can't sway them your personal opinion should come second to their wishes and you go down to Parliment and vote the way they ask. If previously the majority of the local people wanted you to support a certain thing - say Grammer schools it's your job to support that even if personally that isn't what you would do, and then say if they all suddenly change their mind then i think the MP should change stance to match that. If people genuinely believed that their voice mattered and they would be listened to you'd soon see engagement in local politics shoot through the roof and then we could start to have weekly meetings in our towns around the country and MP's would meet with much larger cross sections of their local voters and they could get a better feel for the type of things people want and MP's would need to listen if they wanted to keep their position.
 
Made in Wigan said:
I thought the last manifesto said they supported leaving? (I could be wrong)
Click to expand...

It did, but they are genuinely attempting to ride the fence on this with as much deliberate tactical ambigouity as possible.

We've literally had weeks where Corbyn, Starmer, MacDonnell, Gardner, Burdgen, Abbott, Thornbury, etc all said completely contradictory things at one point there had been at least 16 different positions on Brexit within a matter of weeks. People have accused them of being in a mess, but i do wonder if it's been deliberate ploy.

Labour were in a very difficult position because the vast majority of their members and activists are pro EU, but 70% of their constituents voted Leave. They had to effectively pick a side and drive away a lot of their support one way or another. By refusing to nail the colours clearly to the mast at any point they never had to alienate either side of their voting blocks.

People have been able to find plenty of soundbites from a high profile Labour politican that supports either side of the Brexit argument and although they will find others that contradict that, people will want to not abandon the party if they think there is a possibility they will get what they want in the end. So they will likely stick with Labour and hope the view they like will eventually win the day. It's kicking the can down the road but they've been able to do it as the Tory's have been in open dispute on Brexit, and Labour can sit back and let them damage themselves if they don't wade in on either side and then hope that whatever is left they will be able to pick the scraps. It's looks bad at times but i think it's 'daft the right way' if you know what i mean.

The funny thing is i think if either Tory or Labour said day one - we will back Leaving properly they would storm it in the polls now and be a guarenteed victory at the next election. Brexit is 52% the majority position proportionally and 75% first past the post, it cut accross party lines and either party would for the first time attract masses of votes as the other side dithered if they said they would honour the referendum promises of leaving the EU and all it's institutions.
 
Last edited:
The two big flaws with your argument KDZ are that as independents, MPs would probably be more susceptible to being "influenced". Lets face it, local council elections are probably more akin to what you describe, yet on numerous occasions, we hear of them (from all sides) being involved in dodgy dealings.........and secondly, if all candidates were independent, its unlikely that you'd agree with everything they stand for. At some point, you have to choose a "best match" ...... same as with the party system.

NB: I know the above is a blanket statement, and I don't mean to paint all independent MPs, or local councillors with the same brush.
 
moonay said:
KDZs wrong too.



No it didn't KDZ.

You're talking about what's happened post the result. The campaign, based on Conference decision (& however lacklustrely supported by the leader) was to remain.
Click to expand...

MiW wasn't asking about pre referneudm he was asking about GE manifesto - which is what i was answering.

Both parties in their manifesto said they would honour the Brexit result. The reason Labour did better than expected was the UKIP vote unexpectedly moved more to them than the Torys after the purpose of UKIP seemed to have been achieved.
 
Made in Wigan said:
Labours 2017 election manifesto said they would respect the result of the referendum. Moonay, you're not related to Diane are you?
Click to expand...

You've fallen into the same trap as KDZ . Their policy was for the campaign was to leave. The problem that gave Corbyn was it put him on the same side as Cameron. That's (probably) why he did feck all by way of campaigning.

Post the result, yes, they said they'll respect the decision ........... hence their "6 points".
 
Last edited:
king_dezeeuw06 said:
MiW wasn't asking about pre referneudm he was asking about GE manifesto - which is what i was answering........
Click to expand...

No he wasn't KDZ. He was commenting on the timeline I listed ........ which obviously showed that the parties/MPs had their views & polices before the referendum.

Labour's was to remain ......... .though as it happened, a good chunk of their voting base disagreed.

Hence the conundrum & conflict.
 
pies'r'us said:
Why and how do you know they are scared 'en mass'.

Todays top tip; don't believe everything you read etc.. I sometimes think the BBC must employ many people spending many hours trawling around for negative info or views about Brexit. Thank God I'm not paying into their coffers.

It's piss poor peace agreement if a hard border causes violence. Think how many hard borders there are throuout the world and are operating withgout problems.

But in fact; custom brokers do away with hard borders but like everything else with Brexit, the border issue has been politiscised and used for the 'remain' agenda. Some of the main concern for the Irish border is from Irish beef farmers and haulage companies whom the majority travel across to and then through the UK to reach europe.
Click to expand...

I know that people in Ireland are worried about everything to do with a hard border including certain nasty groups using this to their advantage, not from the BBC but because I spend at least one month every year on both sides of the border in Fermanagh, Cavan & Leitrim, you think authorities are going to continue to let people from the south travel to Asda, Enniskillen has one of the biggest busiest in the UK despite it being a relatively small town, or the people of the North travel in the opposite direction to fill with fuel those are real issues for ordinary people not politicians or the EU playing games as some on here are suggesting.
 
jocklatic said:
Now hold on a minute TB - are you saying that MP's should be doing what their constituents voted for(lol)? Well I think you best let those said MPs know cos they certainly ain't doing it & come a GE let's hope the said constituents let their 'ex' MP know it!!
Click to expand...
With L.Nandy atn the top of that list for me.
 
loudmouthblue said:
I know that people in Ireland are worried about everything to do with a hard border including certain nasty groups using this to their advantage, not from the BBC but because I spend at least one month every year on both sides of the border in Fermanagh, Cavan & Leitrim, you think authorities are going to continue to let people from the south travel to Asda, Enniskillen has one of the biggest busiest in the UK despite it being a relatively small town, or the people of the North travel in the opposite direction to fill with fuel those are real issues for ordinary people not politicians or the EU playing games as some on here are suggesting.
Click to expand...
I work for an Irish company in Drogheda am there twice a month and would share that the locals expect to do exactly that as they did pre EU including cross border shopping fuel top ups and goods movements. The southern Irish are simply having the craic with this.
 
moonay said:
You've fallen into the same trap as KDZ . Their policy was for the campaign was to leave. The problem that gave Corbyn was it put him on the same side as Cameron. That's (probably) why he did feck all by way of campaigning.

Post the result, yes, they said they'll respect the decision ........... hence their "6 points".
Click to expand...

You wrote: Now, if the result in any particular constituency doesn't align with the views of their MP, or party, what is the MP, or party to do? Go against their previously stated policies? .........

As I said in the last GE they said they'd leave (respect the ref). That trumps previous manifestos or pledges. As such these MPs now bleating about remaining are going against party policy and in some constituencies the majority of what the voters wanted in 2016 - I do concede I have absolutely no idea what their policy is now and I suspect neither do they.
 
moonay said:
No he wasn't KDZ. He was commenting on the timeline I listed ........ which obviously showed that the parties/MPs had their views & polices before the referendum.

Labour's was to remain ......... .though as it happened, a good chunk of their voting base disagreed.

Hence the conundrum & conflict.
Click to expand...

And I was talking about the last election!
 
Fair do MiW. We've obviously got crossed wires. As you responded by quoting my timeline, I presumed (understandably) that you were referring to the policy leading into the referendum campaign.

Regardless, the conundrum I outlined in the timeline remains. Given that parties (and their MPs) had stated policies going into the referendum, given that "their voters" voted in conflict with those policies, what are they to do?

As it happens, they've said that they'll respect the result ............. which they will ......... based on the 6 point criteria (as I've already said).

I think one of the issues is that policy is decided on by part membership, but voted on by everyone.
 
moonay said:
Do I infer from this that you think you understand the policy of the Conservative party on this subject?
:hmmm:
;)
Click to expand...

Does it really matter what either party tell us they have / will have as their policies...cos they will do as they please once back in the warm bosom of the Houses of parliament despite any promises they may have given their constituents. Chancers, Charlatans and Clowns the lot of them.
 
nottinghamlatic said:
I voted remain, and always would. I've always been a committed Europhile, ever since studying Economics at Uni. I was so keen on the idea of countries working together to make the most of shared resources, instead of trying to go it alone in an isolationist way, that I did a master's in European Policy. I find the whole European project exciting and for the future, thinking of my kids. Basically, I don't understand why anybody is against it. The opinion poll back in 2016 proved nothing, except how the mass media can influence such polls, which is why I have doubts about a second referendum....although that option would be preferable to 'no deal'....which would be catastrophic.
Click to expand...
Ahhhh......that will explain it then - you've been through the full "multi cultural", euro worship indoctrination programme - super balanced educational programme - not - I'm sure Tony is very proud of you and do enjoy the guardian leader from dear Polly today - it's utter bollocks btw.
The original soap box statement destroys any credibility of a balanced viewpoint
 
moonay said:
Fair do MiW. We've obviously got crossed wires. As you responded by quoting my timeline, I presumed (understandably) that you were referring to the policy leading into the referendum campaign.

Regardless, the conundrum I outlined in the timeline remains. Given that parties (and their MPs) had stated policies going into the referendum, given that "their voters" voted in conflict with those policies, what are they to do?

As it happens, they've said that they'll respect the result ............. which they will ......... based on the 6 point criteria (as I've already said).

I think one of the issues is that policy is decided on by part membership, but voted on by everyone.
Click to expand...

I suppose they have to take the stance they are in a job to represent the wishes of their electorate, so therefore should do just if there is a clear conflict between those wishes and what the policy was/is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.