[Chrisoldinho]

Yes I know similar threads must of been covered a 1000 times before.

Watching Question Time last night it struck me that MPs were consistently argueing their points, not just with expenses but with a range of topics.

Surely the point is to listen to public opinion and act upon this and not try to argue their corner?

Obvious post of the year I know but it winds me up, especially when a young lady from the audience had a valid question about the EU and the female MP (forgot her name) instead of listening to her and responding, explaining why things are as they are and make a note of her comments just leaped into the typical MP spin and stats.

It's such a shame that even when you can ask them to answer you, they simply rebuke anything you say. They clearly just do what they want and ignore the public concensus. I hope something changes with politics although I seriously doubt it will.

BTW slightly off topic but I wont be voting in the European Elections, I don't support any of my local MEP's at the best of times, even less now.

Thanks for listening to my rant, just needed to get it off my chest.

[NewMan]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

Surely the point is to listen to public opinion and act upon this and not try to argue their corner?

I especially enjoyed Harriet Harman on BBC Breakfast this morning telling us that "the public want the money to be paid back and people who have broken the rules to be barred from standing for re-election".

Thats not what I want, or what a lot of other people want. We want prosecutions and sackings.... "I was acting within the rules" should be as much a defence as "I was only following orders" was during the Nuremburg trials.

[krish]

Listening to Bill Cash's excuses on 5 Live this morning, and similarly Julie Kirkbride yesterday just hours or minutes before she announced she was stepping down ... the overall feeling from listeners was THEY JUST DON'T GET IT!!!
- so what if they've got family to look after, young children, a partner to see etc ... we all have our priorities, but we spend our net income on it, not taxpayers' money

[loz]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

Yes I know similar threads must of been covered a 1000 times before.

Watching Question Time last night it struck me that MPs were consistently argueing their points, not just with expenses but with a range of topics.

Surely the point is to listen to public opinion and act upon this and not try to argue their corner?

Well that is the problem that many are pointing out that MPs are no longer representing their constituency in parliment, but instead are representing their party in their constituency.

Big, big, difference.

People don't often vote for the person (half the time no one even knows who they are), they vote for the party.

Hence the MP is just a mouthpiece, and unable to voice anything other than the party line.

At least Cameron has recognised this must change. BBC NEWS | Politics | Cameron in 'people power' pledge

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

BTW slightly off topic but I wont be voting in the European Elections, I don't support any of my local MEP's at the best of times, even less now.

Don't waste your vote, it is your only opportunity.

If you want to send the MPs a message, vote UKIP or Green, but not Labour, Conservative or LDem.

The more that do, the more they will realise just how much they are detested. So don't waste it.

[Decadence]

UKIP will be getting my vote anyway...Euro MEP's are able to claim £1,000,000 over 5 years in expenses and there is even less transparency!!!

[reddevil63]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

Yes I know similar threads must of been covered a 1000 times before.

Watching Question Time last night it struck me that MPs were consistently argueing their points, not just with expenses but with a range of topics.

Surely the point is to listen to public opinion and act upon this and not try to argue their corner?

Obvious post of the year I know but it winds me up, especially when a young lady from the audience had a valid question about the EU and the female MP (forgot her name) instead of listening to her and responding, explaining why things are as they are and make a note of her comments just leaped into the typical MP spin and stats.

It's such a shame that even when you can ask them to answer you, they simply rebuke anything you say. They clearly just do what they want and ignore the public concensus. I hope something changes with politics although I seriously doubt it will.

BTW slightly off topic but I wont be voting in the European Elections, I don't support any of my local MEP's at the best of times, even less now.

Thanks for listening to my rant, just needed to get it off my chest.

Watched it too and agree with what you say.

They just won't answer direct questions and blah blah blah with spin.

One particular question got distracted how been in the EU helps our economy, makes it stronger and something about social reform white paper blah blah blah, the whole audience laughed at the comments and someone in the audience shouted something about 'tell that to the unemployed and how can it be good for the economy with so many jobs been lost.

It really is them and us with a big brick wall dividing.

Slightly off-topic but I can't see our government helping to save jobs at Vauxhall.

[Codehead]

I thought we were getting somewhere when the news came out yesterday that loads of MPs were stepping down.

I never thought they'd have the integrity to fall on their swords. Turns out they haven't. Half of them are asking to up to the Lords.

So MPs agree that bankers who cock up shouldn't get a payoff, but MPs who cock up should get a 'promotion'?

[Chrisoldinho]

Originally Posted by loz

Well that is the problem that many are pointing out that MPs are no longer representing their constituency in parliment, but instead are representing their party in their constituency.

Big, big, difference.

People don't often vote for the person (half the time no one even knows who they are), they vote for the party.

Hence the MP is just a mouthpiece, and unable to voice anything other than the party line.

You just hit the nail on the head, absolutely spot on and exactly what I was trying to get across in my own jumbled way

[loz]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

You just hit the nail on the head, absolutely spot on and exactly what I was trying to get across in my own jumbled way

well it is as much our fault as their's.

Let's face it, most of us vote for the party, not the person.
And with a first past the post system, I guess we almost have to, if you want your 'party' to win.

Whereas, we ought to spend more time asking is this person going to represent me and my neighbours well in parliament.

But it is pointless when the parties employ whips to beat their personal opinions out of them. So, no matter how good they might appear pre-election, they still end up just towing the party line.

I bet the majority of people don't even know the name of their MP. Even less their MEP.

[mij]

I know this is cliché, but our governments are no more than an elected dictatorship.

The difference between the main parties is so small that getting worked up and wasting your life worrying about it is just not worth the effort, apart from the small and mostly insignificant bits what is the difference between them.

Nothing major will change, we will end up exactly were they want us to be, when they want us to be there, whether we want it or not.

Look at the example that is Europe.

[krish]

Originally Posted by loz

Don't waste your vote, it is your only opportunity.

If you want to send the MPs a message, vote UKIP or Green, but not Labour, Conservative or LDem.

it's also PR, not first past the post, so no vote is wasted

the Greens got mine over a week ago (postal vote)

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by Chrisoldinho

BTW slightly off topic but I wont be voting in the European Elections, I don't support any of my local MEP's at the best of times, even less now.

Originally Posted by loz

Don't waste your vote, it is your only opportunity.

If you want to send the MPs a message, vote UKIP or Green, but not Labour, Conservative or LDem.

The more that do, the more they will realise just how much they are detested. So don't waste it.

The less people who vote, the more chance the dangerous lunatics (ie extreme left/right etc) have of gaining serious power. If you don't like any of them, vote for the least offensive, otherwise the most offensive may well get in.

When not voting, never forget that a few years ago apathy in France gave the French National Front a very real chance at the presidency and France ended up with a President that less than 1 in 5 voters in the first round had voted for.

This quote from wiki

Chirac faced his fourth presidential campaign in 2002. He was the first choice of fewer than one in five voters in the first round of voting of the presidential elections in April 2002. It had been expected that he would face incumbent prime minister Lionel Jospin (PS) in the second round of elections; instead, Chirac faced controversial far right politician Jean-Marie Le Pen of National Front (FN), and so won re-election by a landslide (82 percent); all parties outside the National Front (except for Lutte ouvrière) had called for opposing Le Pen, even if it meant voting for Chirac. Slogans such as "vote for the crook, not for the fascist" or "vote with a clothespin on your nose" appeared, while huge demonstrations marked the period between the two electoral rounds in all of France. Chirac became increasingly unpopular during his second term. According to a July 2005 poll,[28] 32 percent judged Chirac favorably and 63 percent unfavorably. In 2006, The Economist wrote that Chirac "is the most unpopular occupant of the Elysée Palace in the fifth republic's history."

So, please think carefully before not voting

[binbag]

If this had happened in France, the Houses of Parliament would by now bear a strong resemblence to Ground Zero. Our politicians have been allowed to get this way by a culture obsessed with celebrity trivia 'and it's OK as long as you don't get caught' morality (of which I am as guilty as anyone).

People have been complaining so much that the MP's do not represent them; maybe the problem is that they represent them too well, albeit on a grander scale.

[TylerDurden]

Originally Posted by loz

If you want to send the MPs a message, vote UKIP or Green, but not Labour, Conservative or LDem.

Thats what I intend on doing

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by loz

Don't waste your vote, it is your only opportunity.

If you want to send the MPs a message, vote UKIP or Green, but not Labour, Conservative or LDem.

The more that do, the more they will realise just how much they are detested. So don't waste it.

Originally Posted by TylerDurden

Thats what I intend on doing

The only problem is that by voting 'Green' you will be voting for a bunch of hairshirted 'activists' (that's the polite word) with little political experience and a 'passion' (another polite word) that is not really based in the real world. Thus they would be open to cynical manipulation by those very people who are the cause of our current malaise (ie the worst elements of the politicians and the wealthy/powerful/corrupt etc etc).

[kav]

I don't fully understand how British politics works, but presuming that the share of the votes this time around is relatively evenly distributed, is there a possibility of a coalition government formed of more than one party, such as what we have in Ireland? I'm picturing a stand-off between Tories and Labour, with Lib Dems needing to side with one of them to tip the balance of power, and thereby forming a shared government.

Could such a situation ever arise in the UK?

[loz]

Originally Posted by kavanf1

I don't fully understand how British politics works, but presuming that the share of the votes this time around is relatively evenly distributed, is there a possibility of a coalition government formed of more than one party, such as what we have in Ireland? I'm picturing a stand-off between Tories and Labour, with Lib Dems needing to side with one of them to tip the balance of power, and thereby forming a shared government.

Could such a situation ever arise in the UK?

yes.

But this isn't a general election, so it won't affect the UK Parliament, only the European Parliament, and local councils. In both these cases, coalitions are common.

[NewMan]

BBC NEWS | Politics | I'm staying on as PM, says Brown


Is it just me, or does Gordon look like he's planning to suspend the democratic process indefinitely? Who knows how long this recession will last, and he's saying he's staying on until he's fixed it.

Newsflash, Gordon, you caused it in the first place.

All the quotes attributed to him in that article show him to the be power hungry, deluded, self-important, arrogant butt-wipe we all know him to be.

It's lucky for him I'm no good at DIY, or I'd be outside the Houses of Parliament building a guillotine...

[loz]

Originally Posted by NewMan

I'm staying on as PM, says Brown

Is it just me, or does Gordon look like he's planning to suspend the democratic process indefinitely? Who knows how long this recession will last, and he's saying he's staying on until he's fixed it.

I think this Friday following the local elections, and next Tuesday when the European election results are announced, is going to be the crunch point for GB.

He can say what he wants now, but next week if the elections results are as bad for Labour as predicted, then the knives are going to be out and he is going to find it difficult to hide.

That said, Labour know it will be difficult to switch leaders without a general election - because the public is just not going to stand yet another unelected PM (forget that they don't elect them anyway), and not when they want to get shot of the lot of them, not just a new leader.

Hence the senior labour party members will bite their lip and try and hang on and collect their ministerial salary for another year, in the hope that some miracle occurs in the mean time and they are re-elected.

I can't see any of them doing the honorable thing, because as we now know, they aren't (honorable that is)

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by NewMan

Newsflash, Gordon, you caused it in the first place.

Personally I wouldn't dare vote against someone who can bring the whole world down. Imagine what would happen to me if someone with that power should find out and get annoyed with me.

[Wild Weasel]

If Labour get beaten into 4th place, behind the Conservatives, UKIP and Liberal Democrats it will be a huge slap in the face for Gordo.

If Labour try to offload him, maybe the Queen will do something for this country for once and refuse to accept the new person without a general election.

[NewMan]

12 years of mismanaging the public purse, selling off gold reserves at discount prices, ridiculous borrowing - even in the "boom" years of a cycle which he apparently put an end to, destruction of the average persons pension (but unsurprisingly the gold plated, civil service ones were magically untouched), artifically maintaining house prices at unsustainable levels and encouraging borrowing more than can be feasibly paid back, nationalising the debt of failing banks while privatising the profits, and on top of that, the expenses published are only from the past few years - and they've all been at it for how long now?

While he may not have brought down the American banking industry personally, we could certainly be in a better position than we are now.

Yeah, indeed.

[loz]

Anyway, Gordon has more important things to worry about

Gordon Brown phones Cowell to check up on Susan Boyle - Times Online

[mij]

Originally Posted by loz

Anyway, Gordon has more important things to worry about

Gordon Brown phones Cowell to check up on Susan Boyle - Times Online

Words fail me where is Lord Sutch's successor.

[krish]

Originally Posted by loz

Anyway, Gordon has more important things to worry about

Gordon Brown phones Cowell to check up on Susan Boyle - Times Online

5live have had all the opposition party leaders (including Farage and Griffin) in for live interview and caller Q&As over the last couple of weeks, this morning was Labour's turn but who turned up? ... only the Lord Chief Justice of the Court of Public Opinion, Harriet Bleedin' Harman. A listener then complained about GB not turning up, to which HH answered he was busy doing this same kind of stuff on TV .. to which the listener then responded in disgust with something like "yeah, he's on GMTV right now talking about Susan Boyle"

[johntheexpat]

Originally Posted by NewMan

12 years of mismanaging the public purse, selling off gold reserves at discount prices, ridiculous borrowing - even in the "boom" years of a cycle which he apparently put an end to, destruction of the average persons pension (but unsurprisingly the gold plated, civil service ones were magically untouched), artifically maintaining house prices at unsustainable levels and encouraging borrowing more than can be feasibly paid back, nationalising the debt of failing banks while privatising the profits, and on top of that, the expenses published are only from the past few years - and they've all been at it for how long now?

While he may not have brought down the American banking industry personally, we could certainly be in a better position than we are now.

Yeah, indeed.

What is truly cynical is that it is the right who are mouthing off about what a bad job GB did regulating banks/lending etc etc. The right who preach about freedom and less restrictive practices. The right who scream and shout about the lack of freedom under labour. etc etc ad infinitum. These same right wingers would have, given the chance, subjected the banking sector to even less restrictions and given them even more freedom.

The whole thing is so cynical it's breath-taking.

[NewMan]

I don't think "the left" have got a hope in hell's chance of redirecting any public anger and outrage back towards bankers and what "the right" would have done at this point....

But good luck.

[loz]

Originally Posted by johntheexpat

What is truly cynical is that it is the right who are mouthing off about what a bad job GB did regulating banks/lending etc etc. The right who preach about freedom and less restrictive practices. The right who scream and shout about the lack of freedom under labour. etc etc ad infinitum. These same right wingers would have, given the chance, subjected the banking sector to even less restrictions and given them even more freedom.

The whole thing is so cynical it's breath-taking.

I don't think we have a left and a right any more. Not in terms of New Labour and the Conservatives that is.

Instead we have two centre parties.

And perhaps that is the problem. No real choice. They both seemingly have policies that could be considered to the left or right of the other's.

[mij]

Originally Posted by loz

I don't think we have a left and a right any more. Not in terms of New Labour and the Conservatives that is.

Instead we have two centre parties.

And perhaps that is the problem. No real choice. They both seemingly have policies that could be considered to the left or right of the other's.

We have about 646 MPs with the majority looking for a career, many would and could be a member of any of the 3 main parties providing it provides them with a way into the club. Once in the club, do not bite the hand that feeds you seems to be the rule.

The rest is window dressing.

[Pecker]

Originally Posted by kavanf1

I don't fully understand how British politics works, but presuming that the share of the votes this time around is relatively evenly distributed, is there a possibility of a coalition government formed of more than one party, such as what we have in Ireland? I'm picturing a stand-off between Tories and Labour, with Lib Dems needing to side with one of them to tip the balance of power, and thereby forming a shared government.

Could such a situation ever arise in the UK?

It's quite possible to have a result where the Lib Dems could end up forming a government with LD + Lab seats adding up to a majority. It's also possible that they could be in this position with the Conservatives.

However, it's highly unlikely that they copuld end up in a position where they could choose to put either in power.

For wexample, at the last election the total number of seats was 646, so you needed 324 to form a majority. LAB got 356, CON 198, LD 62, others 30.

For Labour to lose its majority it'd need to lose 32 seats. If they all went LD (or all CON) that'd put LD + CON on 292 - still 32 short of a majority. If 32 went from LAB to LD and 32 went LAB to CON you'd have - LAB 292, CON 230, LD 94, others 30.

But if 95 or more defect from LAB to CON we get LAB 261, CON 293, LD 62, others 30. Now LD can prop up CON but not LAB.

So a swing of more than 64 from LAB (50:50 LD:CON) is needed to put LD in with a chance of supporting LAB, but more than 94 and they can no longer do so, but only support CON.

They may be able to support one, or the other, but they're very unlikely to have the choice of either/or, unless they get a big swing to them with little to the tories.

Steve W