Nadine Dorries, Tory Health Minister

Recidivist3

Recidivist3

Well-known member
Retweets far right attempt to smear Keir Starmer

accident or design

more dirty politics in the middle of the pandemic methinks
 
Recidivist3 said:
Retweets far right attempt to smear Keir Starmer

accident or design

more dirty politics in the middle of the pandemic methinks
Click to expand...
On both side’s methinks.
However that’s modern politics unfortunately, actually it’s politics full stop but social media gives more of a platform for any lack of integrity.
I like Starmer from what I’ve seen to date. Hopefully most of us are capable of making our own minds up at the next election.
I also think a lot of the criticism of Boris isn’t always founded, but trust my own judgment in separating the wheat from the chaff.
That’s democracy. Social media of any sort is often far from democratic.
 
How can a Prime Minister who has been sacked three times for lying, was caught lying to the house yesterday and his lies about checks on goods to Northern Ireland also were revealed yesterday, who appointed a Home Secretary who was sacked for lying, and an Education Secretary who was sacked for lying then take action against 3 of his MPs who shared far right lies about Kier Starmer.
I suppose he could have gone down the racist angle to sanction them but Oh hang on, that doesn't work either.
And Lala why do all the lies and misinformation put out by Johnson and this government not seem to bother you.
Lies about PPE,
Lies about care home testing,
Lies about the number of tests,
Lies about the SAGE meetings,
Lies about the EU procurement scheme,
Lies about consulting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders.
And these are just the ones since the election.

Lying is endemic in this government but you repeatedly turn a blind eye while pretending to be a voice of moderation.
 
Last edited:
catinstalbans said:
How can a Prime Minister who has been sacked three times for lying, was caught lying to the house yesterday and his lies about checks on goods to Northern Ireland also were revealed yesterday, who appointed a Home Secretary who was sacked for lying, and an Education Secretary who was sacked for lying then take action against 3 of his MPs who shared far right lies about Kier Starmer.
I suppose he could have gone down the racist angle to sanction them but Oh hang on, that doesn't work either.
And Lala who do all the reception s and misinformation put out by Johnson and this government not seem to bother you.
Lies about PPE,
Lies about care home testing,
Lies about the number of tests,
Lies about the SAGE meetings,
Lies about the EU procurement scheme,
Lies about consulting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders.
And these are just the ones since the election.

Lying is endemic in this government but you repeatedly turn a blind eye while pretending to be a voice of moderation.
Click to expand...

You are out of order to point Lala out. There are LOADS of posters on here that claim to be a "balanced voice of reason" that are so obviously MASSIVE conservatives!

Nothing wrong with that - do what you want but it's "obvious" when that's a bit of a porky pie........

It's the "softening the blow" or "softly expressed excuses" of abject failure that gives them away.

There are also many posters that do see it down the middle - like myself. 👍
 
catinstalbans said:
How can a Prime Minister who has been sacked three times for lying, was caught lying to the house yesterday and his lies about checks on goods to Northern Ireland also were revealed yesterday, who appointed a Home Secretary who was sacked for lying, and an Education Secretary who was sacked for lying then take action against 3 of his MPs who shared far right lies about Kier Starmer.
I suppose he could have gone down the racist angle to sanction them but Oh hang on, that doesn't work either.
And Lala why do all the lies and misinformation put out by Johnson and this government not seem to bother you.
Lies about PPE,
Lies about care home testing,
Lies about the number of tests,
Lies about the SAGE meetings,
Lies about the EU procurement scheme,
Lies about consulting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders.
And these are just the ones since the election.

Lying is endemic in this government but you repeatedly turn a blind eye while pretending to be a voice of moderation.
Click to expand...
Bang on about lying being endemic in this Government. OTT about posters turning a blind eye. You are assuming a lack of integrity that isn't justified.
 
It was inevitable that someone like Dorries would do this. Corbyn was a fairly easy target: Starmer not so much. She knew exactly what she was doing. Put it out there long enough; get it trending; wait until someone points out it's bullshit; take it down; job done..enough morons out there will believe it and then it becomes fact. It's the gutter politics that we have come to expect from some.
 
It’s no surprise that the Conservatives will resort to fake news to discredit the opposition. Their election campaign tactics could have been written by Trump and his acolytes.
 
catinstalbans said:
How can a Prime Minister who has been sacked three times for lying, was caught lying to the house yesterday and his lies about checks on goods to Northern Ireland also were revealed yesterday, who appointed a Home Secretary who was sacked for lying, and an Education Secretary who was sacked for lying then take action against 3 of his MPs who shared far right lies about Kier Starmer.
I suppose he could have gone down the racist angle to sanction them but Oh hang on, that doesn't work either.
And Lala why do all the lies and misinformation put out by Johnson and this government not seem to bother you.
Lies about PPE,
Lies about care home testing,
Lies about the number of tests,
Lies about the SAGE meetings,
Lies about the EU procurement scheme,
Lies about consulting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders.
And these are just the ones since the election.

Lying is endemic in this government but you repeatedly turn a blind eye while pretending to be a voice of moderation.
Click to expand...
I’m comfortable with my own ability to sort the wheat from the chaff come next polling day and don’t rely on you or any other social media influencer to help me out, but thanks 👍
 
I think that it shows that the Conservatives are very afraid of Starmer. Having said that this is pretty desperate stuff and once again puts the government in a bad light.

Corbyn was not a threat and there are plenty of things that Corbyn actually did that would put the ordinary voter off. For instance, Corbyn invited Sinn Fein leaders into the House of Commons as guests a few days after the Brighton hotel bomb. No need to smear him too much, he did a good job of discrediting himself.

Starmer however has a very good work record, has a seemingly clean private life, has held a massive position outside of politics (head of the CPS) and now it seems is going to expose the PM's shortcomings at the dispatch box every week for the next five years. His approval rating is now higher than Johnson after only two PMQs and a lot of the public still don't know who he is. He looks and acts like a statesman and when put next to Johnson the contrast is stark. There is a credible adult in the room at last.
 
Last edited:
Lala said:
I’m comfortable with my own ability to sort the wheat from the chaff come next polling day and don’t rely on you or any other social media influencer to help me out, but thanks 👍
Click to expand...
Well said Lala. You're right not to take notice of idiots 👍
 
Yes he's a very sharp operator and Labour have finally learnt from their failed experiment with hard line socialism. Hence the reason they've gone back to a moderate Blair-esque leader. Being a barrister he will obviously be more than a match for Johnson. Time will tell whether he can deal with Momentum and the loony left. I doubt they'll accept his moderate policies so easily.
But the country needs a strong opposition and it's a good appointment.
 
Rebuked by No10 for the incident. As others have said though, the slur is out there and some will continue to believe it.

Deliberate or accidental? You have to question why someone as a Minister in the DoH would not check to see if it was true before retweeting. At best, a very poor judgement call for a senior politician.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
What did she actually say?
Click to expand...
I think that she has retweeted a far right lie about Starmer not wanting to prosecute paedophile grooming gangs when he was head of the CPS. It's a pretty vile accusation, he should consider taking legal action IMO.
And to add, I am amazed that Dorres could have thought that this is true - it doesn't put her in a very good light to say the least
 
Johnson’s judgement is again called into question appointing someone of such limited ability into a position of such responsibility.
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
I think that she has retweeted a far right lie about Starmer not wanting to prosecute paedophile grooming gangs when he was head of the CPS. It's a pretty vile accusation, he should consider taking legal action IMO.
And to add, I am amazed that Dorres could have thought that this is true - it doesn't put her in a very good light to say the least
Click to expand...
Oh right that one. That's been doing the rounds for a while now. I first heard it a few weeks ago at least.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
Oh right that one. That's been doing the rounds for a while now. I first heard it a few weeks ago at least.
Click to expand...
It was a video that was set up by a Twitter account NJAMES which has now mysteriously disappeared but has links to National Action, which is a banned far right Nazi organisation whose leader (Jack Renshaw) is currently in jail for plotting to murder a Labour MP and grooming boys on the internet.
The video clips parts of the interview to claim the opposite of what Starmer was saying. For Dorries, Allen and Caulfield to not spot the obvious editing either shows they are extremely stupid or extremely malicious or a bit of both.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
Yes he's a very sharp operator and Labour have finally learnt from their failed experiment with hard line socialism. Hence the reason they've gone back to a moderate Blair-esque leader. Being a barrister he will obviously be more than a match for Johnson. Time will tell whether he can deal with Momentum and the loony left. I doubt they'll accept his moderate policies so easily.
But the country needs a strong opposition and it's a good appointment.
Click to expand...
Sorry Rusty but this is a bit of a bug-bear of mine. Socialism is not a failure. I fully supported the 2017 manifesto; though not that of 2019, which was all over the place. I believe in the need for national infrastructure to be centrally funded by the public and to be planned, co-ordinated and managed through public organisation - NOT necessarily centrally. I also believe in socialist social policies that provide support for the less well off and level up the life-chances of those communities that otherwise, under free-market capitalism, suffer from multiple deprivation. As the Pandemic has shown, when the nation needs its Government to manage a crisis, then the luxury of the free-market has to be put aside. Keynes is not dead yet!
However, I do believe that those policies can quite legitimately be promoted and implemented by a moderate Leadership. One where the Parliamentary Party is given authority to lead the Party, supported by constituency parties and trades union affiliates. I do agree that there is a loony left; a Militant Tendency that bullies and believes in control through the packing and management of committees. For me, they have no place in a Labour Party that is open, democratic and anti-racist. I look forward to Starmer leading a confident, able and effective shadow cabinet that also has the backing of the NEC.
 
catinstalbans said:
How can a Prime Minister who has been sacked three times for lying, was caught lying to the house yesterday and his lies about checks on goods to Northern Ireland also were revealed yesterday, who appointed a Home Secretary who was sacked for lying, and an Education Secretary who was sacked for lying then take action against 3 of his MPs who shared far right lies about Kier Starmer.
I suppose he could have gone down the racist angle to sanction them but Oh hang on, that doesn't work either.
And Lala why do all the lies and misinformation put out by Johnson and this government not seem to bother you.
Lies about PPE,
Lies about care home testing,
Lies about the number of tests,
Lies about the SAGE meetings,
Lies about the EU procurement scheme,
Lies about consulting the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish leaders.
And these are just the ones since the election.

Lying is endemic in this government but you repeatedly turn a blind eye while pretending to be a voice of moderation.
Click to expand...
Lie down.😂
 
1966_and_all_that said:
Sorry Rusty but this is a bit of a bug-bear of mine. Socialism is not a failure. I fully supported the 2017 manifesto; though not that of 2019, which was all over the place. I believe in the need for national infrastructure to be centrally funded by the public and to be planned, co-ordinated and managed through public organisation - NOT necessarily centrally. I also believe in socialist social policies that provide support for the less well off and level up the life-chances of those communities that otherwise, under free-market capitalism, suffer from multiple deprivation. As the Pandemic has shown, when the nation needs its Government to manage a crisis, then the luxury of the free-market has to be put aside. Keynes is not dead yet!
However, I do believe that those policies can quite legitimately be promoted and implemented by a moderate Leadership. One where the Parliamentary Party is given authority to lead the Party, supported by constituency parties and trades union affiliates. I do agree that there is a loony left; a Militant Tendency that bullies and believes in control through the packing and management of committees. For me, they have no place in a Labour Party that is open, democratic and anti-racist. I look forward to Starmer leading a confident, able and effective shadow cabinet that also has the backing of the NEC.
Click to expand...
You may believe in it 1966 and I respect your opinion. Of course the government has had to change course and throw money at this problem. But this is an extraordinary situation, the biggest crisis since WW2. I wouldn't expect or want a government to adopt these policies under normal circumstances. that's probably where we differ in opinion. And that's fine.
Personally I believe in fairness and helping the weak and needy. So that makes me a socialist.
But I also firmly believe in free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. And I detest state interference. So I suppose that makes me a Tory.
But I stand by what I said in my previous post. In order to have any chance of electoral success, Labour have had to dump the hard line socialist agenda and drift back to a more moderate Blair-esqe centre ground. Hence the appointment of Starmer.
So as a Labour supporter are you happy to ditch your core values for electoral success?
Because if you don't you'll continue to suffer electoral defeat. You may be ok with ditching those hard line values, but as you have acknowledged the Labour Party still has a substantial loony left presence.
And I'm not so sure they're going to be so happy with centre ground moderate policies.
And that's where the real test will come for Starmer. As a barrister it's expected he'll be more than a match for Johnson in the House of Commons. It's how he drags Labour to a more moderate position without splitting the party wide open which is going to be interesting.
When politics returns to normal, whatever or whenever that may be, that'll be the real test of Starmer's leadership
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
You may believe in it 1966 and I respect your opinion. Of course the government has had to change course and throw money at this problem. But this is an extraordinary situation, the biggest crisis since WW2. I wouldn't expect or want a government to adopt these policies under normal circumstances. that's probably where we differ in opinion. And that's fine.
Personally I believe in fairness and helping the weak and needy. So that makes me a socialist.
But I also firmly believe in free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. And I detest state interference. So I suppose that makes me a Tory.
But I stand by what I said in my previous post. In order to have any chance of electoral success, Labour have had to dump the hard line socialist agenda and drift back to a more moderate Blair-esqe centre ground. Hence the appointment of Starmer.
So as a Labour supporter are you happy to ditch your core values for electoral success?
Because if you don't you'll continue to suffer electoral defeat. You may be ok with ditching those hard line values, but as you have acknowledged the Labour Party still has a substantial loony left presence.
And I'm not so sure they're going to be so happy with centre ground moderate policies.
And that's where the real test will come for Starmer. As a barrister it's expected he'll be more than a match for Johnson in the House of Commons. It's how he drags Labour to a more moderate position without splitting the party wide open which is going to be interesting.
When politics returns to normal, whatever or whenever that may be, that'll be the real test of Starmer's leadership
Click to expand...

These days there seems to be much more emphasis on personality rather than policies.
Truthfully, who can say what Johnson believes in? He gets away with soundbites and slogans that have no coherent ideology linking them together. I have heard that he is a bit of a libertarian, but now he is a libertarian who is implementing the biggest state intervention since WW2. To be fair these are unprecedented times.
Starmer could run with something similar to the 2017 manifesto and he may well be more successful with it than Corbyn. That is because he exudes competence and he comes across as a serious politician who many would trust to run the country. How he leads his party will be crucial to his success, Rusty is right in that he will have to rein in the undesirable and puritanical elements in the party in order to win elections. Blair managed it, Starmer looks like the left's best chance since then.
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
You may believe in it 1966 and I respect your opinion. Of course the government has had to change course and throw money at this problem. But this is an extraordinary situation, the biggest crisis since WW2. I wouldn't expect or want a government to adopt these policies under normal circumstances. that's probably where we differ in opinion. And that's fine.
Personally I believe in fairness and helping the weak and needy. So that makes me a socialist.
But I also firmly believe in free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. And I detest state interference. So I suppose that makes me a Tory.
But I stand by what I said in my previous post. In order to have any chance of electoral success, Labour have had to dump the hard line socialist agenda and drift back to a more moderate Blair-esqe centre ground. Hence the appointment of Starmer.
So as a Labour supporter are you happy to ditch your core values for electoral success?
Because if you don't you'll continue to suffer electoral defeat. You may be ok with ditching those hard line values, but as you have acknowledged the Labour Party still has a substantial loony left presence.
And I'm not so sure they're going to be so happy with centre ground moderate policies.
And that's where the real test will come for Starmer. As a barrister it's expected he'll be more than a match for Johnson in the House of Commons. It's how he drags Labour to a more moderate position without splitting the party wide open which is going to be interesting.
When politics returns to normal, whatever or whenever that may be, that'll be the real test of Starmer's leadership
Click to expand...
The centre ground is a moveable feast. In the 1970s the centre ground was somewhere between Corbyn and Blair - and I mean the centre ground between Labour and the Tories! Nowadays it has shifted much to the right, partly because Blair took it there. Would I ditch my core values in favour of electoral gain - no I wouldn't. I voted Labour in '97 but after seeing Blair concede too much to the right (to keep the Dirty Digger, Murdoch on side), I shifted my vote to the Lib Dems in 2001 and 2005, turning back to Labour in 2010. At the time the Lib Dems had not thrown their social-democratic principles overboard in exchange for seats at the Cabinet table.
As for your commitment to fiscal responsibility and free enterprise - yes, we need fiscal responsibility from all Governments, especially one that is using pump-priming to help grow the economy and meet its social commitments. And yes, there is a place in our society for free-enterprise. It would be stupid to thow that away but it needs to be tailored to those sectors of the economy where it works best - in retail, in technological development, in farming. But it should never be put in charge of the levers of the national economy - that way lies the depression of the 30s and the crash of 2008-09 with its ensuing austerity.
 
Macseasider said:
You are out of order to point Lala out. There are LOADS of posters on here that claim to be a "balanced voice of reason" that are so obviously MASSIVE conservatives!

Nothing wrong with that - do what you want but it's "obvious" when that's a bit of a porky pie........

It's the "softening the blow" or "softly expressed excuses" of abject failure that gives them away.

There are also many posters that do see it down the middle - like myself. 👍
Click to expand...
I love the way you describe yourself as the balanced voice of reason, seeing things down the middle! 😁 🤭

Isn't that just a tad conceited to declare yourself as the hub of rational debate?
Anyway, doesn't everybody think that!? 🤔

To you, anybody who doesn't support your parochial allegiances and vilifications, those who don't view their world through red/blue tainted lenses, is a Trump supporting massive Tory!
 
1966_and_all_that said:
The centre ground is a moveable feast. In the 1970s the centre ground was somewhere between Corbyn and Blair - and I mean the centre ground between Labour and the Tories! Nowadays it has shifted much to the right, partly because Blair took it there. Would I ditch my core values in favour of electoral gain - no I wouldn't. I voted Labour in '97 but after seeing Blair concede too much to the right (to keep the Dirty Digger, Murdoch on side), I shifted my vote to the Lib Dems in 2001 and 2005, turning back to Labour in 2010. At the time the Lib Dems had not thrown their social-democratic principles overboard in exchange for seats at the Cabinet table.
As for your commitment to fiscal responsibility and free enterprise - yes, we need fiscal responsibility from all Governments, especially one that is using pump-priming to help grow the economy and meet its social commitments. And yes, there is a place in our society for free-enterprise. It would be stupid to thow that away but it needs to be tailored to those sectors of the economy where it works best - in retail, in technological development, in farming. But it should never be put in charge of the levers of the national economy - that way lies the depression of the 30s and the crash of 2008-09 with its ensuing austerity.
Click to expand...
Good to debate with a difference of opinion and without resorting to insults
 
Don_K_Lasher said:
I love the way you describe yourself as the balanced voice of reason, seeing things down the middle! 😁 🤭

Isn't that just a tad conceited to declare yourself as the hub of rational debate?
Anyway, doesn't everybody think that!? 🤔

To you, anybody who doesn't support your parochial allegiances and vilifications, those who don't view their world through red/blue tainted lenses, is a Trump supporting massive Tory!
Click to expand...
To be fair, you're a floating voter between Tory and EDL🤣🤣
 
RUSTY_2_STANDS said:
You may believe in it 1966 and I respect your opinion. Of course the government has had to change course and throw money at this problem. But this is an extraordinary situation, the biggest crisis since WW2. I wouldn't expect or want a government to adopt these policies under normal circumstances. that's probably where we differ in opinion. And that's fine.
Personally I believe in fairness and helping the weak and needy. So that makes me a socialist.
But I also firmly believe in free enterprise and fiscal responsibility. And I detest state interference. So I suppose that makes me a Tory.
But I stand by what I said in my previous post. In order to have any chance of electoral success, Labour have had to dump the hard line socialist agenda and drift back to a more moderate Blair-esqe centre ground. Hence the appointment of Starmer.
So as a Labour supporter are you happy to ditch your core values for electoral success?
Because if you don't you'll continue to suffer electoral defeat. You may be ok with ditching those hard line values, but as you have acknowledged the Labour Party still has a substantial loony left presence.
And I'm not so sure they're going to be so happy with centre ground moderate policies.
And that's where the real test will come for Starmer. As a barrister it's expected he'll be more than a match for Johnson in the House of Commons. It's how he drags Labour to a more moderate position without splitting the party wide open which is going to be interesting.
When politics returns to normal, whatever or whenever that may be, that'll be the real test of Starmer's leadership
Click to expand...
Remind me again what Boris Johnson's core values are?
Ah yes, what's good for Boris Johnson.
 
Wizaard said:
To be fair, you're a floating voter between Tory and EDL🤣🤣
Click to expand...
Again, more Left Right party stereotyping.

You can't help it can you.

Take off your blinkers, you don't have to align to a party, it really is possible to form your own opinions.

Is that why you struggle so much with Brexit? 🤔

You were presented with an option by the Tory Party, which was supported by the Hard Left, The Hard Right and traditional Labour voters.

No wonder you can't accept it - Does not compute - register overflow / divide by zero😣
 
ElBurroSinNombre said:
These days there seems to be much more emphasis on personality rather than policies.
Truthfully, who can say what Johnson believes in? He gets away with soundbites and slogans that have no coherent ideology linking them together. I have heard that he is a bit of a libertarian, but now he is a libertarian who is implementing the biggest state intervention since WW2. To be fair these are unprecedented times.
Starmer could run with something similar to the 2017 manifesto and he may well be more successful with it than Corbyn. That is because he exudes competence and he comes across as a serious politician who many would trust to run the country. How he leads his party will be crucial to his success, Rusty is right in that he will have to rein in the undesirable and puritanical elements in the party in order to win elections. Blair managed it, Starmer looks like the left's best chance since then.
Click to expand...

Johnson is, by instinct, a libertarian Tory. It is only on Europe that he has chosen to adopt a hard right view, and that was done out of pragmatism, not principle.

He has a massive opportunity here to reconfigure our policy making, our public financing, our taxation system and our long-term approach to infrastructure investment. If he has any sense he will use the next 18 months to talk to us all like adults about what needs to change and why, and challenge the other parties to do something similar.
 
basilrobbie said:
Johnson is, by instinct, a libertarian Tory. It is only on Europe that he has chosen to adopt a hard right view, and that was done out of pragmatism, not principle.

He has a massive opportunity here to reconfigure our policy making, our public financing, our taxation system and our long-term approach to infrastructure investment. If he has any sense he will use the next 18 months to talk to us all like adults about what needs to change and why, and challenge the other parties to do something similar.
Click to expand...
I suspect the pending world recession will limit his scope for building for a brave new world based on his political ethos. I think that would be true of a Labour PM aiming to build for a new socialist agenda. Johnson's libertarian Tory pragmatism (I'm amazed I just wrote that), will be mitigated by events and the limitations of what's possible.
 
basilrobbie said:
Johnson is, by instinct, a libertarian Tory. It is only on Europe that he has chosen to adopt a hard right view, and that was done out of pragmatism, not principle.

He has a massive opportunity here to reconfigure our policy making, our public financing, our taxation system and our long-term approach to infrastructure investment. If he has any sense he will use the next 18 months to talk to us all like adults about what needs to change and why, and challenge the other parties to do something similar.
Click to expand...

The reason why Johnson adopted the hard right view cannot really be described as 'pragmatism' in any sense IMO. The pragmatic thing to with the EU is to accept a few compromises, stay in the community and make ourselves and our society richer as a consequence. Many think, and I am one of them, that he adopted his hard right view to opportunistically garner support with the hard right in his party. Previously, as London mayor, he had been an enthusiastic supporter of the EU, what changed? The folly of the isolationist approach that he has now adopted is really shown up by a crisis like this, countries have to work together to have a realistic chance of containing this virus and it would seem that we have missed opportunities because of the UK governments approach (like being part of EU procurement initiatives).

As for the massive opportunity that he has now, I am not sure that he is able to concieve and deliver a coherant strategy either to fight the virus or to rebuild our economy. He is good at soundbites and making people feel good about themselves, however there is rarely any substance behind his bluster. As Mayor of London he let things tick along and it would seem wasted a fair amount of money on ill concieved attention seeking ideas (water cannon, the garden bridge etc). As Foreign secretary the only thing I can remember about his short time in office is that he actually made things worse for Zahari Radcliffe when he tried to intervene on her behalf (because as usual he didn't know his brief). I can't think of any big scheme that he has delivered well in public life (the so called 'Boris' bikes were concieved and in the main implemented by Livingstone). I am sure that there will be big announcements and promises to come but I'll be very surprised if they are delivered.
 
Last edited:
If MP's are elected to represent the people then is it not reasonable for the him to do that. Maybe even though he was in the remain camp his job was to represent the people and realising the will of the majority of the people was to leave the EU he decided that was the right thing to do. It seems maybe that too many MP's have had scant regard for the constituents they are supposed to represent. On both sides of the political divide.
That's just a thought, and maybe a too simplistic one but hey there you go.
 
20togo said:
If MP's are elected to represent the people then is it not reasonable for the him to do that. Maybe even though he was in the remain camp his job was to represent the people and realising the will of the majority of the people was to leave the EU he decided that was the right thing to do. It seems maybe that too many MP's have had scant regard for the constituents they are supposed to represent. On both sides of the political divide.
That's just a thought, and maybe a too simplistic one but hey there you go.
Click to expand...
20s, you touch on a critical point about our elected representatives but your assertion is wrong. A representative offers him/her self up for election based on their own views. If they are elected it is their responsibility to follow through on their own convictions, not those of their constituents. They are not delegates. This very point was made by the MP and political philosopher Edmund Burke in a speech to the electors of his Bristol constituency, when he said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
 
20togo said:
If MP's are elected to represent the people then is it not reasonable for the him to do that. Maybe even though he was in the remain camp his job was to represent the people and realising the will of the majority of the people was to leave the EU he decided that was the right thing to do. It seems maybe that too many MP's have had scant regard for the constituents they are supposed to represent. On both sides of the political divide.
That's just a thought, and maybe a too simplistic one but hey there you go.
Click to expand...
He has a remain constituency. He took the exit route purely to further his leadership bid. Nothing more, nothing less. Self interest which has worked out for him. Pity he's got the ultimate in poisoned chalices now
 
1966_and_all_that said:
20s, you touch on a critical point about our elected representatives but your assertion is wrong. A representative offers him/her self up for election based on their own views. If they are elected it is their responsibility to follow through on their own convictions, not those of their constituents. They are not delegates. This very point was made by the MP and political philosopher Edmund Burke in a speech to the electors of his Bristol constituency, when he said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Click to expand...
Fair enough. It was just something that crossed my mind when reading the post I replied to.
 
1966_and_all_that said:
20s, you touch on a critical point about our elected representatives but your assertion is wrong. A representative offers him/her self up for election based on their own views. If they are elected it is their responsibility to follow through on their own convictions, not those of their constituents. They are not delegates. This very point was made by the MP and political philosopher Edmund Burke in a speech to the electors of his Bristol constituency, when he said, "Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgement; and he betrays, instead of serving you, if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Click to expand...
👍 I don’t know how often this point has to be made and I’m tempted to ask the mods to make your post a sticky (if that’s possible on this site).

A representative is not the same as a delegate. And before anyone starts moaning, that’s been the constitutional position in this country for centuries. Don’t blame me if our democracy doesn’t work the way you thought it did.
 
Ultimately, if MPs were there to 'do our bidding' then it would be a lot cheaper to flog the House of Commons off and just have an online vote on everything instead.

There would be no point in parliamentary debate if the MPs job was to just do what their constituents want.
 
Mexboroseasider said:
👍 I don’t know how often this point has to be made and I’m tempted to ask the mods to make your post a sticky (if that’s possible on this site).

A representative is not the same as a delegate. And before anyone starts moaning, that’s been the constitutional position in this country for centuries. Don’t blame me if our democracy doesn’t work the way you thought it did.
Click to expand...
Thanks, of course, if it were the other way round there's s chance we would have Capital Punishment back in this country.
 
td53 said:
Ultimately, if MPs were there to 'do our bidding' then it would be a lot cheaper to flog the House of Commons off and just have an online vote on everything instead.

There would be no point in parliamentary debate if the MPs job was to just do what their constituents want.
Click to expand...
Correct and thats why the use of a referendum is a particularly poor way to run a country in my opinion. And yes if remain had won I'd still object to them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top