Who is to blame?

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.

Who is to blame?

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 36 of 36 << First < 32 33 34 35 36

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Dec 19 12.22pm
Originally posted by Matov I actually have some sympathy with many of the arguements for PR but I struggle with this notion of secret votes in the HoC. Surely our MP's have to be held accountable for how they vote? And that the current system allows for that to happen? Or do you think it is healthy for democracy if an MP campaign on a specific manifesto promises but then fails to vote accordingly and in secret? You would invariably end up with a situation in which MP's publicly proclaim how they voted whilst the numbers of actual votes cast do not then add up? How does that help anybody? All that does is destroy the little confidence that remains in our political system. I get the entire notion that we elect representatives rather than delegates but surely there still needs to be a real and visible sense of assurance that comes with public voting? That is the argument against it which has a lot of merit and I understand it. Nevertheless I think an MP has to be accountable for their overall performance and not on every individual issue. If we do the latter then they tend to become delegates and not representatives. We need to allow them to vote according to their conscience without any pressure and let the voters decide based on how they have handled local issues for them. Of course we also need to be mindful of the corruption potential and introduce safeguards. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Dec 19 12.22pm

Originally posted by Matov

I actually have some sympathy with many of the arguements for PR but I struggle with this notion of secret votes in the HoC.

Surely our MP's have to be held accountable for how they vote? And that the current system allows for that to happen?

Or do you think it is healthy for democracy if an MP campaign on a specific manifesto promises but then fails to vote accordingly and in secret?

You would invariably end up with a situation in which MP's publicly proclaim how they voted whilst the numbers of actual votes cast do not then add up? How does that help anybody? All that does is destroy the little confidence that remains in our political system.

I get the entire notion that we elect representatives rather than delegates but surely there still needs to be a real and visible sense of assurance that comes with public voting?

That is the argument against it which has a lot of merit and I understand it.

Nevertheless I think an MP has to be accountable for their overall performance and not on every individual issue. If we do the latter then they tend to become delegates and not representatives. We need to allow them to vote according to their conscience without any pressure and let the voters decide based on how they have handled local issues for them. Of course we also need to be mindful of the corruption potential and introduce safeguards.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

Matov 23 Dec 19 1.21pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle That is the argument against it which has a lot of merit and I understand it. Nevertheless I think an MP has to be accountable for their overall performance and not on every individual issue. If we do the latter then they tend to become delegates and not representatives. We need to allow them to vote according to their conscience without any pressure and let the voters decide based on how they have handled local issues for them. Of course we also need to be mindful of the corruption potential and introduce safeguards. What better safeguard is there than public record? I notice you say we should judge them on local issues. Does that mean they get a pass on the more global ones? That they should be able to effectively campaign under one specific banner whilst advocating for an opposite once elected? "The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.
Alert a moderator to this post

Matov

23 Dec 19 1.21pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

That is the argument against it which has a lot of merit and I understand it.

What better safeguard is there than public record? I notice you say we should judge them on local issues. Does that mean they get a pass on the more global ones? That they should be able to effectively campaign under one specific banner whilst advocating for an opposite once elected?

"The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears. It was their final, most essential command." - 1984 - George Orwell.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 23 Dec 19 6.27pm
Originally posted by Matov What better safeguard is there than public record? I notice you say we should judge them on local issues. Does that mean they get a pass on the more global ones? That they should be able to effectively campaign under one specific banner whilst advocating for an opposite once elected? By local I mean constituency issues and not the ones voted on in Parliament. Don't misunderstand me. I understand the points you are making and think they need to be addressed in some way as accountability is important. However, I also strongly believe that we need to free the noose from around the necks of MPs that is being increasingly tightened because that works against the national interest. We need to ensure that the decisions that affect us all are actually taken by our representatives and not by a small group with their own vested interests and agendas holding guns to the heads of the MPs. How we achieve both objectives can be the subject of debate and compromise but does, I think, need to be done. For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.
Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle

Truro Cornwall 23 Dec 19 6.27pm

Originally posted by Matov

By local I mean constituency issues and not the ones voted on in Parliament.

Don't misunderstand me. I understand the points you are making and think they need to be addressed in some way as accountability is important. However, I also strongly believe that we need to free the noose from around the necks of MPs that is being increasingly tightened because that works against the national interest. We need to ensure that the decisions that affect us all are actually taken by our representatives and not by a small group with their own vested interests and agendas holding guns to the heads of the MPs.

How we achieve both objectives can be the subject of debate and compromise but does, I think, need to be done.

For the avoidance of doubt any comments in response to a previous post are directed to its ideas and not at any, or all, posters personally.

Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst The garden of England 24 Dec 19 7.29pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle By local I mean constituency issues and not the ones voted on in Parliament. Don't misunderstand me. I understand the points you are making and think they need to be addressed in some way as accountability is important. However, I also strongly believe that we need to free the noose from around the necks of MPs that is being increasingly tightened because that works against the national interest. We need to ensure that the decisions that affect us all are actually taken by our representatives and not by a small group with their own vested interests and agendas holding guns to the heads of the MPs. How we achieve both objectives can be the subject of debate and compromise but does, I think, need to be done. You believe that threats only happen in one party. I'm sure many labour mps didnt like their manifesto or leader(s) but until they lost it wasnt muted. Pretty much the same scenario.
Alert a moderator to this post

cryrst

The garden of England 24 Dec 19 7.29pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

By local I mean constituency issues and not the ones voted on in Parliament.

How we achieve both objectives can be the subject of debate and compromise but does, I think, need to be done.

You believe that threats only happen in one party.
I'm sure many labour mps didnt like their manifesto or leader(s) but until they lost it wasnt muted.
Pretty much the same scenario.

Alert a moderator to this post

Page 36 of 36 << First < 32 33 34 35 36

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

Who is to blame?

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors