This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Post EU World
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
 Wisbech Eagle  Truro Cornwall 02 Mar 23 10.45pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That might have been true when most of the population were uneducated/illiterate and barely affected by the decisions made. I disagree. I think it is every bit as relevant and even more important today. I know that the users of this section of our site are keenly interested in politics, but we are exceptions. Most people are not that interested and even less well-informed. Their judgements are almost all made on a narrow range of matters, some personal, some prejudicial and some dependent on the media they use. We live in an ever more complex world. To understand it all is impossible for anyone, whether an MP or not, but MPs have access to experts, both specialists in government and outside. They participate in debates during which many questions are raised and examined. Specialist committees examine things in detail, listening to expert advice and producing reports. None of us can hope to replicate that level of knowledge, and we are the interested group. How much less the majority who aren't that bothered about the detail. They vote on promises of jam tomorrow, I want decisions taken by well-informed professionals, in secret, free of pressure and the influence of anyone at all. I understand that some will want to hold their MPs to account and know how they voted on every issue. Whilst I understand their reasoning I don't believe that it delivers the best outcomes.
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 |
  |
HKOwen  Hong Kong 02 Mar 23 10.49pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I disagree. I think it is every bit as relevant and even more important today. I know that the users of this section of our site are keenly interested in politics, but we are exceptions. Most people are not that interested and even less well-informed. Their judgements are almost all made on a narrow range of matters, some personal, some prejudicial and some dependent on the media they use. We live in an ever more complex world. To understand it all is impossible for anyone, whether an MP or not, but MPs have access to experts, both specialists in government and outside. They participate in debates during which many questions are raised and examined. Specialist committees examine things in detail, listening to expert advice and producing reports. None of us can hope to replicate that level of knowledge, and we are the interested group. How much less the majority who aren't that bothered about the detail. They vote on promises of jam tomorrow, I want decisions taken by well-informed professionals, in secret, free of pressure and the influence of anyone at all. I understand that some will want to hold their MPs to account and know how they voted on every issue. Whilst I understand their reasoning I don't believe that it delivers the best outcomes. What an arrogant statement. You consider yourself superior to many others. Deluded as well as pompous. It's funny you of all people would even write that If you consider MP's ( with a few exceptions ) to be well informed professionals then there is no point in even discussing the issue. Furthermore, being well informed is not related to carrying out the wishes of your electorate. Edited by HKOwen (02 Mar 2023 11.28pm)
Responsibility Deficit Disorder is a medical condition. Symptoms include inability to be corrected when wrong, false sense of superiority, desire to share personal info no else cares about, general hubris. It's a medical issue rather than pure arrogance. |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Teddy Eagle  02 Mar 23 10.54pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I disagree. I think it is every bit as relevant and even more important today. I know that the users of this section of our site are keenly interested in politics, but we are exceptions. Most people are not that interested and even less well-informed. Their judgements are almost all made on a narrow range of matters, some personal, some prejudicial and some dependent on the media they use. We live in an ever more complex world. To understand it all is impossible for anyone, whether an MP or not, but MPs have access to experts, both specialists in government and outside. They participate in debates during which many questions are raised and examined. Specialist committees examine things in detail, listening to expert advice and producing reports. None of us can hope to replicate that level of knowledge, and we are the interested group. How much less the majority who aren't that bothered about the detail. They vote on promises of jam tomorrow, I want decisions taken by well-informed professionals, in secret, free of pressure and the influence of anyone at all. I understand that some will want to hold their MPs to account and know how they voted on every issue. Whilst I understand their reasoning I don't believe that it delivers the best outcomes. That would be truer if the MPs we have were intellectual giants instead of the bunch we've had for years.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
cryrst  The garden of England 03 Mar 23 6.10am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I disagree. I think it is every bit as relevant and even more important today. I know that the users of this section of our site are keenly interested in politics, but we are exceptions. Most people are not that interested and even less well-informed. Their judgements are almost all made on a narrow range of matters, some personal, some prejudicial and some dependent on the media they use. We live in an ever more complex world. To understand it all is impossible for anyone, whether an MP or not, but MPs have access to experts, both specialists in government and outside. They participate in debates during which many questions are raised and examined. Specialist committees examine things in detail, listening to expert advice and producing reports. None of us can hope to replicate that level of knowledge, and we are the interested group. How much less the majority who aren't that bothered about the detail. They vote on promises of jam tomorrow, I want decisions taken by well-informed professionals, in secret, free of pressure and the influence of anyone at all. I understand that some will want to hold their MPs to account and know how they voted on every issue. Whilst I understand their reasoning I don't believe that it delivers the best outcomes. Wow, so are you saying we shouldn’t vote because our knowledge about politics is limited.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 becky over the moon 03 Mar 23 8.33am |
 |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
A stairway to Heaven and a Highway to Hell give some indication of expected traffic numbers |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post | Board Moderator |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Mar 23 8.36am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle
That would be truer if the MPs we have were intellectual giants instead of the bunch we've had for years. They don't have to be "intellectual giants". They need to have access to experts, the opportunity to listen and consider and then, collectively, come to decisions. Decisions that we too might be capable of making if we had the same. The difference is that they do, and are required to represent us.
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 |
|
 georgenorman 03 Mar 23 8.37am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I doubt that you made it up. The words don't read as yours. What I doubt is whether it came from a source that can be trusted in the context. Without knowing that source that doubt cannot be tested. There were a number of elections in Germany in the early 1930s, resulting in Hitler gaining power and passing the Act in 1933, which enabled him to become a dictator and start using terror. 1933 is still the early 1930s! Any reasonable person would want their MP to take the best decisions they could. Ever heard the concept of keeping a dog, but barking yourself? We need to choose, delegate and trust. Not choose, instruct and observe. We might as well send voting machines to Parliament otherwise and just allow a PM to set all the policies. Just as Johnson thought he could. You remind me of a visit I made this week to my aged mother-in-law who is suffering from dementia. Repeating the same questions, quickly forgetting the answers and stubbornly insisting on odd notions. Images from dictionary attached. Collins is of course a renowned publisher of dictionaries. My point on Germany was that Remainers voting for Johnson would be like Jews voting for Hitler. Before Hitler gained full power, Jews could vote in elections. indeed they were not excluded from voting until 1936, but were of course persecuted before then. The 1930 election is considered by historians to be more or less fair. Hitler became the second largest party aided by the proportional representation system (that you of course favour). He then formed coalitions to gain control in the Reichstag (you of course are a great fan of coalitions). [Now I await you insisting on proof that I have an aged mother-in-law.] Edited by georgenorman (03 Mar 2023 8.52am)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Attachment: | georgenorman 03 Mar 23 8.41am |
|
|---|---|
|
Second image - I don't know how to post two images in one post!
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Teddy Eagle 03 Mar 23 8.49am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
They don't have to be "intellectual giants". They need to have access to experts, the opportunity to listen and consider and then, collectively, come to decisions. Decisions that we too might be capable of making if we had the same. The difference is that they do, and are required to represent us. And it was "their" considered decision to both offer the Brexit referendum and to act on the result.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 03 Mar 23 8.52am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by HKOwen
What an arrogant statement. You consider yourself superior to many others. Deluded as well as pompous. It's funny you of all people would even write that If you consider MP's ( with a few exceptions ) to be well informed professionals then there is no point in even discussing the issue. Furthermore, being well informed is not related to carrying out the wishes of your electorate. Edited by HKOwen (02 Mar 2023 11.28pm) I find that a very odd comment! I wasn't describing myself in the intro, but all who use this section. You included. In my experience most people are not as interested in politics as those who use this section. That's just my observation. MPs are only well-informed because it's their job to be well-informed. They have the time and opportunity to be briefed by experts in many fields. They aren't born with the knowledge, They acquire it. Just as others could, given the same opportunities. The job of an MP is not to carry out the wishes of their electorate. That would be impossible, because of the diverse views that exist. Their job is to use their position to reach conclusions and make decisions which they believe, using only their conscience as their guide, are in the best interest of their electorate. Not only those who voted for them, but all of them.
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 03 Mar 23 9.24am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by georgenorman
You remind me of a visit I made this week to my aged mother-in-law who is suffering from dementia. Repeating the same questions, quickly forgetting the answers and stubbornly insisting on odd notions. Images from dictionary attached. Collins is of course a renowned publisher of dictionaries. My point on Germany was that Remainers voting for Johnson would be like Jews voting for Hitler. Before Hitler gained full power, Jews could vote in elections. indeed they were not excluded from voting until 1936, but were of course persecuted before then. The 1930 election is considered by historians to be more or less fair. Hitler became the second largest party aided by the proportional representation system (that you of course favour). He then formed coalitions to gain control in the Reichstag (you of course are a great fan of coalitions). [Now I await you insisting on proof that I have an aged mother-in-law.] Edited by georgenorman (03 Mar 2023 8.52am) I won't dignify your sarcastic insults by responding to them. Believe me if I freely expressed my observations of your character in that way, I would likely, and rightly, get a ban. That dictionary is clearly very old. Could you enlighten us on exactly when it was published? I have already referenced others, which are in current use, which don't agree. The accepted meaning of words has always evolved and does so today at an ever-increasing pace. Using an old dictionary to understand modern meaning is always likely to result in poor comprehension. I think your analogy of Jews and Remainers is ridiculous, but I'll leave it there, as it is really not important. Every political system has strengths and weaknesses. That's not in dispute. The question is which delivers the best outcomes. The environment that existed in Germany in the 1930s is a million miles away from here in the 2020s. In any system that we would devise we need to be aware of the potential for hung, inoperable parliaments and establish mechanisms for avoiding them. There you go! You identify why it's important for MPs to be able to vote in secret. You want to know if they voted in a way you think was best. That's not their job. They need to vote in a way which they believe is in the best interests of all their constituents. We don't want them looking over their shoulder worrying about reelection. Their reelection chances should be determined by their reputation as a good constituency MP, or if in government how they did their job. How they vote on individual issues ought not be involved.
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 |
|
| georgenorman 03 Mar 23 9.32am |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle
I won't dignify your sarcastic insults by responding to them. Believe me if I freely expressed my observations of your character in that way, I would likely, and rightly, get a ban. That dictionary is clearly very old. Could you enlighten us on exactly when it was published? I have already referenced others, which are in current use, which don't agree. The accepted meaning of words has always evolved and does so today at an ever-increasing pace. Using an old dictionary to understand modern meaning is always likely to result in poor comprehension. I think your analogy of Jews and Remainers is ridiculous, but I'll leave it there, as it is really not important. Every political system has strengths and weaknesses. That's not in dispute. The question is which delivers the best outcomes. The environment that existed in Germany in the 1930s is a million miles away from here in the 2020s. In any system that we would devise we need to be aware of the potential for hung, inoperable parliaments and establish mechanisms for avoiding them. There you go! You identify why it's important for MPs to be able to vote in secret. You want to know if they voted in a way you think was best. That's not their job. They need to vote in a way which they believe is in the best interests of all their constituents. We don't want them looking over their shoulder worrying about reelection. Their reelection chances should be determined by their reputation as a good constituency MP, or if in government how they did their job. How they vote on individual issues ought not be involved. I would love to hear your observations on my character. There is no publication date in the dictionary. I’m not telling you when my mother gave it to me as, for all I know, you could be sat in a tin-hut in Nigeria who, inbetween sending out emails asking people for help in transferring vast sums of money into their bank accounts, tries to obtain personal information for fraudulent purposes.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.