New prime minister

This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum.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

New prime minister

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Page 59 of 61 < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 9.44pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle One is the government, which has a collective responsibility for what is done, whose members are expected to make and defend policy, whatever their personal reservations. The other is not. Backbenchers are free to criticise. The worst that can happen to them is losing the whip, something I disagree with anyway. Right. So a back bench MP will vote with their conscience for the collective good but cabinet members won't. This makes a mockery of your contention. The people who matter aren't included?
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 9.44pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

One is the government, which has a collective responsibility for what is done, whose members are expected to make and defend policy, whatever their personal reservations.

The other is not. Backbenchers are free to criticise. The worst that can happen to them is losing the whip, something I disagree with anyway.

Right. So a back bench MP will vote with their conscience for the collective good but cabinet members won't. This makes a mockery of your contention. The people who matter aren't included?

Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio south pole 26 Oct 22 10.00pm
The puppetmasters 1 The British Public 0 Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford
Alert a moderator to this post

PalazioVecchio

south pole 26 Oct 22 10.00pm

Send a Private Message to PalazioVecchio

The puppetmasters 1

The British Public 0

Kayla did Anfield & Old Trafford

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 10.30pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Right. So a back bench MP will vote with their conscience for the collective good but cabinet members won't. This makes a mockery of your contention. The people who matter aren't included? I haven't been in a cabinet meeting, but I have been in many committee and board meetings, often in the chair. The principals seem the same to me. The chairman leads the discussions, others make reports and proposals in their area of responsibility, which either get discussed and then voted on, or just accepted unanimously. It's in those meetings that members of the government vote with their conscience. Once done, the majority view prevails. I suspect it would be unusual, but not impossible, for a Minister's proposals to be completely rejected, but modifications, after input from other affected Ministries, more frequent. Once decided that's the collective decision of the government and all members are bound by it. If they cannot, in all conscience, accept that then they must resign and voice their objections from the backbenches. So the same expectation to use your conscience to vote applies to every MP. Just in different ways. 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 26 Oct 22 10.30pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Right. So a back bench MP will vote with their conscience for the collective good but cabinet members won't. This makes a mockery of your contention. The people who matter aren't included?

I haven't been in a cabinet meeting, but I have been in many committee and board meetings, often in the chair. The principals seem the same to me. The chairman leads the discussions, others make reports and proposals in their area of responsibility, which either get discussed and then voted on, or just accepted unanimously.

It's in those meetings that members of the government vote with their conscience. Once done, the majority view prevails. I suspect it would be unusual, but not impossible, for a Minister's proposals to be completely rejected, but modifications, after input from other affected Ministries, more frequent. Once decided that's the collective decision of the government and all members are bound by it. If they cannot, in all conscience, accept that then they must resign and voice their objections from the backbenches.

So the same expectation to use your conscience to vote applies to every MP. Just in different ways.

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

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 26 Oct 22 10.32pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle It's nonsense? Perhaps you might like to read this. The Tories kicked the accusations into the long grass to avoid too much scrutiny and what the implications of what would be revealed. Those who think this isn't happening are fooling themselves. Or, more likely, have themselves been fooled:- [Link] Perhaps you might like to read it too. Quote "Impact? Although there is some evidence of coordination in favour of Leave coming from Russia, some analysts argue that it would not have been enough to swing the referendum result, and that the discontent of the British electorate was behind the vote." 'Some analysts' in this quote are directly are linked to The FT [Link] You constantly accuse others of conspiracy theories and 'far right' views, and how narrow minded they are, but never see your own obsessions. Like Trump, Brexit etc&etc. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.33pm) Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.34pm) Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 26 Oct 22 10.32pm

Send a Private Message to Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

It's nonsense? Perhaps you might like to read this. The Tories kicked the accusations into the long grass to avoid too much scrutiny and what the implications of what would be revealed. Those who think this isn't happening are fooling themselves. Or, more likely, have themselves been fooled:-

[Link]

Perhaps you might like to read it too.

Quote

"Impact?
Although there is some evidence of coordination in favour of Leave coming from Russia, some analysts argue that it would not have been enough to swing the referendum result, and that the discontent of the British electorate was behind the vote."

'Some analysts' in this quote are directly are linked to The FT [Link]

You constantly accuse others of conspiracy theories and 'far right' views, and how narrow minded they are, but never see your own obsessions. Like Trump, Brexit etc&etc.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.33pm)

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.34pm)

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 10.47pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I haven't been in a cabinet meeting, but I have been in many committee and board meetings, often in the chair. The principals seem the same to me. The chairman leads the discussions, others make reports and proposals in their area of responsibility, which either get discussed and then voted on, or just accepted unanimously. It's in those meetings that members of the government vote with their conscience. Once done, the majority view prevails. I suspect it would be unusual, but not impossible, for a Minister's proposals to be completely rejected, but modifications, after input from other affected Ministries, more frequent. Once decided that's the collective decision of the government and all members are bound by it. If they cannot, in all conscience, accept that then they must resign and voice their objections from the backbenches. So the same expectation to use your conscience to vote applies to every MP. Just in different ways. Yep. Just keep spinning to try and prove your point. Here's a flash. It's nonsense.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 10.47pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

So the same expectation to use your conscience to vote applies to every MP. Just in different ways.

Yep. Just keep spinning to try and prove your point. Here's a flash. It's nonsense.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 11.26pm
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle Yep. Just keep spinning to try and prove your point. Here's a flash. It's nonsense. I am a patient guy. I will keep on explaining even when I am very sure you actually understand perfectly well. So here's an alternative flash. You've run out of nits to pick! 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 26 Oct 22 11.26pm

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

Yep. Just keep spinning to try and prove your point. Here's a flash. It's nonsense.

I am a patient guy. I will keep on explaining even when I am very sure you actually understand perfectly well.

So here's an alternative flash. You've run out of nits to pick!

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

Lombardinho London 26 Oct 22 11.33pm
A musical interlude [Link] There's a few threads I could post this on. This one'll do.
Alert a moderator to this post

Lombardinho

London 26 Oct 22 11.33pm

A musical interlude

[Link]

There's a few threads I could post this on.
This one'll do.

Alert a moderator to this post

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 26 Oct 22 11.41pm
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Perhaps you might like to read it too. Quote "Impact? Although there is some evidence of coordination in favour of Leave coming from Russia, some analysts argue that it would not have been enough to swing the referendum result, and that the discontent of the British electorate was behind the vote." 'Some analysts' in this quote are directly are linked to The FT [Link] You constantly accuse others of conspiracy theories and 'far right' views, and how narrow minded they are, but never see your own obsessions. Like Trump, Brexit etc&etc. Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.33pm) Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.34pm) Oh I read it. Picking out one line amongst many as if that disproves anything is nonsense. There are many that suggests that this was anything other than just a conspiracy theory, including from our own security services. For those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way by the government, just read the whole thing, and not selected snippets:- [Link] It raised many questions, especially about the lack of oversight by the major social media platforms, and provided few definite answers but the over-riding conclusion is crystal clear. The Brexit result was compromised and ought not be trusted. 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 26 Oct 22 11.41pm

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Perhaps you might like to read it too.

Quote

'Some analysts' in this quote are directly are linked to The FT [Link]

You constantly accuse others of conspiracy theories and 'far right' views, and how narrow minded they are, but never see your own obsessions. Like Trump, Brexit etc&etc.

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.33pm)

Edited by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 (26 Oct 2022 10.34pm)

Oh I read it.

Picking out one line amongst many as if that disproves anything is nonsense. There are many that suggests that this was anything other than just a conspiracy theory, including from our own security services.

For those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way by the government, just read the whole thing, and not selected snippets:-

[Link]

It raised many questions, especially about the lack of oversight by the major social media platforms, and provided few definite answers but the over-riding conclusion is crystal clear. The Brexit result was compromised and ought not be trusted.

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

Teddy Eagle 26 Oct 22 11.42pm
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle I am a patient guy. I will keep on explaining even when I am very sure you actually understand perfectly well. So here's an alternative flash. You've run out of nits to pick! My patience is inexhaustible. None of your defence of a hugely outdated dogma adds up. You claim we elect MPs to make decisions for us according to their conscience based on the unachievable promises they make to get elected but then add the rider that this doesn't include those actually responsible for those decisions. Keep spinning.
Alert a moderator to this post

Teddy Eagle

26 Oct 22 11.42pm

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

I am a patient guy. I will keep on explaining even when I am very sure you actually understand perfectly well.

So here's an alternative flash. You've run out of nits to pick!

My patience is inexhaustible. None of your defence of a hugely outdated dogma adds up. You claim we elect MPs to make decisions for us according to their conscience based on the unachievable promises they make to get elected but then add the rider that this doesn't include those actually responsible for those decisions.
Keep spinning.

Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64 Stoke sub normal 27 Oct 22 12.48am
Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle Oh I read it. Picking out one line amongst many as if that disproves anything is nonsense. There are many that suggests that this was anything other than just a conspiracy theory, including from our own security services. For those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way by the government, just read the whole thing, and not selected snippets:- [Link] It raised many questions, especially about the lack of oversight by the major social media platforms, and provided few definite answers but the over-riding conclusion is crystal clear. The Brexit result was compromised and ought not be trusted. As with all conspiracy theories, "those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way" will believe what they want to believe. Just like you have here. The conclusion of the report from HMG, which I already posted, was that there was no influence from outside forces. It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed". Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers
Alert a moderator to this post

Tim Gypsy Hill '64

Stoke sub normal 27 Oct 22 12.48am

Originally posted by Wisbech Eagle

Oh I read it.

For those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way by the government, just read the whole thing, and not selected snippets:-

[Link]

As with all conspiracy theories, "those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way" will believe what they want to believe. Just like you have here. The conclusion of the report from HMG, which I already posted, was that there was no influence from outside forces.

It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed".

Systematically dragged down by the lawmakers

Alert a moderator to this post

HKOwen Hong Kong 27 Oct 22 7.19am
Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64 As with all conspiracy theories, "those really willing to look at the substantial evidence, which is presented in a measured, balanced and unemotional way" will believe what they want to believe. Just like you have here. The conclusion of the report from HMG, which I already posted, was that there was no influence from outside forces. It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed". Pesky facts you point out 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

HKOwen

Hong Kong 27 Oct 22 7.19am

Originally posted by Tim Gypsy Hill '64

It says so in the link you provided. Yet it is you who accuse others of fearing "reds under the bed".

Pesky facts you point out

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

Wisbech Eagle Truro Cornwall 27 Oct 22 8.30am
Originally posted by Teddy Eagle My patience is inexhaustible. None of your defence of a hugely outdated dogma adds up. You claim we elect MPs to make decisions for us according to their conscience based on the unachievable promises they make to get elected but then add the rider that this doesn't include those actually responsible for those decisions. Keep spinning. The above is the dogma! It's not outdated at all. It is our long established, tried and tested, system. I have no problem with those who wish our MPs to become delegates rather than representatives, even if I disagree and think it to be impossible to find a way of ascertaining what the people as a whole think about every issue. However, if that is your opinion, then campaign for change and vote in a Parliament who agree with you. The debate would be interesting and expose the paucity of the arguments in favour of change. Bring it on and good luck. Until then what we have, is what we have now. MPs don't get elected on unachievable promises. No-one is ever in a position to really promise anything other than to do their utmost to deliver what they say they want to do. That people choose to think otherwise is obviously unfortunate, and is politically exploited, but doesn't change the facts. Manifestos offering guarantees, and making promises, must be seen in their context. Unforeseen events are bound to alter timetables. Big failures result in PMs changing, as we have seen. Manifestos have to be treated with as large a dose of salt, as Del Boy offering you a Rolex for a tenner. If you expect to ever have, whatever system we use, a situation in which everything announced during a campaign is rigorously adhered to throughout the 5 year term of a government, then you are in dreamland. It would not be wise either. We need to react to events. Just imagine if we had voted in a Truss government and had to carry out that plan, come what may. As I explained, every MP, backbencher or part of the government, makes conscientious decisions. Just not always in the same way. 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 27 Oct 22 8.30am

Originally posted by Teddy Eagle

The above is the dogma!

It's not outdated at all. It is our long established, tried and tested, system. I have no problem with those who wish our MPs to become delegates rather than representatives, even if I disagree and think it to be impossible to find a way of ascertaining what the people as a whole think about every issue.

However, if that is your opinion, then campaign for change and vote in a Parliament who agree with you. The debate would be interesting and expose the paucity of the arguments in favour of change. Bring it on and good luck.

Until then what we have, is what we have now.

MPs don't get elected on unachievable promises. No-one is ever in a position to really promise anything other than to do their utmost to deliver what they say they want to do. That people choose to think otherwise is obviously unfortunate, and is politically exploited, but doesn't change the facts. Manifestos offering guarantees, and making promises, must be seen in their context. Unforeseen events are bound to alter timetables. Big failures result in PMs changing, as we have seen. Manifestos have to be treated with as large a dose of salt, as Del Boy offering you a Rolex for a tenner.

If you expect to ever have, whatever system we use, a situation in which everything announced during a campaign is rigorously adhered to throughout the 5 year term of a government, then you are in dreamland. It would not be wise either. We need to react to events. Just imagine if we had voted in a Truss government and had to carry out that plan, come what may.

As I explained, every MP, backbencher or part of the government, makes conscientious decisions. Just not always in the same way.

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

Page 59 of 61 < 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 >

Previous Topic | Next Topic

Crystal Palace FC Supporters' Website - The Holmesdale Online

New prime minister

Site Map

New users

Existing users

Sponsors