Iwant To Make My Wishes About End Of My...
Law1 min ago
Are our MPs worth their keep?
14 Answers
What is the point of having local MP's when there is little if anything they will do for members of their constituencies?
Proof of this is that although the majority of people want the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain to gain some power back from Europe, the re-introduction of the death penalty, and a stronger immigration policy, they will not give these matters their support when they are given a vote.
So who do they represent not the people who vote them in. One has only to watch prime minister's question time to notice what a waste of time this is, Back Benchers getting up to say ' would the Prime Minister join me in congratulating ' (some area's council or other), what is the point of this, it is just a wasted chance to put a more useful question before the PM.
The days are gone when a person went into politics to work on behalf of the of their fellow man. They are now in it for purely selfish reasons, ie the power, high pay, generous expense payouts and inflation proof pensions. If they intend to gain promotion onto the front benches, then they just follow the party line, stay sweet in their leaders eyes and don't rock the boat.
Proof of this is that although the majority of people want the troops out of Afghanistan and Iraq, Britain to gain some power back from Europe, the re-introduction of the death penalty, and a stronger immigration policy, they will not give these matters their support when they are given a vote.
So who do they represent not the people who vote them in. One has only to watch prime minister's question time to notice what a waste of time this is, Back Benchers getting up to say ' would the Prime Minister join me in congratulating ' (some area's council or other), what is the point of this, it is just a wasted chance to put a more useful question before the PM.
The days are gone when a person went into politics to work on behalf of the of their fellow man. They are now in it for purely selfish reasons, ie the power, high pay, generous expense payouts and inflation proof pensions. If they intend to gain promotion onto the front benches, then they just follow the party line, stay sweet in their leaders eyes and don't rock the boat.
Answers
1 to 14 of 14
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
if you can't beat them - join them... if you think that most people feel that strongly about the issues you are passionate about maybe you should consider standing as an independent, it might not be something you particularly "want" but in a democracy we all need to take part to keep the system working, and if you are passionate about an issue this can certainly help (it certainly worked for George Galloway) get people talking about the issues even if you don't win it could be an influence.
Have you raised these issues with your own MP and if so what answers did s(he) give you?
I understand that generally the MP's are expected to follow the party line and the Whips will try and ensure this, but not all MP's will do so and there have been some recent rebellions where a significant number of Labour MP's didn't vote with the Government.
Were there days when politicians were truly altruistic? Are you/have been in paid employment and was that because of the finanical reward, your wage or did you work only for the good of the community
I understand that generally the MP's are expected to follow the party line and the Whips will try and ensure this, but not all MP's will do so and there have been some recent rebellions where a significant number of Labour MP's didn't vote with the Government.
Were there days when politicians were truly altruistic? Are you/have been in paid employment and was that because of the finanical reward, your wage or did you work only for the good of the community
Hmmm, i didnt know most people want the troops out of afghanistan and iraq. I dont get that feedback where i live. Most people want them to stay and finish the job.
There are still some genuine politicians out there who want to help their people, but as you say, a lot seem to be in the game these days for different reasons.
I have to say where i live, my MP seems to listen and does act upon some things, which is quite a shock because she is a woman...
There are still some genuine politicians out there who want to help their people, but as you say, a lot seem to be in the game these days for different reasons.
I have to say where i live, my MP seems to listen and does act upon some things, which is quite a shock because she is a woman...
You missed abolition of all tax and free beer deliveries!
People 'want' all sorts of things but it is government that has to be responsible for the consequences.
Imagine a country where we all voted for all the things we wanted on some terminal- how long before the books stopped balancing and we plumeted into a recession?
This is why we have a Government to excercise power on our behalf and to be accountable for their decisions at election time.
The role of the back bencher is to be involved in legislation not to effect Government.
Of course back benchers often are prevented doing this by party whips but that's a different discussion entirely.
People 'want' all sorts of things but it is government that has to be responsible for the consequences.
Imagine a country where we all voted for all the things we wanted on some terminal- how long before the books stopped balancing and we plumeted into a recession?
This is why we have a Government to excercise power on our behalf and to be accountable for their decisions at election time.
The role of the back bencher is to be involved in legislation not to effect Government.
Of course back benchers often are prevented doing this by party whips but that's a different discussion entirely.
I totally agree with Jake the peg. Most people want a lot of things but a lot of people cant be arsed to vote. How many people who moan, moan, moan about Europe don't vote in the European Elections?
My step dad as a farmer hates Europe and in particular wont buy a thing that is french. Although because of them we have some of the best farming standards in the world. They seem to take a stricter line with us due to the foot and mouth, BSE, and Tb outbreaks.
As for the death penalty again I know maybe 2 people who want it back. One of them is my racist alcoholic granny who says things like "Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't make it a horse" when referring to people of Asian descent who are born in Britain. I certainly couldn't listen rationally to anyone who argued those points.
I know people who have gone to their MP about a few issues and have always gotten some help or answers.
My step dad as a farmer hates Europe and in particular wont buy a thing that is french. Although because of them we have some of the best farming standards in the world. They seem to take a stricter line with us due to the foot and mouth, BSE, and Tb outbreaks.
As for the death penalty again I know maybe 2 people who want it back. One of them is my racist alcoholic granny who says things like "Just because a dog is born in a stable doesn't make it a horse" when referring to people of Asian descent who are born in Britain. I certainly couldn't listen rationally to anyone who argued those points.
I know people who have gone to their MP about a few issues and have always gotten some help or answers.
Most of our MPs are worth their keep. I also think elected local councillors should be paid. Fortunately, if you think they are not worth their keep, you can decide not to vote for them next time.
AOG,
You present this wish list that you say the majority of people want. Yet the majority of the people seem to have voted for a Labour</b Government which not in a million years will deliver any of the points you want.
AOG,
You present this wish list that you say the majority of people want. Yet the majority of the people seem to have voted for a Labour</b Government which not in a million years will deliver any of the points you want.
Tribal politics is the most damaging problem that exists today. Now that Labour holds the middle ground and Blair admitting his politics were in attune with the Tory agenda is the reason we went to war in Iraq. The tories will always back US agression and the many Labourites who opposed were always likely to be outnumbered. The same will happen with missile defence or replacement of Trident.
Because the way any proposal is put they cannot really oppose their own government else would be classed as a rebel which affects their promotion etc.
So the tories should feel pleased with themselves as Blair has done the work for them.
.
.
Because the way any proposal is put they cannot really oppose their own government else would be classed as a rebel which affects their promotion etc.
So the tories should feel pleased with themselves as Blair has done the work for them.
.
.
Sorry you don't get on with your Granny Goodsoulette, she sounds such a nice sweet dear old lady. Regarding only knowing 2 people who want the Death Penalty back, you must try and get out more Goodsoulette, and speak to a few more people.
The majority of people did not vote for the Labour Party Gromit, it is only by the quirky voting system (first past the post) we run in this country that they got in. Please don't ask me to explain, it is far too complicated,
First past the post or winner-takes-all, a voting system in which a single winner is chosen in a given constituency by having the most votes, regardless of whether or not he or she has a majority of votes.
stokeace that sounds like a politician talking. Do you honestly believe we are fighting a war on Terror , if so perhaps they would be better off engaged in Pakistan or back home on our streets.
The majority of people did not vote for the Labour Party Gromit, it is only by the quirky voting system (first past the post) we run in this country that they got in. Please don't ask me to explain, it is far too complicated,
First past the post or winner-takes-all, a voting system in which a single winner is chosen in a given constituency by having the most votes, regardless of whether or not he or she has a majority of votes.
stokeace that sounds like a politician talking. Do you honestly believe we are fighting a war on Terror , if so perhaps they would be better off engaged in Pakistan or back home on our streets.
-- answer removed --
Anotheoldgit, regarding your analysis of FPTP - I think this needs a bit of extra attention, as the devil is in the details here.
You're right to point out the flaws inherent in the FPTP system, but it's silly to wave away a mandate won off the system as totally illegitimate (as I'll show in a minute). Firstly, I'll cover the problem in the system so people know what it is:
An MP in FPTP needs a plurality at the constituency level. This means even if s/he gets the largest number of votes, said candidate can be elected without a majority. Take a look at these figures from the constituency of Argyle & Bute in 2001:
Con: 20.8%
Lab. : 24.5%
L-D: 29.9%
The Liberal-Democrat candidate gets in, but when 45.3% of the constituents voted against him.
Now, that's a significant (and infuriating) problem with the system, but to wave off a mandate won under such a system as completely illegitimate is silly. For example, look at what the 2005 General Election results would look like under a totally proportional system (if everyone voted the same):
Lab: gained 35.2% of the vote, so would get 227 seats
Con: gained 32.3% of the vote, would get 209 seats
L-D: 22% of the vote, would get 142 seats
So, Labour would still be in government, provided it could forge a coalition with the Lib-Dems. So the mandate provided by FPTP is inflated (and I'd agree in that it's seriously flawed), but it's not illegitimate.
You're right to point out the flaws inherent in the FPTP system, but it's silly to wave away a mandate won off the system as totally illegitimate (as I'll show in a minute). Firstly, I'll cover the problem in the system so people know what it is:
An MP in FPTP needs a plurality at the constituency level. This means even if s/he gets the largest number of votes, said candidate can be elected without a majority. Take a look at these figures from the constituency of Argyle & Bute in 2001:
Con: 20.8%
Lab. : 24.5%
L-D: 29.9%
The Liberal-Democrat candidate gets in, but when 45.3% of the constituents voted against him.
Now, that's a significant (and infuriating) problem with the system, but to wave off a mandate won under such a system as completely illegitimate is silly. For example, look at what the 2005 General Election results would look like under a totally proportional system (if everyone voted the same):
Lab: gained 35.2% of the vote, so would get 227 seats
Con: gained 32.3% of the vote, would get 209 seats
L-D: 22% of the vote, would get 142 seats
So, Labour would still be in government, provided it could forge a coalition with the Lib-Dems. So the mandate provided by FPTP is inflated (and I'd agree in that it's seriously flawed), but it's not illegitimate.
1 to 14 of 14
Latest Posts
Crosswords2 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles3 mins ago
ChatterBank4 mins ago
Film, Media & TV21 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.