Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 17 minutes ago, snowychap said: What would their message be? What would they be protesting about? The inability of the government to govern - this is basis for a General Election in itself and I wish there was more public support for this. It might not fix the problem, but this government showed that they are incapable of getting us through this, and any proper leader would have resigned by now. Mrs May said time and time again that she does not support another people vote because it might hinder democracy, yet it's OK to shovel her deal down people's throats. Every time, a few more people vote for it, I guess in vote number 7 or 8 it might just go through. Pathetic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 4 minutes ago, Mic09 said: The inability of the government to govern - this is basis for a General Election in itself and I wish there was more public support for this. It might not fix the problem, but this government showed that they are incapable of getting us through this, and any proper leader would have resigned by now. Mrs May said time and time again that she does not support another people vote because it might hinder democracy, yet it's OK to shovel her deal down people's throats. Every time, a few more people vote for it, I guess in vote number 7 or 8 it might just go through. Pathetic. Maybe the thing that they are trying to deliver is not deliverable in a form that is acceptable to enough people (and I don't mean just politicians sitting as MPs)? What difference would a General Election make? Do you really think one of the two main parties would win a majority (and be united enough around this topic) so that they were able to force their policy through? Would 'any proper leader' have resigned? I'm not so sure. The resignation of the last leader is seen as him running away and washing his hands of the whole thing that he helped to set in motion. This isn't a defence of May, far from it - just an appreciation that we're not where we are simply because of May, however much of a liar and an awful politician with very few redeeming characteristics or political ideas she is. And also an appreciation that no way out of this mess is easy or simple or without some pretty awful consequences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: Maybe the thing that they are trying to deliver is not deliverable in a form that is acceptable to enough people (and I don't mean just politicians sitting as MPs)? What difference would a General Election make? Do you really think one of the two main parties would win a majority (and be united enough around this topic) so that they were able to force their policy through? Would 'any proper leader' have resigned? I'm not so sure. The resignation of the last leader is seen as him running away and washing his hands of the whole thing that he helped to set in motion. This isn't a defence of May, far from it - just an appreciation that we're not where we are simply because of May, however much of a liar and an awful politician with very few redeeming characteristics or political ideas she is. And also an appreciation that no way out of this mess is easy or simple or without some pretty awful consequences. I think a general election wouldn't have make a difference, but it's the right thing to do as the government cannot govern. Sacking Tim Sherwood did not make any difference, and most knew it wouldn't. It was the right thing to do nevertheless. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 15 minutes ago, Mic09 said: The inability of the government to govern - this is basis for a General Election in itself and I wish there was more public support for this. On this main, all-consuming policy - what would the two main parties be campaigning on in this election? What would they say would be the policy they attempt to enact if elected? What are Steve Baker and Sam Gyimah going to unite upon that means they both stand on the same platform? Or for that matter, Graham Stringer and David Lammy? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 15, 2019 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2019 The Treeza May funeral song Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 (edited) 9 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I think a general election wouldn't have make a difference, but it's the right thing to do as the government cannot govern. Sacking Tim Sherwood did not make any difference, and most knew it wouldn't. It was the right thing to do nevertheless. Surely the right thing to do would be to try and find a solution to the problem - even if that solution is identifying that the problem is insoluble and dealing with the fallout of that realisation? Calling for a General Election (even if that is normally the right thing to have if a government can't govern) seems, to me, not the best thing when the political obstacle of Brexit - what to do? will not be sorted by a GE campaign (they'd spend a great deal of time either ignoring the topic or parroting out stuff that most people won't believe) or, I don't think, the return of a majority Tory or Labour government. Not that I think either of them would get that anyway. Edited May 15, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, ml1dch said: On this main, all-consuming policy - what would the two main parties be campaigning on in this election? What would they say would be the policy they attempt to enact if elected? What are Steve Baker and Sam Gyimah going to unite upon that means they both stand on the same platform? Or for that matter, Graham Stringer and David Lammy? No idea. But I don't have to be able to answer this question. What I do know is that this government is unable to pass policy - so they should not hold their position any longer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 (edited) 4 minutes ago, snowychap said: Surely the right thing to do would be to try and find a solution to the problem - even if that solution is identifying that the problem is insoluble and dealing with the fallout of that realisation? Calling for a General Election (even if that is normally the right thing to have if a government can't govern) seems, to me, not the best thing when the political obstacle of Brexit - what to do? will not be sorted by a GE campaign (they'd spend a great deal of time either ignoring the topic or parroting out stuff that most people won't believe) or, I don't think, the return of a majority Tory or Labour government. Not that I think either of them would get that anyway. I agree, GE is not a resolution to the Brexit problem. But I think that having May's vote for 47th time is simply laughing in the face of the electorate. Edited May 15, 2019 by Mic09 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted May 15, 2019 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, Mic09 said: What I do know is that this government is unable to pass policy You say that like its a bad thing 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 Just now, bickster said: You say that like its a bad thing Haha, I guess I need to be careful what I wish for 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 (edited) 38 minutes ago, Mic09 said: I agree, GE is not a resolution to the Brexit problem. But I think that having May's vote for 47th time is simply laughing in the face of the electorate. Why is it 'laughing in the face of the electorate'? It along with saying that there shouldn't be a second referendum on the matter is but I don't see that it alone is. It may be laughing in the face of sense or effing stupid or beyond mulish or against Parliamentary convention but I don't see it, on its own, as 'laughing in the face of the electorate'. Returning to your initial comments about people should be out demonstrating, it would seem that you're suggesting that they should be out demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the politicians' inability to govern and decide on a solution to a tricky, all-consuming problem by demanding that we go through a political process which you agree is unlikley to be a solution to the problem which is at the heart of the inability iossues of the government (and Parliament)? Wouldn't that be the epitome of futility? Edited May 15, 2019 by snowychap 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 9 minutes ago, bickster said: You say that like its a bad thing Indeed. We might bemoan that they don't seem to be doing a fat lot in Parliament right now (and politicians may be on Newsnight doing that themselves) but it does at least mean that there are a number of Tory policies that probably aren't getting enacted yet. For that we should be massively grateful. Just imagine what Chris Grayling could have done to the country in a full nine years of Tory majority government. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, snowychap said: Why is it 'laughing in the face of the electorate'? It along with saying that there shouldn't be a second referendum on the matter is but I don''t see that it alone is. It may be laughing in the face of sense or effing stupid or beyond mulish or against Parliamentary convention but I don't see it, on its own, as 'laughing in the face of the electorate'. Returning to your initial comments about people should be out demonstrating, it would seem that you're suggesting that they should be out demonstrating their dissatisfaction with the politicians' inability to govern and decide on a solution to a tricky, all-consuming problem by demanding that we go through a political process which you agree is unlikley to be a solution to the problem which is at the heart of the inability iossues of the government (and Parliament)? Wouldn't that be the epitome of futility? MPs are answering to their constituencies. The parliamentary idea is that those MPs represent them and their will in the HOC. By extension, if the deal has been rejected, it can be argued that that is the constituents will. After all, it's their own representatives that have turned it down. If, they have rejected May's deal once, twice, and the third time, it seems to me that it's most cynical to try to serve the same dish yet again, not even on a different plate. Agreed, GE will not change anything. Changing Mrs May will not change anything. But one thing that is clear is that this has been a pathetic display of politics - there is a saying that trying the same thing over and over again is the definition of madness. In this case, I think it's a case of cynic politics and disregard for the opinion of the house. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 (edited) 11 minutes ago, Mic09 said: MPs are answering to their constituencies. The parliamentary idea is that those MPs represent them and their will in the HOC. By extension, if the deal has been rejected, it can be argued that that is the constituents will. After all, it's their own representatives that have turned it down. No constituency has a simple, collective will just as the nation does not have a simple, collective will. Asking or arguing that MPs represent the will of their constituents is both a practical impossibility and a problem theoretically. MPs are not delegates. Edited May 15, 2019 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 2 minutes ago, snowychap said: No constituency has a simple, collective will just as the nation does not have a simple, collective will. Asking or arguing that MPs represent the will of their constituents is both a practical impossibility and a problem theoretically. MPs are not delegates. Yes you can argue that. I am not a democrat by any means - so I am sort of defending a moot point here. I am simply unhappy about being served the same dish every single time, and I think that any democrat should be outraged by this strategy. I think it's shameful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 1 minute ago, Mic09 said: Yes you can argue that. I am not a democrat by any means - so I am sort of defending a moot point here. I am simply unhappy about being served the same dish every single time, and I think that any democrat should be outraged by this strategy. I think it's shameful. Again, don't get me wrong - I condemn her strategy hugely just not for the same reasons you've given. I'd also caution about getting too outraged - it's quite possible that this shit will still be going on when we're old and grey! 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mic09 Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 7 minutes ago, snowychap said: Again, don't get me wrong - I condemn her strategy hugely just not for the same reasons you've given. I'd also caution about getting too outraged - it's quite possible that this shit will still be going on when we're old and grey! I really hope you are wrong there 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ml1dch Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 43 minutes ago, Mic09 said: MPs are answering to their constituencies. The parliamentary idea is that those MPs represent them and their will in the HOC. By extension, if the deal has been rejected, it can be argued that that is the constituents will. After all, it's their own representatives that have turned it down. I'd say that's a line of argument that doesn't help to reinforce your overall point. If we reduce it to the level of "whatever MPs do = the democratic embodiment of their constituents' wishes", then a majority of people don't want an election because a majority of their elected representatives don't. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OutByEaster? Posted May 15, 2019 Moderator Share Posted May 15, 2019 How does bringing the deal back for to the house yet again work with the speakers judgment on bringing the same deal back repeatedly? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted May 15, 2019 Share Posted May 15, 2019 3 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said: How does bringing the deal back for to the house yet again work with the speakers judgment on bringing the same deal back repeatedly? This would be new legislation, i.e. legislation to implement the Withdrawal Agreement, so I guess the thinking is that it isn't covered by that convention. Not sure what it means for the existing legislative process of the Section 13 vote, though. I imagine the argument would be that if the new bill were to pass, bringing back that Section 13 vote ought to be a formality - or could they just strike that bit from the legislation using Henry VIII powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts