Don't understand your reply - did you bother to read my response.I accepted your point, said I would modify my post and I did.However, he did not vote to remain in the 2016 referendum then I agree the list is incorrect.
Sounds like your MP falls into the category of having very little to fear from a GE.
Cheers,
Nigel
Again, in 2017, nobody knew what the deal was, what Brexit looked like.Wasn't it late 2018 (Nov I think), when we finally saw what Brexit would look like?
I'm sure the electorate will appreciate that - clearly she has nothing to worry about.
Cheers,
Nigel
No, they should all be worried, but this speaks more to a lack of informed voters (about what parliamentary sovereignty is, what their MP's responsibilities are, what a hard Brexit means in real terms)than it does to ministerial integrity.
Or someone has an agenda.
probably Arronatoly Banksovic's Leave.EU along with his Leave Means Leave mates
IMHO, all this all the talk of parliament being broken, mp's betrayal, end of democracy et al is all hyperbole and propaganda that is being treated as accurate and real by a certain amount of people because it meshes well with their emotional reactions and feelings towards Parliament, MP's and the Governments handling of and the mess Brexit has become.
Why is it hyperbole and propaganda ?
Our political system, parliament, MP's etc are much as they have been for well over a hundred years. There have been changes like allowing women to vote and be MP's, but at a fundamental level, it works like it has done for centuries and certainly how is has in the last 40 or 50yrs.
Therefore if Parliament is broken now, it was just as broken in the 80's and 90's.
Have MP's become less representative of their constituents overall ?
I would suggest that is unlikely.
Firstly, there is no evidence to suggest that an MP today is any more or less representative of their constituents overall than MP's in the 80's or 90's, in fact some MP's today were MP's during those earlier periods. There have always been cases where MP's make conscience votes on issues they feel strongly about.
Secondly, there would have to be a sizeable and systemic shift in terms of the number of MP's that would have to be 'different' from MP's during the 80's and 90's in a decrease of representing their constituents. Without it effecting a large majority of MP's, the effects would be marginal at best.
Thirdly, there have been significant advances in modern technology and communications with the likes of social media, 24hrs News channels and websites that track and collate the voting patterns of individual MP's that are often linked to National news stories.
MPs,how they vote and represent their constituents are more visible and transparent than at any time in history.
So what factor or cause has made it apparent that Parliament is broken that wasn't apparent in the 80's and 90's ?
The simple answer: Brexit.
The less simple answer is what Brexit represents, the level of effect it will have on every citizen and the devisiveness and divisions it draws out and highlights within society.
The country is too closely split and too emotionally involved for a FPTP, binary winner takes all system to be able to sucessfully deal with.
The issue is on Leave winning the referendum and therefore people believing that a simple winner takes all result was possible to deliver.
The reality as we have all witnessed over the last 3yrs is that it is not.
Some argue that it is the Government's fault for poor management and negotiation skills.
That if Leavers had been in charge and had a better, stronger team of negotiators with less interference and handicaping from Remainers then it would have been easy.
Since we can't roll back history, we can't test that hypothesis, but I strongly believe it would turn out untrue never the less.
The fundamental problem was that it was never going to be 'easy'.
A simple example of the fundamental flaws in "Leaving would be easy if" is the EU were never going to cave in because 'they had more to loose the UK', because they simply don't.
Another fundamental flaw is the notion that in a 52% to 48% split on Leaving the EU, that the binary winning argument would some how be acceptable to those supporting remain.
The mistake is treating it like it was any other vote where people just shrug their shoulders and accept the result and get on with things.
For many votes that can and is the case, because there is not sufficient emotional investment in both sides to make it problematic.
Many votes have people emotionally involved, but they tend to be either a minority on both sides, or a minority on only one side.
There are not sufficiently strong enough feelings in large enough numbers - contrast our elections to those in the Ukraine for example and you see what happens when the sides are so divided with such large numbers of emotionally involved on both.
Brexit is simply too polemic with too many people on both sides actually invested and caring in the results for our political system to cope with.
The failure and responsiblity lays fundamentally with those that could not see that or choose to ignore the fact and pushed it forwards as an attempt to strengthen their own and their parties political position/cohesion.
An excellent, well thought out post.
Thank you.
Building on this, the emotional connection is key.
People didn't give two ***** about the EU before, the low EU voting proves that. 30% I think before Brexit.
Brexit itself has become tribal, it's become, "Us vs. Them".
It reminds me of Northern Ireland or Glasgow.Most people involved in the sectarian difference didn't even go to Church nor could tell you the ecclesiastical difference between Catholic or Protestant.Yet, they despised each other, and the real reason for the differences became lost in history and generational hate.
Brexit feels like the early stages of that without the bombs. The nuance of a reasoned argument about the pros and cons of EU membership becomes less important compared to incendiary talking points like, "Sovereignty, Taking Back Control, Bloody EU telling us what to do, Treasonous MPs,Will of the people". Thought terminating cliches abound and reasoned debate becomes drowned out with the tribal nonsense.
The longer it goes on, the worse it will get because the emotive stuff resonates with people while the facts and figures, and nuanced discussion of compromise is dull and boring.
Yep. Absolutely not. Doesn't bode well for either major party to get a majority
Spot on from both yourself and @Toko Black
In reference to your penultimate paragraph, the media has a lot to answer for as well. Stirring the pot every opportunity it gets.
I do hope it gets sorted soon either way, as the country really is becoming undone. Buried in the news this morning was the fact our prisons are literally at breaking point. Even more so than the breaking point they were at 3 years ago. But it was almost as if it wasn't much of an issue.
Amongst many other things of course.
Brexit really does have a lot to answer for.