A little bit of politics folks`

[BaggyTrousers]

I believe an MP's responsibility is to the Monarch (a proper MP, at any rate). There is a fair argument that this extends to the national interest; the monarch being the embodiment of the nation, but maybe that is a stretch too far for some.
Their responsibilities to their constituents and parliament are to work in their interests, they do not have to try to reflect the majority view in all matters. By being elected, they have the constituents' mandate to decide what they, the MP, thinks is best for the constituency. The idea of voting a particular way because the majority of their constituents would, is a derogation of duty.

Obviously in terms of government and committee membership, the local constituency is expected to take a back seat to the national interest, but the same principle applies.

Sweet Holy huerebaggin' mother of sainted Jesus, BR, that is utter shyte, especially the monarchist claptrap. Embodiment of the nation my rancid ould hole.

Sadly you eejits appear to think that BRexit is just a simple small single issue rather than a colossal sea change that will impoverish generations of young ordinary Brits for decades to come. It is not and anybody in the bitch Hoey's position who so manifestly is at odds with her voters that she deserves not just my opprobrium but to be urgently deselected.

Rather simple really.

MPs responsibility is to the monarch my hole. The ultimate unelected strata of government, no responsibility owed by jack.

[BR]

You either accept the nuances between theoretical and practical or you don't. Theoretically the MP's oath states exactly where their priorities lie. In practice we all know that the modern MP's primary allegiance is to their party whips.

On the one hand you have Hoey voting broadly with her party leadship and the known expression of the national majority and her own stated opinion, but against the feelings of her constituents/constituent party.

On the other hand you have a perceived majority of MPs voting in line with the national will (no matter how badly informed), but against their own best judgement of what is beneficial to their constituents.

It was the latter that Tam Dalyel referred to as cowards.

[BaggyTrousers]

To be honest Snipe, as a comeback that was about the same as running up the white fleg. Now I know honour may demand a response, almost certainly flippant, but I think we both know what the outcome is here.

Yes, you'll throw out soundbites until I get bored responding.

An MP's first duty is to their constituents, how could it be otherwise?

Correct and as you well know, but will never acknowledge, duty to constituents does not always mean doing what a majority of constituents wants or voted for in a referendum. They are not delegates.
For example there can be little doubt that for decades many constituencies would have voted to reinstate capital punishment, but parliament knew better and didn't go there.
I like this quote from Chris Bryant MP

But the job of an MP is also to provide leadership, to exercise his or her judgement, to see each issue against the wider context, to form alliances that can deliver change and to be a forceful advocate. The classic instance is restoring the death penalty. The pollsters tell us this would be popular. Perhaps a majority of my constituents would vote for it in a referendum. But whatever the majority for the death penalty, I would never vote for it, as I have regularly made clear in general elections. If that is the dominant issue for a voter, then he or she should vote for another candidate.

I know you would like it to be cut and dried, but it's not that simple. It's not the TUC conference.

Are you related to Trump by any chance? I help you out with fact and you describe said fact as "soundbites" I suppose you were not shameful enough to use "fake news", the last resort of you right wing types when you have been confronted by truth and reason. Surely you can do better than this.

Then by fu'ck you throw in "great old chestnuts of the world #427 - the death penalty" about which there should never even be a debate, it's simply a question of civilisation.



Your summer report reads, must do better.

[BaggyTrousers]

You either accept the nuances between theoretical and practical or you don't. Theoretically the MP's oath states exactly where their priorities lie. In practice we all know that the modern MP's primary allegiance is to their party whips.

On the one hand you have Hoey voting broadly with her party leadship and the known expression of the national majority and her own stated opinion, but against the feelings of her constituents/constituent party.

On the other hand you have a perceived majority of MPs voting in line with the national will (no matter how badly informed), but against their own best judgement of what is beneficial to their constituents.

It was the latter that Tam Dalyel referred to as cowards.

I regard the Oath of Allegiance as puerile bullshite, as I suspect do a huge number of MPs, simply an outdated nonsense that they tolerate but will have little meaning to many. How could that not be the case when so many want to reform/do away with the monarchy. It's simply that the average half-witted Lionel "bladdy well luvs the Queen, I do" that it is too much of a hot spud to do anything about it.

As for Hoey, yes she is not at odds with the stance on which Labour stood at the last election, yet many of us feel Jezza had his fingers crossed behind his back when not having the guts to stand against the monstrous stupidity of BRexit. However, I fully hope and expect her constituents to call her out and get rid of her. I find it inconceivable that she can vote in Parliament against a vote of 4:1 in her constituency and survive as their MP. BRexit goes against all electoral wisdom, in particular, the old saw, "Its the economy stupid", yet here we have the little englanders voting to impoverish themselves and several generations to come.

As for Old Tam, he was a mixed bag, much of what he stood for appealed to me, including his branding of Blair as a war crim, but then again he was the main proponent and "author" of the West Lothian Question, a pile of utter shyte. Who amongst us can forget centuries of Lionel meddling in the affairs of others, then up pops Eton educated Tam and wonders should there be "English only" issues. Dickbag. Not only that, he took his mither's name - you know, the one who inherited the Baronetcy.

[BR]

You either accept the nuances between theoretical and practical or you don't. Theoretically the MP's oath states exactly where their priorities lie. In practice we all know that the modern MP's primary allegiance is to their party whips.

On the one hand you have Hoey voting broadly with her party leadship and the known expression of the national majority and her own stated opinion, but against the feelings of her constituents/constituent party.

On the other hand you have a perceived majority of MPs voting in line with the national will (no matter how badly informed), but against their own best judgement of what is beneficial to their constituents.

It was the latter that Tam Dalyel referred to as cowards.

I regard the Oath of Allegiance as puerile bullshite, as I suspect do a huge number of MPs, simply an outdated nonsense that they tolerate but will have little meaning to many. How could that not be the case when so many want to reform/do away with the monarchy. It's simply that the average half-witted Lionel "bladdy well luvs the Queen, I do" that it is too much of a hot spud to do anything about it.

As for Hoey, yes she is not at odds with the stance on which Labour stood at the last election, yet many of us feel Jezza had his fingers crossed behind his back when not having the guts to stand against the monstrous stupidity of BRexit. However, I fully hope and expect her constituents to call her out and get rid of her. I find it inconceivable that she can vote in Parliament against a vote of 4:1 in her constituency and survive as their MP. BRexit goes against all electoral wisdom, in particular, the old saw, "Its the economy stupid", yet here we have the little englanders voting to impoverish themselves and several generations to come.

As for Old Tam, he was a mixed bag, much of what he stood for appealed to me, including his branding of Blair as a war crim, but then again he was the main proponent and "author" of the West Lothian Question, a pile of utter shyte. Who amongst us can forget centuries of Lionel meddling in the affairs of others, then up pops Eton educated Tam and wonders should there be "English only" issues. Dickbag. Not only that, he took his mither's name - you know, the one who inherited the Baronetcy.

So you wouldn't have supported Tam's call for MPs to vote according to their own beliefs of what would be best for their constituents? You're saying that they should vote in line with the expressed wishes of the majority of their constituents?

[BaggyTrousers]

You either accept the nuances between theoretical and practical or you don't. Theoretically the MP's oath states exactly where their priorities lie. In practice we all know that the modern MP's primary allegiance is to their party whips.

On the one hand you have Hoey voting broadly with her party leadship and the known expression of the national majority and her own stated opinion, but against the feelings of her constituents/constituent party.

On the other hand you have a perceived majority of MPs voting in line with the national will (no matter how badly informed), but against their own best judgement of what is beneficial to their constituents.

It was the latter that Tam Dalyel referred to as cowards.

I regard the Oath of Allegiance as puerile bullshite, as I suspect do a huge number of MPs, simply an outdated nonsense that they tolerate but will have little meaning to many. How could that not be the case when so many want to reform/do away with the monarchy. It's simply that the average half-witted Lionel "bladdy well luvs the Queen, I do" that it is too much of a hot spud to do anything about it.

As for Hoey, yes she is not at odds with the stance on which Labour stood at the last election, yet many of us feel Jezza had his fingers crossed behind his back when not having the guts to stand against the monstrous stupidity of BRexit. However, I fully hope and expect her constituents to call her out and get rid of her. I find it inconceivable that she can vote in Parliament against a vote of 4:1 in her constituency and survive as their MP. BRexit goes against all electoral wisdom, in particular, the old saw, "Its the economy stupid", yet here we have the little englanders voting to impoverish themselves and several generations to come.

As for Old Tam, he was a mixed bag, much of what he stood for appealed to me, including his branding of Blair as a war crim, but then again he was the main proponent and "author" of the West Lothian Question, a pile of utter shyte. Who amongst us can forget centuries of Lionel meddling in the affairs of others, then up pops Eton educated Tam and wonders should there be "English only" issues. Dickbag. Not only that, he took his mither's name - you know, the one who inherited the Baronetcy.

So you wouldn't have supported Tam's call for MPs to vote according to their own beliefs of what would be best for their constituents? You're saying that they should vote in line with the expressed wishes of the majority of their constituents?

You are making some rather large assumptions, for clarity, when such an overwhelming majority of your constituents have expressed their thoughts at the ballot box, not in a vox pop, but a genuine meaningful vote, indeed a vote in the constituency that apart from (Spanish) Gibraltar voted the highest % remain vote, then if you represent that constituency it is an untenable position to expect to remain their MP. Her position is about as tenable as Terry's was.

She really needs to resign and become the Tory that in reality, she has been on many issues for too much of her latter years as an MP.

[big mervyn]

Chair of the Countryside Alliance? F'ck off you wrinkly auld bag.

[BR]

You either accept the nuances between theoretical and practical or you don't. Theoretically the MP's oath states exactly where their priorities lie. In practice we all know that the modern MP's primary allegiance is to their party whips.

On the one hand you have Hoey voting broadly with her party leadship and the known expression of the national majority and her own stated opinion, but against the feelings of her constituents/constituent party.

On the other hand you have a perceived majority of MPs voting in line with the national will (no matter how badly informed), but against their own best judgement of what is beneficial to their constituents.

It was the latter that Tam Dalyel referred to as cowards.

I regard the Oath of Allegiance as puerile bullshite, as I suspect do a huge number of MPs, simply an outdated nonsense that they tolerate but will have little meaning to many. How could that not be the case when so many want to reform/do away with the monarchy. It's simply that the average half-witted Lionel "bladdy well luvs the Queen, I do" that it is too much of a hot spud to do anything about it.

As for Hoey, yes she is not at odds with the stance on which Labour stood at the last election, yet many of us feel Jezza had his fingers crossed behind his back when not having the guts to stand against the monstrous stupidity of BRexit. However, I fully hope and expect her constituents to call her out and get rid of her. I find it inconceivable that she can vote in Parliament against a vote of 4:1 in her constituency and survive as their MP. BRexit goes against all electoral wisdom, in particular, the old saw, "Its the economy stupid", yet here we have the little englanders voting to impoverish themselves and several generations to come.

As for Old Tam, he was a mixed bag, much of what he stood for appealed to me, including his branding of Blair as a war crim, but then again he was the main proponent and "author" of the West Lothian Question, a pile of utter shyte. Who amongst us can forget centuries of Lionel meddling in the affairs of others, then up pops Eton educated Tam and wonders should there be "English only" issues. Dickbag. Not only that, he took his mither's name - you know, the one who inherited the Baronetcy.

So you wouldn't have supported Tam's call for MPs to vote according to their own beliefs of what would be best for their constituents? You're saying that they should vote in line with the expressed wishes of the majority of their constituents?

You are making some rather large assumptions, for clarity, when such an overwhelming majority of your constituents have expressed their thoughts at the ballot box, not in a vox pop, but a genuine meaningful vote, indeed a vote in the constituency that apart from (Spanish) Gibraltar voted the highest % remain vote, then if you represent that constituency it is an untenable position to expect to remain their MP. Her position is about as tenable as Terry's was.

She really needs to resign and become the Tory that in reality, she has been on many issues for too much of her latter years as an MP.

So what is the % where you give up what you think is best and just do what your constituents have favoured in a referendum?


And wasn't she returned last year with over 50% of the vote?

What does that mean? A large number of the people of Lambeth would prefer to remain in the EU, but it's not that important issue to the people of Vauxhall?

[BaggyTrousers]

So what is the % where you give up what you think is best and just do what your constituents have favoured in a referendum?


And wasn't she returned last year with over 50% of the vote?

What does that mean? A large number of the people of Lambeth would prefer to remain in the EU, but it's not that important issue to the people of Vauxhall?

You appear to be struggling with the concept of "public representative", I leave you to ponder what an MP's role is but according to parliament it is to represent the will of the people, NOT to represent the will of the people when it matches their own sense of "I know what's best for them".

However, I always enjoy a game, so let's play your game of "guess the %". At around 60% you would probably get away with flying in the face of your voters opinions, 70% would be pushing it and 80% you are toast. At 78%, she is almost certainly toast.

To her credit, she has done something over nearly 30 years to endear her to one of the safest Labour seats you will find, however, her prominence in the BRexit "debate"/"parcel of lies" allied to her now propping up Mrs MayImakeaballsofeverything is pretty much a death knell I hope.

You also need to wonder how safe would she have been in a less secure seat. Certainly, she had one brief spell as a minister in Blair's early years, whereas your mate Tam the Bam the baronet's boy was always too loose a cannon to reach ministerial level, but neither were immediate candidates for higher office.

I must say I do like a range of characters in parties and in parliament, but sometimes wonder do the likes of Tam Dalyell and even my old mate The Beast of Bolsover, take onto themselves the luxury of just being a mouthpiece for what they believe is right and best for people at the expense of actually using their abilities to actually DO the best for people. Then again, as a mouthybastard myself, I can hardly be the one to throw the first stone.

[Russ]

Darren Cave for First Minister

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[BR]

I leave you to ponder what an MP's role is but according to parliament it is to represent the will of the people,

I think we will have to agree to disagree on that.

I believe it is an MP's role to represent the interests of the people.

The will of the people only goes as far to give that person the authority to represent them, hopefully based on track record and manifesto committments and not simply the colour of their rosette.

It's just a shame that so many MPs seem to agree with your interpretation (or find it a convenient excuse when they feel unable to contradict their party leadership).

[BaggyTrousers]

OK let's disagree then, obviously, the MP who has no interest in the wishes of their constituents will not last. Celebrity MPs who fail to represent their constituents such as Choo-choo Portaloo become high profile losers.

Anyway, disagreement is grand.

On another subject, I hear rumbles of discontent that Amazon is again taking the pish in the UK. I saw a headline claiming they are taking the UK for mugs.

I can add a little evidence. I was an Amazon Prime customer in NI, annual cost £79, I have signed up in Spain, identical package, cost €19.99 annually.

MUGS.

[rumncoke]

A MP gets elected on a manifesto when elected he then assumes that manifesto represents the wishes of those who elected him.
( In theory ) -- In some Seats if you stuck the word labour on a pig it would get elected even if its manifesto was a 100% tax on the working man and the promise of a 110% more in benefits to all. Taxation is legalised theft by Politicians who think they know how to spend your money by handing it to Civil Servants whose only interest is to ensure that the expenditure of their departments increases yearly to justify their salary.

Identifying responsibility is the equivalent of the three card trick of find the lady as the current heating investigation is spending its time chasing round in ever decreasing circles to disappear in a puff of brown smoke from an imaginary assh-le.

[Russ]

A MP gets elected on a manifesto when elected he then assumes that manifesto represents the wishes of those who elected him.
( In theory ) -- In some Seats if you stuck the word labour on a pig it would get elected even if its manifesto was a 100% tax on the working man and the promise of a 110% more in benefits to all. Taxation is legalised theft by Politicians who think they know how to spend your money by handing it to Civil Servants whose only interest is to ensure that the expenditure of their departments increases yearly to justify their salary.

Identifying responsibility is the equivalent of the three card trick of find the lady as the current heating investigation is spending its time chasing round in ever decreasing circles to disappear in a puff of brown smoke from an imaginary assh-le.

100% correct rum

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[Kofi Annan]

Darren Cave for First Minister

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

Too honest for first minister and has not mudered or blown anyone up for second (but same ) minister.

I do agree with D.C. our so called politicians of all groupings are cnuts, especially those in alliance , I single them out as their fence sitting flag waving ( every flag) allow the morons on DUP and SF to have those own way, the only time they slip to one side is to vote with SF as they still wrongly see it their position to support the minority’s rather than what is right politically.

Here’s one for debate, first let’s make it clear I am as gay as baggy, I was in Belfast yesterday and rainbow flags flying proudly at every bar and coffee shop, okay Pride is in Belfast and a big day of gayness is coming, men waving dildos is a bit much, but here is a thought, has it become a day to make a few pink pounds and each establishment pushing the gayness for footfall rather than belief ? Furthermore what if I decide to put up a sign” PRIDE FREE “ at my pub our restaurant will I be labelled homophobic maybe I just want to cater for those that don’t like gayness rammed down their thoughts or I don’t want dildo waving queens upsetting Auntie Mable having her stew. , I know the answer, Nolan will mince down with his big microphone and doorstep me for being anti puffery. Have a lovely day boys and unicorns