Don't think he's advocating, so much as pointing out the status quo...
Wild fires in BC Canada.
- Thread starter Lefley
- Start date
Help Support UKworkshop.co.uk:
- Status
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Deema I'm merely trying to explain to you how things work, but you still haven't quite got it.
Keep trying though - check the difference between delegate and representative etc.
It's not difficult:
"Sir Winston Churchill, citing Burke, who characterised the position as “the first duty of a member of Parliament” is “to do what he thinks in his faithful and disinterested judgement is right and necessary for the honour and safety of Great Britain”"
MPs – Delegates or Representatives?
The trouble is the UK does not have a single "constitution" as such but is more an accumulation of established practices.
More here if you want to get up to speed https://www.parliament.uk/globalass...constitutional-reform/The-UK-Constitution.pdf
Interestingly it means that Parliament was not under any obligation to "Get Brexit Done" if it was deemed not in the country's interests after all, but it was railroaded in by Johnson - a crude populist leader of the lowest sort.
Last edited:
Look, I understand @Jacob pushing is hard left wing ideology, that’s his right under our freedom of thought and expression. What is interesting though is how he distorts, or ignores or misrepresents the most simple of facts, like democracy. God help those who don’t know how the state they live in operates.
We have a representative democracy, that is the will of the majority determines the policy and direction we wish the elected government to take. MPs are not as he correctly highlights our delegates, otherwise we would have circa 35 million of them (a delegate for every citizen, about half the population!) the stupidity of this preposition is clear, it simply won’t work. So, we elect our representatives by voting. We decide who we wish to elect based on the policies they propose to make. These are normally set out in their parties manifesto. The population vote, and we get an elected assembly, it’s never 100% one party, so the largest party is invited to form a government and impliment the policies, ie their manifesto that they were voted in for. They are not free to make up policy and deviate from the mandate they were given, if they do, the normal reaction is sufficient representatives will become dissatisfied under pressure of their constituents to force a vote of no confidence in the government and we have another election. This has occurred a number of times.
The government does not act without the support of the populous, so, they need to ensure they are in touch with the constituents when policy is required for things that are new or not covered in their mandate / manifesto. If they get it wrong, they get voted out.
Now in the lefts ideal world, the state determines what is in our best interest and ignores what the will of the majority if they think they know best. So, if you would like the state to determine that there are only 28 approved hairstyles (North Korea) or your only allowed one baby (China until recently) or that virtually all religions are banned (Russia & China and North Korea) then a system where you get to vote for one party and it’s just the faces that change not the policies then I suggest you move to your country of utopia choice. The rest of us like our fathers and grandfathers before us will fight you with our blood and our children’s blood to ensure we have a free and representative democratic society where we are allowed choice and free speech.
Rather than linking left wing or republican stuff that’s not accurate or reflect the system that we have, focus a debate on what actually happens and not more of the left wing ‘I think it so it must be fact’.
We have a representative democracy, that is the will of the majority determines the policy and direction we wish the elected government to take. MPs are not as he correctly highlights our delegates, otherwise we would have circa 35 million of them (a delegate for every citizen, about half the population!) the stupidity of this preposition is clear, it simply won’t work. So, we elect our representatives by voting. We decide who we wish to elect based on the policies they propose to make. These are normally set out in their parties manifesto. The population vote, and we get an elected assembly, it’s never 100% one party, so the largest party is invited to form a government and impliment the policies, ie their manifesto that they were voted in for. They are not free to make up policy and deviate from the mandate they were given, if they do, the normal reaction is sufficient representatives will become dissatisfied under pressure of their constituents to force a vote of no confidence in the government and we have another election. This has occurred a number of times.
The government does not act without the support of the populous, so, they need to ensure they are in touch with the constituents when policy is required for things that are new or not covered in their mandate / manifesto. If they get it wrong, they get voted out.
Now in the lefts ideal world, the state determines what is in our best interest and ignores what the will of the majority if they think they know best. So, if you would like the state to determine that there are only 28 approved hairstyles (North Korea) or your only allowed one baby (China until recently) or that virtually all religions are banned (Russia & China and North Korea) then a system where you get to vote for one party and it’s just the faces that change not the policies then I suggest you move to your country of utopia choice. The rest of us like our fathers and grandfathers before us will fight you with our blood and our children’s blood to ensure we have a free and representative democratic society where we are allowed choice and free speech.
Rather than linking left wing or republican stuff that’s not accurate or reflect the system that we have, focus a debate on what actually happens and not more of the left wing ‘I think it so it must be fact’.
Last edited:
Of course it's possible for one person to be the delegate of many...
From the Oxford dictionary:
noun
/ˈdɛlɪɡət/
From the Oxford dictionary:
noun
/ˈdɛlɪɡət/
- a person sent or authorized to represent others, in particular an elected representative sent to a conference.
"the delegates rejected the proposal"
@Cobbs your absolutely right, the difference is that a delegate acts with the same authority (generality) as if you were to sign yourself. Thats fine for very narrowly defined situations. Eg a lawyer signing a contract on your behalf. However, I suspect nobody would give just anyone full authority to act in their behalf in any and all situations. There is unlikely to be a consensus for a delegate to act for more than one person. I trust my wife implicitly to act in my best interest on anything, but I wouldn’t trust my neighbours and certainly not a politician, would you? So, we have representatives, they act to a mandate we give them, which is totally different to a delegate.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
I seem to be explaining simple facts about the British Constitution which seem to have escaped your attention. Quoting Churchill even!
You should do a bit more reading. This stuff is taught in schools.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
No, we elect them to do as they see fit. They are under no legal obligation to vote according to the wishes of electorate. They have a moral obligation, maybe, but not a legal one.
Last edited:
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
of course they are and they do it routinely. Manifestos are just a general statement of intent and couldn't possibly cover all the eventualities of a five year parliament
Of course they can and they do it regularly.
Yes does happen.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
Exactly. And it has always been that way.
Yes it is, or at least it was, and I was an excellent student. That’s why I understand how it’s supposed to work and able to flag when you deviate off the left hand side of the road into the wilderness of make believe.
Winston was a superb leader during the war and terrible in peacetime.
Jacob
What goes around comes around.
2/10. Must try harder, and do try to pay attention!
I think the following just highlights the issues with just EV’s. So, if you live in an urban environment you’re not likely to have a driveway or garage, so who should fund all charging points necessary to support the EV’s? A lot of street parking in urban areas is restricted to locals only who have passes. So should the locals who have access to restricted parking fund the charging point or the council? What about those with driveways or garages, should they fund their own charging point as they do at the moment? If the council fund urban charging points then all those with driveways or who live in the countryside are subsidising the Urban dwellers as well as funding their own charges. It’s ironic isn’t it! Those in the cities can probably live without a car due to good / excellent public transport but those in the countryside cant as there isn’t any!
So, I’m guessing at least 10 years before the infrastructure is half way to being decent for the EVs we have now, never mind a growing car park of EVs all seeking the precious charger. Another reason why practically the 2035 deadline on internal combustion engines will be kicked down the road……even if there is by some miracle enough electrical juice.
So, I’m guessing at least 10 years before the infrastructure is half way to being decent for the EVs we have now, never mind a growing car park of EVs all seeking the precious charger. Another reason why practically the 2035 deadline on internal combustion engines will be kicked down the road……even if there is by some miracle enough electrical juice.
Blah blah blah. Rather than nitpicking over MP's either following their constituents wishes or not, I think we should all be more concerned about what a lack lustre bunch they are. If Starmer gets in it will just be the same circus but with different clowns. What I find worrying is that when people get fed up and look for something different, there seems to be a developing tendency to veer to the right. We have seen this in Italy. Le Penn seems to be on the rise again in France, and similar creatures seem to be increasing in popularity elsewhere. A bit of a concern given what happened last time these views got a hold.
Tris
What am I doing here?
It's strange that the vehicle argument seems to have become EV versus ICE. Scania are developing sub 7.5t EVs for towns and hydrogen for long distance haulage, similarly JCB have developed a hydrogen modification for their machines.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
Don't worry, we haven't a Party with any chance of winning that's remotely right wing.
Hydrogen, total joke! First off, which is rather fundamental, not all hydrogen is burned within the engine and is freed into the atmosphere. Not a big issue I hear, but hydrogen and helium are the two gasses that leak out of our atmosphere into space. Where do we get hydrogen from? electrolysis of water…..rather key to life! OK won’t affect anything soon…..but enough hydrogen being burned given enough time……
Second and far more relevant for today is you need to generate green electricity, then use that through either of the two common methods steam-methane reforming and electrolysis (splitting water with electricity) before compressing it to liquid (very inefficient) and finally burning it in a modified combustion engine. Just do the maths of how inefficient that actually is.
Third, they use fresh water to make hydrogen! and thats already for most countries a precious commodity. Yes you can use reverse osmosis to produce it……but that needs huge amounts of power…..more green electricity!!
Forth, the huge facilities needed to generate and store a highly flammable gas everyone would like to live next to.
Second and far more relevant for today is you need to generate green electricity, then use that through either of the two common methods steam-methane reforming and electrolysis (splitting water with electricity) before compressing it to liquid (very inefficient) and finally burning it in a modified combustion engine. Just do the maths of how inefficient that actually is.
Third, they use fresh water to make hydrogen! and thats already for most countries a precious commodity. Yes you can use reverse osmosis to produce it……but that needs huge amounts of power…..more green electricity!!
Forth, the huge facilities needed to generate and store a highly flammable gas everyone would like to live next to.
Indeed, or hard left for that matter. More an observation of what might be an emerging trend amongst our European neighbours.
We can of course go for the green solution for transport
I’m now off to walk Dino with Barney whilst Wilma and Betty have a coffee together
Good wood working in the clip, take my hat off to the creativity.
I’m now off to walk Dino with Barney whilst Wilma and Betty have a coffee together
Good wood working in the clip, take my hat off to the creativity.
Phil Pascoe
Established Member
No, but we'll have a choice of a bit left of centre, a bit further left of centre and a bit further left than that.
- Status
