| Topic: | Re:Re:Huw Burford-Taylor (2) | |
| Posted by: | Huw Burford-Taylor | |
| Date/Time: | 17/09/19 14:30:00 |
| Churchill's quote on the duties of MP's is well known, so I won't repeat it here, and I agree with it. But without question an MP's party affiliation is as important as the MP themselves, if not moreso. Yes you vote for a party, it's completely disingenuous to suggest otherwise. Why then have the candidates party next to their name on the ballot paper? Why then even have parties if what they stand for is irrelevant to the voter? "All of it, you know, every dot and comma? Even including the bits they may not be so keen on?" Again disingenuous. That's precisely the point I was making "A central manifesto commitment." Moreover one that is campaigned on during a General Election. "And what happens if the governing party changes a manifesto commitment mid-term eg announcing an end to austerity and an increase in public spending?" It depends, if it's a Labour government I would expect them to be pilloried in the popular press until the heat death of the universe, if conservative they'll be cheered from the rafters. "Or what if an agreed party manifesto pledge turns out to have a deleterious and unpopular consequence in a given MP's constituency eg polics cuts meaning a local station is shut, or approval of a new airport runway leading to increased noise/pollution etc? Should the sitting MP's all be compelled to resign the whip in such circumstances? We'd face bye-elections every month in half the constituencies up and down the country were that the case." Well no, the MP's could resign the whip & sit as independents, or cross the floor, which, as representatives they are perfectly entitled to do. I am aware of the dichotomy here, and squaring that particular circle is tricky. I would argue if that a manifesto commitment morphs from "leaving with a deal" for example to "leaving no matter what the costs" an MP might make a more than reasonable case that the party left them, rather than vice-versa. "I am a Remainer like yourself and given the opportunity to vote again, I'd still choose Remain. But I cannot honestly accept that any new Government could blithely ignore the Referendum completely and just annul it." I would have accepted an EEA/EFTA deal no problem whatsoever, as I have said many times on here. I would also have accepted a competently negotiated Leave deal had one ever been ratified by parliament. But no parliament can bind the hands of it's successor, and any incoming Government that has won a majority on the central campaigning plank of Revoking A50 can, perfectly legitimately say they have a mandate to do so. "Neither can I accept any given Party pledging to do so when they know they will never get the opportunity, and is only doing so in the hope that we're all too stupid to appreciate what they're up to - cynically flaunting their "Remain" credentials in order to scoop up a few extra votes." That is unknowable, and whilst I agree it is highly unlikely, no major political party is going to go into an election on the basis of "Well we're not going to win, so please don't listen to anything we have to say." There is a genuine four way split at the moment, and there is a decent likelihood of the Lib Dem's forming a large chunk of a future coalition government. The Revoke A50 plank is laying down a marker for that, saying that a second Ref would be the price of any coalition deal. Political parties exist to scoop up votes, I see nothing cynical in a party that has always been pro EU in maintaining and accentuating that quality at a time when it's likely to lead to them benefitting in an election. |