We just get things kind of settled, a new PM, then some start demanding a general election? Just get the impression there are some out there making loads of money out of the uncertainty and want it to continue. I mean, what is the point, unless it's to totally destroy the Labour party, who dont actually seem to be able to control the unions, and are squabbling amongst themselves. Probably more unelectable than they was at the last election.
2000 Jobs in Lossiemouth, I will believe it when it happens My belief is it is a tactic to keep Scotland in the Union, when Gnasher calls the 2nd indyref. What turkey is going to vote for Christmas
There are indeed people demanding a general election. As far as I can tell, it seems to be people that don't understand how our version of democracy works. They seem to think it's unusual that we get an unelected prime minister. In the UK, we NEVER get to elect a prime minister. What we do get to elect is a political party. The party we elect to power is then entrusted to run the country, as a party, until at least the next election. By electing a party, we are collectively saying, 'we would prefer your party to organise itself and run matters of state on our behalf'. In a legal sense, we did not ever elect David Cameron to be pm. We elected the Conservative party apparently. One of the things they promised prior to the election was a referendum on our membership of the eu. In fact I recall David Cameron pointing out his was the only party making this promise. So they won. They kept their promise, which is rare, and now the man that led the party we elected has left. That's the man elected by the party that was elected by us. That same party still exists, and is so far still proceeding with its pre election promise to hold a referendum and honour the result. Therefore there are simply no grounds for a general election. The party we elected has done what it said it would.
Clue to be strictly true, we actually elect our member of parliament for our constituency not the party as such. Although I do agree most people are voting for a specific party. Personally I would prefer it if we all just voted for a party and forgot about voting for an MP, that way the votes could be added up more fairly, in a similar way to the referendum we have just had.
But if we did that, how would we decide who represents our area in Parliament ? Would we have to have another election after that one to elect our local MP ?
No, personally I dont give a stuff who is my MP, lets face it the party decides on who they want in your area anyway, so does it actually matter. They could stick some bod in after an election if they wanted to, just so you had someone to moan about, or to, but I dont think there would be much in the way of things changing. Other than we would have a more democratically elected government.
Sorry Pete, I disagree with you on this one. We've had a brilliant MP for the last 6 years who has campaigned for businesses in our town and it is undergoing a very good transformation at the moment. We actually had the chance to elect an MP who not only lives in our area but also grew up in the town.
I always vote for the individual MP and not the party. A good constituency MP should be one who looks after his constituents (not just those that voted for him) and aim to do their best for the area. Having an MP means, that with enough pressure put on the laggards to get their fingers out, we can at least get something done that is good for the area. I've voted for MP's of different parties over the years and put pressure on when I've thought they haven't been doing their job properly. I'm quite happy to stand up in public and say so and, if necessary, make them look silly. We've had some very good MP's over the years (even when I haven't liked them) and our current one is excellent. He even turned up to Open Day!
Not my MP, but around this area we have Helen Grant, I think she lives somewhere in west London, big house swimming pool etc. What the hell is she doing being an MP in Kent. My MP? Dont even know their name think its a bloke, was Hugh Robertson but he chucked it in last election. Then they appointed a new one, but god knows who it is. As I say, we all really vote for the party, the pregnant fish that gets the job is basically appointed by the party anyway.
Sorry Pete, I'm with Shiney on this one. I voted for our MP because he'd already done a good job for the previous five years. If he'd have converted to the Monster Raving Loony Party I'd have still voted for him and I daresay nearly everyone around here would have done as well.
Our last mp was among those that wanted to sell off the last of the public owned woodland. After I wrote to him to ask him to oppose it, his reply was basically that it didn't affect me because there was no public woodland in our ward anyway. Our current mp is one of the many labour mps that have resigned from the shadow cabinet to try to force their elected leader out.
So basically, you dont care who runs the country, just as long as you have a nice bloke in your area?? I wouldn't want the monster raving loony party running the country, but each to their own.
Hi pete Ignoring the fact that the MRLP is just a silly side issue, that's rather an extreme conclusion to reach as we rarely, if ever, have a choice of more than two political parties to end up leading the country. Although we had seven candidates for the last election there was only ever going to be the chance of three of them getting enough votes to make a challenge with any sort of cohesive policy, and one of them (UKIP) was a distant back runner. Taking what I said in my previous post as meaning I just voted for a 'nice' person is a bit of a twist of what was implied (I think you would make a good politician ). I look closely at the policies of the individual candidates (bearing in mind that the leaders of the political parties rarely, if ever, follow through on their promises) and try to decide whether I think that they will work to fight for what they have said they would. It was a lot easier for the last election. We had two possible candidates, Labour and Conservative. We're in a traditionally strong Labour constituency which has only ever had a Labour MP until the Thatcher era in the 80's. At the end of the Thatcher period it returned to Labour. Throughout all these periods the local authority had been between 80% and 100% Labour. This Conservative candidate stood for the first time in 2001 and lost by 5,000 votes. He stood again in 2005 and lost by 97 votes. In 2010 he beat the sitting MP (a government minister) by 5,000 votes and then increased his majority to nearly 9,000 votes in 2015 (still with a 90% local authority being Labour). He succeeded because he fought for what he said he would fight for. Not always successfully but with generally quite a good result. Funnily enough, in the 2015 election he had a new Labour candidate stand against him and she was running him a very close race, according to the polls, until she turned to dirty tactics (spread incorrect rumours which were eventually laid at her door). As he is not only a good MP but also a nice person even staunch Labour voters changed their minds on voting after the rumours were exposed. so being a 'nice' person does help as well.
