Politicians: representatives of the people?

[johnny_t]

I think this is going to end up as an agree to disagree situation, but I'm not sure that the party elected by the people did want it. Tony Blair wanted it, and even with the significant pressure on labour MPs to comply, a large number were still brave enough to vote against it. Many of those who voted for it possibly knew in their hearts it was wrong, but weren't brave enough.

Some people wanted it but, IMO, they hadn't thought it through. Because of current thinking, they believe this is a law that won't affect them because current terrorists don't look like them. People can be whipped up into a frenzy by the papers they read (not saying you do, but a frightening number do) and we can't let a few editors control how we are supposed to think.

Like it or lump it, this is a parliamentary democracy, and this is how things work. Many laws are unpopular, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are bad for you.......

 

[johnny_t]

Damn, I wish I could type as fast as Kendor !!!!!

 

[joe-90]

The Police wanted it. The party elected by the people wanted it. The people clearly wanted it. So why was it refused?

Self-interest amongst those MPs with an eye on losing the Muslim vote.

In opposing it you are the minority. Do we work on minority rule from now on? Does our future depend on what a few self centred politicians decide?

Just why should a handful decide the laws of a nation against that nations will?

That's the worrying bit. A few deciding for the many when they were clearly not following the wishes of the many. Sounds like fascism through the back-door to me.


joe

I don't remember being involved in an opinion poll to ask me?
so where did you get the information that the majority of people want it?
I wouldn't be surprised if the majority couldn't care less.

Polls are very accurate these days. To say otherwise is simply refusing to accept the truth. The polls I saw on TV were clearly in favour.

 

[joe-90]

I think this is going to end up as an agree to disagree situation, but I'm not sure that the party elected by the people did want it. Tony Blair wanted it, and even with the significant pressure on labour MPs to comply, a large number were still brave enough to vote against it. Many of those who voted for it possibly knew in their hearts it was wrong, but weren't brave enough.

Some people wanted it but, IMO, they hadn't thought it through. Because of current thinking, they believe this is a law that won't affect them because current terrorists don't look like them. People can be whipped up into a frenzy by the papers they read (not saying you do, but a frightening number do) and we can't let a few editors control how we are supposed to think.

Like it or lump it, this is a parliamentary democracy, and this is how things work. Many laws are unpopular, but it doesn't necessarily mean they are bad for you.......

The Tories were simply playing politics. If they had been in power would they have opposed it? I doubt it. So it works both ways when it comes to towing the party line.

The only reason you are happy with the outcome is that it just happened to suit your point of view.

Let's suppose there were a different issue that you felt strongly about and even though the Councils didn't want it, the Party in power didn't want it and the people didn't want it - a handful of people with their eye on re-election forced it through - would you be happy with that?

Let's suppose that issue was the abolition of the Green Belt so that industry could build anywhere it chose to - and you were dead against it.

Would you be happy to be sold down the river because a few politicians wanted to get re-elected?

I doubt it.

It's pretty shameful when a handful of self-centred politicians can alter the destiny of a nation to further their own personal gain.

That's about all I've got to say on the matter really.


joe

 

[johnny_t]

I agree with pretty much everything you say in that last post.

The system can suck at times, but its the system we've got. Alternative is referendums on everything, but I don't think that's any better.

 

[oilman]

The only reason you are happy with the outcome is that it just happened to suit your point of view.

The only reason you're not happy is because it doesn't suit your point of view.

.........................
Let's suppose that issue was the abolition of the Green Belt so that industry could build anywhere it chose to - and you were dead against it.

They are doing now. Prescott is doing it all over the place. I am against it. Now what?

Would you be happy to be sold down the river because a few politicians wanted to get re-elected?

That's what happens in every election. This government was elected by a MINORITY of voters.

......................
It's pretty shameful when a handful of self-centred politicians can alter the destiny of a nation to further their own personal gain.

I agree 100%, but that's exactly what these smug bastards that are currently trying to ruin the country did, and they're back in power.

That's about all I've got to say on the matter really.


joe

Well we can have a bit of peace now then. Goodbye.

 

[joe-90]

The only reason you are happy with the outcome is that it just happened to suit your point of view.

The only reason you're not happy is because it doesn't suit your point of view.

I never gave my point of view. That was never the argument. I do wish you'd pay attention.

If you really want to know I'm quite happy with the outcome - but not the way it came about.

You really will have to try concentrate harder, Oilman. These are adult debates and deserve a little thought. Thankfully the main two posting provided that.

joe

 

[oilman]

The only reason you are happy with the outcome is that it just happened to suit your point of view.

The only reason you're not happy is because it doesn't suit your point of view.

I never gave my point of view. That was never the argument. I do wish you'd pay attention.

If you really want to know I'm quite happy with the outcome - but not the way it came about.

You really will have to try concentrate harder, Oilman. These are adult debates and deserve a little thought. Thankfully the main two posting provided that.

joe

I presume one of the two is joe-90?

If I can't understand you its hardly surprising since you're so obtuse most of the time, (and of course patronising) not to mention a contradictory prat.

(Wow!! I've found an insult not caught by the auto censor )

 

[WoodYouLike]

hear hear

Why even bother?

 

[joe-90]

I'm sorry that the debate has clearly gone over the heads of some.

I'll maybe start an easy thread that you can all join in.

I don't do insults from behind a keyboard, I find it so 'behind mummies skirt'.


joe

 

[WoodYouLike]

Just go home joe

 

[joe-90]

Just go home joe

I've just spoken to Matron and she says I have to have my tablets first.



joe

 

[oilman]

Is the 90 an age indication?

 

[Slogger]

this is best heard in the style of the sweeney


SHUT IT U MAD MULLAH