Peter Kyle MP

[mona]

Sounds as if Hove may well resume its former status as a Conservative stronghold. Provided they can find a convincing candidate. I could be wrong but I had assumed that Kyle had appealed to a lot of centrist voters.

 

[Machiavelli]

MPs should be elected by a majority of their constituents, not the 20-30 % they currently are. Things need to change in order for parliament to truly reflect the thoughts and views of the public.

You might think that, but the electorate gave it a resounding no in a referendum some four years ago. If you want parliament to more 'truly' be representative of the views of the public, then proportional representation is a far better option than the current FPTP, and the rejected Alternative Vote system. That's not to say that PR doesn't have its own problems.

 

[Dave the OAP]

You might think that, but the electorate gave it a resounding no in a referendum some four years ago. If you want parliament to more 'truly' be representative of the views of the public, then proportional representation is a far better option than the current FPTP, and the rejected Alternative Vote system. That's not to say that PR doesn't have its own problems.

PR has not been a great success in Italy, Israel, Germany etc. I agree that our system is flawed, but you are right that when it comes down to it, change is something that people tend to avoid preferring the status quo.

 

[Gwylan]

PR has not been a great success in Italy, Israel, Germany etc. .

I agree about Israel and Italy (to a certain extent) but Germany? I'd have thought that was an example of a country where PR has worked very effectively: sixty-plus years of stable government and pretty constant economic growth

 

[Guinness Boy]

MPs are actually elected by some of their constituents, not all of them, and it's often the case that there will be a clash of views between those that don't elect the election winner, and the MP. In other words, there's a difference between doing constituency work (as Lucas does in your instance, and plenty of others too) and having views that are 'representative' of the entire constituency. Representation is a tricky concept with multiple meanings.

MPs are public servants. They are there to serve the public and to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of the majority of them, Simple as that.

 

[knocky1]

MPs are public servants. They are there to serve the public and to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of the majority of them, Simple as that.

That is not my opinion of how our Democracy works. Once elected they can act as they wish. They may not be re-elected and may even be de-selected but the choice is theirs. Personal ambition and financial gain can often be the main objective.
Civil Sevants are the Public Servants and they are often swayed by the MPs.

 

[beorhthelm]

That is not my opinion of how our Democracy works. Once elected they can act as they wish. They may not be re-elected and may even be de-selected but the choice is theirs. Personal ambition and financial gain can often be the main objective.
Civil Sevants are the Public Servants and they are often swayed by the MPs.

for a start Civil Servants are supposed to be swayed by MPs that hold office as they set policy. secondly, anyone wanting serious financial gain wouldn't go into politics, they'd go into law or finance. its sad that such cynical views of MPs are so common, because i don't think a single MP goes forward without the best intentions for the public, even if one doesn't agree with how they want to achieve it.

 

[knocky1]

for a start Civil Servants are supposed to be swayed by MPs that hold office as they set policy. secondly, anyone wanting serious financial gain wouldn't go into politics, they'd go into law or finance. its sad that such cynical views of MPs are so common, because i don't think a single MP goes forward without the best intentions for the public, even if one doesn't agree with how they want to achieve it.

Yes, I expressed that wrongly about Civil Servants. I meant they maybe pressured into working against the public interest.For example, David Kelly, WMD ,his death and Tony Blair.

 

[Machiavelli]

MPs are public servants. They are there to serve the public and to make decisions that they think are in the best interests of the majority of them, Simple as that.

I don't disagree with any of this, apart from to flag up that:
-- different MPs will have a different idea of what constitutes the best interests of the majority
-- different MPs will take into account minority interests too, when the majority's best interests threatens those minority interests

 

[Machiavelli]

That is not my opinion of how our Democracy works. Once elected they can act as they wish. They may not be re-elected and may even be de-selected but the choice is theirs. Personal ambition and financial gain can often be the main objective.
Civil Sevants are the Public Servants and they are often swayed by the MPs.

What you're indicating here initially is the 'authorisation' view of political representation (this is the 'they can act as they wish' bit). This authorisation view is contrasted with the 'accountability' view, which is what you go on to indicate through de-selection. They're both very different views on what political representation is.