On Thu 6 Dec at 6:38pm nancy wrote:
Stephen Lloyd renounces the Lib Dem whip rather than vote against his constituents views.
On Thu 6 Dec at 10:29pm Clifford wrote:
So what are you saying Nancy, that in a constituency where a majority voted Leave the MP should vote Leave and where the majority voted Remain the MP should vote Remain? What about the constituents who voted the other way? Who should represent them? And what about a country where the majority voted Leave? Who should represent them?
On Thu 6 Dec at 11:30pm Hamid Barr wrote:
In fairness Stephen Lloyd is being honest and following the wishes of his constituents as well as those of a country wide majority. Both important issues though the decision of the country has to come first. Unlike his party who are hell bent on betrayal. What a shame it's only a tiny majority of MPs who have the same principles as Stephen Lloyd.
On Thu 6 Dec at 11:40pm Ferret wrote:
Isn't there a place for a political leader to actually lead? Sometimes the opinions of the public are wrong. For example, there is usually a majority for the return of hanging. Should MPs obey the wishes of their constituents on that too? Brexit is so foolish, a courageous MP would face down the fools who want it. He just wants to keep his job.
On Fri 7 Dec at 6:31am nancy wrote:
You couldn't be more wrong Ferrett. If there's a general election the Lib Dems will put up another candidate, it will split the vote and the Tory will get in.
As for Clifford of course the MP should do the bidding of their constituents. That's what the job is about. Vote for the person not the party.
On Fri 7 Dec at 7:19am Annette Curtin-Twitcher wrote:
I disagree, Nancy. An MP's first responsibility is to do what they believe to be in the best interests of the country.
They're their constituents' representatives, not their delegates, and it would be wrong for them to consider themselves mandated to vote in a particular way.
On Fri 7 Dec at 7:57am Clifford wrote:
Nancy, how can an MP 'do the bidding' of their constituents? On Brexit, do they just do what the majority voted for? What about the constituents who voted the other way? Do they have to do what they want too? And what about Trident? How does the MP know what 'the bidding' of their constituents is on that?
On Fri 7 Dec at 8:28am nancy wrote:
Lewes had it's best MP ever but people voted him out because he was a Lib Dem. In hindsight wouldn't it have been a better idea to vote for person rather than party?
On Fri 7 Dec at 9:06am Ferret wrote:
Those people who voted for Mr Lloyd as the candidate for the Lib Dems did so partly because his party had a clear policy on the most important issue of the day, namely to remain as full members of the EU. If he was a truly honourable man, he would resign as an MP, forcing a by-election, allowing a more loyal Lib dem to be elected. He could stand as an independent.
On Fri 7 Dec at 9:50am Sensible wrote:
The majority of British people are in favour of a swiftly and surely implemented death penalty with a minimum of appeals allowed in obvious cases, and I know personally of several people ready to become ministers who will not stand in the way of such legislation, should it be proposed after Britain has taken back control of its laws after Brexit. It is a sure deterrent, a welcome retribution for crime victims, and will increase society's stability. A lot of criminal elements are obviously incapable of rehabilitation.
On Fri 7 Dec at 11:30am Ferret wrote:
@Sensible. This is a bit of a sidetrack, given that the discussion is about Mr. Lloyd's resigning the LibDem whip, but there are good reasons why MPs defy majority opinion on this. In some extreme cases, you might be right that the only fitting punishment would be execution, if only there was never any chance of innocent people being killed. Thank heavens that the death penalty was not available for the Guildford Four.
On Fri 7 Dec at 11:35am A Person wrote:
His statement yesterday was that he'd promised in his election materials to "respect" the decision of the Eastbourne electorate which voted heavily to leave. So I suppose he'd painted himself into a corner, but I agree that it's a questionable position for a LibDem to take even if he was desperate to be elected in a very very marginal seat.
It also exposes why a general election now would - in my opinion - not deliver anything resembling a clear mandate for anything, particularly when neither of the two major parties has a scooby on what to do next in the Brexit debacle. I can't help thinking that the most useful thing would be for all parties to allow a free vote on December 11th so that the actual opinion of our parliamentary representatives is allowed to emerge.
On Fri 7 Dec at 12:58pm Clifford wrote:
Sensible, do you really think the death penalty is a deterrent? As most murders are domestic, unplanned, never going to be repeated...
'Women were far more likely to be killed by partners or ex-partners (50% of female victims aged 16 and over compared with 3% of male victims aged 16 and over), whereas men were more likely to be killed by friends or acquaintances (32% of male victims aged 16 and over compared with 10% of female victims aged 16 and over).'
On Sat 8 Dec at 8:14am Green Sleeves wrote:
The death penalty, at least in the USA, is more expensive than plain old incarceration. $90,000 per year more on average to maintain death row inmates. It works out on average at over half a million dollars more for cases seeking the death penalty...and doesn't show any evidence of being a crime deterrent. The catastrophic consequences though of a wrongful conviction is a sufficient argument alone to conclude it's a stupid idea and best left in the past and/or to oppressive prison state regimes constantly on the wrong side of history.
On Sat 8 Dec at 2:50pm Feline wrote:
Also, I think, best not done due to what it does psychologically to those that have to carry it out.