poppet2 Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Who does this really benefit or is this just the cowards way out? Is it due to a conflict between what the constituents want and what the party wants? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
geared Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Maybe it's because they weren't in parliament to vote, like if they're making an 'important political trip' to Barbados or something. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted May 20, 2013 Author Share Posted May 20, 2013 Maybe it's because they weren't in parliament to vote, like if they're making an 'important political trip' to Barbados or something. If that is the case I see no reason why a postal vote cannot be arranged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 compulsory voting is wrong and every voter should have the right to abstain if they do not want to vote for either candidate in an election or either for and against a particular motion in an assembly. People can genuinely don't know whether they are for it, or against it. I'm sure you would not like it if somebody compulsorily forced you to vote for a candidate in a US election and that you yourself would not be pleased if your own right to abstain was impacted upon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
poppet2 Posted May 20, 2013 Author Share Posted May 20, 2013 compulsory voting is wrong and every voter should have the right to abstain if they do not want to vote for either candidate in an election or either for and against a particular motion in an assembly. People can genuinely don't know whether they are for it, or against it. I'm sure you would not like it if somebody compulsorily forced you to vote for a candidate in a US election and that you yourself would not be pleased if your own right to abstain was impacted upon. Er, MPs are paid to be our representatives and vote. As Blair once said,' We should never forget, that you are our masters'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stoatwobbler Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 There are many reasons why an MP might abstain. And sometimes a yay or nay answer isn't quite adequate. I have no issue with my MP choosing to abstain where appropriate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 sometimes MP's abstain because, although they are a member of a party, they do not agree with the party's stance on a particular policy sometimes (more rarely) they abstain because there is a conflict between their party's policy and their constituency interests Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
truman Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 sometimes (more rarely) they abstain because there is a conflict between their party's policy and their constituency interests Aren't they there to represent their constituents, not the party? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
callippo Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Aren't they there to represent their constituents, not the party? no not just to represent their constituents. MP's have other interests too. Their party's interest. The national interest. Or even their own interest. If anybody thinks the MP for Sheffield Central is there just to be the representative for Sheffield Central and for nothing else, then they'd better think again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Manlinose Posted May 20, 2013 Share Posted May 20, 2013 Aren't they there to represent their constituents, not the party? in the strictest literal sense of the words, yes they represent their constituents but that doesn't mean they reflect their constituents' wishes - most MPs are elected on minority votes (i.e. they don't get more than half the electorate voting for them) so they are only representing the wishes of a minority in most cases they are only elected because of the party they belong to but they are supposed to put the best interests of their constituency before their party - for example - it may be party policy to support building a nuclear power station in a particular area (or a high speed rail link or an airport extension or the closure of a coal mine/steelworks or whatever) but if it conflicts with the best interests of the majority of your constituents you should not support it - a decent MP would vote against - a less brave or confident MP would abstain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.