Mp Election Quotes

Has anyone sen Mr Snark " "I saw him in the tunnel about 15 minutes ago." "Oh no " wailed Dr Ferman "he will have been atomised." "Oh dear" muttered an MP. "Bye-election.

At one level, the Opposition's most urgent job, between now and the next election, is to publicise the government's mistakes. Randolph Churchill once declared that oppositions should oppose everything, propose nothing and turf the government out. He was right in this fundamental respect: the opposition's job is to get elected. Intelligent oppositions have no unnecessary enemies. They make the government rather than themselves the issue by ensuring that everyone harmed by government decisions well and truly knows about it.

I agreed with Brains; we’re becoming too greedy, we live in a democracy but our voices aren’t heard. We elect leaders based on broken promises. What can we do? Not much – write a letter to our MP or post on social media. It’s frustrating to feel so helpless. Democracy isn’t democracy any more.

...supposing the present government to be overthrown, the limited choice of the Crown, in the formation of a new ministry, would lie between Lord Coodle and Sir Thomas Doodle--supposing it to be impossible for the Duke of Foodle to act with Goodle, which may be assumed to be the case in consequence of the breach arising out of that affair with Hoodle. Then, giving the Home Department and the leadership of the House of Commons to Joodle, the Exchequer to Koodle, the Colonies to Loodle, and the Foreign Office to Moodle, what are you to do with Noodle? You can't offer him the Presidency of the Council; that is reserved for Poodle. You can't put him in the Woods and Forests; that is hardly good enough for Quoodle. What follows? That the country is shipwrecked, lost, and gone to pieces (as is made manifest to the patriotism of Sir Leicester Dedlock) because you can't provide for Noodle! On the other hand, the Right Honourable William Buffy, M.P., contends across the table with some one else that the shipwreck of the country--about which there is no doubt; it is only the manner of it that is in question--is attributable to Cuffy. If you had done with Cuffy what you ought to have done when he first came into Parliament, and had prevented him from going over to Duffy, you would have got him into alliance with Fuffy, you would have had with you the weight attaching as a smart debater to Guffy, you would have brought to bear upon the elections the wealth of Huffy, you would have got in for three counties Juffy, Kuffy, and Luffy, and you would have strengthened your administration by the official knowledge and the business habits of Muffy. All this, instead of being as you now are, dependent on the mere caprice of Puffy!

Since the mid-1980s, the government had sensed that one key reason why the opposition-for-opposition's-sake argument was so compelling to voters was that the did not really have to live with the consequences of electing an opposition MP. MPs were representatives you went to the national parliament; they did not manage municipal affairs. They could appeal for improved services for their wards, but since the central government agencies were generally well run and rolled out standardised amenities for all neighbourhoods,MPs made little or no perceptible impact locally. Thus, opposition-held wards would continue to benefit from efficient PAP government

1980, Rajiv Gandhi said that there was ‘no question of my stepping into [Sanjay’s] shoes’. Asked whether he would take up a party post or contest elections, Rajiv answered that he ‘would prefer not to’. He added that his wife was ‘dead against the idea of my getting into politics’.14 Nine months later Rajiv Gandhi was elected an MP from his brother’s old constituency, Amethi. When asked why he had changed his mind, Rajiv answered: ‘The way I look at it is that Mummy has to be helped somehow.

If someone tries to break the queue—as actor-MP Chiranjeevi tried to in Hyderabad this time—you can find your voice and ask them to get back in line.

The argument was summed up by the Labour MP Roderick MacFarquhar, a leading constitutionalist who later taught at Harvard: While the people elect their representatives to exercise supreme powers on their behalf, they do not elect them to concede some of those powers in perpetuity to a superior outside body. Therefore, if those powers are to be diminished by entry into the Common Market, the British people must give their consent, and that consent can be given only in a referendum, because only through a referendum can the issue be isolated.

One of her General Election pledges was to ensure curriculums from primary education upward included lessons on the importance of marriage, how to find a suitable partner, relationship compromises, fidelity and how to maintain a Match. She had also been the first MP to upgrade to a Smart Marriage the day the law was passed. The ceremony had been livestreamed across the Government’s own website.

Suppose I am a democrat. There is a vote on some matter - let's say it's the question of who should be the Member of Parliament for my constituency. I vote for Ms Wise. I do so because I think she is the right person (at least of those standing) to be our MP. I lose the vote, and Mr Foolish is elected. Since I am a democrat, I now think that Mr Foolish is the right person to represent my constituency in the House of Commons. Have I changed my mind? Or do I somehow - and apparently incoherently - think both that Ms Wise is the right person for the job and that Mr Foolish is? This teaser - sometimes called the puzzle of the minority democrat - shouldn't be too puzzling. There is no deep paradox, since the two candidates are 'right' in different senses. … There are two distinct judgements involved here, judgements on two different issues: correctness and legitimacy. Ms Wise remains the right person to be our representative in the sense of being the person who would do that job best. That is the issue we are voting on, and my vote registers my belief that she is that person. When I endorse the democratic decision, my claim is not that Mr Foolish was a good choice. It is that he is our legitimate representative. I am accepting that the proper procedure for deciding who represents us is a democratic vote. The fact that the procedure selected him means that he is the right person to be our MP—even though (I continue to think) he will be terrible at the job. An outcome of a procedure can be legitimate—one can have moral reason to endorse and abide by that outcome simply in virtue of its having been the outcome of a legitimate (or, we might say, legitimizing) procedure. And it can be legitimate in that sense without being correct by any procedure-independent standards of correctness.