Mp Vote Quotes

Even as a game of chance, however, Brexit is especially odd. It is a surreal casino in which the high-rollers are playing for pennies at the blackjack tables while the plebs are stuffing their life savings into the slot machines. For those who can afford risk, there is very little on the table; for those who cannot, entire livelihoods are at stake. The backbench anti-Brexit Tory MP Anna Soubry rose to her feet in the Commons in July 2018, eyed her Brexiteer colleagues and let fly: ‘Nobody voted to be poorer, and nobody voted Leave on the basis that somebody with a gold-plated pension and inherited wealth would take their jobs away from them.’ But if that’s not what people voted for, it is emphatically what they got: if the British army on the Western Front were lions led by donkeys, Brexit is those who feel they have nothing to lose led by those who will lose nothing either way.

The ability of Britain to invade almost the entire planet and then for a significant portion of the country to proclaim themselves victims of some kind of invasion or colonisation may well not seem directly ‘racial’, but it certainly echoes quite clearly the way white America, with its long-term history of racist pogroms, lynching, slavery and segregation, has somehow emerged believing itself to be the victim of racial discrimination. Britain entered the EU freely, it has voted leave freely, the only blood that was shed around this issue was when a white-supremacist ultra¬ nationalist lunatic assassinated an MP perceived to be too kind to ‘immigrants’ during the campaign - hardly a country under siege like so many of those on the receiving end of Britain’s imperial conquests.

Bill C-9 was supposed to be a budget bill, but it came with innumerable measures that had little or nothing to do with the nation's finances. It was, as critics put it, the advance of the Harper agenda by stealth, yet another abuse of the democratic process. The bill was a behemoth. It was 904 pages, with 23 separate sections and 2,208 individual clauses.... As a Reform MP, [Stephen Harper] .... said of one piece of legislation that 'the subject matter of the bill is so diverse that a single vote on the content would put members in conflict with their own principles.' The bill he referred to was 21 page long -- or 883 pages shorter than the one he was now putting before Parliament.

The values of community development, democracy, and opportunity are emptily bandied about from politicians’ mouths every time I see them on my telly. They’re forever up on podiums, thumb on top of index finger, like Clinton was taught to do, telling us they want us to have opportunities and build communities and participate in democracy. Telling me I’m irresponsible for not voting. Gloating that they’re participating by door-stopping and flesh-pressing and press-fleshing and baby-kissing. As soon as the red light goes off, their expressions change and they go back to their true agenda: meeting the needs of big business. It isn’t even their fault; it’s a systemic corruption that they unavoidably serve. By the time you get to be an MP, you’ve spent so long on your knees, sluicing down acrid mouthfuls of Beelzebub’s cum, that all you can do is cough up froth. We can’t blame them or even condemn them; we just have to ignore them.

For a maverick, he rebelled against his party a puny five times in his seven years as an MP. When he did so, it was usually taking a more liberal line than the leadership (and, indeed, his own previous positions), such as backing the repeal of the infamous Section 28 ban on the promotion of homosexuality and voting in favour of giving legal status to change of gender for transsexuals. When

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.