tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post1440516649770406063..comments2023-10-26T05:03:32.201+13:00Comments on BIG NEWS: Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-41517012301001199042009-11-26T11:28:16.899+13:002009-11-26T11:28:16.899+13:00Dave, yes I mean using a binding referendum to vet...Dave, yes I mean using a binding referendum to veto legislation that representatives decide with their (unwhipped) conscience votes.<br /><br />Firstly, there was some justification for MPs deciding on conscience issues under FPP. The theory was that the MP represented his or her electorate and was answerable to them. That was the theory. It did not always work in practice particularly if the MP had a strong majority. However, it did work to some extent. Under MMP half the MPs do not represent an electorate. <br /><br />In regards why only on conscience votes the best way I can explain my view is that many conscience issues stand on their own. Also many are private members bills and voters would be unaware of most of them before an election. They would not have been in the party’s manifesto. It would not be acceptable for voters to reject legislation in relation to trade or military agreements. I do not know if even Switzerland does. <br /><br />One would hope that on average the most MPs would generally be more competent than the average voter. You just could not put a group of labours in charge of running a medium or large business. They do not have the necessary skills. However, even businesses allow share holders to decide on certain issue. In the case of unions the members elect delegates and officials to represent them. However, they can vote against a proposal. But, they would be foolish to do so very often. In the case of clubs members can raise most issues in general business and it can be voted on by the members. <br /><br />While I concede that MPs are generally more competent to decide on most issues than the average voter for reasons Richard Ekins has stated, on issues like the anti-smacking legislation, abortion and euthanasia I do not think their opinion is any more valid that yours or mine.<br /><br />I guess that is the main issue of this debate.Chuck Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359116789492498882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-1588707822859863742009-11-26T08:27:52.663+13:002009-11-26T08:27:52.663+13:00Dave, thanks for your reply. I am not feeling ver...Dave, thanks for your reply. I am not feeling very well and will be off to bed when I get a few urgent jobs done. I will reply when i am feeling better.Chuck Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359116789492498882noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-2999653013099049712009-11-25T21:39:55.668+13:002009-11-25T21:39:55.668+13:00I assume you mean using a binding referendum to ve...I assume you mean using a binding referendum to veto legislation that representatives decide with their (unwhipped) conscience votes. <br /><br />We elect representatives to represent us, We allow them to use conscience votes in our best interests with the hope that they are aligned with our wishes. Your question relates to conscience votes that are not aligned with our wishes. If my representative is among the 45 percent of representatives who votes in line with my wishes, but is in the losing side in the vote, why would I want a referendum because other representatives didn't represent their people in line with my wishes, but may well have done withe their constituents' wishes? Also, why just a conscience vote - what makes them so special?Swimminghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12913329810121951824noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6671521.post-86567621312723882202009-11-25T21:28:32.186+13:002009-11-25T21:28:32.186+13:00Dave, you raise some very good points. However, I...Dave, you raise some very good points. However, I think that you are being rather unfair on Colin Craig. When Colin says, “I don’t have that agenda” I accept his word. I think he is very passionate about how a law such as the anti-smacking got passed against the will of the vast majority of good parents. In his passion he may not thought through all the pluses and minuses of different options. If this is the case it is better not to comment than come up with some half baked idea.<br /><br />In regards Richard Ekins, I went to his lecture and read his paper. It would be great if he could contribute to this important debate. He raises many valid concerns about CIR. After the lecture I asked he about the option of vetoing stand alone legislation that is normally decide by a conscience vote by way of a binding referendum. <br /><br />He said he had not given the idea much thought but thought it had a lot less downside than binding CIR. Can you show the downside of my proposal which is very different from binding CIR?Chuck Birdhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00359116789492498882noreply@blogger.com