Jump to content

Dulwich MP Helen Hayes votes against the Brexit Bill


Beej

Recommended Posts

Very much appreciated - defying a 3 line whip is never an easy thing to do. East Dulwich should (and I think the vast majority is) proud of you.


Penguin, it has nothing to do with being a conduit of her constitutents' wills. That would be populism not representative-democracy. We elect representatives who then exercise their reason BECAUSE they participate in extensive debate inside and outside parliament so that they are more acquainted with the arguments than our busy selves, that dialogue includes those they have with ALL their constituents NOT just those who voted for them. I am so fed up with anti-democratic moves (such as the referendum) being banded about as the essence of 'democracy'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I said 'a reflection' not a conduit. Under no normal meaning of the term can 'conscience' be a proper response to the EU issue (I would hope). The EU referendum was bound up with hard-nosed political and economic arguments about whether it was better for the UK to remain or leave the EU. Our MP (and a significant majority of her constituents, amongst whom I include myself), considered the political and economic balance fell on the side of remaining. I would hope that it was those arguments (shared with her constituents) that informed her vote, rather than some wishy-washy morality - and I certainly hope she didn't vote 'no' simply because she had voted no in the referendum (on an 'I won't change my mind because I won't change my mind' principle). She is a representative, certainly, and not a delegate - but 'representing' does have a meaning. MPs who act against the views and wishes of their constituents in very major issues often don't stay MPs long (eh, Mr Goldsmith?)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what? Sods law - When I first started this thread, I had merely thanked Helen for listening to her constituents. Then recognising it's not just about that, I specifically went back and added the conscience bit because (as is written), it is both. Not in terms of morality as such, but in terms of having the courage to resist populism and to vote against something which in all conscience they believe will harm their constituents. Nothing 'wishy-washy' about that. Either way someone on the forum would've split hairs, because that's what people do on here.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got a pathetic email from Harman trying to justifying voting in favour of Article 50. It basically boiled down to Labour needs votes in the North so I have to vote in favour even though I think it's a really bad idea. Hopefully people will work to deselect Harman and/or unseat Labour in Camberwell and Peckham next election.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a bit harsh alex_b


I received that email too. I didn't agree with it or even really understand it, but didn't find it pathetic.


I hope that she doesn't face a move to deselect although at 66 she may not wish to serve for a further five years from 2020 anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Of course Helen Hayes is going to bum-lick you lot. And the 1975 referendum on remaining (we actually were allowed to join in 1973 after De Gaulle- who had blocked us- resigned)in the European Economic Community was sold to the people on promises like.... everyone in Europe will drive around in cars manufactured in England. Anyway it has almost become a federal states of Europe with Germany calling the tune.....
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is good Helen has voted the way she has.

But a three line whip from a Labour leader who wont be a Prime Minister isn't that hard to disobey. Helen won't see any negative consequences from her voting. If it did look like the next government would be Labour I suspect the whip would have carried significantly more weight.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

At least Hayes, Harman and Hoey had the courage to vote - and didn't suddenly get struck down by a mystery migraine. Labour politicians were between a rock and a hard place here. The majority (probably) of labour voters in England (and Wales) voted to go, but in certain constituencies a strong majority to stay. Do you follow the whole country or your constituents? Do you decide that a freely exercised vote should be ignored because you don't like it? At least we know what these MPs were prepared to do. We may, or may not, agree with it, but their heads were over the parapet on this one.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

There were 131 constituencies who voted remain and most of the 114 MP's that voted against triggering the article yesterday, represent those constituencies - so criticising them for doing so is a bich rich (especially after the Richmond bi-election). I thought Ken Clarke's speech was excellent (not that I like very much about his political career). I too am disappointed in Harriet's decision to vote in favour but it was a whipped vote and calls for deselection are a bit much. I certainly wouldn't support that.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

James is right in what he says. And also, the referendum campaign itself cut accross party lines, so it seems perfectly logical that it would do so in subsequent parliamentary business too.


What Labour have to do now though is fiercely affect the kind of brexit we end up with. Labour should makes access to the single market a key demand and win the economic argument for it. The tories line will be whatever it takes to appeal to brexit views on immigration, so Labour should argue for other ways that disincentivise immigration, over sacrifising single market access. Then voters will have a clear choice between Conservative, Labour and Libdem (offering hard/soft and no brexit) in future elections, if that issue really matters to them.


Farage is just a vile hypocrit anyway.


And the election of Trump will also have a bearing on where we go as well. 18% of our exports are to America,and they have a trade deficit with us (of around $7billion). Trump isn't going to stand for that, nor does he want America importing goods - he wants to bring back mass US manufacturing (although how he will do that given the much higher production costs over China is anyones guess). So we could find ourselves in a position where we not only face tariffs into the EU, but also increased Tariffs on some of our exports to the US. That's 62% of our exports at risk of costing (10-20%) more to the customer. This is serious stuff.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

rahrahrah Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Farage has called the elected MPs who have voted

> in what they believe to be the best interests of

> the people they represent, 'enemies of democracy'.



I can see his point. The constituents everywhere have already voted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Latest Discussions

    • I don't know how spoillable food can be used as evidence in whatever imaginary CSI scenario you are imagining.  And yes, three times. One purchase was me, others were my partner. We don't check in with each other before buying meat. Twice we wrote it off as incidental. But now at three times it seems like a trend.   So the shop will be hearing from me. Though they won't ever see me again that's for sure.  I'd be happy to field any other questions you may have Sue. Your opinion really matters to me. 
    • If you thought they were off, would it not have been a good idea to have kept them rather than throwing them away, as evidence for Environmental Health or whoever? Or indeed the shop? And do you mean this is the third time you have bought chicken from the same shop which has been off? Have you told the shop? Why did you buy it again if you have twice previously had chicken from there which was off? Have I misunderstood?
    • I found this post after we just had to throw away £14 of chicken thighs from Dugard in HH, and probably for the 3rd time. They were roasted thoroughly within an hour of purchase. But they came out of the oven smelling very woofy.  We couldn't take a single bite, they were clearly off. Pizza for dinner it is then. Very disappointing. 
    • interesting read.  We're thinking about the same things for our kids in primary school as well. One thing I don't understand about Charter ED is whether they stream / set kids based on ability.  I got the impression from an open evening that it is done a little as possible. All i could find on-line was this undated letter - https://www.chartereastdulwich.org.uk/_site/data/files/users/18/documents/9473A8A3547CCCD39DBC4A55CA1678DC.pdf?pid=167 For the most part, we believe in mixed ability teaching and do not stream in Year 7 or Year 8. The only exceptions to this are that we have a small nurture class for Maths. This is a provision for students who scored lower than 85 in their SATS exams and is designed to support them to acquire the skills to access the learning in mainstream class. We do not have nurture classes for any other subjects. We take a more streamed - though not a setted - approach in Maths and Science from Year 9 onwards. though unsure if this is still accurate reflection of policy, and unsure of difference between streaming and setting.
Home
Events
Sign In

Sign In



Or sign in with one of these services

Search
×
    Search In
×
×
  • Create New...