PM telling MPs to ignore their constituents!

1246

Comments

  • alan29alan29 Posts: 34,612
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Thought most MPs already ignored their constituents except when money or votes are involved.

    Of course thats true.
    And we are having a referendum about giving that shower more power?
    Really?
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Interesting concept, so what am I hiding exactly?

    That they were not told to ignore their constituents.
  • jmclaughjmclaugh Posts: 63,988
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    alan29 wrote: »
    Of course thats true.
    And we are having a referendum about giving that shower more power?
    Really?

    Well at least you can kick that shower out of power unlike the unelected shower who run the EU.
  • CappySpectrumCappySpectrum Posts: 2,907
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    MPs are supposed to do what is best regardless of any of the above.

    They are representatives, not delegates.

    They aren't representing. Look at the state of the country. Question Time last night was a perfect example.
  • DotheboyshallDotheboyshall Posts: 40,583
    Forum Member
    They aren't representing. Look at the state of the country. Question Time last night was a perfect example.

    Self interest.
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    That they were not told to ignore their constituents.

    You certainly do have a very fertile imagination that's for sure.

    Since using Google would have revealed that anyway I wasn't hiding that was I really. :D
  • niceguy1966niceguy1966 Posts: 29,560
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    You certainly do have a very fertile imagination that's for sure.

    Since using Google would have revealed that anyway I wasn't hiding that was I really. :D

    The fact you didn't manage to get Google to remove all evidence of your lie doesn't mean the title of this thread wasn't a lie.

    No imagination required, the facts are clear for all to see.
  • plateletplatelet Posts: 26,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    BanglaRoad wrote: »
    Which is not what the thread title suggests. Believe me I am no Tory or supporter of this rather useless PM but I heard him say this live on TV and there wasn't a hint or suggestion that he was asking MPS to ignore voters, just ignore pressure from association members who may threaten deselection.

    Was it more along the lines of
    If you passionately believe in your heart that Britain is better off out, you should vote that way,

    If you think Britain is, on balance, better off in, go with what you think. Don’t take a view because of what your association may say, or a boundary review.

    It's depressing how much of this forum (and newspaper content) is fictional these days
  • The BrainThe Brain Posts: 1,795
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Apparently David Cameron has told Tory MPs to ignore their constituents, that's OK because constituents can do the same when those MPs want their votes see how Mr Cameron likes that. :D

    I had no idea they paid much attention to their constituents in the first place. One of our local MPs seems to disappear for five years at a time, only turning up again just before an election.
  • skp20040skp20040 Posts: 66,872
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Apparently David Cameron has told Tory MPs to ignore their constituents, that's OK because constituents can do the same when those MPs want their votes see how Mr Cameron likes that. :D

    Isn't that what every party leader does every time they do not allow a free vote and have the whip badgering people and has done all the time ?

    Not saying I agree but it's nothing new.
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    skp20040 wrote: »
    Isn't that what every party leader does every time they do not allow a free vote and have the whip badgering people and has done all the time ?

    Not saying I agree but it's nothing new.

    Those badgers again:o
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    The fact you didn't manage to get Google to remove all evidence of your lie doesn't mean the title of this thread wasn't a lie.

    No imagination required, the facts are clear for all to see.

    I never claimed it wasn't a lie plus the lie is not mine and I did start my post with the word 'Apparently' which implies that I had read something doesn't mean I believed what I read or expected others to. ;-)
  • davejc64davejc64 Posts: 6,077
    Forum Member
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    I never claimed it wasn't a lie plus the lie is not mine and I did start my post with the word 'Apparently' which implies that I had read something doesn't mean I believed what I read or expected others to. ;-)

    A perfectly acceptable explanation not that one was actually required if I was you I wouldn't have bothered that's for sure, some people just need to get over themselves.
  • MeepersMeepers Posts: 5,502
    Forum Member
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Google is you friend and I am not your PA do the research yourself, I did.
    So no evidence then. Surprise surprise.
  • MeepersMeepers Posts: 5,502
    Forum Member
    davejc64 wrote: »
    A perfectly acceptable explanation not that one was actually required if I was you I wouldn't have bothered that's for sure, some people just need to get over themselves.
    Like the OP.
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Meepers wrote: »
    So no evidence then. Surprise surprise.

    Didn't realise this is a court of law, never mind the fact the evidence is available via Google as I have already stated and yes the story is a load of bollocks because it's from the DM which is renowned for printing bollocks slightly different and more honest versions are available from other news sources as would be revealed by a Google search. :D
  • davejc64davejc64 Posts: 6,077
    Forum Member
    Meepers wrote: »
    Like the OP.

    meh.....
  • plateletplatelet Posts: 26,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    I never claimed it wasn't a lie plus the lie is not mine and I did start my post with the word 'Apparently' which implies that I had read something doesn't mean I believed what I read or expected others to. ;-)

    Perhaps you could have made that clearer in your subsequent post. See not everybody understands that when someone says something is a fact on the internet they are signposting total BS ;-)
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    I am more concerned by[highlight] the fact[/highlight] a PM is telling any MP to ignore their constituents..

    Rather than using "fact" maybe it would have helped to use language along the lines of
    I am more excited by the lie that a PM is telling any MP to ignore their constituents ...
    I am more confused by the smear that a PM is telling any MP to ignore their constituents...
    I am suspicious of the allegation that a PM is telling any MP to ignore their constituents...

    So that everyone realised you hadn't just swallowed your tale :D
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    platelet wrote: »
    Perhaps you could have made that clearer in your subsequent post. See not everybody understands that when someone says something is a fact on the internet they are signposting total BS ;-)



    Rather than using "fact". maybe language along the lines of

    Yes I am beginning to realise that quite a bit of spoon feeding and bottom wiping is required on this forum. :D
  • smudges dadsmudges dad Posts: 36,989
    Forum Member
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Yes I am beginning to realise that quite a bit of spoon feeding and bottom wiping is required on this forum. :D

    You must realise by now that criticism of Cameron or the Conservatives is not allowed. People can make up something outrageous about Corbyn or misquote him, and it gets discussed as gospel truth, but Cameron is above reproach.
  • davejc64davejc64 Posts: 6,077
    Forum Member
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Yes I am beginning to realise that quite a bit of spoon feeding and bottom wiping is required on this forum. :D

    I agree it actually surprises me that they manage to turn their PCs or whatever device on themselves. :D
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    You must realise by now that criticism of Cameron or the Conservatives is not allowed. People can make up something outrageous about Corbyn or misquote him, and it gets discussed as gospel truth, but Cameron is above reproach.

    Yes I do realise you have to make allowances for some people and that you shouldn't mock the afflicted. ;-)
  • plateletplatelet Posts: 26,358
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    People can make up something outrageous about Corbyn or misquote him, and it gets discussed as gospel truth, but Cameron is above reproach.

    You really think the one justifies the other though? I've kind of given up hope on the press but personally I'd rather the forum was a touch less fictional on both sides of the fence.

    There's enough actual ****wittery from Dave and Jerry to moan about
  • OuroborosOuroboros Posts: 1,854
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    platelet wrote: »
    You really think the one justifies the other though? I've kind of given up hope on the press but personally I'd rather the forum was a touch less fictional on both sides of the fence.

    There's enough actual ****wittery from Dave and Jerry to moan about

    I believe that your expectations of this forum are way to high and you will always be disappointed in that respect.
  • MeepersMeepers Posts: 5,502
    Forum Member
    Ouroboros wrote: »
    Didn't realise this is a court of law, never mind the fact the evidence is available via Google as I have already stated and yes the story is a load of bollocks because it's from the DM which is renowned for printing bollocks slightly different and more honest versions are available from other news sources as would be revealed by a Google search. :D
    Well quote the sources then....
Sign In or Register to comment.