Assisted Dying

[CambridgeBWFC]

11 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He stated he has his own views on the matter so he isn't indifferent

What he did is simply not the way an MP is supposed to operate - they're representatives not delegates, at all stages

He's elected to listen to the arguments made in Parliament, make his own arguments or raise his own questions if he wishes, read the bill in depth - something a majority of his constituents won't have done - and then vote according to his judgement

But it is their role to represent the constituencies concerns and interests, and not just his own. By asking his constituency he is doing just that. 

You can write to your MPs or attend surgeries to express your thoughts and concerns,  and the MP should listen to these and use this collective knowledge in his decision making process. He has done this by running a vote, if it was much closer then his own thoughts may have had more weight to his decision,  but it wasn't.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

11 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

But it is their role to represent the constituencies concerns and interests, and not just his own. By asking his constituency he is doing just that. 

You can write to your MPs or attend surgeries to express your thoughts and concerns,  and the MP should listen to these and use this collective knowledge in his decision making process. He has done this by running a vote, if it was much closer then his own thoughts may have had more weight to his decision,  but it wasn't.

Absolutely. 

LW previously asked why there weren't necessarily reflecting the views of the public. Well that is the risk with a free vote- it becomes about personal beliefs- but this chap has opened it up.

Being opposed to the bill doesn't mean that this chap's approach is wrong.

I'm not convinced by it yet- more concerns are coming out- but I respect the fella's approach. 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

9 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

He's long been a supporter of assisted dying

His silence on this vote was because he wanted the Government to maintain a stance of neutrality

I do wonder why they didn't seek legislation through a normal route. He mustn't have been entirely convinced of support from cabinet, and by the same token, he wouldn't have been entirely sure yesterday would see it pass.

The concern yesterday was the lack of time. Even more pertinent given issues within it.

However, perhaps it is no bad thing and now very detailed scrutiny will be given at committee stage, with the development of ammendments to improve it.

Even Leadbeater herself has said its far from where it needs to be.

Even then, assuming it is tidied up and passed, the pragmatic/technical issues may make it almost impossible to follow through. 

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

43 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

But it is their role to represent the constituencies concerns and interests, and not just his own. By asking his constituency he is doing just that. 

You can write to your MPs or attend surgeries to express your thoughts and concerns,  and the MP should listen to these and use this collective knowledge in his decision making process. He has done this by running a vote, if it was much closer then his own thoughts may have had more weight to his decision,  but it wasn't.

The vote consisted of a tiny minority of his constituents, and he has no idea whether any of the constituents who voted have read the bill or what their exact thoughts on it are other than there being a basic "support"

Yes, it is his role to represent his constituents as their elected representative using his own judgement, it's not his role to just act as a delegate and mindlessly vote in what ever direction he thinks they might want him to vote 

Otherwise we might as well not have MPs and instead just have an online poll on every issue

[CambridgeBWFC]

11 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

The vote consisted of a tiny minority of his constituents, and he has no idea whether any of the constituents who voted have read the bill or what their exact thoughts on it are other than there being a basic "support"

Yes, it is his role to represent his constituents as their elected representative using his own judgement, it's not his role to just act as a delegate and mindlessly vote in what ever direction he thinks they might want him to vote 

Otherwise we might as well not have MPs and instead just have an online poll on every issue

A minority but enough to be representative of the whole, similar way to exit polls work, you don't need everyone to vote, especially as it wasn't close.

How many people normally look to provide their views to an MP, to help inform their decision.

If MPs just use their own judgement and repesent their own views whilst ignoring the will of their constituency then we are not in a democracy.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

5 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

A minority but enough to be representative of the whole, similar way to exit polls work, you don't need everyone to vote, especially as it wasn't close.

How many people normally look to provide their views to an MP, to help inform their decision.

If MPs just use their own judgement and repesent their own views whilst ignoring the will of their constituency then we are not in a democracy.

1,181 constituents voted out of an electorate of 70,077 

A poll of a smidgen over 1.5%

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

And it was an online poll only 

🤦‍♂️

[Tombwfc]

I hear the arguments against it and there are some compelling ones. However, none which outweigh the basic fact that people should have a some route to choosing to end their own suffering or the extreme suffering of a loved one.

I've no doubt there are issues with this bill, but I can't see how it could ever be worse than the situation as it is now. Because it's 'the way things are' people don't tend to think of it in the way they do a new idea - but the current way people is fucking awful and nobody would vote for it in a million years.

[CambridgeBWFC]

54 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

1,181 constituents voted out of an electorate of 70,077 

A poll of a smidgen over 1.5%

Statistics will show that with that sample size the margin of error will be low (<5%), so given the amount in favour a statistically significant result.

[bwfcfan5]

5 hours ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

A minority but enough to be representative of the whole, similar way to exit polls work, you don't need everyone to vote, especially as it wasn't close.

How many people normally look to provide their views to an MP, to help inform their decision.

If MPs just use their own judgement and repesent their own views whilst ignoring the will of their constituency then we are not in a democracy.

I do this for a living and it’s not going to be representative - since it appears to be a self selecting poll. He’s not taken a representative sample of his constituency. It’s a small sample but the size would be ok if you had a genuinely representative cross section across his constituency. But it doesn’t. It’s meaningless as such.

Without any bother I could have in 2016 set up a poll in every constituency and sampled 2000 people in each to show remain was ahead by a large margin. It would have been meaningless as this is. 

[bwfcfan5]

3 hours ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

Statistics will show that with that sample size the margin of error will be low (<5%), so given the amount in favour a statistically significant result.

That’s margin of error on the sample. If you are not sampling correctly margin of error is meaningless. 

[CambridgeBWFC]

38 minutes ago, bwfcfan5 said:

I do this for a living and it’s not going to be representative - since it appears to be a self selecting poll. He’s not taken a representative sample of his constituency. It’s a small sample but the size would be ok if you had a genuinely representative cross section across his constituency. But it doesn’t. It’s meaningless as such.

Without any bother I could have in 2016 set up a poll in every constituency and sampled 2000 people in each to show remain was ahead by a large margin. It would have been meaningless as this is. 

Not sure you know it is a self selecting poll as we don't know how much promotion was made to get people to engage with it, also as this is quite a divisive issue that doesn't follow party lines then again the response is likely to be more representative.

[bwfcfan5]

35 minutes ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

Not sure you know it is a self selecting poll as we don't know how much promotion was made to get people to engage with it, also as this is quite a divisive issue that doesn't follow party lines then again the response is likely to be more representative.

I mean to an extent any online poll is self selecting purely by the fact that regardless of your recruitment method people need to be online and willing to complete it online.

But I’m also struggling to believe it was an invite only poll with invites sent to a demographically representative sample of his constituency electorate. 
 

As such it’s not a good way to determine opinion.

 

Thats even before we get into the fact that it’s quite nuanced.

What about if you asked his constituency ‘do you think adequate safeguarding is in place to safely support assisted dying’?

And then asked them ‘should we vote for assisted dying without certainty on adequate safeguards in place’?

 

I think you could very easily see different results to those questions. Which is why it’s not how an MP should conduct business. Listen to constituents sure. But that’s quite a different situation to silly survey gimmicks and making such huge decisions off the back of them. 

 

[Tonge moor green jacket]

6 hours ago, CambridgeBWFC said:

Statistics will show that with that sample size the margin of error will be low (<5%), so given the amount in favour a statistically significant result.

Moreover, "turn out" is irrelevant.

We had a low turn out at the general election, so do we not count that neither?

If people don't take the opportunity to vote, then they can't have any complaints.

OK, time was limited, but they still had more chance than those in other constituencies. 

[Tombwfc]

All the 'real' polls show that the public are massively more in favour than they're against it, so I don't doubt the result.

Not necessarily in love with governing via online poll though. It didn't work for running Ebbsfleet United let alone running the country.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

6 hours ago, Tonge moor green jacket said:

Moreover, "turn out" is irrelevant.

We had a low turn out at the general election, so do we not count that neither?

If people don't take the opportunity to vote, then they can't have any complaints.

OK, time was limited, but they still had more chance than those in other constituencies. 

Turn out in a general election is never as low as 1.5% and is never conducted merely via an online poll advertised in the local newspaper

But regardless, the bigger point is that it's contrary to the system of parliamentary democracy we live under

He's a legislator not a delegate

[desperado]

Raising my head above the parapet here as my political knowledge is limited at best.

But my understanding here is that 650 members of parliament are voting on something quite different here. Something personal, sensitive and controversial. 

Something that can be amended and details which can be confirmed and rubber stamped at a date further down the line.

If that’s the case then we are left to look at whether assisted dying is humane or not?

If that’s the case I fully understand all points of view.

I understand why MPs opinion would cover all aspects; religious, societal, personal, etc. And why some might go to their electorate in making their decision. 

I don’t think there’s any right or wrong here. 

But I do feel that the overall principle, morality and humane integrity of allowing some ownership of individuals and their families over their lives and how they die with integrity is right.

[Tonge moor green jacket]

12 hours ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Turn out in a general election is never as low as 1.5% and is never conducted merely via an online poll advertised in the local newspaper

But regardless, the bigger point is that it's contrary to the system of parliamentary democracy we live under

He's a legislator not a delegate

Don't agree. 

Better than nowt.

Use of titles is a fudge. 

There are many duties encompassed with an mps role. Yesterday he was a delegate, not a representative?

Call it whatever suits, they still ultimately need to fulfil the wish of the people, or they lose seats.

It is also the case that many (most) mps aren't trained lawyers, and don't necessarily have the expertise to write bills nor fully interpret them.

That's why the state employs specialist lawyers to provide the support.

Leadbeater is a case in point with the bill, possibly out of necessity, rushed in design and deliberation initially. 

Fortunately many who voted for it, have said they won't necessarily vote for it unless it is heavily amended and tidied up at committee stage.

She even had to correct the record during the debate for falsely claiming that the judiciary was fully behind it.

There are also concerning references that mean certain powers within it will he at the discretion of ministers, and not Parliament as a whole. On such a sensitive issue that could be a big risk.

Despite all these problems, it is perfectly reasonable to take soundings from the public, and then have a subsequent period of study and scrutiny.

[Lt. Aldo Raine]

Is it bollocks a fudge

They are by definition different roles - MPs are elected as legislators, they are not elected as delegates

It really is as simple as that

Taking soundings from constituents as a means of listening to arguments and points of view is one thing, running an online poll of a vanishingly small minority of constituents and then voting on the result of that poll is another

[Cheese]

6 minutes ago, Lt. Aldo Raine said:

Is it bollocks a fudge

They are by definition different roles - MPs are elected as legislators, they are not elected as delegates

It really is as simple as that

Taking soundings from constituents as a means of listening to arguments and points of view is one thing, running an online poll of a vanishingly small minority of constituents and then voting on the result of that poll is another

Agreed. Is there a link to the poll anywhere to see how it was conducted? Was there any sort of control to ensure the poll was only available to his constituents, or that the wording of the question was entirely neutral? If it was an online-only poll, how is that fair to those without internet access, or who lack the necessary IT skills? It sounds like utter bollocks to me. If every single decision an MP made was based on an online poll, what's the point in electing an MP in the first place?

[Casino]

On 30/11/2024 at 06:53, little whitt said:

Thats how it should be 

No point having MPs if thats the way forward

[Casino]

12 minutes ago, Cheese said:

what's the point in electing rupert fucking lowe in the first place?

 

[Traf]

What's the point of Rupert Lowe existing?

[Casino]

Hes a decent reference point on the politician cuntometer?

[little whitt]

5 hours ago, Casino said:

No point having MPs if thats the way forward

why he ask all who voted for him 

what do you want me to vote for 

YES or NO 

they said YES 

so thats hoe he voted