55 replies to this topic

[briman]

ciders, on Apr 24 2007, 02:58 PM, said:

http://www.publicwhi...St+Helens+North

Ciders linked to a great website that records how the MP's have voted. At the bottom of the page that the above link points to [the St.helens north MP] there is a list of the main policies that have been voted on.

If we were collectively one MP, how would we [the electorate] compare with him [our MP]? Lets see.

[Because there are only 10 options allowed on a poll some have been merged or left out. The vote definitions are from the publicwhip website as is the MP's voting record on each issue. I can't vouch for their accuracy, or the validity of the percentage calculations!]

[tony_p]

www.theyworkforyou.com is a good site. Watts and Woodward are bigots.

[ciders]

He doesn't seen to be listening much does he?
What about Woodward though? He's my MP and he's not voted on any of these issues, is he abstaining for a reason or is he just too busy being a tourism secretary? I work in the same building as his constituency office and have only ever seen him in the run up to an election. He was there pushing 2 weeks in the run up to the general and he was there once last week when the 'Campaign Office' signs went up for the locals. what does he do for us?
Wattsy seems to just do what the whips tell him, he never speaks or puts in written questions. How can both of them justify themselves to the people who voted for them?

[Alan]

They can't justify themselves and worse than that they probably feel they're so safe that they don't need to

[Carr Millite]

Tsk.
I thought we were voting on which connect members we thought should be M.P's.
I can't believe everyone (except me) is against ID cards.

[BtC]

There's an idea for another thread here, I reckon - a mock election for a Connect MP. Candidates would have to give a brief hustings on, say, half a dozen pre-chosen topics and then there'd be a vote to see who'd represent the constituents of St Helens Connect

[Dave]

On the subject of polls, I haven't thought of a good enough reason to make one with multiple choice answers yet.

[SaintJeff]

Cant beleive 8 people so far are all for homosexuals. I'm disgusted.

[Dave]

Bugger - the queers are winning.

[donkey o'tay]

JustJeff, on Apr 24 2007, 10:23 PM, said:

Cant beleive 8 people so far are all for homosexuals. I'm disgusted.

That question is emotively worded, I suspect on purpose as the person who worded it must have some sort of personal problem here. How can you be for or against homosexuals? It's not possible. You can however be for or against equal rights for all sexualities.

[Griffin]

It is, I assure you, eminently possible to be against homosexuals and their practices. Nor does it imply that the person holding such views has any "problem" - apart, possibly, from being continually affronted by news footage of louche degenerates holding "gay pride" marches. The trendy Guardian readers here will nod sagely, applying the right forefinger to the side of the nose, as if to say that those against homosexuality protest too much - they are clearly repressing some deeply-buried desire. That Freud has a lot to answer for.

[donkey o'tay]

So you don't think it's emotively worded then?

Homosexuals will be homosexuals whether you like it or not. It is possible however to be against the rights of homosexuals.

Edited by donkey o'tay, 24 April 2007 - 10:59 PM.

[Griffin]

donkey o, on Apr 24 2007, 11:57 PM, said:

So you don't think it's emotively worded then?

I wouldn't say so - it's not worded so as to produce a particular response. Both possibilities are spelled out at equal length. I can detect no bias on the part of the compiler.

[Dave]

Paedophiles will be paedophiles whether you like it or not. It is possible however to be against the rights of paedophiles?

Which rights where?

[Voll]

So it's "Once more into the friends, dear breech, once more". I knew it wouldn't be long.