Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
x Turn on thread page Beta

Do you think that the Tories have conflicting political beliefs? watch

    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    I've been watching quite a lot of EU Referendum debates recently. I managed to come across videos where we had some Tories saying that we should leave and some saying that we should stay. However, I have a question that I think needs to be raised. In their rather biased leaflet they recently handed out, states "the government judges" - if it is the government that judges why we should stay, then why are there MPs and Ministers from their own party who think it's best to leave? Wouldn't it be false to say the "government judges"?

    I also came across a video where Anna Soubry, essentially, said that Brussels only makes 8-9% of our laws, but Dominic Raab said that 60% of our laws derive/ are made in Brussels. Don't believe me, click here. Tbh, Anna Soubry looks like a mad woman in the video anyways...

    So do you think that the Tories have conflicting political beliefs?
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    I've been watching quite a lot of EU Referendum debates recently. I managed to come across videos where we had some Tories saying that we should leave and some saying that we should stay. However, I have a question that I think needs to be raised. In their rather biased leaflet they recently handed out, states "the government judges" - if it is the government that judges why we should stay, then why are there MPs and Ministers from their own party who think it's best to leave? Wouldn't it be false to say the "government judges"?

    I also came across a video where Anna Soubry, essentially, said that Brussels only makes 8-9% of our laws, but Dominic Raab said that 60% of our laws derive/ are made in Brussels. Don't believe me, click here. Tbh, Anna Soubry looks like a mad woman in the video anyways...

    So do you think that the Tories have conflicting political beliefs?
    Ah. So to answer your first question you need to realise that parliament and the executive are not entirely one and the same (we've had Lords as PM for example). The government (that is to say the PM and other senior cabinet ministers that form the executive) takes the view that EU membership is a good thing, people like Peter Bone (Tory Mp's) are not part of the executive, they are simply part of the parliamentary party.

    To answer your second question it varies depending on what you define as a law (EU directives are not legally binding for example but there's tonnes of them we comply with).
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Ah. So to answer your first question you need to realise that parliament and the executive are not entirely one and the same (we've had Lords as PM for example). The government (that is to say the PM and other senior cabinet ministers that form the executive) takes the view that EU membership is a good thing, people like Peter Bone (Tory Mp's) are not part of the executive, they are simply part of the parliamentary party.
    Okay so what about Michael Gove for example, or John Whittingdale? They both believe that EU membership is a bad thing so that would contradict what they (the government) believe.

    To answer your second question it varies depending on what you define as a law (EU directives are not legally binding for example but there's tonnes of them we comply with).
    Rules that are regulated in a country, that kind of law. From what I've heard, Brussels makes some of our laws but there are different figures, some say 8-9%, some say 50%, some 60%.
    Offline

    21
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MrMackyTv)
    Okay so what about Michael Gove for example, or John Whittingdale? They both believe that EU membership is a bad thing so that would contradict what they (the government) believe.

    Rules that are regulated in a country, that kind of law. From what I've heard, Brussels makes some of our laws but there are different figures, some say 8-9%, some say 50%, some 60%.
    Because the PM and most cabinet ministers take the view, those people are essentially meaningless to the governments stance. Some Prime Ministers may actually take the view that any cabinet minister who won't campaign a certain way should not be part of the government. Cameron's a bit softer there though.

    Rules that we must comply with, probably about 25%. Rules that we follow, probably closer to 66%.
    Offline

    20
    ReputationRep:
    Like all parties there are divisions, perhaps most significantly these are seen in the Tories. Theres been so much influence on the ideology....
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    not counting the cabinet (a bunch of robots who aren't allowed their own beliefs other than the PM's) I think the conservative party evidently has some diversity within the house of commons. good evidence would be from ken clarke (not in the cabinet now, at least) (a liberal europhile~), to peter bone/jacob rees-mogg (traditional conservatives) to zac goldsmith/douglas carswell (libertarian democrats).
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    not counting the cabinet (a bunch of robots who aren't allowed their own beliefs other than the PM's)
    Ummm - that is the whole point of the cabinet. They should speak with one voice. If you take a job as a cabinet minister, you are effectively giving away your right to speak freely about your own personal views. This is exactly the same as directors of a company or governors of a school. They speak with one voice. If the cabinet ministers were allowed free reign nothing would ever be achieved.

    As for the in out question - we can argue the toss over the little stuff till the cows come home. But one thing is clear. If we vote to leave there will be a significant period of total uncertainty. During that period no one can predict what will happen. I would question if it was worth the risk?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    Because government consists of civil service, cabinet and PM who acts through legislature (MPs, Lords). Of course there are differing opinions, but the official position of the party, and I think the chairman of the party is to remain.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ByEeek)
    Ummm - that is the whole point of the cabinet. They should speak with one voice. If you take a job as a cabinet minister, you are effectively giving away your right to speak freely about your own personal views. This is exactly the same as directors of a company or governors of a school. They speak with one voice. If the cabinet ministers were allowed free reign nothing would ever be achieved.
    I don't agree with you. I think there should be open discussion and democratic decision making in the cabinet, and if the cabinet members that lose within it don't get everything they want, I think they should be open and admit that while they are supporting the government's decision because it was done via a democratic inner-majority, they still have their own individual beliefs that differ from what the government as an institution does. there's nothing wrong with that, because we all know that cabinet members don't agree with everything the PM thinks. it wouldn't mean nothing would happen, it would just mean that the PM is actually challenged when he isn't supported. that's how margaret thatcher went out of power, right?
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by FarageCollage)
    there's nothing wrong with that, because we all know that cabinet members don't agree with everything the PM thinks.
    I agree with your idealism, but history has shown many times that governments formed from cabinets of descenting members usually end up in a continuous cycle of very public in-fighting. The result is a government paralysed to do anything bold or decisive and the country that suffers because the actions required can not be agreed on or implemented.

    If the board of a company decided on a particular strategy, but each member then went back to their department and implemented differing strategies that undermined their board colleagues, the company would go into total disarray and eventually out of business because different parts would be pulling against each other rather than in the same direction. The same is true of governments.
    • Community Assistant
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    Community Assistant
    (Original post by Rakas21)
    Because the PM and most cabinet ministers take the view, those people are essentially meaningless to the governments stance. Some Prime Ministers may actually take the view that any cabinet minister who won't campaign a certain way should not be part of the government. Cameron's a bit softer there though.

    Rules that we must comply with, probably about 25%. Rules that we follow, probably closer to 66%.
    Ah okay, just needed to know the figures for that.
 
 
 
Poll
Are you going to a festival?
Useful resources

Groups associated with this forum:

View associated groups

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.