UK Amazon Kindle Forum discussion
General Chat - anything Goes
>
The 'Take it Outside' thread This thread will no longer be moderated ***
message 51:
by
Marc
(new)
May 18, 2015 02:43AM
as an artist I'm proud to call myself an extremist. Even if it now will get me arrested
reply
|
flag
We get the MPs we deserve. The salary rates ensure that the best minds do not go into parliament as they can earn way more elsewhere. So the logic would be actually to massively increase an MP's salary although this is both counter to the prevailing mood of the country plus we can't afford it anyway.The other thing MPs are drawn to is power. But if you're a back-bencher or on the opposition benches you can achieve naff all. Then some of them decide they ought to have some recompense for their 'services' to the country and that's when they start getting venal & corrupt and stick their hands in the cookie jar.
Will wrote: "Jim - MPs are elected to represent their constituents in Parliament. So they divide their time between their constituency (hearing people's problems and wishes) and Parliament (trying to make changes to help their constituents).Most MPs would say that they want more opportunities in Parliament to represent their constituents, not fewer.
There are many improvements that could be made to Parliament. I don't think that reducing the hours it sits is one of them. ..."
except in reality the more time they spend in Westminster, the more they are influenced by the whips as opposed to their constituents.
Similarly I believe that an MP should have lived in the constituency for some years before they stand for election there. That way they have a chance of understanding it.
It would also mean that an MP was more likely to see themselves as someone representing the constituency rather than someone parachuted in by the party. Parties on the other hand prefer people they've parachuted because in our system a good constituency MP who doesn't seek political advancement can hold their seat in spite of their party
Will wrote: "Most local authorities don't integrate MPs formally into their decision-making processes...."This is largely because they're never there. You might hope to catch your MP on a Friday afternoon but you've got to book them well in advance.
Will wrote: "I actually think that the salary level is about right. It's much more than most MP s would ever earn outside parliament with the skillset they exhibit... but not paying them automatically excludes anyone who is not independantly rich from participating, or means that the demands of having a second source of income become a huge distraction from their role as an MP. The late night sittings are just silly in a modern society. They inhibit MP s with children from either attending or spending time with the kids to keep them grounded in some sort of reality ..."The idea of a late night sitting was that the MP was assumed to have some sort of role/job/duties other than being an MP. It wasn't considered a full time job. It was a bit like being a magistrate.
But so long as they move back to being part-time, they can meet during the day, but perhaps only one week a month.
We don't need all this law. Some EU member states have managed quite happily for months without any government or law.
Well, yes and no.As with every profession, there are some good MPs and some bad ones. There are some who work very hard for their constituents and some who work more for themselves.
The press enjoys a good scandal because it sells newspapers. Opposition parties love spreading dirt about MPs and candidates because it influences the way people vote. We are coming towards the end of a recession so people are feeling squeezed financially - and jealous of anyone who is doing better than they are.
And all of this has built up to an impression amongst some people that all MPs are on the take, that they are all paid too much, that they have too many privileges.
It is something that we have seen many times. The public get all stoked up over some scandal because the media feed them a distorted negative image. We get to the point where people aren't thinking rationally. They are seeing demons everywhere.
The main political parties have known for some years that MPs were not being paid enough. This meant that the MPs had to look for additional sources of income, which meant that they were losing a lot of their genuine independence.
£67,000 might sound like a lot if you earn less than that. But it's not a large salary when compared to a manager or senior manager doing similar work. For most large organisations it's what you would pay a middle manager. But the work of an MP is more similar to the work of a director, which tends to be upwards of £100k.
In an ideal world we would have been honest about this and increased MP pay to a more reasonable level. After all, there are only 650 of them so the cost to the public purse would be negligible. But the main political parties felt that they couldn't give MPs a reasonable pay rise because the public wouldn't accept it. So they came up with the wheeze of keeping MP pay low and allowing them to make up the difference with expenses.
Until this was discovered which led to the expenses scandal. With hindsight it was a bad idea to top up MPs' pay through the expenses. But the reason that it was done was because the public do not think rationally when it comes to things like MP pay.
The PM's salary is a joke. It is kept artificially low as a political debating point because everyone knows that an ex PM will make a fortune after they leave.
It really is quite simple. Our democratic system is based on 650 MPs. These MPs need to be paid to help them to be independent and avoid them being in someone else's pocket. The level of pay needs to be reasonable to attract good candidates to the post. If we don't like our sitting MP we can vote them out at the next general election.
It is not a trough. It is the cost of democracy. And we have spent far more time and effort moaning about it than it would have costed to have given them a decent pay rise and have done with it.
MPs earn more than the average. So what? Lots of people earn more than the average. That's why it's the average. One thing I have learned is that if you want good people you have to be prepared to pay for them.
Simply reduce the MP's salary by £1000 each year until no-one stands to be elected as an MP. Then add the last £1000 cut back for the next year.
Then we will know what the wage should be.
Although, I still think that my original idea of hunting politicians with hounds, with the survivors becoming the MPs, still has some merit.
Will you keep stating that the public are irrational and open to scaremongering on these issues. Which nicely sums up the election campaign & outcome which we've just excperienced
When I said about councillors only being paid expenses they did have other jobs, until the 1980's( not 1880's Michael ). Employers would give time off for meetings, some meetings would be in the evenings, and the paid officers carried out the decisions of the elected councillors, the same with health boards, now they are paid posts and if you are in a council cabinet, very well paid post. You can live on a salary of a councillor without having to work.
Oh, so therefore it is the Press' fault that we have such poor MPs? Are you suggesting that we shut them down?The MPs scandal was because a number of MPs (not just those in the spotlight) committed fraud. Imagine if you did that. You'd be in the dock before you could say bank transfer.
Until MPs are fully accountable for their misdemeanors we will continue to have corruption in our politics.
it was only thanks to the Press and in particular work by journos like Heather Brooke that we even got to learn of what our MPs had been up to.
I dislike the idea of MPs having other jobs when they are paid a higher than average salary from the public purse to concentrate on serving the state. (With a small s). However, I also dislike the current breed of professional politicians, especially those with substantial inherited wealth who presume to understand the problems of those with subsistence incomes and no actual experience of working for a living.How to square that circle?
Will wrote: "How to square that circle? "I suppose the place to start is to work out what MPs are actually for.
Are they meant to be just lobby fodder for the parties to push through the aye or nay lobby?
Are they there as a sort of glorified social worker to solve the problems of their constituents through the power of House of Commons headed notepaper?
Are they there just to make sure the trains run on time and the bins get emptied or are they there to oversee the minutiae of social engineering down to how many grains of salt you are allowed on your chips, or who you can call 'love' in a shop, or how much your children are allowed to weigh before they are taken into care?
Are they there to make rules to prevent the bankers from cocking it up once again, or are they there to tell you how much rent you should pay and how much your electricity should cost?
we don't actually need them at all if we were to take responsibility and educate ourselves we could rule by online plebiscites. But then that would mean less time in the pub, so that's why we have others to represent & legislate for us. like I say, we get the politicians we deserve...
Will wrote: "I dislike the idea of MPs having other jobs when they are paid a higher than average salary from the public purse to concentrate on serving the state. (With a small s). However, I also dislike the current breed of professional politicians, especially those with substantial inherited wealth who presume to understand the problems of those with subsistence incomes and no actual experience of working for a living.How to square that circle? ..."
Especially as we want MPs who have actually done something in the real world before becoming MPs.
I wonder if it could be a bit like the TA where you still keep your job (although that needs pressure from above to sort).
But I agree with you, the circle is a beggar to square. I lean towards allowing them to have jobs (because it's perhaps the least worst option, but only perhaps.)
I also don't mind them employing their wives as secretaries because too many marriages collapse. Also as somebody whose wife is his secretary/accountant etc it seems entirely sensible to employ somebody you trust
David wrote: "Will wrote: "How to square that circle? "I suppose the place to start is to work out what MPs are actually for.
Are they meant to be just lobby fodder for the parties to push through the aye or ..."
An interesting list and the problem is that we don't want them to do most of those things, yet if we leave them huddled together in groups, they go off and do them
Geoff (G. Robbins) (The noisy passionfruit) wrote: "Oh, so therefore it is the Press' fault that we have such poor MPs? Are you suggesting that we shut them down?The MPs scandal was because a number of MPs (not just those in the spotlight) commit..."
Do we have such poor MPs? What is your evidence for that?
You will almost certainly have heard it from the media and/or from other political parties trying to knock spots off each other.
And you don't really think that is an honest and impartial representation of the truth, do you?
Some MPs and Lords have committed fraud in the expenses scandal. They should be, and are being, punished for that. Most of them got caught up in a big institutional lie which tried to pretend that MPs salary was being kept low when in fact it was being boosted by hidden expenses.
That wasn't most MPs fault. It was an error of judgement by the main political parties and the Palace of Westminster who thought that we wouldn't find out.
The reason they did this is because there are some subjects where the Great British Public does not think rationally - the death penalty, taxes, MPs pay, immigration, Bobbies on the beat, the pound, the monarchy.
Just about every senior politician knows this, and none of them dares say it in public. The only one who was brave enough (that I know of) was Winston Churchill who said: "The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."
The reason for this is very simple. Running something as big as the UK is a complicated thing which the average voter cannot hope to understand. The Government needs to balance many different competing demands for funds and the needs of different groups within society. There are some issues which divide even the most learned of experts, such as how to deal with extremism and get out of the recession.
Every five years we get a chance to decide which political party should run the country. And if we are being honest we don't have enough information or expertise to make that decision. Were Labour's proposed policies at the last election better or worse than the Tories'? None of us really knew - we are not experts in every field that we would need to know about: the economy, immigration, foreign policy, dealing with extremism.
So British politics is reduced to a series of over-generalised soundbites. Silly things like "all MPs are crooked" or "we'll protect the NHS" or "more Bobbies on the beat" or UKIP's "blame the foreigner" manifesto. The SNP policy of spend, spend, spend.
The answer, surely, is to educate the electorate. Have an honest debate about the issues. Look at the evidence and throw the soundbites away.
If we don't do this, then democracy will stumble on with huge levels of mistrust between politicians and the public. Governments (of all colours) will do things that the public don't understand and the public will simply think that the Government is wrong. Instead of realising that it is something that they don't understand. And the press and opposition will prey on this to make easy and cheap soundbites.
Marc wrote: "we don't actually need them at all if we were to take responsibility and educate ourselves we could rule by online plebiscites. But then that would mean less time in the pub, so that's why we have ..."And if we did that we would soon find that groups of us shared similar points of view. And we would want to work together to vote for the things that we believed in. We might want to organise ourselves so we could vote together on topics that mattered to us. After a while we might want to start an organisation to represent our views, maybe with subscriptions and a leader ...
And before you know it, we are right back where we are now. That's how nearly all political parties start.
Churchill was a very accomplished exponent of the soundbite. I'd make a small change to that one: the best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average MP.Understanding complex issues may be challenging for the average voter, but nothing convinces me that the average MP is capable of better understanding those issues. For example, we have a system that sees Michael Gove, with no professional experience of education, appointed Secretary of State for Education. He forced through reforms that resulted in all four professional bodies of the teaching profession recording votes of no confidence at their annual conferences.
It's not just the snouts in the trough image that has resulted in our lack of faith in those who believe they should be our representatives.
Jim wrote: "An interesting list and the problem is that we don't want them to do most of those things, yet if we leave them huddled together in groups, they go off and do them"That is indeed the thing. It is more a case of not 'what do we want from politicians', it is more a case of how do we stop them from doing things that should not be their concern.
David wrote: "That is indeed the thing. It is more a case of not 'what do we want from politicians', it is more a case of how do we stop them from doing things that should not be their concern. ..."I was irresistibly reminded of the saying that behind every great computer programmer is a man with a mallet to tell him when to stop :-)
Looking at the other posts, various political parties have been stupid in running negative campaigns against each other. The current ongoing campaign to vilify the Tories is also a danger.
What the parties have forgotten is that the general population lump politicians together as a class. If one part of that class is saying that other members of that class are corrupt or evil, then the general population are going to nod, say, "Well they ought to know," and then paint the entire class as corrupt or evil.
It's the same with this constant vilification of the Tories. Someone posted on facebook about a Tory MP parking in a disabled bay. What else can you expect from tory scum? I added to the tread a link to a newspaper article where Ed Balls had done exactly the same thing.
It strikes me that these people haven't heard the old Yiddish proverb, "Throw enough mud and you'll get your hands dirty."
It's not for nothing that MPs are supposed to address each other as 'Honourable Member'
It's to remind them that they're all in the same club and really ought to treat each other as honourable people who might just, on this occasion, be wrong.
The descent we've seen into tribal politics, ironically mainly after the election is unhealthy, not just for the country,but even more, for the party the tribe are supposed to be supporting.
They taint the party and there is even a danger that the party might start listening to the tribe and start believing what the tribe is saying.
At the last election we had a choice, we made a choice. Frankly I looked at the Labour party and decided that they were not merely unelectable, they were unfit to govern. The speed with which leading figures are now renouncing the policies they stood on at the start of the month probably shows I'm not alone in thinking this.
Under our system both major parties have a duty to be sensible and face up to the realities and tell the truth to the electorate.
which they never do. One huge truth would be to admit that Britain is no longer 'Great', in the sense that other than surreptitious back-door channels, we wield little weight on the world stage as we are a bit player in Europe, have little in the way of armed forces to put boots on the ground in any overseas conflict, are vilified in the Middle East where we no longer have any sway other than to sell arms. Our economy does not justify any greatness and nor is it likely to in the future. Mind you, neither does Japan's any more either, but then no one called them 'great'. Any politician who stood up and said this would make him/herself unelectable at a stroke. perception is all in politics. You have to puff up your feathers like a peacock as Cameron showed when his lacklustre campaign was ignited by him rolling up his sleeves and swearing mildly
It was - I think - the SF author David Brin who said something along the lines of: 'it is not power that corrupts, it is more that power attracts the corruptible'The secret must lie somewhere along the lines of taking as much power as possible away from those with it (and those who want it), while avoiding merely giving it to someone else who wears a rosette in the colours we like, but dispersing it more evenly, putting more faith and trust in the demos part of democracy and less on the cracy. (or should that be crazy?)
again the power potentially lies with us the electorate to rule ourselves. But as a whole, we are too lazy, feckless, self-indulgent and hedonistic to commit to the time and work that would be involved.
I'm afraid Will, as always, you are attempting to defend the establishment against the press.When you have poor politicians they get the press they deserve. They committed fraud - fact. You can dress it up with all the mitigation you like, but fraud is fraud. They then tried to cover it up with refusal of Freedom of Information requests. When that failed and it all came out in the wash, they proceeded to change the law to ensure that the Freedom of Information Act prevented further disclosure.
Is this the behaviour of an open and honest government? I believe not. The press did the right thing by bringing this to the attention of the public.
You are blaming the messenger for shopping the bunch of them. Shame on you.
And irony of ironies: the rag called The Sun is now bewailing the cuts to the provision of refuges for victims of domestic abuse, having screamed its allegiance to such cuts in welfare services during the election campaign. Now the bitter consequences on those least able to cope - like many farmers - will become clear.Unfit to govern, Jim? I do believe that we have allowed the most ruthless, uncaring and extreme administration in a century to gain power, and we will see much more of this nonsense. That is what makes an administration unfit. The proliferation and dependancy on foodbanks in the world's fifth largest economy is a disgrace to us all.
Sorry Will, but when we in Pembrokeshire have to travel to Carmarthen, Neath and Swansea, to give birth, (I know personally if a lady who had to go to all three hospitals, having twins,). You can see why a lot of people don't trust labour either!
That's not Labour though, is it, Lynne? That's the effect of a changing demographic and Coalition underfunding of the NHS budget... Don't forget that although some services are being condensed, the Assembly has managed to maintain better services for the independant elderly that many other areas of the UK. That's carried within the NHS budget.
Rubbish Will. That's payback time for not voting for the small minded clique that run the Senedd. It's social engineering, cut the schools, hospitals etc, no one will want to live there and the county is up for the taking. We won't have any elderly to care in the community. Heart attacks, stroke victims and cancer patients have to travel far far further than the golden hour in which they can be saved. Nice airport they bought though.
And that, my friends, is precisely what Churchill was talking about.Geoff - you believe the press when it is saying something that you agree with (all politicians are corrupt) but you disagree with the press when it says something you don't like (climate change).
And that is precisely why politicians are afraid to be honest with us.
It is not about taking sides between the establishment or the press. It is about seeing through both of them to see what its really happening here.
You've entirely the silly end of the stick there, Lynne. I was talking about a national budget, which has been cut by Tories and voted for happily by the Secretary of State for wales, to make the Senedd administration look bad. You may not have many elderley in Pembs (although my visits there - I'm in that area a lot - don't loom that way!) but there's other areas in Wales with a lot of elderly needing care of all sorts. By the way, I do agree that services shouldn't be withdrawn from Withybush, Hywel Ddu Trust needs more money to keep it going. Cutting the NHS budget further will not help that. Hopefully your MP will demand ore money for Wales?
So, tell me Will, how much do they have to break the law before you consider them criminals?To quote you:
That wasn't most MPs fault. It was an error of judgement by the main political parties and the Palace of Westminster who thought that we wouldn't find out.
The reason they did this is because there are some subjects where the Great British Public does not think rationally - the death penalty, taxes, MPs pay, immigration, Bobbies on the beat, the pound, the monarchy.
So to defraud the country of hundreds of thousands of pounds is, in your book, 'an error of judgement'. I presume from that statement that you consider it acceptable to steal money?
So, where is your boundary, Will, a million, two million, ten million? When does your grey range of illegality reach black?
So is shoplifting an error of judgement? Is it acceptable if you cannot feed your family as you don't have any money because the dole payment was late?
Will wrote: "Geoff - you believe the press when it is saying something that you agree with (all politicians are corrupt) but you disagree with the press when it says something you don't like (climate change)"You, on the other hand accept everything that is written by the IPCC and other climate change evangelists as gospel truth, and consider everything that contradicts, or even questions your preconceptions as untrue, because you do not have the ability to question anything.
Many years ago, during one of Nigel Lawson's several recessions, I had the misfortune to need to claim benefits. The payment was so late that I went without food for two days so that my son could eat during his access time with me...It took a phone call to the Benefits office to tell them that I had arranged to openly shoplift food the next day before they acted. Actually, they didn't care about that. It was being told that a friend of mine was a photographer for the Sun and he was going to come up from London to record the event that moved them to action.
I was lucky, because I knew what levers to pull, and in those days even Thatcher's government would have been ashamed to have foodbanks in common use.
Lynne: as evidence that I feel that you are completely wrong in your assertion that the Senedd is attacking a Tory held area, from that well known lefty hotbed of discontent the Telegraph: Hospital Closures since Cameron took power:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/healt...
Will, I am basing it on what my husband was told by senior civil servants in the Welsh office and evidence of the closures by a labour health board. Husband was in the NHS for 32 years. Drakeford would not even come out and accept a petition. The total disregard and contempt shown is breathtaking. How much does the Senedd et al cost? If we weren't paying for all their ivory towers in Cardiff perhaps we could have our scbu unit back and a cancer ward again, in the most populated area. The Red Cross running the A & E in Tenby is laughable if it wasn't so tragic.Pembrokeshire also voted against a devolved goverrnment. Payback time again.
Geoff - some MPs and peers have been convicted of fraud. Most haven't. That's the legal system at work - assessing the evidence, punishing the guilty, not punishing the innocent.What we cannot do is to say that because some MPs were guilty of fraud, then they all were. Or that all the new intake of MPs will. That's just a ridiculous over-generalisation.
The error of judgement is that the political parties allowed a shift from salary to expenses. That is not of itself fraudulent, but not entirely open. Hence "error of judgement".
Life is not black and white, good and bad. It's all about shades of grey - if that phrase hadn't been hijacked.
message 88:
by
Geoff (G. Robbins) (merda constat variat altitudo)
(last edited May 19, 2015 10:18AM)
(new)
Will, you remind me of the story of the man who observes a gorgeous young woman sitting opposite him in the train.He says to her "Would you sleep with me for a million pounds?"
"I believe I would", she replies.
"Would you sleep with me for ten pounds?" The man then asks.
"What kind of woman do you think I am?" Replies the woman, indignantly.
"We've already established that", says the man "Now we're just negotiating a price."
Will, you speak like a politician. And no, that is not a compliment.
Will wrote: "Geoff - some MPs and peers have been convicted of fraud. Most haven't. That's the legal system at work - assessing the evidence, punishing the guilty, not punishing the innocent.What we cannot do..."
what we can say is that the system is likely to lead to expenses fraud as dissatisfied MPs with no access to real power eventually decide to award/reward themselves for their unappreciated & 'unrecognised' service to the nation and with too much time and entitlement on their hands, turn to defrauding the state through expenses. The system lends itself to this kind of thought process.
What is hard to stomach is that my local MP during Gordon Brown's regime was done for expenses diddling and the electorate booted him out at the next election, His replacement was also done for expenses and despite being a London MP has the highest mileage claim of all MPs, the electorate opted not to boot him ignominiously out of the seat a fortnight ago. Galling
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Will, I am basing it on what my husband was told by senior civil servants in the Welsh office and evidence of the closures by a labour health board. Husband was in the NHS for 32 years. Drakeford..."Pembrokeshire is no different to all the other areas who have had hospital services decimated by Conservative cutbacks, Lynne. And that will only get worse.
Will, health is devolved, it's entirely down to the Senedd, which is Labour controlled. If we didn't have that extra layer of government we wouldn't have need for cutbacks anywhere!Why did they buy an airport if they were short of money?
Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Will, health is devolved, it's entirely down to the Senedd, which is Labour controlled. If we didn't have that extra layer of government we wouldn't have need for cutbacks anywhere!Why did they ..."
It isn't an extra layer of government though, is it? It does work that would otherwise have been done in London by other people with no interest in Wales... nd the NHS trust is not run by the Senedd.
Or do you think that the 60+ other hospital closures across the UK are also down to the Senedd??? Withybusgh is not alone - at least Hywel Ddu have managed to keep it open, against Conservative planned reductions.
Will wrote: "Lynne (Tigger's Mum) wrote: "Will, health is devolved, it's entirely down to the Senedd, which is Labour controlled. If we didn't have that extra layer of government we wouldn't have need for cut..."We are also facing A&E closures here in London, some hospitals are not even taking the blue light. This had started off with Labour closing down Children's A&E and the Tories have just carried on and started closing down Adult A&E departments. It's now a 2 hours drive to the nearest A&E in any direction, with 4 A&E departments closed down. With traffic in London at any given time, it beggars belief to how many people actually to a hospital.
It doesn't matter who has control cutbacks will always happen.
Sorry to be combative Will, but of course it's an extra layer, of government. We have both MPs & AMs both on similar salaries. Our MP is not allowed to involve himself in health matters as it's entirely devolved. Two systems in parallel. How can that not be an extra tier of bureaucracy. Not to mention the ridiiculous sum spent to build the dreadful place. It looks like a rusty cattle mart. It's hideous. The Welsh office did all the admin before and is still in place. Drakeford is responsible for everything except when it goes wrong. You cannot be a CEO of a trust without backing via the Welsh office and the Senedd. All appointments are political.
When discussing the NHS and budgets, we have to remember that PFI is coming home to roost.Anybody who is stupid enough to let civil servants negotiate with private companies ought to be nailed upside-down to a church door as a warning to others!
There might be an argument for PFI, there might be a place for it.
But there is never an argument for allowing civil servants to negotiate with trained private sector negotiators.
You lot writing a frigging book !!!!!
if we do, will you read it Eastwood? :-)
The pros of PFI are that if you don't think you'll be in power in five year's time, you still get to say you upgraded some hospitals.
UK Amazon Kindle Forum
Books mentioned in this topic
The Beiderbecke Affair (other topics)The Grain Market in the Roman Empire: A Social, Political and Economic Study (other topics)
The Peasants Are Revolting (other topics)
How to Lie with Statistics (other topics)
That Old Ace in the Hole (other topics)
More...
