Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 10:18:49 GMT
So we have a government thread, this is different. We know the government are a venal bunch of self serving ************. It’s been done to death.
Let’s discuss the entity of parliament and it’s politicians as a whole. How would we reform it? Does it even need reforming?
I never thought the politicians I vote for were squeaky clean, it sort of goes without saying. But the detail the book “Parliament Ltd” goes into ploughs a furrow of venality across all parties. They are all at it, although to lesser degree than the Tories.
Classic example Miliband’s Labour, giving it the open Palms (admirably) to big business. “We’ll tax the arse off you, we aren’t scared”. An admirable message right? Well it turns out that Guissa(sp) Stewart, a Labour MP had business interests she hadn’t declared. She was a director of a company that prided itself on helping the super rich avoid tax. Listening to how the author got her to talk at length about how tax avoidance was bad before hitting her with the realisation that he knew all about her undeclared directorship of a business that ride roughshod over those lofty principles was equally funny and cringe inducing. She had initially claimed her return on her investment was £43, after conducting the interview matey checks the parliamentary disclosure page and lo and behold on the day he interviewed her a new entry was added disclosing her investment as 70k, the threshold investment that had to be declared. The book is littered with disclaimers (“I’m not suggesting X’s intention was Y”, but we all know the intention of the disclaimer is the inverse of what is disclaimed)
It leaves me wondering am I missing something? This lot of spoofers, going by standard inflation rate would be earning ~£35,000 currently but no, they are currently earning ~£75,000 and still it’s not enough to dedicate themselves to their parliamentary jobs. Fair enough the ones working in law could argue their need to moonlight, but the numbers still working in banking whilst holding parliamentary positions raises obvious conflicts of interest which the book does little to dis-spell. Particularly regarding the bill to reform the financial sector laws following the crash in 2008. Some peers with links to the banking system managed to water down the proposed reforms so that very little had actually changed! Is this acceptable?!
It is hard to believe in any honest politician right now whilst they have no mandated surgery hours and so therefore can treat the position of MP as a mere title rather than a full time role requiring dedication. Caroline Lucas claims to spend 70-80 hours p/w on her MP duties whereas certain others can’t be booked for appointments at surgeries because they either don’t take appointments or are “booked up” for the foreseeable (Boris when mayor of London would not see non-emergency constituents and it was calculated that his non-parliamentary jobs would demand ~340 days of his time per year).
Thoughts? Am I really totally out there by thinking that the first step to a Parliament we can be proud of is the demand that they have no exterior business interests?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 11:23:32 GMT
So we have a government thread, this is different. We know the government are a venal bunch of self serving ************. It’s been done to death. Let’s discuss the entity of parliament and it’s politicians as a whole. How would we reform it? Does it even need reforming? I never thought the politicians I vote for were squeaky clean, it sort of goes without saying. But the detail the book “Parliament Ltd” goes into ploughs a furrow of venality across all parties. They are all at it, although to lesser degree than the Tories. Classic example Miliband’s Labour, giving it the open Palms (admirably) to big business. “We’ll tax the arse off you, we aren’t scared”. An admirable message right? Well it turns out that Guissa(sp) Stewart, a Labour MP had business interests she hadn’t declared. She was a director of a company that prided itself on helping the super rich avoid tax. Listening to how the author got her to talk at length about how tax avoidance was bad before hitting her with the realisation that he knew all about her undeclared directorship of a business that ride roughshod over those lofty principles was equally funny and cringe inducing. She had initially claimed her return on her investment was £43, after conducting the interview matey checks the parliamentary disclosure page and lo and behold on the day he interviewed her a new entry was added disclosing her investment as 70k, the threshold investment that had to be declared. The book is littered with disclaimers (“I’m not suggesting X’s intention was Y”, but we all know the intention of the disclaimer is the inverse of what is disclaimed) It leaves me wondering am I missing something? This lot of spoofers, going by standard inflation rate would be earning ~£35,000 currently but no, they are currently earning ~£75,000 and still it’s not enough to dedicate themselves to their parliamentary jobs. Fair enough the ones working in law could argue their need to moonlight, but the numbers still working in banking whilst holding parliamentary positions raises obvious conflicts of interest which the book does little to dis-spell. Particularly regarding the bill to reform the financial sector laws following the crash in 2008. Some peers with links to the banking system managed to water down the proposed reforms so that very little had actually changed! Is this acceptable?! It is hard to believe in any honest politician right now whilst they have no mandated surgery hours and so therefore can treat the position of MP as a mere title rather than a full time role requiring dedication. Caroline Lucas claims to spend 70-80 hours p/w on her MP duties whereas certain others can’t be booked for appointments at surgeries because they either don’t take appointments or are “booked up” for the foreseeable (Boris when mayor of London would not see non-emergency constituents and it was calculated that his non-parliamentary jobs would demand ~340 days of his time per year). Thoughts? Am I really totally out there by thinking that the first step to a Parliament we can be proud of is the demand that they have no exterior business interests? I laughed out loud when you mentioned Gisela Stuart, lo and behold, Ex Chair of the Vote Leave Campaign. Rewarded with a Peerage. What a smell |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 23, 2021 13:36:37 GMT
So we have a government thread, this is different. We know the government are a venal bunch of self serving ************. It’s been done to death. Let’s discuss the entity of parliament and it’s politicians as a whole. How would we reform it? Does it even need reforming? I never thought the politicians I vote for were squeaky clean, it sort of goes without saying. But the detail the book “Parliament Ltd” goes into ploughs a furrow of venality across all parties. They are all at it, although to lesser degree than the Tories. Classic example Miliband’s Labour, giving it the open Palms (admirably) to big business. “We’ll tax the arse off you, we aren’t scared”. An admirable message right? Well it turns out that Guissa(sp) Stewart, a Labour MP had business interests she hadn’t declared. She was a director of a company that prided itself on helping the super rich avoid tax. Listening to how the author got her to talk at length about how tax avoidance was bad before hitting her with the realisation that he knew all about her undeclared directorship of a business that ride roughshod over those lofty principles was equally funny and cringe inducing. She had initially claimed her return on her investment was £43, after conducting the interview matey checks the parliamentary disclosure page and lo and behold on the day he interviewed her a new entry was added disclosing her investment as 70k, the threshold investment that had to be declared. The book is littered with disclaimers (“I’m not suggesting X’s intention was Y”, but we all know the intention of the disclaimer is the inverse of what is disclaimed) It leaves me wondering am I missing something? This lot of spoofers, going by standard inflation rate would be earning ~£35,000 currently but no, they are currently earning ~£75,000 and still it’s not enough to dedicate themselves to their parliamentary jobs. Fair enough the ones working in law could argue their need to moonlight, but the numbers still working in banking whilst holding parliamentary positions raises obvious conflicts of interest which the book does little to dis-spell. Particularly regarding the bill to reform the financial sector laws following the crash in 2008. Some peers with links to the banking system managed to water down the proposed reforms so that very little had actually changed! Is this acceptable?! It is hard to believe in any honest politician right now whilst they have no mandated surgery hours and so therefore can treat the position of MP as a mere title rather than a full time role requiring dedication. Caroline Lucas claims to spend 70-80 hours p/w on her MP duties whereas certain others can’t be booked for appointments at surgeries because they either don’t take appointments or are “booked up” for the foreseeable (Boris when mayor of London would not see non-emergency constituents and it was calculated that his non-parliamentary jobs would demand ~340 days of his time per year). Thoughts? Am I really totally out there by thinking that the first step to a Parliament we can be proud of is the demand that they have no exterior business interests? I laughed out loud when you mentioned Gisela Stuart, lo and behold, Ex Chair of the Vote Leave Campaign. Rewarded with a Peerage. What a smell A disgusting specimen for those who want an ideologically pure labour party. They are all at it. Makes me wonder what the answer is. Oldie (and everyone else) is it reasonable to request that our politicians hold one job? It seems to me that this is where the issues stem from |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,466 
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jan 23, 2021 17:32:47 GMT
I laughed out loud when you mentioned Gisela Stuart, lo and behold, Ex Chair of the Vote Leave Campaign. Rewarded with a Peerage. What a smell A disgusting specimen for those who want an ideologically pure labour party. They are all at it. Makes me wonder what the answer is. Oldie (and everyone else) is it reasonable to request that our politicians hold one job? It seems to me that this is where the issues stem from It’s a difficult question to answer . Do we want just career politicians with no experience of the real world or people who have succeeded in business outside of parliament ? Many MPs argue that their salary is used in part to pay for assistants to help them ( a family member often in the past!) and the £80 k isn’t enough ! Do we pay them more? What I don’t like is the MPs of any party who get given a safe seat and how ever bad they perform get voted back in every 4 yrs . My MP Liam Fox has been involved in a few scandals over the yrs but he’ll always get voted in here in N.Somerset as long as he’s wearing that blue rosette. I’d argue we need more of what I’d call ‘normal people’ in parliament to truly represent the public. A binman , house wife , single parent, the bloke who works in the car factory as well as business leaders & Oxford educated types . Double the pay and restrict them to a maximum of two terms but say no outside jobs or financial interests ? Obviously no Sh1!heads allowed 🙂 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 8:38:39 GMT
Politics is always going to attract people who will do anything for money and power.
Don't most people in the west want to be rich beyond their wildest dreams, and own as much as they can?
Truth is only the strongest will accumulate the wealth whilst others will have to do without.
The problem with the corrupt parliament we have is that almost everything is for sale, the NHS being the jewel in the crown, a lucky few are going to be filthy rich when it's privatised.
|
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 24, 2021 9:26:58 GMT
Politics is always going to attract people who will do anything for money and power. Don't most people in the west want to be rich beyond their wildest dreams, and own as much as they can? Truth is only the strongest will accumulate the wealth whilst others will have to do without. The problem with the corrupt parliament we have is that almost everything is for sale, the NHS being the jewel in the crown, a lucky few are going to be filthy rich when it's privatised. Wow its cynical in your world,all the people I have worked with and know don't fit your description,they want a fair just Society,earn a decent salary,provide for their kids and many try to make this world a better place Whilst on occasions they may fall short it's not for lack of desire or effort. |
|
yattongas
Forum Legend
Posts: 15,466
Member is Online
|
Post by yattongas on Jan 24, 2021 10:00:15 GMT
Politics is always going to attract people who will do anything for money and power. Don't most people in the west want to be rich beyond their wildest dreams, and own as much as they can? Truth is only the strongest will accumulate the wealth whilst others will have to do without. The problem with the corrupt parliament we have is that almost everything is for sale, the NHS being the jewel in the crown, a lucky few are going to be filthy rich when it's privatised. Wow its cynical in your world,all the people I have worked with and know don't fit your description,they want a fair just Society,earn a decent salary,provide for their kids and many try to make this world a better place Whilst on occasions they may fall short it's not for lack of desire or effort. But do you work with any politicians? 😬 |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 11:02:22 GMT
Politics is always going to attract people who will do anything for money and power. Don't most people in the west want to be rich beyond their wildest dreams, and own as much as they can? Truth is only the strongest will accumulate the wealth whilst others will have to do without. The problem with the corrupt parliament we have is that almost everything is for sale, the NHS being the jewel in the crown, a lucky few are going to be filthy rich when it's privatised. Wow its cynical in your world,all the people I have worked with and know don't fit your description,they want a fair just Society,earn a decent salary,provide for their kids and many try to make this world a better place Whilst on occasions they may fall short it's not for lack of desire or effort. Which part do you see as cynical? |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 24, 2021 12:06:28 GMT
Wow its cynical in your world,all the people I have worked with and know don't fit your description,they want a fair just Society,earn a decent salary,provide for their kids and many try to make this world a better place Whilst on occasions they may fall short it's not for lack of desire or effort. Which part do you see as cynical? Your second paragraph. |
|
|
|
Post by trevorgas on Jan 24, 2021 12:07:45 GMT
Wow its cynical in your world,all the people I have worked with and know don't fit your description,they want a fair just Society,earn a decent salary,provide for their kids and many try to make this world a better place Whilst on occasions they may fall short it's not for lack of desire or effort. But do you work with any politicians? 😬 I have yes . |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 24, 2021 12:36:10 GMT
Which part do you see as cynical? Your second paragraph. Isn't it most people's wildest dream to win the lottery? Have a big house and never have to worry about money again? You think people would turn the money away if it presented itself? |
|
