COYW Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Is there a 'none of the above' option? It's the only thing that'll get me to a polling booth on election day. Quote
Youri McAnespie Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 "Who am I voting for come the 2nd June?" "Socialist Labour, the only choice worth voting for, son" The Socialist Labour Party. (That was a Party Political Broadcast on behalf of The Socialist Labour Party). Quote
Winchester White Posted April 9, 2015 Posted April 9, 2015 Politics is weird, the Lib Dems have gone from the darlings of the last election to the pantomime villains of this one. Goes to show that you can promise anything in opposition but when you have decisions to make for the good of the country things have to change. Quote
bolty58 Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Yeah sure, there is no deficit! Agree or you're a brainwashed idiot! Bollocks. Even if the austerity were about politics, which it's not, good. More than half of us receive more spending than we contribute in tax. People need to get a fucking grip and stop expecting life to be lived for them. The state doesn't owe anybody a fucking thing and it's about time we stopped expecting it to deliver for us. It is this attitude of entitlement that has made this country into a collection of obese, whining, privileged, incapable and lazy parasites. Oh bollocks. Just go away. A crying shame when there are a mere thirteen extreme left wing parties to choose from, plus the, I dunno, hundred or so Labour candidates who reside on the extreme left of their party. Green Party 545 Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition 136 Class War 20 The Socialist Party of Great Britain 10 Socialist Labour Party 9 Communist Party of Britain 8 Workers Revolutionary Party 7 Left Unity 6 The Respect Party 6 The Workers Party 5 Alliance For Green Socialism 4 Lewisham People Before Profit 3 Patriotic Socialist Party 3 Smiffs for PM, Maggie for Deputy (or vice versa). Talk more sense than any politician I have heard over the last few weeks. Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I agree with a lot tgat both Smiths and Maggie say Smiths stance supporting Eastern European workers is right up my street As is Maggies stance on the welfare culture and too many expecting benefits The issue that I have (I suspect many more are in the same boat based on this thread) is that the policies we support are split across two or even three political party My results where equal for three - cons, lib dems & labour - thus it also means I appose policies from each of them too making it difficult for me to get behind any of them with full support. It doesn't help that our politicians are made up of some of the most mediocre candidates it would be possible to find. But then again it's a really high profile job, a bit of a thankless task & you have to win an election every 5 years to keep your job. We are never going to attract decent candidates paying £60k for that. Quote
only1swanny Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 I agree with a lot tgat both Smiths and Maggie say Smiths stance supporting Eastern European workers is right up my street As is Maggies stance on the welfare culture and too many expecting benefits The issue that I have (I suspect many more are in the same boat based on this thread) is that the policies we support are split across two or even three political party My results where equal for three - cons, lib dems & labour - thus it also means I appose policies from each of them too making it difficult for me to get behind any of them with full support. It doesn't help that our politicians are made up of some of the most mediocre candidates it would be possible to find. But then again it's a really high profile job, a bit of a thankless task & you have to win an election every 5 years to keep your job. We are never going to attract decent candidates paying £60k for that. Gartside in? Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Very good point Gartside gets over £400k to run a championship football club MP's get £60k+ to run the country - something isn't right there!! No wonder we are lumbered with these mediocre buffoons who wouldn't earn a great deal more elsewhere or are set to inherit a fortune so don't need a big pay packet. Quote
only1swanny Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Very good point Gartside gets over £400k to run a championship football club MP's get £60k+ to run the country - something isn't right there!! No wonder we are lumbered with these mediocre buffoons who wouldn't earn a great deal more elsewhere or are set to inherit a fortune so don't need a big pay packet. David Cameron is on 145k George Osborne is on 135k Iirc Still not a massive amount considering.. Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Is it fuck a massive amount, it's bloody bonkers When a good CEO running a top firm successfully gets millions a year - we need to compete if we want to get the best in Alternatively let's leave things as they are and moan all the time that politicians are shit Quote
only1swanny Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Is it fuck a massive amount, it's bloody bonkers When a good CEO running a top firm successfully gets millions a year - we need to compete if we want to get the best in Alternatively let's leave things as they are and moan all the time that politicians are shit If a pm got a decent wedge they would be more interested in making changes knowing that they won't be out of money if they prove unpopular.. If self preservation is key.. Nobody will be willing to rock the boat.. I'm not saying that politicians careers are over when they step down but David Cameron, ed millibad and Nick Clegg are all young and I doubt will enjoy being back benchers Quote
tomski Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Is it fuck a massive amount, it's bloody bonkers When a good CEO running a top firm successfully gets millions a year - we need to compete if we want to get the best in Alternatively let's leave things as they are and moan all the time that politicians are shit I agree with you mate, but I think its well known the gravy train starts in your time after office. Ask tony 'middle east advisor' Blair etc. Plus I think you can influence some decent deals in office for family and friends which you'd assume give decent kick backs. Edited April 10, 2015 by tomski Quote
Traf Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Smiffs for PM, Maggie for Deputy (or vice versa). Talk more sense than any politician I have heard over the last few weeks. So could my dog. Means nowt. Quote
mickbrown Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 You do realise how much Cameron is worth don't you? Milliband ain't short of a few bob either. Quote
Zico Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Is it fuck a massive amount, it's bloody bonkers When a good CEO running a top firm successfully gets millions a year - we need to compete if we want to get the best in Alternatively let's leave things as they are and moan all the time that politicians are shit i'm not political like, but if you did that, would you not end up with even more career politicians who are just in it for the money as opposed to wanting to make a difference? or is that just inevitable anyway? Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Aye ok Mick, it's a good point... so we're saying that the only people going into politics are the rich, set to inherit independent wealth? What about the other 90% of the population? I look at the politicians they put in front of us and think 'is this the best talent we have, really!!' If nothing changes we will continue to get the same dross time and time again Edited April 10, 2015 by birch-chorley Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 i'm not political like, but if you did that, would you not end up with even more career politicians who are just in it for the money as opposed to wanting to make a difference? or is that just inevitable anyway? Do GP's and Doctors do it 'to make a difference' or because they are going to earn £100k+ Surely it's a bit of both I don't mind folk getting into it for the money if they are going to be bloody good at it Quote
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Aye ok so we're saying that the only people going into politics are the ones set to inherit independent wealth What about the other 90% of the population? I look at the politicians they put in front of us and think 'is this the best talent we have, really!!' If nothing changes we will continue to get the same dross time and time again Most of the other 90% of the population aren't paid what an MP is, let alone what the PM is. I get the point about competitive salary but I don't think it makes all that much difference in the end. You're not going to match what the very best CEO's can take at private firms. So if those people are not bothered about what they do and only motivated by money you'll never get the "best" by your definition. Also I don't think being an MP or not comes down to the money in it, it comes down to people engaging with politics and being passionate about it at the right time in their lives. Like it or not a random CEO who has never engaged with a political party is not going to suddenly want to become an MP because the salary is increased. Edited April 10, 2015 by bwfcfan5 Quote
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Do GP's and Doctors do it 'to make a difference' or because they are going to earn £100k+ Surely it's a bit of both I don't mind folk getting into it for the money if they are going to be bloody good at it If you're a bog standard GP (rather than a partner) you earn between £50,000-£80,000 last time I looked. Partners earn around £100K. It is a very good salary but you've also spent a large chunk of your life in training to get there for a very specific career. The problem with your argument is that it extends to any profession. Want better teachers? Lets just pay them loads and then the best people will become teachers. But I don't think it quite works in that way. Especially for something as niche and odd as being a politician. Quote
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Mant Labour politicians would never earn that in "real life", for them it's a step up in income. I remember reading about one in 1997 who was delighted to be able to afford a car for the first time. Most Tories go into politics as a vocation, to make a difference and are willing to take a step down in income for the greater good. Quote
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Do GP's and Doctors do it 'to make a difference' or because they are going to earn £100k+ Surely it's a bit of both I don't mind folk getting into it for the money if they are going to be bloody good at it Notwithstanding any affordability issues? Quote
Guest Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 (edited) Mant Labour politicians would never earn that in "real life", for them it's a step up in income. I remember reading about one in 1997 who was delighted to be able to afford a car for the first time. Most Tories go into politics as a vocation, to make a difference and are willing to take a step down in income for the greater good. I suspect that is pretty inaccurate. Last I heard only ~8% or something of Labour MPs were classed as earning below their MP's salary prior to their election. As for the second part it would be as silly and inaccurate to claim that most Tory MPs come from the richest in society to look after their equally rich friends and get nice backhanders when the job has been done. To be honest why most people feel disenfranchised with politics if you really boil it down is because MPs in general don't feel representative. Most people didn't go to Oxbridge, most people aren't from professional backgrounds and most people aren't from wealthy families. If you cross-cut society and even business and compare that with Westminster you see how heavily skewed politics is towards a certain type of person from a certain type of background. Why did Thatcher identify with people so well? Partly IMO because she wasn't a part of that. There are plenty of very talented a capable people who would never go into politics irrespective of what they were paid. Most likely they are the very people politics could do with. Edited April 10, 2015 by bwfcfan5 Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 There are only 650 MP's There are a much greater number of teachers, doctors etc I'm not opposed to reducing MP numbers by say 20% but in turn increasing wages to say £100k per year. The net cost effect would be what - circa £10m a year?? If over time it attracts the better candidates in who make a greater difference that £10m a year will be paid back many times over. Much more than sharing that same £10m out across tens of thousands of teachers. Quote
magic legs Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Mant Labour politicians would never earn that in "real life", for them it's a step up in income. I remember reading about one in 1997 who was delighted to be able to afford a car for the first time. Most Tories go into politics as a vocation, to make a difference and are willing to take a step down in income for the greater good. "The greater good"?! Aye, right. Quote
no balls Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 Massive lolage @ The Trades Union & Socialist Coalition Party wanting a minimum wage of £10/hr. Menkul! Quote
birch-chorley Posted April 10, 2015 Posted April 10, 2015 There's another one - how much was that crank Union leader one who died of a heart attack? I'm sure it was silly money compared to MP's Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.