Democracy - The Suggestion Box
-
Ian Darling wrote: would you want the characters in the Little Britain comedy show responsible for either proposing or reviewing legislation? Because that's what would effectively happen I now have this vision of Prime Minister's Question Time with answers like: Yeah... But, no but... yeah, but..... no, but, yeah, but no! Anyway my friend Janice Smedly, who's big sister is three years older, and goes out with Gary Dagging........
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
:laugh: The tigress is here :-D
-
My first* Soapbox thread, so be nice :) I'm from the UK and I have a few suggestions for our political "system". I reckon that if such rules were in place, we would all see a dramatic improvement in the standard of living generally. Perhaps it would also be appropriate for other democratic nations. See what you think: 1. MPs and their dependants should use public transport. 2. MPs should send their children to public schools (note to Brits: I mean comprehensives, etc.) 3. MPs and their dependants should use the National Health Service. They should not be permitted to have access to private health care. 4. MPs' salaries should be capped at the national average. 5. MPs should be restricted to living in a home which reflects the national average in terms of price or something below. [edit] Nearly forgot, has anyone got any other suggestions? * - may not actually be true "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
We'll if you retitled it "My suggestions for a fascist state" I would agree with you!;P If your countrymen continue to elect MP's that are not living up to your expectations the problem is with your fellow countrymen, not those MP's. We know that only too well here in Canada where every election the entire countrie's fate rests in the hands of people living in a single province of Ontario. Being such a large and diverse country, needless to say, the rest of us are not too happy about that, but at least it's not inappropriate to blame someone else for our problems. ;) Welcome to the soapbox.
An election is nothing more than the advanced auction of stolen goods. - Ambrose Bierce -
My first* Soapbox thread, so be nice :) I'm from the UK and I have a few suggestions for our political "system". I reckon that if such rules were in place, we would all see a dramatic improvement in the standard of living generally. Perhaps it would also be appropriate for other democratic nations. See what you think: 1. MPs and their dependants should use public transport. 2. MPs should send their children to public schools (note to Brits: I mean comprehensives, etc.) 3. MPs and their dependants should use the National Health Service. They should not be permitted to have access to private health care. 4. MPs' salaries should be capped at the national average. 5. MPs should be restricted to living in a home which reflects the national average in terms of price or something below. [edit] Nearly forgot, has anyone got any other suggestions? * - may not actually be true "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
...we don't hear nearly enough about UK officials accepting bribes over here. Such drastic steps are all but necessary in order to step up the frequency and amount of payoffs. You're just never gonna catch up with Mexico at the rate you're at now... :rolleyes:
You**'re one microscopic cog** in his catastrophic plan... -
phykell wrote: I feel you've deliberately missed the point No, I think you don't realise that I have a different opinion. phykell wrote: it's not as though MPs are "forced" into being politicians is it? No, it is their choice to stand, and the electorate's choice to vote for them. I could be a street cleaner, however I choose not to apply for that job because it doesn't pay highly enough for me to do the things I want to do. phykell wrote: How do you expect them to manage these services if they themselves don't *have* to use them, unlike the rest of us unlucky ones I'm sorry you class yourself as unlucky. However, does the chairman of GlaxoSmithKlien use all the drugs his company produces? No. Well, how do you expect him to manage all that drug production if he doesn't use them himself? Go into any industry and you will find people who are managing their company very effectively without ever using their own product(s) or service(s). phykell wrote: What about the Labour MP who sent her son to private school despite the fact she represented Hackney and what was her excuse? What exactly was she saying about the state system when she made that decision? Because the schools are crap and she's trying to do the best for her child - just like any parent would. It may seem hypocritical and if you feel that then don't vote for that polititian again. That is YOUR CHOICE. phykell wrote: I don't believe for one second that what I've proposed would ever happen but I think it's interesting to think about anyway That is because to think of them that way is naive in the extreme.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, I think you don't realise that I have a different opinion. No, I think you know exactly what I was trying to say but you decided to twist it. For what purpose, I have no idea. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, it is their choice to stand, and the electorate's choice to vote for them. Which is exactly my point. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I'm sorry you class yourself as unlucky. However, does the chairman of GlaxoSmithKlien use all the drugs his company produces? No. Well, how do you expect him to manage all that drug production if he doesn't use them himself? Go into any industry and you will find people who are managing their company very effectively without ever using their own product(s) or service(s). I don't class myself as unlucky necessarily but relatively speaking I have more experience of how the services we pay our taxes for, fall short of what I believe is an acceptable standard. As for your bizarre analogy, it's invalid. Public services are not individual consumer items. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Because the schools are crap and she's trying to do the best for her child - just like any parent would. It may seem hypocritical and if you feel that then don't vote for that polititian again. That is YOUR CHOICE. So it doesn't bother you that what an MP thinks isn't good enough for herself and her children is perfectly adequate for everyone else? Oh sure, I see why she acts as a parent first rather than an MP, but perhaps MPs would show more responsibility and empathy for the people they serve if they were to lead by example. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
-
ColinDavies wrote: I'm sure we agree that elected officials are pompous twats at the best of times. Agreed! :) ColinDavies wrote: However if we are to attract better persons into the chambers, we must remunerate and recompense them better. You must be kidding! Are you seriously suggesting that our MPs don't get enough money and perks? It's quite simple really. I suggest that if our MPs understood how ordinary people lived, they would do a damn sight more to ensure that we all had a better standard of living. Unfortunately for them, the only way of making them understand is for them to live as ordinary people do, to have to use the public services that the rest of us do. How can you expect a person who hasn't even had to drive for years, to possibly understand what it's like for the average worker to commute 80 miles a day in modern Britain? "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
phykell wrote: You must be kidding! Are you seriously suggesting that our MPs don't get enough money and perks? Think of all the absolute shit that gets thrown in the direction of polititians whether you agree with them or not. Of course, if you pay the average salary then the polititians will simply not be up to the job, because the people who are up to the job will go else where. Put it another way. If polititians don't get paid a sufficient amount they start abusing their power. They get their money and their perks from sources that are not in the interest of the country. There are still instances of this happening, however it would be much much higher if polititians were paid less. phykell wrote: How can you expect a person who hasn't even had to drive for years, to possibly understand what it's like for the average worker to commute 80 miles a day in modern Britain? Firstly, I don't HAVE TO drive. It is a choice. I drive on average 40-50 miles a week. The rest of the time I take the train. Does the average worker commute 80 miles a day? Most of the people I work with live closer than I do. I would guess that only 15% of the people in the company I work travel 80 or more miles per day. I would suggest that polititians commute a lot further when you consider that they have parliamentarty business in London and they also have constituency meetings in the place they represent. Only the MPs for places in and around London would fit inside your average. phykell wrote: Unfortunately for them, the only way of making them understand is for them to live as ordinary people do, to have to use the public services that the rest of us do And how does an ordinary person live? The people I come into contact with each day have a diverse set of lifestyles. Also, polititians DO use public services every day. The drink water, they use the toilet, they walk in the street, they drive cars, they fly in aircraft. All these activities depend on public services.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, I think you don't realise that I have a different opinion. No, I think you know exactly what I was trying to say but you decided to twist it. For what purpose, I have no idea. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, it is their choice to stand, and the electorate's choice to vote for them. Which is exactly my point. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I'm sorry you class yourself as unlucky. However, does the chairman of GlaxoSmithKlien use all the drugs his company produces? No. Well, how do you expect him to manage all that drug production if he doesn't use them himself? Go into any industry and you will find people who are managing their company very effectively without ever using their own product(s) or service(s). I don't class myself as unlucky necessarily but relatively speaking I have more experience of how the services we pay our taxes for, fall short of what I believe is an acceptable standard. As for your bizarre analogy, it's invalid. Public services are not individual consumer items. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Because the schools are crap and she's trying to do the best for her child - just like any parent would. It may seem hypocritical and if you feel that then don't vote for that polititian again. That is YOUR CHOICE. So it doesn't bother you that what an MP thinks isn't good enough for herself and her children is perfectly adequate for everyone else? Oh sure, I see why she acts as a parent first rather than an MP, but perhaps MPs would show more responsibility and empathy for the people they serve if they were to lead by example. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
phykell wrote: No, I think you know exactly what I was trying to say but you decided to twist it. For what purpose, I have no idea. I have no idea what you think I've twisted. All I did was express my opinion. phykell wrote: As for your bizarre analogy, it's invalid. Public services are not individual consumer items. Actually they are. Some examples * I drink water every day - A public service provides me that water. * I walk in the street after dark - A public service provides the lighting for me to see. * I drive a car - A public service maintains the roads so I can drive safely. * I have to take certain drugs for the remainder of my life - A public service provides me these drugs at a reasonable cost and if I should lose my job that public service will make these drugs available to me for no cost. * I need to visit my cardiologist every year - A public serive provides the money to train my doctor, to build the hospital and provide the medical facilities so that my condition may be monitored. * I was educated by the state for 13 years - A public service provided the buildings, the equipment and the teachers for me to become an educated person. * I go to the toilet - A public service provides a sewerage system to take that waste away hygenically. * I am licenced to drive a car - A public serivice provided the test center and paid for the examiner in order that I could be tested. That is a lot of consumerism. Some things I use everyday and somethings less often. I pay for all of this through my taxes. phykell wrote: So it doesn't bother you that what an MP thinks isn't good enough for herself and her children is perfectly adequate for everyone else? Eh? An MP sends her child to a fee paying school is the same as many families. It is a CHOICE. If you think an MP is being hypocritical then don't vote for that MP. phykell wrote: but perhaps MPs would show more responsibility and empathy for the people they serve if they were to lead by example No, you are confusing empathy with sympathy. Empathy: The ability to identify and understand another person’s feelings, ideas, and circumstances. Sympathy: a relation of affinity or harmony between people; whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other That MP in south London you mentioned before probably does have empathy for her consituants, but that does NOT mean that she has to do the same as
-
My first* Soapbox thread, so be nice :) I'm from the UK and I have a few suggestions for our political "system". I reckon that if such rules were in place, we would all see a dramatic improvement in the standard of living generally. Perhaps it would also be appropriate for other democratic nations. See what you think: 1. MPs and their dependants should use public transport. 2. MPs should send their children to public schools (note to Brits: I mean comprehensives, etc.) 3. MPs and their dependants should use the National Health Service. They should not be permitted to have access to private health care. 4. MPs' salaries should be capped at the national average. 5. MPs should be restricted to living in a home which reflects the national average in terms of price or something below. [edit] Nearly forgot, has anyone got any other suggestions? * - may not actually be true "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
I think a far simpler method is to simply disallow politicians from serving consecutive terms. That is, you cannot be in office and run for office at the same time. This would make it difficult for anyone to be a career politicans while at the same time not altogether eliminating political expertise from the political system. Anyone wanting to hold office would have to maintain a means of supporting themselves between stints with the government. They would be forced to get along in the real world while waiting for another chance at office.
-
I think a far simpler method is to simply disallow politicians from serving consecutive terms. That is, you cannot be in office and run for office at the same time. This would make it difficult for anyone to be a career politicans while at the same time not altogether eliminating political expertise from the political system. Anyone wanting to hold office would have to maintain a means of supporting themselves between stints with the government. They would be forced to get along in the real world while waiting for another chance at office.
Stan Shannon wrote: I think a far simpler method is to simply disallow politicians from serving consecutive terms. I think that is a fair suggestion. Although, I think the system you have in the States just now, where there is a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, is better - Sometimes I just don't think there is enough time in a single term to complete longer term projects.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
phykell wrote: No, I think you know exactly what I was trying to say but you decided to twist it. For what purpose, I have no idea. I have no idea what you think I've twisted. All I did was express my opinion. phykell wrote: As for your bizarre analogy, it's invalid. Public services are not individual consumer items. Actually they are. Some examples * I drink water every day - A public service provides me that water. * I walk in the street after dark - A public service provides the lighting for me to see. * I drive a car - A public service maintains the roads so I can drive safely. * I have to take certain drugs for the remainder of my life - A public service provides me these drugs at a reasonable cost and if I should lose my job that public service will make these drugs available to me for no cost. * I need to visit my cardiologist every year - A public serive provides the money to train my doctor, to build the hospital and provide the medical facilities so that my condition may be monitored. * I was educated by the state for 13 years - A public service provided the buildings, the equipment and the teachers for me to become an educated person. * I go to the toilet - A public service provides a sewerage system to take that waste away hygenically. * I am licenced to drive a car - A public serivice provided the test center and paid for the examiner in order that I could be tested. That is a lot of consumerism. Some things I use everyday and somethings less often. I pay for all of this through my taxes. phykell wrote: So it doesn't bother you that what an MP thinks isn't good enough for herself and her children is perfectly adequate for everyone else? Eh? An MP sends her child to a fee paying school is the same as many families. It is a CHOICE. If you think an MP is being hypocritical then don't vote for that MP. phykell wrote: but perhaps MPs would show more responsibility and empathy for the people they serve if they were to lead by example No, you are confusing empathy with sympathy. Empathy: The ability to identify and understand another person’s feelings, ideas, and circumstances. Sympathy: a relation of affinity or harmony between people; whatever affects one correspondingly affects the other That MP in south London you mentioned before probably does have empathy for her consituants, but that does NOT mean that she has to do the same as
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I have no idea what you think I've twisted. All I did was express my opinion. OK, fair enough. I was just trying to make the point that MPs don't live like the people they serve and perhaps if they did, our public services might improve as a result. You just seemed to take it a different way, probably my fault for not being clear :) Colin Angus Mackay wrote:Actually they are. It depends on your definition I guess, but using one of your examples, you quote water as a "consumer item" despite the fact you also say it's delivered by a public service. Semantics perhaps but I think water is a necessity and while certain companies certainly have made water into a consumer item, it's also a basic human need in the form we use in our homes and it is the responsibility of the Government to provide a clean, safe water supply. The defence of the nation, for example, could be described as a public service but hardly as a consumer item. Onto transport and the rail regulator head, Tom Winsor, who is just leaving his post, has stated his case with a rail review on how the Government have failed to manage this most important aspect of public transport with regards, for example, to how Ministers have repeatedly tried to decrease funding, even in the wake of the Hatfield disaster. Anyway, I'm going OT... Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, you are confusing empathy with sympathy. No, I'm not. I'm well aware of the difference. I don't expect sympathy from MPs, I expect their empathy, their ability to identify with ordinary people which is my whole point of course. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
-
Stan Shannon wrote: I think a far simpler method is to simply disallow politicians from serving consecutive terms. I think that is a fair suggestion. Although, I think the system you have in the States just now, where there is a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, is better - Sometimes I just don't think there is enough time in a single term to complete longer term projects.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: think the system you have in the States just now, where there is a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, is better Sadly that applies only to the president. Congress has no such limit. :( "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
-
phykell wrote: You must be kidding! Are you seriously suggesting that our MPs don't get enough money and perks? Think of all the absolute shit that gets thrown in the direction of polititians whether you agree with them or not. Of course, if you pay the average salary then the polititians will simply not be up to the job, because the people who are up to the job will go else where. Put it another way. If polititians don't get paid a sufficient amount they start abusing their power. They get their money and their perks from sources that are not in the interest of the country. There are still instances of this happening, however it would be much much higher if polititians were paid less. phykell wrote: How can you expect a person who hasn't even had to drive for years, to possibly understand what it's like for the average worker to commute 80 miles a day in modern Britain? Firstly, I don't HAVE TO drive. It is a choice. I drive on average 40-50 miles a week. The rest of the time I take the train. Does the average worker commute 80 miles a day? Most of the people I work with live closer than I do. I would guess that only 15% of the people in the company I work travel 80 or more miles per day. I would suggest that polititians commute a lot further when you consider that they have parliamentarty business in London and they also have constituency meetings in the place they represent. Only the MPs for places in and around London would fit inside your average. phykell wrote: Unfortunately for them, the only way of making them understand is for them to live as ordinary people do, to have to use the public services that the rest of us do And how does an ordinary person live? The people I come into contact with each day have a diverse set of lifestyles. Also, polititians DO use public services every day. The drink water, they use the toilet, they walk in the street, they drive cars, they fly in aircraft. All these activities depend on public services.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Think of all the absolute sh*t that gets thrown in the direction of polititians whether you agree with them or not. Of course, if you pay the average salary then the polititians will simply not be up to the job, because the people who are up to the job will go else where. Put it another way. If polititians don't get paid a sufficient amount they start abusing their power. They get their money and their perks from sources that are not in the interest of the country. There are still instances of this happening, however it would be much much higher if polititians were paid less. Why's the average salary not enough for MPs? Are you saying that the average salary for a UK worker is not enough for them to behave professionally, or are MPs some sort of "special case"? I don't think so. If it's good enough for us, it's bloody well good enough for them too. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Does the average worker commute 80 miles a day? Most of the people I work with live closer than I do. I would guess that only 15% of the people in the company I work travel 80 or more miles per day. Oops, a zero crept in there somehow! I meant 8 miles of course. In actual fact, it's 8.5 miles and the average time is 45 minutes, the highest in Europe! Colin Angus Mackay wrote: And how does an ordinary person live? The people I come into contact with each day have a diverse set of lifestyles. Perhaps, but I know many who have to rely on the NHS for operations that might take months and even years due to waiting lists. I've heard of someone who had to dig into their savings to pay for an operation for cataracts rather than go blind waiting for an NHS funded operation even though they'd paid NI for all their working lives. Another example is pensions. The Government continue to fail to address this incredibly important issue. Isn't it a fair point to suggest that the reason they seem unwilling to act is because, it doesn't affect them! Our public services are failing and the Government simply aren't doing enough to help. I maintain that if they understood through necessity, they would make a lot more effort at improving life for everybody. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: I have no idea what you think I've twisted. All I did was express my opinion. OK, fair enough. I was just trying to make the point that MPs don't live like the people they serve and perhaps if they did, our public services might improve as a result. You just seemed to take it a different way, probably my fault for not being clear :) Colin Angus Mackay wrote:Actually they are. It depends on your definition I guess, but using one of your examples, you quote water as a "consumer item" despite the fact you also say it's delivered by a public service. Semantics perhaps but I think water is a necessity and while certain companies certainly have made water into a consumer item, it's also a basic human need in the form we use in our homes and it is the responsibility of the Government to provide a clean, safe water supply. The defence of the nation, for example, could be described as a public service but hardly as a consumer item. Onto transport and the rail regulator head, Tom Winsor, who is just leaving his post, has stated his case with a rail review on how the Government have failed to manage this most important aspect of public transport with regards, for example, to how Ministers have repeatedly tried to decrease funding, even in the wake of the Hatfield disaster. Anyway, I'm going OT... Colin Angus Mackay wrote: No, you are confusing empathy with sympathy. No, I'm not. I'm well aware of the difference. I don't expect sympathy from MPs, I expect their empathy, their ability to identify with ordinary people which is my whole point of course. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
phykell wrote: I was just trying to make the point that MPs don't live like the people they serve and perhaps if they did, our public services might improve as a result. You just seemed to take it a different way It depends who you are and vote for. I imagine that many people who vote for the Conservative party live similarly to their candidates. You could vote for the Scottish Socialist Party (if you live in Scotland of course) their MSPs only accept the national average wage and give the rest to charity. phykell wrote: using one of your examples, you quote water as a "consumer item" despite the fact you also say it's delivered by a public service. I can opt out. I don't have to accept the water that comes through my taps. I can, for about £3000 to £5000 a device that collects rainwater from my roof that I can use for non-drinking purposes and I can buy bottles of drinking water. So it is still a consumer service. phykell wrote: The defence of the nation, for example, could be described as a public service but hardly as a consumer item If I felt the need I can hire body guards - not quite the same as the defence of a whole nation, but it is more analagous to police services. Until about 5 years ago some people had their own private armies. However that was disbanded as it was largly ceremonial and the army came with a title which was passed to an ex-pat who now lives in Australia and he wasn't interested in having a private army in Scotland. phykell wrote: I don't expect sympathy from MPs, I expect their empathy, their ability to identify with ordinary people An ability to identify with "ordinary people" doesn't mean that they have to do the same as ordinary people. No one is really "ordinary" we are all unique. I wouldn't expect my MP to live like me, for one thing he lives in Downing Street and I think he needs the big gates and police protection more than I do.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: think the system you have in the States just now, where there is a maximum of 2 consecutive terms, is better Sadly that applies only to the president. Congress has no such limit. :( "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sadly that applies only to the president. Congress has no such limit Well, at least you have a constraint on the president. Margaret Thatcher stayed well into a third term by which time she had become decidedly odd in the head. A constraint of two terms could have reduced her pemiership by 3 years. And would save us all from the prospect of a third term with Tony - but apparently Gordon Brown (the chancellor of the exchequer) stormed into Tony's office and bellowed something along the lines of "When are you going to resign so I can have the job that is rightfully mine". I don't know what's worse - The devil you know, or the devil you don't know.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sadly that applies only to the president. Congress has no such limit Well, at least you have a constraint on the president. Margaret Thatcher stayed well into a third term by which time she had become decidedly odd in the head. A constraint of two terms could have reduced her pemiership by 3 years. And would save us all from the prospect of a third term with Tony - but apparently Gordon Brown (the chancellor of the exchequer) stormed into Tony's office and bellowed something along the lines of "When are you going to resign so I can have the job that is rightfully mine". I don't know what's worse - The devil you know, or the devil you don't know.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Well, at least you have a constraint on the president. True. Personally, I'd like to see the US change the presidential term to 6 years and limit it to one term. Might help stop all the election year shenanigans. As for Congress, I'd like to see all members (House and Senate) serve 4 year terms limited to 2 or 3 terms. "President Bush has promised he's going to establish elections in Iraq, he's going to rebuild the infrastructure and he's going to create jobs. And he said if it works there, he'll try it here." David Letterman
-
Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Think of all the absolute sh*t that gets thrown in the direction of polititians whether you agree with them or not. Of course, if you pay the average salary then the polititians will simply not be up to the job, because the people who are up to the job will go else where. Put it another way. If polititians don't get paid a sufficient amount they start abusing their power. They get their money and their perks from sources that are not in the interest of the country. There are still instances of this happening, however it would be much much higher if polititians were paid less. Why's the average salary not enough for MPs? Are you saying that the average salary for a UK worker is not enough for them to behave professionally, or are MPs some sort of "special case"? I don't think so. If it's good enough for us, it's bloody well good enough for them too. Colin Angus Mackay wrote: Does the average worker commute 80 miles a day? Most of the people I work with live closer than I do. I would guess that only 15% of the people in the company I work travel 80 or more miles per day. Oops, a zero crept in there somehow! I meant 8 miles of course. In actual fact, it's 8.5 miles and the average time is 45 minutes, the highest in Europe! Colin Angus Mackay wrote: And how does an ordinary person live? The people I come into contact with each day have a diverse set of lifestyles. Perhaps, but I know many who have to rely on the NHS for operations that might take months and even years due to waiting lists. I've heard of someone who had to dig into their savings to pay for an operation for cataracts rather than go blind waiting for an NHS funded operation even though they'd paid NI for all their working lives. Another example is pensions. The Government continue to fail to address this incredibly important issue. Isn't it a fair point to suggest that the reason they seem unwilling to act is because, it doesn't affect them! Our public services are failing and the Government simply aren't doing enough to help. I maintain that if they understood through necessity, they would make a lot more effort at improving life for everybody. "Oh, I'm sick of doing Japanese stuff! In jail we had to be in this dumb kabuki play about the 47 Ronin, and I wanted to be Oshi, but they made me Ori!"
phykell wrote: Why's the average salary not enough for MPs? Why is the average salary not good enough for the CEO of BT, Tesco or PowerGen? What you get paid is determined by the VALUE that you provide. A teenager working for McDonalds only gets £4.50 per hour because that is as much value as they put into that hour. Hey, if they smile they get an extra 50p (or so I'm told). However if you look at software developer job ads they are advertising at what is equivalent to £12 to £18 because that is the VALUE a software developer puts into an hour. If a software developer got paid the same as a street cleaner I wouldn't work hard to get the education to become a software developer. phykell wrote: are MPs some sort of "special case"? MPs are not a special case. They get paid commensurate with the job that they do. phykell wrote: If it's good enough for us, it's bloody well good enough for them too. I don't get paid the average wage. I'd be irked if I have to take a pay cut. phykell wrote: I've heard of someone who had to dig into their savings to pay for an operation for cataracts rather than go blind waiting for an NHS funded operation So.... I've toyed with the idea that one day I might have to pay for cardiology treatment rather than wait for it on the NHS. And if I have to re-mortgage my house to do it then I will. The bottom line is that if I have to use up all my resources in order to get an operation that I need then I will do that. I don't have a problem with that. I know that if I need to do that then I have the ability to regain financial control afterwards. My ex-fiancée left me £25K in debt last year and I am in the process of regaining control right now - I know where I stand, whats coming in and what's going out and in a few years I will be back where I was in 2000 (before the money drain started) and I'll keep improving. phykell wrote: even though they'd paid NI for all their working lives You know, last year I spent 3 months unemployed - In total I got back from the government a fraction of what I had paid them in tax over the previous 12 months. phykell wrote: Isn't it a fair point to suggest that the reason they seem unwilling to act is because, it doesn't affect them! We live in a democracy - If you don't like what they are doing vote them out... Or stand yourselve and have p
-
Mike Mullikin wrote: Sadly that applies only to the president. Congress has no such limit Well, at least you have a constraint on the president. Margaret Thatcher stayed well into a third term by which time she had become decidedly odd in the head. A constraint of two terms could have reduced her pemiership by 3 years. And would save us all from the prospect of a third term with Tony - but apparently Gordon Brown (the chancellor of the exchequer) stormed into Tony's office and bellowed something along the lines of "When are you going to resign so I can have the job that is rightfully mine". I don't know what's worse - The devil you know, or the devil you don't know.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
The trouble is parliamentarism is fundamentally different than a presidential system. a.) The public don't actually vote for the prime minister, a caucus does. b.) There would therefore be ways around this. I'm sure that their would be a way around this, but what would really help is more educated voters. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
-
phykell wrote: You must be kidding! Are you seriously suggesting that our MPs don't get enough money and perks? Think of all the absolute shit that gets thrown in the direction of polititians whether you agree with them or not. Of course, if you pay the average salary then the polititians will simply not be up to the job, because the people who are up to the job will go else where. Put it another way. If polititians don't get paid a sufficient amount they start abusing their power. They get their money and their perks from sources that are not in the interest of the country. There are still instances of this happening, however it would be much much higher if polititians were paid less. phykell wrote: How can you expect a person who hasn't even had to drive for years, to possibly understand what it's like for the average worker to commute 80 miles a day in modern Britain? Firstly, I don't HAVE TO drive. It is a choice. I drive on average 40-50 miles a week. The rest of the time I take the train. Does the average worker commute 80 miles a day? Most of the people I work with live closer than I do. I would guess that only 15% of the people in the company I work travel 80 or more miles per day. I would suggest that polititians commute a lot further when you consider that they have parliamentarty business in London and they also have constituency meetings in the place they represent. Only the MPs for places in and around London would fit inside your average. phykell wrote: Unfortunately for them, the only way of making them understand is for them to live as ordinary people do, to have to use the public services that the rest of us do And how does an ordinary person live? The people I come into contact with each day have a diverse set of lifestyles. Also, polititians DO use public services every day. The drink water, they use the toilet, they walk in the street, they drive cars, they fly in aircraft. All these activities depend on public services.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way!
In the U.S. there is no shortage of people applying to be politicians regardless of the pay. We often have 25 candidates for local council positions that pay nothing. Our Congress has it quite well. They built an airport for themselves to ease travel. And a limited access highway to get there. Not to mention the superb healthcare, retirement plan and other benefits unavailable to most ordinary citizens.
-
In the U.S. there is no shortage of people applying to be politicians regardless of the pay. We often have 25 candidates for local council positions that pay nothing. Our Congress has it quite well. They built an airport for themselves to ease travel. And a limited access highway to get there. Not to mention the superb healthcare, retirement plan and other benefits unavailable to most ordinary citizens.
Didn't Richard Prior's character in Brewster's Millions ask: What are two man paying millions of dollars each trying to get you to vote them into a job that only pays $60,000 per year? IIRC, the answer was that both were corrupt.
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
The trouble is parliamentarism is fundamentally different than a presidential system. a.) The public don't actually vote for the prime minister, a caucus does. b.) There would therefore be ways around this. I'm sure that their would be a way around this, but what would really help is more educated voters. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox
ColinDavies wrote: a.) The public don't actually vote for the prime minister, a caucus does. The actual election of the head of a party, who would then become the prime minister if the party won a majority, depends on the party itself. In the UK: The Liberal Democrats have a one-member-one-vote system for all members of the party - Very simple and easy to understand. The Conservatives the elected members elect the leader - From what I understand this is a bit like the electoral college system - The electorate votes for someone who will vote on their behalf in the final vote. Strange, but it is fairly easy to understand. The Labour party have the most complex system where the Unions have a block vote (each union's vote is weighted by their membership - but most don't consult the membership as to who to vote for) that altogether works out as a third, party members make up another third and elected polititians make up the final third [You need a degree in mathematics to understand how that all works out - the politics of the jostling just prior to an internal election, be it for leader or mayoral candidate for London, can be almost impossible to track as an outsider].
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
-
ColinDavies wrote: a.) The public don't actually vote for the prime minister, a caucus does. The actual election of the head of a party, who would then become the prime minister if the party won a majority, depends on the party itself. In the UK: The Liberal Democrats have a one-member-one-vote system for all members of the party - Very simple and easy to understand. The Conservatives the elected members elect the leader - From what I understand this is a bit like the electoral college system - The electorate votes for someone who will vote on their behalf in the final vote. Strange, but it is fairly easy to understand. The Labour party have the most complex system where the Unions have a block vote (each union's vote is weighted by their membership - but most don't consult the membership as to who to vote for) that altogether works out as a third, party members make up another third and elected polititians make up the final third [You need a degree in mathematics to understand how that all works out - the politics of the jostling just prior to an internal election, be it for leader or mayoral candidate for London, can be almost impossible to track as an outsider].
"You can have everything in life you want if you will just help enough other people get what they want." --Zig Ziglar The Second EuroCPian Event will be in Brussels on the 4th of September Can't manage to P/Invoke that Win32 API in .NET? Why not do interop the wiki way! My Blog
But the guts is, it's a party decision as to how primeministers are are elected. Joe in the Street with no party-membership or union membership can not put a vote on the PM. Thus party politics is not legally institutionalized unlike it has become in the US. Note in the US parties are legally bound to have their Primaries in states on certain days, and wot not. Regardz Colin J Davies
*** WARNING *
This could be addictive
**The minion's version of "Catch :bob: "It's a real shame that people as stupid as you can work out how to use a computer. said by Christian Graus in the Soapbox