Democracy - The Suggestion Box
-
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
-
Mark Merrens wrote: More than a little simplistic - MP's should come from a cross section of society and be properly representative of the people they claim to stand for. They should also have had experience of real life. No career politicians allowed. Well, if we were going to reform our current parliamentary system to do such a thing, I'd say that the House of Lords would be best made up of a cross-section of the population - after all, they are responsible for reviewing proposed legislation. The MPs in the Commons are responsible for drafting and voting on legislation, which is a tedious, boring, thankless and complicated task - the average Joe in the street isn't always up to this. There's a simple test here - 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 :-D However, it is a duty of MPs and peers to find out what is important to their constituents. This is achieved through the virtue of reading the letters and emails sent to them, as well as taking note of what parties were voted for in elections. For example, if there were a large number of Green votes, then you do well to consider Green issues. Mark Merrens wrote: A better plan would be to change the law such that anyone with an IQ of less than 110 was barred from voting since they could not possibly understand what it was they were voting for. While there are studies that indicate that people incompetent in a field cannot recognise their inability in that field, it doesn't follow that having "lower" intelligence means they are unable to consider policy that directly affects them. People vote for different parties for different reasons. Should it be the case that only people who can demonstrate significant knowledge in all fields of government get a vote? If you were found incompetant at economic theory (say), does that mean you can't vote at all, even though you are only bothered about other issues? You don't need an IQ of 110 (which is such an arbitrary figure - care to justify it?) to decide that they want to vote for the party who promises to cut taxes, or improve education, or get more local investment, or whatever it is they find important to themselves.
Ian Darling The world is a thing of utter inordinate complexity ... that such complexity can arise ... ou
-
I disagree. I'm sure we agree that elected officials are pompous twats at the best of times. However if we are to attract better persons into the chambers, we must remunerate and recompense them better. - If you pay peanuts you will get m...... - 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: if we are to attract better persons into the chambers, we must remunerate and recompense them better. As far as I remember, the reason that MPs etc USED to be so "badly" paid was to eliminate the idea of people getting into politics for the money....and I stressed the word USED.... "Now I guess I'll sit back and watch people misinterpret what I just said......" Christian Graus At The Soapbox