Bolitics The New Condem Government

[Awol]

[Direct democracy tends to end up not working in practice because people always vote for lower taxes and increased public spending until the state goes bankrupt.

It seems to work very well in Switzerland.

Maybe they have enough checks and balances to prevent the "tyranny of the majorty"? Though I know Muslims have been getting a hard time over there recently.

Have they, how? The people voted against allowing minarets to be built on any new mosques, but there has been no restriction on building mosques or the freedom to worship. Is that what you mean?

[LondonLax]

[Direct democracy tends to end up not working in practice because people always vote for lower taxes and increased public spending until the state goes bankrupt.

It seems to work very well in Switzerland.

Maybe they have enough checks and balances to prevent the "tyranny of the majorty"? Though I know Muslims have been getting a hard time over there recently.

Have they, how? The people voted against allowing minarets to be built on any new mosques, but there has been no restriction on building mosques or the freedom to worship. Is that what you mean?

If you don't see any problem then there is probably no point discussing it further.

[snowychap]

Oi! Just 'cause I'm not smart enough to contribute to the Bollitics threads doesn't mean I don't read them aspirationally from time to time.

Though I'm still a little disappointed that you didn't play along and photoshop your own head on it.

[tonyh29]

[Direct democracy tends to end up not working in practice because people always vote for lower taxes and increased public spending until the state goes bankrupt.

It seems to work very well in Switzerland.

Maybe they have enough checks and balances to prevent the "tyranny of the majorty"? Though I know Muslims have been getting a hard time over there recently.

Have they, how? The people voted against allowing minarets to be built on any new mosques, but there has been no restriction on building mosques or the freedom to worship. Is that what you mean?

If you don't see any problem then there is probably no point discussing it further.

no offence mate but I always hate that cop out .. awol has raised a valid point in respect to your post that muslims are getting a hard time in Switzerland ... why not discuss it further rather than just kinda saying you don't accept my pov so there is nothing more to say

(anyway lecture over ..carry on )

[LondonLax]

Tis my last day of work before the Christmas holidays. Can't a guy have a break from internet arguments? :winkold:

[tonyh29]

Tis my last day of work before the Christmas holidays. Can't a guy have a break from internet arguments? :winkold:

:-)

oh go on , seeing as it's Christmas ...

[peterms]

You place too much faith in these experts.

well who says my cabinet wouldn't have been full of the experts who saw the problems coming :winkold:

Their views are wholly inconsistent with your own, so it seems unlikely you would choose to follow their advice. :winkold:

Interestingly at the time I said let Northern Rock etc fail but protect savers .. now in hindsight I was probably wrong at that time and Darlings plan was probably the correct one .... but fast forward 2 years and maybe my initial thought was right after all nobody (well almost nobody) saw things going as bad as they got ... guess what I'm saying is the experts who saw it coming may have just got lucky this time around ... or the could be like St Vince and taking credit where it isn't due

The people who saw it coming didn't just predict there would be some sort of problem, and leave it at that. They explained the nature of the emerging problem (the extent of private debt fuelling asset bubbles), demonstrated why this had caused enormous problems in the past, and proposed action to deal with it.

They were ignored.

Right now, several people are continuing to explain that the real problem is the extent of private debt, and in the UK the extreme amount of debt held by the financial sector, but the attention of policymakers is focussed almost exclusively on government debt.

On that point, this chart is quite interesting. But the experts are still looking the other way.

[tinker]

Our governments existing experts are mainly backing an economy built on financial institutions providing the wealth we need. IMO we need experts who back the manufacturing, construction and farming industries to increase growth.

The instability in our economy will always remain if the renewable energy crisis is not answered. Build a tidal generation scheme, drive research into generating energy from the sea, waves, tides.....The existing system of sticking wind turbines on the earths most powerful energy source (the sea) is misguided and plain wrong, IMHO.

If we can get cheap energy then manufacturing would flourish (inward investment), construct undergrounds for major citys, drive the economy from the bottom up (giving the low level workers the investment through construction job wages). Something that adds value to our country.

Throwing money into a financial pyramid scheme is not going to solve our problems for very long. Its a change of direction thats needed, A leader whos from a banking background is not going to provide the answers for us all, he will protect the system and the backers who made him "Our Leader......"

[peterms]

Our governments existing experts are mainly backing an economy built on financial institutions providing the wealth we need. IMO we need experts who back the manufacturing, construction and farming industries to increase growth.

The instability in our economy will always remain if the renewable energy crisis is not answered. Build a tidal generation scheme, drive research into generating energy from the sea, waves, tides.....The existing system of sticking wind turbines on the earths most powerful energy source (the sea) is misguided and plain wrong, IMHO.

If we can get cheap energy then manufacturing would flourish (inward investment), construct undergrounds for major citys, drive the economy from the bottom up (giving the low level workers the investment through construction job wages). Something that adds value to our country.

Throwing money into a financial pyramid scheme is not going to solve our problems for very long. Its a change of direction thats needed, A leader whos from a banking background is not going to provide the answers for us all, he will protect the system and the backers who made him "Our Leader......"

Exactly. But where the Labour Party should be articulating that and trying to build understanding of that approach, they are falling short.

[tinker]

Exactly. But where the Labour Party should be articulating that and trying to build understanding of that approach, they are falling short.

I agree, politics is now a course you take at uni, a social class, a closed club. I dont think any existing party would have the drive, knowledge or backing to do what needs to be done (im pretty sure they havent). We need a new ruling class or a different system.........or perhaps both. This can only be achieved by the people in this country, not the leaders, they have failed and have no answers im afraid, just the same old ways that got us in the mess to start with. Vive la Revolution!

[Amsterdam_Neil_D]

Nice one guys, it was only an idea. As said above the danger is the lower taxes or get rid of person type XYZ etc but I would build in safe guards to stop this happening. The things voted on would be around the same ball park as what is voted on now but the difference is that the vote would be on the subject and not the party. This is the main problem currently, they vote for what they are told is the right vote and never for the benefit of the country as a whole. As someone said the last 40 years have been a joke, no one of any allegiance can be proud of what has been achieved given the resources and population available. The advantage is that it gets people engaged and takes the power away from the people who should never be anywhere near it. I don't know how much it costs to keep the House of commons ticking along but considering that they are all in it for themselves only I would say anything else would be a bargain.

[drat01]

Exactly. But where the Labour Party should be articulating that and trying to build understanding of that approach, they are falling short.

I agree, politics is now a course you take at uni, a social class, a closed club. I dont think any existing party would have the drive, knowledge or backing to do what needs to be done (im pretty sure they havent). We need a new ruling class or a different system.........or perhaps both. This can only be achieved by the people in this country, not the leaders, they have failed and have no answers im afraid, just the same old ways that got us in the mess to start with. Vive la Revolution!

I think you are 99.99% right there Tinker. There are some radicals who do not conform to the new rules that some like to play by, Dennis Skinner etc, hence the 99.99 rather than 100

One thing this whole finance mess has shown is that the world is a totally different place to how it was when a lot of the inward looking policies were drawn up. No country can be isolated and it shows that country borders are nothing more than artificial lines drawn up to protect the interests of a few (typically those who are the most wealthy).

I really did think that out of the sell out by the LibDems that a new middle/left party would emerge, one that would actually appeal to a large proportion of those in the UK. Priorities have to be to ensure that wealth and greed are not the be all and end all that some have allowed and actively encourage. Social conscience should be a driving force.

The politicians are more interested in feathering their own nests and image than actually being good at what they do. With the current political system there is far too much outside influence, typically backed by donations of millions. No one will do that without some sort of payback and that is basically wrong.

In Gvmt there are very few experts from the fields that they are supposed to govern. Just because you went to a public school backed by wealthy parents does not mean at all that you will have a informed view on what the majority face each day, in fact you can argue it will actually hinder you as you have little in the way of real life experience.

[kidlewis]

I never get why someone in charge of department has zero knowledge or experience of that particular department.

the Defence secretary should have had a career or at least some kind of knowledge and experience of that field.

same for health secretary.

you wouldn't recruit someone in a position who had no experience or knowledge of that job or industry.

Always baffled me why governments reshuffle all the time.

[tinker]

you wouldn't recruit someone in a position who had no experience or knowledge of that job or industry.

Unless they was your friend? Or if the system that taught you showed you this was the way? After all you dont want to employ someone who tells the truth no matter what the politcal implication are, would you?

A modern politicians main aim is to get and keep elected, what they do after that is a secondary consideration.

[peterms]

I never get why someone in charge of department has zero knowledge or experience of that particular department.

the Defence secretary should have had a career or at least some kind of knowledge and experience of that field.

same for health secretary.

you wouldn't recruit someone in a position who had no experience or knowledge of that job or industry.

Always baffled me why governments reshuffle all the time.

The argument is that the role of a minister is to set strategic policy direction, not implement policy. You don't need a detailed knowledge of transport policy to be able to decide if you want to promote cycling and public transport vs roadbuilding, and vice versa. But you do need detailed technical knowledge to understand how best to implement a chosen policy direction.

A second argument is that politicians who are technocrats are more likely to go native, and be swayed by the views of officials because they don't keep enough distance from them.

On the industry comparison, people without knowledge of an industry are recruited to roles on a regular basis, at board level. Sometimes they bring a specialist skill which isn't specific to that industry, sometimes they have general management experience, sometimes it's just nepotism.

The argument for reshuffling is also about avoiding people going native. There's a further argument that the more specialist knowledge you have, the harder it can be to take a strategic view - which is the thinking behind moving civil servants from say agriculture to housing every few years; the idea is that they build generic skills of policy analysis and strategic thought, and the detailed technical knowledge of one field is available from others.

[blandy]

I never get why someone in charge of department has zero knowledge or experience of that particular department.

the Defence secretary should have had a career or at least some kind of knowledge and experience of that field.

same for health secretary.

you wouldn't recruit someone in a position who had no experience or knowledge of that job or industry...

The main reason is that too many politicians have never done anything other than be career politicians - look at the front benches and there's very few people there who have any experience or knowledge of "proper" work. So it's hard to pick someone with experience of the Army, Navy RAF, or defence industry to be a defence secretary. Same with health and so on.

Then when you have someone who has no experience or knowledge, civil servants and advisers and party dogma tend to be the over-riding influences, as opposed to any personal judgement.

It doesn't mean that everyone in Gov't in a role should have experience outside parliament, in that field, but it would help enormously.

And they reshuffle so often because they want to be seen as "fresh" all the time.

[LondonLax]

I never get why someone in charge of department has zero knowledge or experience of that particular department.

the Defence secretary should have had a career or at least some kind of knowledge and experience of that field.

same for health secretary.

you wouldn't recruit someone in a position who had no experience or knowledge of that job or industry.

Always baffled me why governments reshuffle all the time.

On the industry comparison, people without knowledge of an industry are recruited to roles on a regular basis, at board level. Sometimes they bring a specialist skill which isn't specific to that industry, sometimes they have general management experience, sometimes it's just nepotism.

See Paul Falkner :nod:

[kidlewis]

sounds all like bull crap politics to me.

perhaps we should have an entire house of independents which base their allegiencies on certain political motives but have no whips or ability to over rule people based on cracking the whip?

yes things would take longer but wouldn't that mean policies and legislation would need to be better thought out?

HS2 would never have gotten through on it's current proposal and neither would have other issues.

[peterms]

sounds all like bull crap politics to me.

perhaps we should have an entire house of independents which base their allegiencies on certain political motives but have no whips or ability to over rule people based on cracking the whip?

yes things would take longer but wouldn't that mean policies and legislation would need to be better thought out?

HS2 would never have gotten through on it's current proposal and neither would have other issues.

Have you seen the people who stand as independents? :shock:

[kidlewis]

sounds all like bull crap politics to me.

perhaps we should have an entire house of independents which base their allegiencies on certain political motives but have no whips or ability to over rule people based on cracking the whip?

yes things would take longer but wouldn't that mean policies and legislation would need to be better thought out?

HS2 would never have gotten through on it's current proposal and neither would have other issues.

Have you seen the people who stand as independents? :shock:

yeah some of them are pretty "spesh"

What I mean is that while you have parties now, imagine if today all parties disbanded and you made up the front bench of the best 12 or however many people in the entire house voted for by the house.

no whips means no party line even though policy of individuals would forge allegiences, but this would mean people being brought together purely on policy and not on party politics.

isn't that the ultimate goal? I see it that way.

at the moment if I was a tory MP and one of my colleagues was a twunt and another was a great chap and I was told you must side with the twunt who's policy I don't agree with I would have to tow the line.

if it so happens that the front bench is made up of a current mixture of Tory/Labour and independent MPs but they are all the "best (wo)men for the job" isn't that a better proposal?