Will todays 30 somethings be the most hated generation in years to come?

[Anna B]

On the public who voted for them?

 

It is successive political parties of all persuasions who have brought us to this point.

 

The last general election, if you remember, had many many people saying they didn't know who to vote for as all parties were as bad as each other, hence we ended up with this coalition. If that breaks down, who will there be to vote for?

 

None of them can get us out of this mess, so don't blame people who had to vote for what they thought of as the best of a bad bunch (whichever party)

for want of a party who represents their real interests.

[Anna B]

Please don't blame the voting public for this mess.

[chem1st]

Please don't blame the voting public for this mess.

 

How do you propose, we, the people unite and form our own government?

 

We need £1million reserves to stand.

[Anna B]

How do you propose, we, the people unite and form our own government?

 

We need £1million reserves to stand.

 

We are back to exactly the discussions that were had before the last election.

 

There was no answer then and there is no answer now.

 

When the law of the ballot box breaks down, then anarchy will rule.

 

I fear this is only the start.

[chem1st]

We are back to exactly the discussions that were had before the last election.

 

There was no answer then and there is no answer now.

 

When the law of the ballot box breaks down, then anarchy will rule.

 

I fear this is only the start.

 

WE are all in this together.

 

And to be honest we are.

 

We just need to unite and the groups we unite into need to unite.

 

And then We will become the majority.

 

30 million workers, 3p each makes a million, enough to stand a candidate in all 650+ wards

[grafikhaus74]

but its us who elected them, so we should hate ourselves

 

On the public who voted for them?

 

Well I for one haven't voted for many years. (Cue the oft-quoted 'If you don't vote, you don't have a say' rubbish. What say, precisely do we have? On Iraq? On Afghanistan? On the EU? On immigration? On future energy policy?)

 

How do you propose, we, the people unite and form our own government?

 

We need £1million reserves to stand.

 

I'm not proposing that the people 'form a government'. The average person is too thick to know what to watch on TV tonight, let alone run a country. And the 'need for £1m reserves' is precisely how 'they' have set the system up - an elected dictatorship.

 

I suppose I'd better offer my idea of an alternative to the current system!

 

Well, on paper there's not a lot wrong with the current system. It's just that it's been hijacked by a bunch of liars, thieves and chancers who keep the system firmly skewed in their own greedy, self-centred way. I can well imagine that any new MP, having slithered their way up the greasy pole of local government, will quickly find a proprietoral arm around their shoulders and someone saying "You do know how we do things around here, old boy." It would take an extremely brave - or foolish - person to step out of line or 'rock the boat'.

 

Ask Dr. David Kelly. Oh, I forgot! You can't.

 

So, a maximum of 250 MPs. The notion that any MP 'represents their constituency' is laughable. What, for example, does Ed Milliband know about Doncaster North? Nothing. He's simply been parachuted into a safe seat. And our 'home grown' MPs such as Blunkett and Caborn are totally corrupt, Clegg has shown he will do and say anything to retain power and Betts hardly covered himself in glory while 'running' SCC.

These MPs to be paid £100,000 p.a. plus chauffeur-driven car. With strictly-controlled expenses (by a truly independent body) - no foreign jaunts, no lavish meals (after all, they like to portray themselves as 'men of the people', so why should their tastes change as soon as their noses near the trough?), secretarial fees to be paid out of their lavish salaries and travel to the House of Commons only when absolutely necessary (Surely they should be busy 'in their constituencies' and haven't they heard of tele-conferencing?)

 

Absolutely no second homes.

 

Absolutely no second/third, fourth 'jobs'. That way, they'd not be open to accusations of being 'lobbied' or, as it's called in the financial world, insider trading.

Mandatory 5 years prison for any breach of the above. (Surely shouldn't bother them. After all, they are 'Honourable' persons).

 

Not perfect, but better than the corrupt system we're being asked to prop up every 4 years? And there'd be no shortage of applicants.

[Anna B]

Well I for one haven't voted for many years. (Cue the oft-quoted 'If you don't vote, you don't have a say' rubbish. What say, precisely do we have? On Iraq? On Afghanistan? On the EU? On immigration? On future energy policy?)

 

 

 

I'm not proposing that the people 'form a government'. The average person is too thick to know what to watch on TV tonight, let alone run a country. And the 'need for £1m reserves' is precisely how 'they' have set the system up - an elected dictatorship.

 

I suppose I'd better offer my idea of an alternative to the current system!

 

Well, on paper there's not a lot wrong with the current system. It's just that it's been hijacked by a bunch of liars, thieves and chancers who keep the system firmly skewed in their own greedy, self-centred way. I can well imagine that any new MP, having slithered their way up the greasy pole of local government, will quickly find a proprietoral arm around their shoulders and someone saying "You do know how we do things around here, old boy." It would take an extremely brave - or foolish - person to step out of line or 'rock the boat'.

 

Ask Dr. David Kelly. Oh, I forgot! You can't.

 

So, a maximum of 250 MPs. The notion that any MP 'represents their constituency' is laughable. What, for example, does Ed Milliband know about Doncaster North? Nothing. He's simply been parachuted into a safe seat. And our 'home grown' MPs such as Blunkett and Caborn are totally corrupt, Clegg has shown he will do and say anything to retain power and Betts hardly covered himself in glory while 'running' SCC.

These MPs to be paid £100,000 p.a. plus chauffeur-driven car. With strictly-controlled expenses (by a truly independent body) - no foreign jaunts, no lavish meals (after all, they like to portray themselves as 'men of the people', so why should their tastes change as soon as their noses near the trough?), secretarial fees to be paid out of their lavish salaries and travel to the House of Commons only when absolutely necessary (Surely they should be busy 'in their constituencies' and haven't they heard of tele-conferencing?)

 

Absolutely no second homes.

 

Absolutely no second/third, fourth 'jobs'. That way, they'd not be open to accusations of being 'lobbied' or, as it's called in the financial world, insider trading.

Mandatory 5 years prison for any breach of the above. (Surely shouldn't bother them. After all, they are 'Honourable' persons).

 

Not perfect, but better than the corrupt system we're being asked to prop up every 4 years? And there'd be no shortage of applicants.

 

Can I just add a couple of things I'd like to see too:

 

 

MP to live in constituancy he/she represents.

 

Hold regular panels of ordinary constituants to guage groundswell of public opinion.

 

I think they should do month long work placements in NHS, Schools, etc during summer recess.

 

Be obliged to use public transport for much of the time.

 

They're getting much too high an opinion of themselves and need bringing down to earth, and reminding what they're in power for.

[HeadingNorth]

It is successive political parties of all persuasions who have brought us to this point.

 

 

All of whom were voted for by the public. Not since 1832 have we had a government for which we are not to blame.

[HeadingNorth]

30 million workers, 3p each makes a million, enough to stand a candidate in all 650+ wards

 

 

A lot of those workers have enough sense not to want a socialist government any more, so I'm not sure what you think this would achieve.

[HeadingNorth]

Well I for one haven't voted for many years. (Cue the oft-quoted 'If you don't vote, you don't have a say' rubbish. What say, precisely do we have? On Iraq? On Afghanistan? On the EU? On immigration? On future energy policy?)

 

On all of those and a great many other things besides. If you don't bother to look for a candidate or party that supports your opinions, you have no right to complain when a party that opposes them is in power.