Rich Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 We need to allow "The People" to self-govern IMO, as long as we continue to elect the current group of Politicians, nothing will ever change, not for the better anyway IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 We need to allow "The People" to self-govern IMO, as long as we continue to elect the current group of Politicians, nothing will ever change, not for the better anyway IMO. "The people" want all sorts of different things though. How do you suggest "the people" govern? Maybe some form of electing representatives? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vague_Boy Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 Given the appalling track record of the previous government Conservative, Labour, Liberal, there is no difference any more. Yes, the last lot were a treasonous shambles but the current Coalition is as weak as water. Add to that an ill-informed, easily distracted electorate and you've a recipe for the kind of Banana Republic corruption that we have now. Stephen "taxi cab" Byers was typical of the money grubbing, corrupt, sleazebag, Quisling, shyster crooks that pass for our "representatives" these days: Stephen Byers, Geoff Hoon and Patricia Hewitt were “stupid” to be caught offering to influence Government policy for money, Jack Straw has said. I notice that you say stupid to be caught Jack. I guess it's fine and dandy if you get away with it. ....a controversial programme, using undercover footage of politicians, showed Byers bragging that he could change Government policy. He said that he was a "taxi for hire" at £5000 a day for lobby firms. LINK So there you are, £5000 a day is the going rate to buy an MP (probably a bit more if you want a cabinet minister). Cheap at twice the price. It would be a better use of our time to pool our cash and directly influence our local MPs in this manner, rather than waste our time with all that voting nonsense. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Swan_Vesta Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 We need to change/increase the minimum amount of union members votes needed in favour of strike action for the strike to be able to go ahead - one in four isn't good enough. So what sort of mandate did Cameron have to form a government? He wants to preach to the unions with a coalition government in tow and an increasingly shaky one at that ..... What a tool. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
upinwath Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 With all the protests going on these days, and a big strike coming soon, a lot of people are saying that "the system" is fundamentally broken. Our electoral system in particular comes in for a lot of criticism: it is seen as undemocratic, and fundamentally flawed by the rule of the two party system. As always though, it is hard to know if the "lots" who are shouting about it are representative. Are they vastly outnumbered by the quietly content? We get a Labour government and the unions get everything they want, regardless of how stupid it is. The councils are given a free hand to spend cash they haven't got while the central government waste cash, building the 'We're not much of a government if we can't get this right' domes along with loads of other stupidity. The Tories get back in and have to fix things so the country doesn't have to go to the IMF to borrow in an attempt to fix Labour's stupidity. That means the 'create a job' schemes that wasted billions for no good reason has to go. The cutbacks and job losses are only shedding the waste, not actually getting rid of real jobs. The "created", wasteful jobs are in danger. Example. Labour let Rotherham council free (Like letting a loony free from a mental hospital) to spend pretty much anything they wanted. The council created a design department that went daft. It designed a new, three colour logo. That doesn't sound bad until you realise what it actually means. The old, single colour logo could be printed easily. Easy means cheap. The old one was allowed in Black or green so it could be done by pretty much anyone, for any use as a single colour, cheap printing job. The new, three colour logo had to be printed in specific colours, that means you have to go to an expensive printer. Next up. All the vans had to be re sign written. Cost a ruddy fortune to do it. Then all the RMBC signs had to be redone. Imagine the cost of replacing every RMBC sign all over the Rotherham area. The council tax payers were paying a fortune and got absolutely nothing of any use in return. That's the sort of cutbacks the unions are going daft about. It's getting rid of waste, not cutbacks as the silly unions would have us believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 We get a Labour government and the unions get everything they want, regardless of how stupid it is. Don’t forget RMBC also gave individual names to all their dustbins wagons and had their names sign written on the side. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
andygardener Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 So what sort of mandate did Cameron have to form a government? He wants to preach to the unions with a coalition government in tow and an increasingly shaky one at that ..... What a tool. He got the largest bloc in parliament, he was able to form a coalition with another party to form a majority and he wasn't the useless dour fat scottish git that caused the mess in the first place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted November 24, 2011 Share Posted November 24, 2011 So what sort of mandate did Cameron have to form a government? The same mandate that any Prime Minster ever has. He can command a majority in the Commons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hairyloon Posted November 25, 2011 Author Share Posted November 25, 2011 The same mandate that any Prime Minster ever has. He can command a majority in the Commons. But usually with the votes of less than 30% of the electorate. Is that not a reason to change? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris_Sleeps Posted November 25, 2011 Share Posted November 25, 2011 Everything is change. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.