A quarter of a million? That'll do nicely

[mj.scuba]

You're already too late to stop public funding of political parties... http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/party-finance/public_funding

 

Now we just need to ban private funding.

 

So no party membership now?

[HeadingNorth]

Does anybody really care?

 

You're not going to score party political points off this..

 

He might as well try - everyone else does.

[f0rd]

Interesting that Cruddas becomes Tory co-treasurer in June 2011 and then Maude stops publishing details of meetings from June 2011.

[Magilla]

No scandals can hold a candle to the present one whether you and he erroneously think that I am mistaken or not.

 

Cash for Honours makes this pale somewhat.

 

Here we have a prime ministers representative openly stating that if they give Cameron a big wad , they will do favours for their company. GO NOW CAMERON!

 

You forget Lord Levy.

[Anna B]

Rather than laying the blame at the door of politicians, it would be much more effective to educate the masses who vote for them and then blame them for things that they don't understand.

 

Sorry, but I don't agree, (or are you being facetious?)

 

If Politicians are corrupt, who else's door would you lay the blame at?

 

Your answer suggests you think we should blame the householder for having a house rather than the burgler who burgles it.

 

If both parties are corrupt it doesn't matter who the masses vote for, they are still going to get someone lacking in the most basic integrity.

 

And you can see from comments on this forum how hard it is to 'educate the masses.' Ideas and long held opinions are hard to change. Throw in a bit of spin and media bias, mixed with downright lying and it's no wonder they're confused.

 

Go to the source, I say, and change the politicians.

[Mister M]

I certainly think we ought to lay down a few rules, and police them to make sure they are adhered to.

 

I like the 'non of the above' on ballot papers idea. That could be a starting point, and getting too many of these votes could trigger all sorts of investigations.

I also like the idea of them living in publicly funded flats (preferably where the lifts breakdown and people pee in the stairwells - but that's just me being mean...)

I disagree on the outside jobs. I think all politicians should spend 2 months a year doing a bog standard job in the public sector - nursing auxillary, policeman, teaching, social work etc. not working for a bank. That way they might see the problems from the bottom up.Expenses should be at a basic rate, ie for economy class public transport, not first class. If they want to upgrade they can pay for it out of their own pocket, but they might actually get to talk to some ordinary people and learn something...

There should be no pay off when they're voted out, and their pensions should be in line with the average person's pension.

 

I'm sure people will have further ideas.

 

I think the trouble is they have such a sense of entitlement of which they are not worthy. They haven't just lost touch with ordinary people, they never were in touch in the first place. From Public school to Oxbridge, to a safe seat; a circle of friends with exactly the same lifestyle and experiences, they've probably never had a conversation with an ordinary mortal that wasn't set up and stage managed. It's all part of the British class system which never went away in certain areas like Politics and Law.

 

I'd also like to see women making up 50% of Parliament. They'd at least get rid of the old boys club and shake things up a bit.

 

I agree with the point you make about MPs having outside jobs - they always justify having them saying that it "gives them experience of the outside world". Highly dubious - many of these outside jobs are consultancies where they are paid a lot of money to attend a board meeting and very little else.

I was researching this topic for another thread: (http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/)

and it's amazing how similar the experiences the MPs have. The motivation is clearly money. But if they are going to personally profit from how they vote on an issue (like the Health and Social Care Bill, where so many MPs and Peers have 'outside interests'), then surley conflicts of interest arise

[Darth Vader]

MPs should be stripped of their 'Right Honourable' title, as, in this case, as in most cases, it does not apply.

 

Cameron is a disgrace. How many more sackings?

[Darth Vader]

Not unless your concealing a blunt object.

 

:hihi:

[HeadingNorth]

If both parties are corrupt it doesn't matter who the masses vote for

 

There are about forty million people in this country eligible to stand for Parliament. Unless you're arguing that every single one of those forty million is corrupt, then it palpably does make a difference who the masses vote for.

[Anna B]

There are about forty million people in this country eligible to stand for Parliament. Unless you're arguing that every single one of those forty million is corrupt, then it palpably does make a difference who the masses vote for.

 

As I've said before, Parliament is becoming a closed shop. It's almost impossible to get short listed for one of the main parties, and independents hardly stand a chance unless they're well known personalities.

 

It's one big old boys network.

 

If it was representative of the people the majority of the MPs would be from lower class backgrounds and a wide variety of occupations. It would also be 50% women.