xenia Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Where as now it's simply bursting with talent? Well we agree that some sort of reform is needed. Now all we have to do is persuade those grasping little MPs to vote for it... You are right , its not bursting with talent, in fact why would you bother? Unless the corruption is sorted out no right thinking person would want to be associated with the job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Not just the Conservatives/Tories. Obviously Labour get lots of money from Unions, so you would rightly expect that they have some influence, and you'd rightly expect there would be some contact between the Labour Leader and Union Leaders. I'm struggling to understand why you would have a problem with that. Selfish is a silly and emotive word to use in this context. People and organisations have their own interests to represent, that's democracy. I dont see how there can be any critiscism of tories being supported by capitalists whilst the socialists are supprted by unions. Selfish in this context is neither silly or emotive, it accurately describes the motivation of the people seeking to support their parties. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
xenia Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Someone tell me what's wrong with this ^ idea? Not much wrong here. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anna B Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 Set political donations at £1, per person on the electoral register. Every four years electors are sent a freshly minted coin, and can choose to either pop along to the voting station and put their coin into one of several coinboxes in each voting booth, or go to the newsagents and buy a lottery ticket or a small bar of chocolate. The party with the most money at the end of the night wins the election, but every party gets funded. The big parties get big funds, the little ones little funds. And of course, abstentions means parties get less money. All this plus a ban on TV/Radio/Billboard and Newspaper/Magazine and internet advertising. All political electioneering and advertising must be done by a standard A5 Mono SS handbill, and conducted as open hustings. See, with a bit of imagination, people can have brilliant ideas! Yet Parliament is full of dozey no hopers who wouldn't know a good idea if it hit them in the face, while there is genuine talent out there going to waste. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Phanerothyme Posted March 27, 2012 Share Posted March 27, 2012 See, with a bit of imagination, people can have brilliant ideas! Yet Parliament is full of dozey no hopers who wouldn't know a good idea if it hit them in the face, while there is genuine talent out there going to waste. Some of the unintended consequences might be interesting if, rather than actually sending everyone a pound coin, party funding by the state was proportional to total votes cast in the general election for that party. It would certainly mean swingeing cuts in income for the main three parties, but then they wouldn't be running expensive ad campaigns in the run up to the election either. But the thing that really needs to happen is that the general populace have to shift from thinking of government as the country's most talented and knowledgeable people, benignly managing the country for our best interest, to thinking of government as something they do themselves through the instrument of parliament. How that might be achieved, I have no idea - but it will need to be a sensible grassroots kind of effort, and not a wide eyed revolutionary one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank ryan Posted March 28, 2012 Author Share Posted March 28, 2012 I dont see how there can be any critiscism of tories being supported by capitalists whilst the socialists are supprted by unions. Selfish in this context is neither silly or emotive, it accurately describes the motivation of the people seeking to support their parties. it's not about SUPPORT - it's about SELLING influence on policy for vast wads of cash, including to offshore interests which is illegal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ferno Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I dont see how there can be any critiscism of tories being supported by capitalists whilst the socialists are supprted by unions. Because the labour movement was set up to protect the working population, the clue's in the name LABOUR. Union donations are declared and transparent, not quite the same as Scameron whoring out the British government to anyone with a fist full of tenners in secret meetings. Hope this helps. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
taxman Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 I dont see how there can be any critiscism of tories being supported by capitalists whilst the socialists are supprted by unions. Selfish in this context is neither silly or emotive, it accurately describes the motivation of the people seeking to support their parties. Because unions speak on behalf of millions of people who elected them, Lord Ashcroft speaks on behalf of Lord Ashcroft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mj.scuba Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Because unions speak on behalf of millions of people who elected them, Lord Ashcroft speaks on behalf of Lord Ashcroft. Rich business leaders often speak as people who keep lots of other people in work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
I1L2T3 Posted March 28, 2012 Share Posted March 28, 2012 Rich business leaders often speak as people who keep lots of other people in work. Indeed. Quite often exploited people in low-cost economies. Where they would like to send your job. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.