+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234
Results 46 to 56 of 56
General Chat Thread, You couldn't make this up could you.....we're all in this together. in General; Originally Posted by tmcd35 Personally I don't see the number of representitives/constituency sizes to be a real problem. A bigger ...
  1. #46

    unixman_again's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    684
    Thank Post
    26
    Thanked 138 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    134
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    Personally I don't see the number of representitives/constituency sizes to be a real problem. A bigger problem is the method of election, first past the post, winner takes all, has lead to some seriously misbalanced, unrepresentitive parliaments. It's an interesting state of affairs when our great leader gained office with 36% of the popular vote. 64% of the country doesn't want him there...
    This is why enforced compulsory preferential voting is the only fair system. (Currently 22 countries have compulsory voting, but only 10 enforce it. This is a concept that I don't understand.) Even fairer is to include a "None of the above" box which is counted along with the other votes. If this wins, then there is another election and the original candidates can't stand. No government has been brave enough to introduce this. I wonder why?

    Why do we need Westminster? Surely these days debates could all be done using teleconferencing and voting using Facebook?

  2. #47
    SteveBentley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,431
    Thank Post
    119
    Thanked 263 Times in 189 Posts
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by foofighterjim View Post
    The problem I have always had with General Elections is that I may want to vote for a particular local candidate but may not necessarily want the party they represent to win at the national level.
    I'm going to have this problem next time round. The current MP, who I didn't vote for, has proven himself to be very effective locally, but I don't like what his party are doing nationally.

    A simple reform that would make Parliament much more democratic would be to abolish the "party whip". Make each vote a personal vote for each MP based on how their constituents have urged them to vote, rather than them being threatened with consequences for not voting with the party line.

  3. #48


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,923
    Thank Post
    259
    Thanked 773 Times in 588 Posts
    Rep Power
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by unixman_again View Post
    No government has been brave enough to introduce this. I wonder why?
    Perhaps because we are taught that voting is a freedom, and freedom means that people are free not to vote.

  4. #49

    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    North
    Posts
    1,817
    Thank Post
    24
    Thanked 91 Times in 71 Posts
    Rep Power
    50
    I listened to Radio 4 the other week and someone said that if a candidate changed their name to 'Above none of the' then it would appear as none of the above on the ballot paper......I do find the compulsory voting idea funny, please chose Eton clone A, B or C or we will fine you.

  5. #50

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,631
    Thank Post
    514
    Thanked 2,442 Times in 1,890 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    831
    In compulsory systems, you can still spoil your ballot as far as I know.

  6. #51
    SteveBentley's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yorkshire
    Posts
    1,431
    Thank Post
    119
    Thanked 263 Times in 189 Posts
    Rep Power
    72
    Quote Originally Posted by Simcfc73 View Post
    I listened to Radio 4 the other week and someone said that if a candidate changed their name to 'Above none of the' then it would appear as none of the above on the ballot paper......I do find the compulsory voting idea funny, please chose Eton clone A, B or C or we will fine you.
    AIUI the words "none of the above" cannot appear on the ballot paper. Somebody tried to stand for the "None of the Above Party" in 2010 and was told he couldn't.

  7. #52
    foofighterjim's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Birmingham
    Posts
    384
    Thank Post
    30
    Thanked 70 Times in 52 Posts
    Rep Power
    27
    As always the most apt thing has already been said:

    "Government is another way to say better than you." - Corey Taylor.

    Taken from the lyrics to Omega by Stone Sour.

  8. #53


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,923
    Thank Post
    259
    Thanked 773 Times in 588 Posts
    Rep Power
    284
    Quote Originally Posted by tmcd35 View Post
    I think this thread is dancing around the central issue. As with the http://www.edugeek.net/forums/behind...y-schools.html thread, the question is "what type of people do you want to attract to the role"? Then set the level of pay from there.
    If I remember back to young political activists I knew, salary would have been the last thing on their mind. I'd imagine some of them getting into the house and being slack jawed in surprise "they PAY me too!". Politics has to be a passion in and of itself. The debate on salary is largely specious; at least as far as influencing 'quality' is concerned. You don't get candidates in for selection asking for advice on how they can make ends meet on the salary and when might it go up - even conservative candidates! People don't go into politics for the salary nor should they.
    As has been already said, since the current level of pay is way below the potential earnings of that type of well educated, skilled professional, it's hardly surprising many don't fancy a second career in politics.
    And yet so many in politics fancy and find a second career (and a third and fourth) as consultants and directors. There is nothing necessarily wrong with that but if an MP says "well, I don't earn enough as an MP - with my talents I could be earning much more", then go earn more. They presumably do actually have a choice. Would their consultations be in such demand if they didn't have a seat and the influence that comes with that? Perhaps we should just be open about such things, pay MP's *nothing* and "F. Urquhart - Conservative, sponsored by Bank of Thieves, Big Weapons Inc, McFatBun, Pickpocket Pensions" could appear on the ballot paper. Why should you be an MP if you can't even raise enough from sponsors to run?!

    What is clever is the way the political machine is playing the electorate on this. They have set up a donkey to kick "well, we don't actually set our own salaries you know, that's all done by an independent body". Now they can practice faux outrage when faced with an 11% rise for themselves! We look on while they kick the donkey and they invite us to sympathise with them about how bad it looks that this independent body has come up with a rise! That's surely a trick worthy of a Francis Urquhart? Well, we might think that, they couldn't possibly comment

  9. #54

    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    hey hey hey, stay outta my shed. STAY OUT OF MY SHED.
    Posts
    1,011
    Thank Post
    238
    Thanked 190 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    106
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    How does making good accommodation available make the job worse? In most jobs, when you have to stay overnight, the company organises a hotel. That hotel is most of the time a cheap one - Ibis, Holiday Inn etc... Not the Ritz.

    There's no reason such accommodation can't be nice. There's only 650 MPs.
    I wouldn't want to stay long term in a holiday inn myself, which is what you'd effectively be asking a MP from, say, Newcastle to do.

    But yes, there's nothing wrong with decent, but not luxurious, accommodation. I wasn't getting the impression that was what the person I replied to had in mind though.

    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    I'm a fan of the idea of putting MP pay up to 100k, and scrapping *all* allowances.

    Pay rises should be an average of the country's pay increases. If the average pay increase is 1%, they get 1%. If the average pay falls by 1%, their pay falls by 1%.

    MPs should not be treated differently simply because they are in 'power'.
    The pay rise was supposed to be about giving them a decent payrise in return for removing most (all?) expenses, which would arguably put them on precisely that footing. As for treating them differently, or not, because they are "in power" I think they should all be given what they need to do the job well. If they need to be treated differently because of the nature of the work they do in order to do their job as well as possible, then giving them less than they need seems a lot like cutting off our noses to spite our faces.

    Still feels like a kick in the nuts to those of us having to deal with 1%, I know. I'm no better off than anyone else here in that regard... but the idea of giving a decent wage to the people running the country and cutting off their chances at making crazy expense claims in return is fundamentally a good one imho.

  10. #55

    Theblacksheep's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    In a house.
    Posts
    1,932
    Thank Post
    138
    Thanked 290 Times in 210 Posts
    Rep Power
    193
    Quote Originally Posted by unixman_again View Post
    voting using Facebook?
    do you want to make the use of Facebook mandatory too?

    Almost as bad as a US military company running the census.


    I feel MPs shouldn't be allowed other jobs and no payrise either. People should want to do the job in hand, not cream off it.
    Last edited by Theblacksheep; 9th December 2013 at 06:50 PM.

  11. #56
    mthomas08's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Posts
    1,608
    Thank Post
    132
    Thanked 165 Times in 146 Posts
    Rep Power
    62
    Each time I see "Pay peanuts get monkeys" this morning I heard it on ITV and all I thought was that perhaps we have been paying monkeys peanuts. If this is all about attracting better MPs then surely everyone should be made redundant/replaced so they can actually get no more monkeys.

    Is this pay rise going to fix the attitude of some MPs
    Are we going to get better value for tax payers money
    Are they going to fix a lot of the countries problems better and faster then before
    Are they going to spend more time working and not worrying about their second homes or their ipads
    Are they going to resort to getting credit cards like the rest of us to pay for "extras"
    Are they going to push out the door anyone not doing a good enough job to earn the 11%

    Can I go on?

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 4 of 4 FirstFirst 1234

Similar Threads

  1. [News] So absurd you couldn't make it up
    By CAM in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 14th January 2013, 02:08 PM
  2. [News] You just couldn't make this up!! Chapter 2
    By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: 25th November 2011, 09:07 AM
  3. [News] You just couldn't make this up!!
    By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: 24th November 2011, 09:46 AM
  4. [News] You just couldn't make this up!! Chapter 3
    By Gatt in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 23rd November 2011, 04:08 PM
  5. [News] You could not make this up!
    By laserblazer in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 3rd August 2011, 04:53 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •