+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 93
General Chat Thread, Life under the Tories: don't say you weren't warned in General; Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Labour, you have to really hate the Torys. Brian: I ...
  1. #61

    teejay's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    3,051
    Thank Post
    275
    Thanked 722 Times in 550 Posts
    Rep Power
    326
    Reg: If you want to join the People's Front of Labour, you have to really hate the Torys.
    Brian: I do!
    Reg: Oh yeah, how much?
    Brian: A lot!
    Reg: Right, you're in.

  2. 3 Thanks to teejay:

    Flatpackhamster (29th March 2012), LosOjos (29th March 2012), sted (29th March 2012)

  3. #62

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Its why I always vote Lib Dem... Never thought they'd actually get any chance of power though!

  4. #63

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,470
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 1,993 Times in 932 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    575
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    Its why I always vote Lib Dem... Never thought they'd actually get any chance of power though!
    Is that like excersing your right to vote but not wanting to give it to the 2 main parties or the wierd/extreme ones

  5. #64

    AMLightfoot's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    Hampshire, England
    Posts
    1,757
    Thank Post
    317
    Thanked 499 Times in 303 Posts
    Rep Power
    228
    See, this proves my point that this argument is a pointless cycle of finger-pointing. ALL goverments are just as bad as all the others, just in different ways. Blah blah Tories were bad, Labour was great, blah blah no you're a troll, you're wrong, labour were bad, tories are pure as the driven snow, etc etc RAGE RAGE RAGE FLAME FLAME FLAME. I'm getting dizzy.

    They are ALL in it for what they can get. When we're hovering between the 18k and 25k mark in IT support forgive me for not going all warm and gooey over the 6 figure salaries paid to numtpy muppets who don't have to worry about how to pay their mortgage, or how they can afford to have children, or how they're getting to work in the morning as it's all funded by big fat expenses accounts and inflated salaries. I bet Francis Maude didn't queue for 40 minutes to fill his petrol tank with Supreme Unleaded and spend 60% of his monthly food budget on it. I imagine his driver had that dubious honour... Why is the job they do worth 130,000 a year? Why is what they do any more or less important than anyone else? And before you start flaming me for dangerously communist talk, I am simply trying to understand why people whose jobs ALSO keep this country running are worth less than politicians? We ALL keep the country running just in different ways. Why can they not do their jobs for 50,000 a year? That is enough to pay a mortgage and bills and to fund their commute to work. My god, if I earned 50k a year I'd be laughing! I might even be able to afford a detatched house where my neighbours DON'T wake me at 3am!!!

    Why should we pay to commute to work when politicians get their transport costs covered by their employer? When I asked my employer to buy me fuel and pay my travel expenses he laughed in my face and said 'Nice try.' lol. So then I asked him to fund some living accomodations closer to work that I could stay at during the week. I got patted on the head and told the men in white coats would arrive to assess me shortly... So trying a different tactic, I asked if my employer would pay my mortgage instead or contribute to it. They told me they already did - my wages.

    So how come people in government get a salary PLUS all these additional expenses? Why can't their 'home districts' have a house owned by the local council that is loaned to the party member in government at the time. Much like 10 Downing Street? It might provide some motivation for the district politician if said house was in an area representative of the economic prosperity of the district. If they were constantly boarding up broken windows and having to put in insurance claims for damage to their cars they might decide that local police are a higher priority after all....

    If lorry drivers didn't deliver food to supermarkets we wouldn't eat. If Farmers didn't GROW the produce, there would be no foodstuffs. If IT support workers didn't fix computers, people would struggle to communicate. If communications break down, the country ceases to function. How are we any less important? If Miners and Rig workers didn't process fossil fuels we'd have little or very expensive electricity and no gas at all (apart from the methane produced in cow fart farms ofc...)... See what I'm getting at?

    Everyone has a different opinion and some people think the sun shines out of Ed Miliband's rear oriface, and others think David Cameron is the mutts nuts, others feel Nick Clegg is a misunderstood and bamboozled soul. Whatever you think, don't forget that when you are juggling your food budget to put fuel in your car and deciding that really, pasta and rice 5 nights a week isn't so bad after all and if you're lucky you might be able to afford half a sausage on a wednesday, and if you cut back on the number of sheets of toilet paper you use you might just manage to get an extra 2 journeys-worth of fuel into your car, these political gods are looking at their 6 figure paypackets with glee and getting into their government-funded chauffeur-driven mercs for a comfortable drive home to their detatched pile in the countryside where they get into their beds and sleep soundly bothered only by the gentle hoot of an owl, not the screams of yobbish teenagers telling each other to F*** OFF C***, or the rumble of buses, or the sound of their neighbours going to the toilet at 3am...

    Considering I had 3 hours sleep last night, I am not in the best of moods today, and since I had to wait until payday to fill my petrol tank which resulted in my having to spend my food budget on b****y fuel, I am afraid I am not terribly forgiving or loving towards our illustrious leaders.

  6. 9 Thanks to AMLightfoot:

    aerospacemango (29th March 2012), broc (29th March 2012), difinity (29th March 2012), DT2 (29th March 2012), LosOjos (29th March 2012), Netman (29th March 2012), Roberto (29th March 2012), sonofsanta (29th March 2012)

  7. #65

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    Quote Originally Posted by Dos_Box View Post
    Is that like excersing your right to vote but not wanting to give it to the 2 main parties or the wierd/extreme ones
    Yup! Its either them or the Greens, and the Lib Dems hold similar views to me on the EU. However, I fully accept that my views couldn't run this country - as they're too hippyish and idealistic, so I vote for the Lib Dems knowing they won't get in really!

  8. #66

    aerospacemango's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Northants
    Posts
    1,994
    Thank Post
    283
    Thanked 248 Times in 199 Posts
    Blog Entries
    2
    Rep Power
    294
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    See, this proves my point that this argument is a pointless cycle of finger-pointing. ALL goverments are just as bad as all the others, just in different ways. Blah blah Tories were bad, Labour was great, blah blah no you're a troll, you're wrong, labour were bad, tories are pure as the driven snow, etc etc RAGE RAGE RAGE FLAME FLAME FLAME. I'm getting dizzy.

    They are ALL in it for what they can get. When we're hovering between the 18k and 25k mark in IT support forgive me for not going all warm and gooey over the 6 figure salaries paid to numtpy muppets who don't have to worry about how to pay their mortgage, or how they can afford to have children, or how they're getting to work in the morning as it's all funded by big fat expenses accounts and inflated salaries. I bet Francis Maude didn't queue for 40 minutes to fill his petrol tank with Supreme Unleaded and spend 60% of his monthly food budget on it. I imagine his driver had that dubious honour... Why is the job they do worth 130,000 a year? Why is what they do any more or less important than anyone else? And before you start flaming me for dangerously communist talk, I am simply trying to understand why people whose jobs ALSO keep this country running are worth less than politicians? We ALL keep the country running just in different ways. Why can they not do their jobs for 50,000 a year? That is enough to pay a mortgage and bills and to fund their commute to work. My god, if I earned 50k a year I'd be laughing! I might even be able to afford a detatched house where my neighbours DON'T wake me at 3am!!!

    Why should we pay to commute to work when politicians get their transport costs covered by their employer? When I asked my employer to buy me fuel and pay my travel expenses he laughed in my face and said 'Nice try.' lol. So then I asked him to fund some living accomodations closer to work that I could stay at during the week. I got patted on the head and told the men in white coats would arrive to assess me shortly... So trying a different tactic, I asked if my employer would pay my mortgage instead or contribute to it. They told me they already did - my wages.

    So how come people in government get a salary PLUS all these additional expenses? Why can't their 'home districts' have a house owned by the local council that is loaned to the party member in government at the time. Much like 10 Downing Street? It might provide some motivation for the district politician if said house was in an area representative of the economic prosperity of the district. If they were constantly boarding up broken windows and having to put in insurance claims for damage to their cars they might decide that local police are a higher priority after all....

    If lorry drivers didn't deliver food to supermarkets we wouldn't eat. If Farmers didn't GROW the produce, there would be no foodstuffs. If IT support workers didn't fix computers, people would struggle to communicate. If communications break down, the country ceases to function. How are we any less important? If Miners and Rig workers didn't process fossil fuels we'd have little or very expensive electricity and no gas at all (apart from the methane produced in cow fart farms ofc...)... See what I'm getting at?

    Everyone has a different opinion and some people think the sun shines out of Ed Miliband's rear oriface, and others think David Cameron is the mutts nuts, others feel Nick Clegg is a misunderstood and bamboozled soul. Whatever you think, don't forget that when you are juggling your food budget to put fuel in your car and deciding that really, pasta and rice 5 nights a week isn't so bad after all and if you're lucky you might be able to afford half a sausage on a wednesday, and if you cut back on the number of sheets of toilet paper you use you might just manage to get an extra 2 journeys-worth of fuel into your car, these political gods are looking at their 6 figure paypackets with glee and getting into their government-funded chauffeur-driven mercs for a comfortable drive home to their detatched pile in the countryside where they get into their beds and sleep soundly bothered only by the gentle hoot of an owl, not the screams of yobbish teenagers telling each other to F*** OFF C***, or the rumble of buses, or the sound of their neighbours going to the toilet at 3am...

    Considering I had 3 hours sleep last night, I am not in the best of moods today, and since I had to wait until payday to fill my petrol tank which resulted in my having to spend my food budget on b****y fuel, I am afraid I am not terribly forgiving or loving towards our illustrious leaders.
    You've only gone and done it again!

    Despite the 3hr sleep (or because of it), you've managed another beautifully written piece. I'm only coming onto this thread to see what you've written, now, and if I weren't already getting married, I'd propose immediately!

    Everything you've written is perfectly true.

    The "Millionaires Club", that includes a majority of the cabinet (and shadow cabinet) are ALL in it for themselves. Why else would the NHS be crumbling? Why else would we have no way to defend the Falklands if the Argies wanted to invade again? Why else are Serviceman forced to live in crumbling Married Quarters? (100M should make ALL the difference, there....)

    Why is an RAF recruit on 13500 a year, and could go straight to Afghanistan? Why is the public sector being hammered, whilst the rich bankers and private sector are pandered to? Because successive governments have let them get away with shady deals and unregulated business practices for too long.

    This country is not in debt because of nurses, tanker drivers, IT technicians, or servicemen. It is because of the bankers....initially in the US, but filtered across the world because of globalisation....

  9. 2 Thanks to aerospacemango:

    AMLightfoot (29th March 2012), DT2 (29th March 2012)

  10. #67


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,210
    Thank Post
    218
    Thanked 812 Times in 694 Posts
    Rep Power
    274
    i presume the idea of paying mps a "high" wage is to try and atract top people from the world of business (not that im so sure thats a good idea as running say m&s and running a country are not the same but you have to assume some transferable skills). As to expenses again i suspect its sort of inline with what corperation bosses expect to get and is done to attract tallent. Now this might make sense for the people at the very top of the political foodchain but for the mp for nowhere much seems excesive. Maybe the system needs shaking up (well it definatley does but this may/may not be the answer) we elect mps who are just there to represent their constituents and separatley elect a group of people to be the cabinet (they have more responsibility so paying them more makes some sense) and as that separates the responisibilties for overall govenment from constuencys (so if you get elcted as mp for nowhereville you cant be chancelor etc). It would also mean that parties would be less relavent so you could vote for a person based on policy and if propper accounting was observer in parliment you could then see if he had at least tried to do what he set out to do.

    It would also make sense to have political parties publicly funded so unions\business cant donate to parties and so cant excert as much influence

  11. #68

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,467
    Thank Post
    750
    Thanked 1,210 Times in 852 Posts
    Blog Entries
    45
    Rep Power
    533
    Quote Originally Posted by AMLightfoot View Post
    Everyone has a different opinion and some people think the sun shines out of Ed Miliband's rear oriface
    I agree with everything you've said except this. No-one thinks that of Ed Miliband. No-one thinks anything of Ed Miliband. It's like the Tories picking William Hague, to politicians he seems fine, but to the public, he's almost invisible.

    Just to add to your rage (because it's so delightfully eloquent and accurate): did you know that the bar in Westminster is subsidised by public money as well? They even get their beer/wine/scotch cheaper than the rest of us.

    If they're making the rules for us, we should have a second government formed of people earning less than 25k who decide the rules and pay conditions of parliament. Letting MPs make their own rules on pay and expenses seems a little bit open to abuse.

  12. #69

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,096
    Thank Post
    511
    Thanked 2,310 Times in 1,786 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    803
    It isn't even directly the bankers fault IMO. It is successive governments' fault - as they failed time and again to put in place regulations enough to control an industry that is built on risk taking with other people's money.

    A bank, as an entity is there to make money, no-one can deny that. So, if they're told 'you can do X, Y and Z' they'll do that. If they're not told they can't do something, they will do that too. Unless they are controlled, they will try to make money by any legal method they can.

    And this government is failing to address that regulation still. Where is the tough action that was promised, splitting investment and consumer arms of banks etc... Where are the penalties for those who broke existing regulations? As far as I can tell, there haven't been any! Instead, those in those top positions that allowed people to step from legal to illegal activities have simply 'retired' with massive pensions (I mean, 600k a year pension!?).

  13. #70


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,210
    Thank Post
    218
    Thanked 812 Times in 694 Posts
    Rep Power
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by localzuk View Post
    It isn't even directly the bankers fault IMO. It is successive governments' fault - as they failed time and again to put in place regulations enough to control an industry that is built on risk taking with other people's money.

    A bank, as an entity is there to make money, no-one can deny that. So, if they're told 'you can do X, Y and Z' they'll do that. If they're not told they can't do something, they will do that too. Unless they are controlled, they will try to make money by any legal method they can.

    And this government is failing to address that regulation still. Where is the tough action that was promised, splitting investment and consumer arms of banks etc... Where are the penalties for those who broke existing regulations? As far as I can tell, there haven't been any! Instead, those in those top positions that allowed people to step from legal to illegal activities have simply 'retired' with massive pensions (I mean, 600k a year pension!?).
    the problem with regulationg banks is they just threaten to take their business elsewhere if you do anything to a country that wont or spend money "liasing" with people in power

  14. #71


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,488
    Thank Post
    198
    Thanked 629 Times in 481 Posts
    Rep Power
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    i presume the idea of paying mps a "high" wage is to try and atract top people from the world of business (not that im so sure thats a good idea as running say m&s and running a country are not the same but you have to assume some transferable skills).
    Perhaps. Or perhaps being an MP is an expensive business, you have tens of thousands of constituents who you are elected to represent and who might call on your help at any point. You have to live in two places if you are to be effective. If MP's weren't paid a respectable wage and reasonable expenses, then Politics would be the sole preserve of those who could afford it. It would be even more like the last days of the Roman Republic.

  15. #72


    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    2,488
    Thank Post
    198
    Thanked 629 Times in 481 Posts
    Rep Power
    227
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    the problem with regulationg banks is they just threaten to take their business elsewhere if you do anything to a country that wont or spend money "liasing" with people in power
    Then let them go and let the countries that do host them revel in the luxury of bailing them out when they face impending collapse because of their (the banks) unrestrained greed.

  16. #73


    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    Leeds
    Posts
    6,210
    Thank Post
    218
    Thanked 812 Times in 694 Posts
    Rep Power
    274
    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Perhaps. Or perhaps being an MP is an expensive business, you have tens of thousands of constituents who you are elected to represent and who might call on your help at any point. You have to live in two places if you are to be effective. If MP's weren't paid a respectable wage and reasonable expenses, then Politics would be the sole preserve of those who could afford it. It would be even more like the last days of the Roman Republic.
    do they actually NEED to be in westminster though with telecomunications being what they are?

    as someone else has said maybe each constituency should have a publicly owned/paid for house /office for its mp or if they must be in westminster why not have a state owned "mp hostel" that way costs can be controlled

    Quote Originally Posted by pcstru View Post
    Then let them go and let the countries that do host them revel in the luxury of bailing them out when they face impending collapse because of their (the banks) unrestrained greed.
    i dont disagre but thats the argument

  17. #74

    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    631
    Thank Post
    52
    Thanked 106 Times in 76 Posts
    Rep Power
    63
    Quote Originally Posted by sted View Post
    i presume the idea of paying mps a "high" wage is to try and atract top people from the world of business (not that im so sure thats a good idea as running say m&s and running a country are not the same but you have to assume some transferable skills). As to expenses again i suspect its sort of inline with what corperation bosses expect to get and is done to attract tallent. Now this might make sense for the people at the very top of the political foodchain but for the mp for nowhere much seems excesive. Maybe the system needs shaking up (well it definatley does but this may/may not be the answer) we elect mps who are just there to represent their constituents and separatley elect a group of people to be the cabinet (they have more responsibility so paying them more makes some sense) and as that separates the responisibilties for overall govenment from constuencys (so if you get elcted as mp for nowhereville you cant be chancelor etc). It would also mean that parties would be less relavent so you could vote for a person based on policy and if propper accounting was observer in parliment you could then see if he had at least tried to do what he set out to do.
    MPs don't get a high salary. In real terms it's lower than it was 50 years ago. However, the expenses have grown and grown and yes, MPs can take home 200,000 a year after expenses. That's still much less than the majority of EU politicians.

    Despite everything we still don't have the same level of corruption as you say in many EU countries.

    It would also make sense to have political parties publicly funded so unions\business cant donate to parties and so cant excert as much influence
    It makes sense to you, maybe. I can't think of anything worse than giving taxpayers' money to politicians. Why the hell should anyone pay for their politics? Doesn't this just reinforce failure? If you can't get enough money from your supporters, you shouldn't expect handouts from the state.

    Cap donations at 50,000 and make anything over 5,000 public. And ban unions from donating en bloc. Allow union members to choose, every year, whether or not their union donates their cut to the party in question (which will be Labour).

  18. #75

    Dos_Box's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Preston, Lancashire
    Posts
    9,470
    Thank Post
    525
    Thanked 1,993 Times in 932 Posts
    Blog Entries
    23
    Rep Power
    575
    It would also make sense to have political parties publicly funded so unions\business cant donate to parties and so cant excert as much influence
    It is a good idea. To a point. The problem arises when you have to decide if you are going to publicly fund the more extreme (yet legitimate) parties which would then give them far more money than they could ever raise on their own which in turn may lead to their growth (publicly funded of course) to a level that they could have never achieved by themsleves. It's a whole can of worms TBH.
    Last edited by Dos_Box; 29th March 2012 at 11:59 AM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 5 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Who says you need to shutdown the network?
    By russdev in forum Windows
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 25th May 2010, 02:44 PM
  2. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 25th April 2007, 01:56 PM
  3. Java released under the GPL
    By CyberNerd in forum IT News
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 13th November 2006, 09:50 AM

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
  •