British Politics

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I can't really comprehend how such a contempt for politicians can even arise. It's such a negative view on a profession most people enter because they are passionate about political issues. I can't imagine any rational explanation for why this passion they start with would evaporate so quickly resulting in such terrible human beings you describe. I see two possibilities: you either think all people are terrible and thus politicians will be too, or you think something happens to these idealistic young people as soon as their enter politics which makes them into selfish people who only pay lip-service to the ideals they once held.

Well there's a presupposition here, that they are passionate young idealists as a whole or even a majority.  Not something I would feel comfortable agreeing with.  But lets say there is an idealist, or a few idealists, what makes the passion evaporate?  Money mate.  The great equalizer of life. 

Quote

The way I see it, politicians are just like everybody else -- good and bad intermixed -- except that they are more passionate about making a change. And politics sometimes require making some terribly hard choices, often by balancing various parties, and that can be a disgusting exercise. Despite this, except for a few truly corrupted people, most politicians in well-functioning democracies with high degrees of transparency and low degrees of corruption are just like me and you and do what they do because they believe they can make a change.

You are limiting the parameters a great deal when you say 'well functioning democracies with a high degree of transparency'. 

Quote

And this contempt for politics is a huge threat to democracies. It leads to low voting turnout ("they are all the same, so why bother?"), bizarre elections like Trump as POTUS ("drain the swamp!"), and to a mistrust of the foundations of democracy which ultimately can lead to unrest and conflicts. 

I don't think that democracy is a perfect way of life.  I think its the best the human race have come up with thus far but blaming the mistrust for the unrest and conflicts is a bit arse backwards, surely the cause of the mistrust is what should be pointed to here and not the fact that, in many countries in the world, people don't turn out to vote is because they see a cunt in either box.  Lesser of two evils right?  The degrees are getting very fine with that proposition.  And people ain't havin' it.

Quote

In addition, democracies have built-in mechanisms for correcting. Simply vote for politicians who are good people (unless of course you happen to believe in the second alternative from above and that by electing them you condemn them to devolve into terrible people). Voting apathy is absolutely not the solution to bad politicians. 

I don't see any good people.  I see grifters and shitehawks and con-men.  And you're right, voting apathy is not the solution to bad politicians but neither is accepting and engaging with a bad situation and thus proliferating it.  So whats the answer?  I don't know...but I don't need to have the answer to point out when something stinks.

Edited September 9, 2020 by Len Cnut

[EvanG]

Okay, @Len Cnut out of curiosity, then please explain to me that if politicians don't care, why are they in politics? There doesn't seem to be much of a reward... no big salaries, long hours, in the public eye, everyone has an opinion on you, often negative.... I mean, what's the point if you don't really care anyway? Why not get a job somewhere else and at least make some good money.

Edited September 9, 2020 by EvanG

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Well there's a presupposition here, that they are passionate young idealists as a whole or even a majority.  Not something I would feel comfortable agreeing with.  But lets say there is an idealist, or a few idealists, what makes the passion evaporate?  Money mate.  The great equalizer of life. 

I don't think corruption is that wide-spread in our democracies. You seriously believe that all the young idealists who enter politics get corrupted so perfectly? That they all end up as "grafiters and shitehawks" as you say later? And all because of the temptation of money? You sure have a low value of your fellow human being if you think we are that corruptible. And is there really that much money to be had in low-tiered politics, anyway? That all politicians would abandon their ideals for a better car and some a down-payment on their mortgage? I find that overtly cynical and separated from reality. 

 

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

You are limiting the parameters a great deal when you say 'well functioning democracies with a high degree of transparency'. 

Yes,  I want to talk about our views on our politicians. The reasons people distrust politicians in barely functioning democracies with huge amounts of corruption and low level of transparency, are more obvious than why we would have such a contempt for them.

 

4 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't think that democracy is a perfect way of life.  I think its the best the human race have come up with thus far but blaming the mistrust for the unrest and conflicts is a bit arse backwards, surely the cause of the mistrust is what should be pointed to here and not the fact that, in many countries in the world, people don't turn out to vote is because they see a cunt in either box.  Lesser of two evils right?  The degrees are getting very fine with that proposition.  And people ain't havin' it.

I agree on you that democracy is the best we have come up with. Usually, and absolutely in the case of Britain and Norway, politics isn't a binary thing where you only have two options; we have quite a few politicians and parties to choose from. Secondly, even if it is a case of the lesser evil, then go for the lesser evil  But usually you vote for people and parties who you align with, and expect them to not be corrupted cunts. At least that's what I do.

 

6 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

I don't see any good people.  I see grifters and shitehawks and con-men.

Again I get that feeling that you live in a very much darker world than I do. Something out of a movie or cartoon for adults.

[DieselDaisy]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

I am confident most politicians, on either side, are honest in their position on Brexit and care about this issue, because there are good arguments both for and against. 

Soul is a Brexiteer! Soul is a Brexiteer.

[Len Cnut]

13 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Okay, @Len Cnut out of curiosity, then please explain to me that if politicians don't care, why are they in politics? There doesn't seem to be much of a reward... no big salaries, long hours, in the public eye, everyone has an opinion on you, often negative.... I mean, what's the point if you don't really care anyway? Why not get a job somewhere else and at least make some good money.

Prestige, vanity, the possibility of rising up the ranks and doing better, its certainly not easy but you’re hardly laying brick, if you’re a talented talker/negotiator or people person then perhaps its the job for you.  And also, salary doesn’t alwaya account for sum earnings, does it?

[Len Cnut]

Quote

I don't think corruption is that wide-spread in our democracies. You seriously believe that all the young idealists who enter politics get corrupted so perfectly? That they all end up as "grafiters and shitehawks" as you say later? And all because of the temptation of money? You sure have a low value of your fellow human being if you think we are that corruptible. And is there really that much money to be had in low-tiered politics, anyway? That all politicians would abandon their ideals for a better car and some a down-payment on their mortgage? I find that overtly cynical and separated from reality. 

Again, I don't think they are, by and large, idealists fighting for a better world.  And, as previously stated, a low tier politician can make a lot of connections locally that can get them on the ground floor of a lot of business undertaking that can pad out their bank balance considerably. 

Quote

Yes,  I want to talk about our views on our politicians. The reasons people distrust politicians in barely functioning democracies with huge amounts of corruption and low level of transparency, are more obvious than why we would have such a contempt for them.

Well, I don't and I wasn't.  I was talking about politicians on the whole.  And who is this 'our', what country are we talking about?  I can't speak for Norway but if you think the politicians of this country are hard up then you are mistaken.

Quote

I agree on you that democracy is the best we have come up with. Usually, and absolutely in the case of Britain and Norway, politics isn't a binary thing where you only have two options; we have quite a few politicians and parties to choose from. Secondly, even if it is a case of the lesser evil, then go for the lesser evil  But usually you vote for people and parties who you align with, and expect them to not be corrupted cunts. At least that's what I do.

What if I can't work out the lesser evil between Corbyn and Boris Johnson?  What if there ain't a lot in it?  Stick a couple of photos on the wall and chuck a dart I suppose?  What if there ain't been a lot in it all my life? 

Quote

Again I get that feeling that you live in a very much darker world than I do. Something out of a movie or cartoon for adults.

And I get the feeling that you live in some similarly distorted world, where young politicians are idealists that set out to change the world and, by and large, remain so, with the corrupt being a minority.  OR...perhaps the answers somewhere in the middle, I'm too cynical and you're overly idealistic. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

17 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

Soul is a Brexiteer! Soul is a Brexiteer.

Have you already forgotten I have said there are good reasons to dislike the EU?  You are the one who aren't able to see the good sides in EU, and hence you are ironically similar to the straw men you constantly argue on t6he other side of the aisle: a fundamentalist without the ability to reason.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

What if I can't work out the lesser evil between Corbyn and Boris Johnson?  What if there ain't a lot in it?  Stick a couple of photos on the wall and chuck a dart I suppose?  What if there ain't been a lot in it all my life? 

This is the problem with politics. It is basically a vote on, who is the lesser wanker? It is fair to say a lot of people voted for Mr Pickwick because they didn't want an IRA Marxoid in Number 10. Do any Biden supporters really think, ''wow, yes, really love Biden's policies''. Nope. It will be a vote against Trump.

[EvanG]

1 minute ago, Len Cnut said:

Prestige, vanity, the possibility of rising up the ranks and doing better, its certainly not easy but you’re hardly laying brick, if you’re a talented talker/negotiator or people person then perhaps its the job for you.  And also, salary doesn’t alwaya account for sum earnings, does it?

Good points, and probably true for some, but I don't see this applying to most people, at least not where I live. Even our prime-minister doesn't earn as much as he could at most other jobs he would be able to get with his degrees. But like I said, I don't know how it is in England, here politicians aren't getting rich in any possible way. Not that they have reasons to complain, but they could be earning a lot more in different fields.

I don't know much about British politics, so maybe your negative attitude would make more sense to me if I was more up to speed on how politicians operate in your country, but where I live I see mostly passionate people who believe in their ideals and are in it for the right reasons. Whether I agree with their political views or not. 

[DieselDaisy]

£81,932 per year, MPs Evan.

But they controversially are allowed allowances (tax payers' money) to cover the running of office and staff. This blew up a few years ago when it turns out the majority had been abusing the system, one claiming expenses for a ''moat''.  Another con is to claim expenses for staff whilst filling those staff vacancies with family members. Secondary homes is another con. 

[Len Cnut]

5 minutes ago, EvanG said:

Good points, and probably true for some, but I don't see this applying to most people, at least not where I live. Even our prime-minister doesn't earn as much as he could at most other jobs he would be able to get with his degrees. But like I said, I don't know how it is in England, here politicians aren't getting rich in any possible way. Not that they have reasons to complain, but they could be earning a lot more in different fields.

I don't know much about British politics, so maybe your negative attitude would make more sense to me if I was more up to speed on how politicians operate in your country, but where I live I see mostly passionate people who believe in their ideals and are in it for the right reasons. Whether I agree with their political views or not. 

My position isn't limited to England, its about politicians as I see them or what I know according to my limited knowledge of them around the world.  Again, what do you know of what your leader has in off shore holdings or investments etc etc?  Just look at the Panama Papers for an idea of what these motherfuckers get up too.  Not speaking about your leader here, just generally.

Quote

This is the problem with politics. It is basically a vote on, who is the lesser wanker? It is fair to say a lot of people voted for Mr Pickwick because they didn't want an IRA Marxoid in Number 10. Do any Biden supporters really think, ''wow, yes, really love Biden's policies''. Nope. It will be a vote against Trump.

The worst thing is they're not even good politicians.  And being a good person comes after that, we're struggling at the moment to find good politicians.  Boris is a blundering fool.  So its Trump.  So it Biden.  Obama, whatever else one might think about him, was actually quite good in terms of like, the basics of statesmanship, diplomacy etc.  And whether you could consider him a good person is is arguable.  Extremely arguable.  But what we have now is a gaggle of absolute prats.  On paper I should like a person like Corbyn but he comes across and woefully insincere and an extremely weak candidate for leadership of this country, weaker than Boris and thats saying something. 

[DieselDaisy]

11 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Have you already forgotten I have said there are good reasons to dislike the EU?  You are the one who aren't able to see the good sides in EU, and hence you are ironically similar to the straw men you constantly argue on t6he other side of the aisle: a fundamentalist without the ability to reason.

In my defence, my criticisms of the EU are probably about fivefold, and I have listed them here constantly, but for reasons I do not understand, you and Dazey only choose to focus on one of them, thus manufacturing a straw man.

 

[SoulMonster]

14 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Again, I don't think they are, by and large, idealists fighting for a better world.  And, as previously stated, a low tier politician can make a lot of connections locally that can get them on the ground floor of a lot of business undertaking that can pad out their bank balance considerably. 

Well, I don't and I wasn't.  I was talking about politicians on the whole.  And who is this 'our', what country are we talking about?  I can't speak for Norway but if you think the politicians of this country are hard up then you are mistaken.

What if I can't work out the lesser evil between Corbyn and Boris Johnson?  What if there ain't a lot in it?  Stick a couple of photos on the wall and chuck a dart I suppose?  What if there ain't been a lot in it all my life? 

And I get the feeling that you live in some similarly distorted world, where young politicians are idealists that set out to change the world and, by and large, remain so, with the corrupt being a minority.  OR...perhaps the answers somewhere in the middle, I'm too cynical and you're overly idealistic. 

Maybe it is something in-between, but please don't get the impression I am blind to the reality of corruption and the dark sides of human nature, I just don't think everybody are as much slaves to them as you think, and that includes politicians.

The way I see it, most people who enter politics are young and idealistic. There are basically few other reasons to do it. And yes, a lot of this idealism is dampened over time, because youthful enthusiasm tends to wither, but that doesn't mean the more experienced politicians have given up the issues they used to fight for. And yes, some politicians get jaded from the brutal reality of political compromises and backroom agreements, but that also doesn't mean they have stopped caring about what they used to care about. It is the belief in quick change that dies, not necessarily their fundamental beliefs. And yes, sometimes beliefs change too, because they learn that they were wrong, but that doesn't mean they lose all passion for politics, just that what they fight for might change a bit over time. And yes, a very few might get tempted by money and throw their beliefs under the bus, but in my opinion those who do are very few.

[Dazey]

4 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

£81,932 per year, MPs Evan.

But they controversially are allowed allowances (tax payers' money) to cover the running of office and staff. This blew up a few years ago when it turns out the majority had been abusing the system, one claiming expenses for a ''moat''.  Another con is to claim expenses for staff whilst filling those staff vacancies with family members. Secondary homes is another con. 

I don't get how £82k is considered a lot of money for y'know, running the country. I also don't get what's controversial about allowances to employ staff. How else would they be able to run a parliamentary office? 

[Len Cnut]

As a further point Soulie, you talk about higher transparency etc etc in better functioning democracies, why is that shit in place, I mean its legislated isn't it?  Because if it weren't these starry eyed idealists would fleece the country dry, just as they do in other countries.  And even though we have these stringent regulations the shit that Dies' highlighted and shit like it still takes place.  And I'm supposed to believe these lot are sitting at home nights in front of their roaring fire place, poking the embers and crying their eyes out about the poor folks piled up in council flats like Grenfell that basically burned to death because a local council didn't give a shit for fire safety regulations in the place. 

Edited September 9, 2020 by Len Cnut

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

In my defence, my criticisms of the EU are probably about fivefold, and I have listed them here constantly, but for reasons I do not understand, you and Dazey only choose to focus on one of them, thus manufacturing a straw man.

A straw man, like when confronted with an accusation of not being able to see the good in the EU you will start complaining about how only one of your complaints on EU is challenged by Dazey and me?

7 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

£81,932 per year, MPs Evan.

Sure such high salaries would be a dike against corruption?

[Len Cnut]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I don't get how £82k is considered a lot of money for y'know, running the country. I also don't get what's controversial about allowances to employ staff. How else would they be able to run a parliamentary office? 

Its not the allowances in and of themselves, its what they do under that shit.  The president of America, so I read somewhere, is only allowed to earn half a million a year, on paper.

[DieselDaisy]

1 minute ago, Dazey said:

I don't get how £82k is considered a lot of money for y'know, running the country. I also don't get what's controversial about allowances to employ staff. How else would they be able to run a parliamentary office? 

I know. It is perfectly reasonable for the construction of one's moat to be covered by the tax-payer. 

[EvanG]

2 minutes ago, DieselDaisy said:

£81,932 per year, MPs Evan.

But they controversially are allowed allowances (tax payers' money) to cover the running of office and staff. This blew up a few years ago when it turns out the majority had been abusing the system, one claiming expenses for a ''moat''.  Another con is to claim expenses for staff whilst filling those staff vacancies with family members. Secondary homes is another con. 

I don't even know how much they are exactly earning here, but most of them don't get high paying jobs until they leave politics, but they could have gotten that immediately without having been in politics for many years of their lives.

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

My position isn't limited to England, its about politicians as I see them or what I know according to my limited knowledge of them around the world.  Again, what do you know of what your leader has in off shore holdings or investments etc etc?  Just look at the Panama Papers for an idea of what these motherfuckers get up too.  Not speaking about your leader here, just generally.

Oh, but I'm sure in a lot of corrupted countries dirty politicians are getting very rich and that being a big (or only) reason for doing the job. I can only really talk about my own country and I can't see money being the reason for being there. Prestige, vanity, sure, maybe for some, but you can probably count them on one hand.

[Dazey]

Just now, DieselDaisy said:

I know. It is perfectly reasonable for the construction of one's moat to be covered by the tax-payer. 

But that's not what I said is it? How is £82k an exorbitant salary for somebody in that position and how would they manage to run a parliamentary office without funding? 

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

As a further point Soulie, you talk about higher transparency etc etc in better functioning democracies, why is that shit in place, I mean its legislated isn't it?  Because if they weren't these starry eyed idealists would fleece the country dry, just as they do in other countries.

Humans are the same everywhere. If we didn't have controls there would be more corruption, yes. 

 

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

 And I'm supposed to believe these lot are sitting at home nights in front of their roaring fire place, poking the embers and crying their eyes out about the poor folks piled up in council flats like Grenfell that basically burned to death because a local council didn't give a shit for fire safety regulations in the place. 

I think you should believe that the majority of politicians actually care about the policies they fight for. And yes, just like other people care about refugees -- including you and me, humanitarian organizations, the elderly, the young and idealistic -- so will politicians, too, because they are still humans; so when they hold up signs trying to put the spotlight on the refugee crisis chances are they actually care about the issue (unless they must follow party politics, of course).

[DieselDaisy]

2 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't even know how much they are exactly earning here

$104,076 (£79,098) per year.

2 minutes ago, Dazey said:

But that's not what I said is it? How is £82k an exorbitant salary for somebody in that position and how would they manage to run a parliamentary office without funding? 

I do not think you are very well acquainted with the scandal - surprised you're not,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

[Dazey]

3 minutes ago, Len Cnut said:

Its not the allowances in and of themselves, its what they do under that shit.  The president of America, so I read somewhere, is only allowed to earn half a million a year, on paper.

Yeah well the cunt's been robbing people blind since he could sit up so he's hardly gonna be short of a few bob is he?  

That's not true as far as I know either because Trump's been profiting from the presidency since the day he took office.

I mean get this, he literally directs his Secret Service agents to stay at his hotels when they're nearby and sends the bill to the tax payer.

[Dazey]

1 minute ago, DieselDaisy said:

$104,076 (£79,098) per year.

I do not think you are very well acquainted with the scandal - surprised you're not,

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_parliamentary_expenses_scandal

I'm very well acquainted with the scandal from over a decade ago but that still doesn't alter the fact that MPs aren't paid a ridiculous salary and that they need additional funding to run an office and employ staff.

[SoulMonster]

5 minutes ago, EvanG said:

I don't even know how much they are exactly earning here, but most of them don't get high paying jobs until they leave politics, but they could have gotten that immediately without having been in politics for many years of their lives.

I don't know who much they earn in Norway, either, but throughout the tiers of politics any given politician would have a much lower salary than if they were employed in private business. So why do they bother? Some use it as a stepping stone and will move to private business later and bring all their political contacts with them, some simply don't care that much about money, and some do it because they love their job and find politics rewarding. The percentage that do it because of money through corruption, would be very small indeed.