exdos said:
The biggest thing that happened to screw the pensions was the pensions holiday that was given to corporations so that they didn't have to pay in. They built up their own shortfall and that idiot Brown compounded it.
UKIP. Would You?
- Thread starter Carol M
- Start date
The biggest thing that happened to screw the pensions was the pensions holiday that was given to corporations so that they didn't have to pay in. They built up their own shortfall and that idiot Brown compounded it.
JaEdBa said:
not my leap, the sociologists that looked at the data made the connection, iirc they came to the conclusions by looking at correlations. As the thread is about UKIP and we were accused of being left commie morons I thought it a reasonable rejoinder. If you read the links and the original research it is clear that it is a loose correlation, there have been many smart right wing thinkers, Ayn Rand springs to mind.
btw, hard work and reward are understood by anyone who has ever watched a hollywood film, the embodiment of the american dream blah blah. Personally I have a deal less faith in the system than that. Social mobility is a rare bird.
original guvnor said:Oh crikey what a bureaucratic nightmare that suggestion would be. Can you imagine the paralysis at the heart of government?
Lobbying has precisely one aim - to influence government policy. Therefore why should an opposition MP in a select committee have any say whatsoever in what the government of the day decides its policies should be?
A Select Committee is there to audit the work of government. It isn't there to decide who the elected government speaks to or decide on their policies.
Incorrect. There are various Select Committees all with different tasks. I started a policyholders action group in 2006 against a leading financial provider which was intent on stealing policyholders money from 1.2 million policyholders. Our campaign was supported in the press and by Which? (Consumers' Association) who organised a meeting for me and a few others in our action group to meet and discuss the problem with a few MPs and members of the House of Lords representing the 3 main political parties, in one of the Lord's meeting rooms in the Houses of Parliament. Afterwards, a stage-managed photograph was arranged for us to appear with the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the matter we brought to their attention, and the photograph appeared in one of the national daily newspapers. No money changed hands between us. So lobbying of the type that I suggest already exists. Our Submission to the Select Committee is contained in Parliamentary documentation and we had the ear and received helpful information of several influential persons, including those we met at that meeting.
Correct. Stupid persons always see exponential growth as being never ending, when, in fact, it is unsustainable and can only ever end in disaster. Gordon Clown was a deluded bully, and nobody in his party dared tell him he was a fecking eejit. If he really had been as smart as he'd thought he was, he would have seen that the failure of the pensions trustees to make financial hay whilst the Sun shone in the good times in the 1990s was negligent mismanagement. Clearly, he thought exponential growth was marvellous, when he stated that he had put an end to boom and bust!Stuart Truman said:
So disappointing too.
I was hoping for a less slimy government with Blair's resignation and we got a narcissist.
ah well all water under the bridge. But bloody hell! how could anyone f**k up so many things all at once? He must be in the running for most useless and odious PM ever.
And I say that as a trendy leftie sun dried tomato chewing rioja loving libertarian champagne socialist. :roll:
I was hoping for a less slimy government with Blair's resignation and we got a narcissist.
ah well all water under the bridge. But bloody hell! how could anyone f**k up so many things all at once? He must be in the running for most useless and odious PM ever.
And I say that as a trendy leftie sun dried tomato chewing rioja loving libertarian champagne socialist. :roll:
Finisterre said:
You forgot "BMW Driving"
Finisterre said:
it may well be understood, but I doubt it's actually linked and practised. in my opinion uk socialism is the reason for the culture we currently enjoy. I don't think we've helped anyone with our handouts, and that was what this thread was really about.
i find all too often socialists attempt to take the intellectual high ground, with no real thought for the practical outcome of their ideals. giving a man a fish and all that.
Fair comment. There is a kneejerk superiority about some of the lefties. They think they are the only people that care. But we have helped millions of people with the handouts. This was a hard country to be poor in before 1946.
as for teaching us to fish, it isn't that simple, entrepreneurship requires social capital as well as hard work and a plan. I was lifted out of poverty by Thatcher's Enterprise Allowance Scheme but I was lucky enough to come from a supportive background, armed with confidence and education. If people are third generation underclass they won't have those advantages.
as for teaching us to fish, it isn't that simple, entrepreneurship requires social capital as well as hard work and a plan. I was lifted out of poverty by Thatcher's Enterprise Allowance Scheme but I was lucky enough to come from a supportive background, armed with confidence and education. If people are third generation underclass they won't have those advantages.
exdos said:original guvnor said:Oh crikey what a bureaucratic nightmare that suggestion would be. Can you imagine the paralysis at the heart of government?
Lobbying has precisely one aim - to influence government policy. Therefore why should an opposition MP in a select committee have any say whatsoever in what the government of the day decides its policies should be?
A Select Committee is there to audit the work of government. It isn't there to decide who the elected government speaks to or decide on their policies.
Incorrect. There are various Select Committees all with different tasks. I started a policyholders action group in 2006 against a leading financial provider which was intent on stealing policyholders money from 1.2 million policyholders. Our campaign was supported in the press and by Which? (Consumers' Association) who organised a meeting for me and a few others in our action group to meet and discuss the problem with a few MPs and members of the House of Lords representing the 3 main political parties, in one of the Lord's meeting rooms in the Houses of Parliament. Afterwards, a stage-managed photograph was arranged for us to appear with the Chairman of the Select Committee which considered the matter we brought to their attention, and the photograph appeared in one of the national daily newspapers. No money changed hands between us. So lobbying of the type that I suggest already exists. Our Submission to the Select Committee is contained in Parliamentary documentation and we had the ear and received helpful information of several influential persons, including those we met at that meeting.
Which bit do you think is incorrect? That lobbying has only one aim or the select committee comment? I don't recall saying above it was their sole or only purpose, but it is by far and away their most important one. The Houses of Parliament's own website says "House of Commons Select Committees are largely concerned with examining the work of government departments" and "There is a Commons Select Committee for each government department, examining three aspects: spending, policies and administration". In other words they are there to keep an eye on the government, which is what I said above.
You are changing tack on lobbying. The lobbying you were previously referring to was corporate lobbying not individuals coming to lobby parliament based on some perceived injustice. They are quite different things. You aren't comparing apples with apples.
original guvnor said:
Sure, some of the Select Committees do the tasks you've mentioned, but in recent years, various individuals in the banking and the financial services sector (all in the private sector) have been in front of Select Committees, including Bod Diamond (Barclays Bank), Hector Sants and Lord Adair Turner (FSA) as well as various Police Officers (public servants) to name but a few. These have been relatively high profile Hearings and such Select Committees regularly operate outside the remit suggested on the website.
Not changing tack at all. You previously said: "Oh crikey what a bureaucratic nightmare that suggestion would be. Can you imagine the paralysis at the heart of government? " and I disagree with your statement. So I simply demonstrated that open lobbying without the need for payment to any political party already exists, without paralysing government. So why can't the corporates work in that way? At the moment MPs must still find the time to spend with lobbyists and the representatives of the corporates behind closed doors and for payment so that they can have their ears bent, so why couldn't this take place in the same way that it happened for us?original guvnor said:
There are some 650 MPs in our Parliament, yet on most days, only a small number (not uncommon to see less than 50 MPs) actually attend the House for the debates for matters which may eventually become enshrined as our legislation. Where are all the other MPs and what work are they actually doing when not in attendance in the House? Many are on so-called "fact-finding" tours, far away from these shores, which I'm sure most of the electorate would consider as disguised holidays and a complete waste of time. So when absenteeism for MPs is in the order of at least 90% on most days, its hard to see how further paralysis at the heart of government could arise! :wink:
Again I agree with part of what you say about MP attendance records, but the MP absenteeism you refer to is almost entirely backbench MP's, without ministerial duties.
I don't see why lobbying has to be in an open select committee. As I said before the select committee is neither the government nor the policy setting forum.
I don't see why lobbying has to be in an open select committee. As I said before the select committee is neither the government nor the policy setting forum.
True. So this provides a very good reason for drastically reducing the number of MPs on the public payroll, since it has been proven for many years that the work of Parliament in the House can be done by less than 50 MPs. And whilst they revising the number of MPs downwards, they should also reduce the number of Scottish and Welsh MPs, since they are presently over-represented, can vote on matters that solely affect the English people, and they now have their own Assemblies and some degree of national autonomy. Likewise, they should divide the boundaries for the constituencies by equal numbers of electorate and undo the inherent bias in favour of the Labour Party.original guvnor said:
I simply suggested this as an alternative to the secret lobbying in return for Party funding that presently exists, because, for reasons that I explained in my first posting, the electorate (i.e. the adult population) is excluded from our democracy and government of our country other than to vote for the political parties, and I see this as a very big problem and the reason why voters are turning away from the traditional parties to vote UKIP or failing to vote at all.original guvnor said:
Finisterre said:
given that it's now quite an easy country to be poor in now I would contend that handouts have helped nobody. the difference between working and not working, if you know the system well, is merely the difference between working and not working. and that is totally immoral in my opinion, to actually have people think they are entitled to something for doing nothing.
i'll leave it there...visions of tory boy are coming into mind
exdos said:
I agree with ALL of that!
original guvnor said:I agree with ALL of that!
The triumvirate of B.liar, Clown and Meddlesome, showed just how easy it is for one of our political parties to be hi-jacked by a small number of people working together to control a political party for their own ends, and the same can be said for the Tory party under Cameron, Osborne and Johnson and their Eton mates. Apparently, a similar situation presently exists in Eire under a "Gang of Four". Clearly our so-called "democracy" is outdated and the will of the people is being largely ignored. Considering that the last Labour government considerably changed the structure of the House of Lords, it cannot be claimed that our political system is sacrosanct. The reduction of numbers of the electorate voting for the major parties MUST surely show to the MPs that high proportion of the electorate has become disaffected and change is required.
The electorate might let one more general election pass with a poor turnout, but our Parliamentary system is living on borrowed time. Bearing in mind the way that telephone voting is used with TV shows like Big Brother, the X Factor, Strictly Come Dancing etc. and the almost universal use of home PCs, there is no reason at all why the electorate cannot play a greater part in democracy and be regularly consulted in referendums etc. using modern technology which wasn't available at the time our Parliamentary system was devised.
The fact that no banker has faced proceedings in court let alone received a sentence of any sort, despite the financial collapse they caused, and the resultant cost to the taxpayer, shows the complete impotence of our political system under MPs in the pay and control of the corporates. I can't see the public putting up with this for too much longer. IMHO, a vote for UKIP or an orchestrated spoiling of ballot papers, expresses that message.
From The Mail.....
"Another Calais politician has launched a scathing attack on Britain for its policy on immigration which he claims attracts hundreds of illegal immigrants to the French Channel coast as they attempt to sneak into Britain.
Deputy mayor Philippe Mignonet, the man tasked with solving the problem in Calais, called UK policy on migrants 'grotesque and hypocritical'.
'Britain says we don't want immigrants but does nothing to prevent black economy employment yet two million people work on the black in Britain,' he said."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2500296/Britains-attitude-immigration-grotesque-hypocritical.html#ixzz2kMRchwfF
"Another Calais politician has launched a scathing attack on Britain for its policy on immigration which he claims attracts hundreds of illegal immigrants to the French Channel coast as they attempt to sneak into Britain.
Deputy mayor Philippe Mignonet, the man tasked with solving the problem in Calais, called UK policy on migrants 'grotesque and hypocritical'.
'Britain says we don't want immigrants but does nothing to prevent black economy employment yet two million people work on the black in Britain,' he said."
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2500296/Britains-attitude-immigration-grotesque-hypocritical.html#ixzz2kMRchwfF
If this is actual footage from Cologne on New Years eve then I will be voting for UKIP aswell as the EU exit
https://www.facebook.com/OCEANSIDEGANGBUSTER/videos/809874159122841/
https://www.facebook.com/OCEANSIDEGANGBUSTER/videos/809874159122841/
