[Closed] Oligarchy, or democracy?

Playing devils advocate here really but....Do you know whats actually happening [url= http://www.parliament.uk/business/committees/committees-a-z/commons-select/backbench-business-committee/news/mps-to-debate-promotion-of-the-living-wage/ ]in that first picture?
[/url]

Unlike in the second picture where theres legislation being presented and debated pending a vote, in the first picture theres no legislation on the table. The backbench committee can chose to give an issue parliamentary time but theres nothing more thats happening in that first picture other than talk. The purpose of the event was simply to 'consider' the issue of The Living Wage.

Unlike in the second picture where theres legislation being presented and debated pending a vote

What vote ? MPs pay is set by the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority, they don't get to vote on it.

True enough, but it was still a debate around a thing that was happening, a decision, an event.

The motion to consider the Living Wage was because it was Living Wage Awareness Week, but there was no outcome of that discussion intended other than to state that the issue had been discussed.

If only there was some sort of process by which the electorate could remove said self serving chug nuts.

[quote=MrNutt said"] austerity" being the latest political buzz word

where have you been for the last 5 years ?

Those pictures are a fabrication and the real question is not about will or competence but if democracy can ever really make necessary but unpopular desicions.

Excessive car use is a good example over on this websites sister publication road cc there a constant stream of incredulity at the lack of action other road deaths but political parties need funding and voters drive cars so nothing happens.

This is why (IMO) European administration is often more willing and able to take difficult desicions.

"If only there was some sort of process by which the electorate could remove said self serving chug nuts."

from a process perspective it looks flawed to me, what do we have now - 650 MPs, what will we have next time around - 650 MPs - so no change then.

"austerity" being the latest political buzz word" - mmm, might be more that the afore mentioned 650 MPs have had reasons (such as wanting to be re-elected) for letting us living beyond our means for quite a while

the real question is not about will or competence but if democracy can ever really make necessary but unpopular desicions.

This is why (IMO) European administration is often more willing and able to take difficult desicions.

Because they are not subject to the will of the electorate ? Using that logic then the solution obviously is to scrap elections to the UK Parliament. Perhaps the Queen can simply appoint the government ?

And we could all look forward to governments making unpopular decisions, unlike now.

Excessive car use is a good example over on this websites sister publication road cc there a constant stream of incredulity at the lack of action other road deaths but political parties need funding and voters drive cars so nothing happens.

Considering that 2013 has the lowest recorded deaths on the road since records began.

Deaths of cyclists have increased but so has the number of cyclists.

Oligarch - really?

Ditto austerity - how much has the debt of the UK fallen? How big is the fiscal surplus?

There's a strong argument to say road deaths are down because people especially kids stay clear of roads, instead choosing to sit in their bedrooms on xboxs getting fat. It's still the most common cause of death of under 25s and responsible for many more deaths by local polution. Cancer survival rates have improved also should we not bother anymore?

Using an extreme example to argue a point is pretty weak and usually a lost resort Ernie, bit early in the discussion don't you think?

Point being democracies can be just as corrupt(osbornes latest lie) and fail to represent people (you always get politicians) as other types of leadership but also have difficulty with unpopular desicions.

Those pictures are a fabrication

Who knew MPs were more interested in their own welfare than ours?
PS they really care and we are all in it together

There's a strong argument to say road deaths are down because people especially kids stay clear of roads, instead choosing to sit in their bedrooms on xboxs getting fat. It's still the most common cause of death of under 25s and responsible for many more deaths by local polution. Cancer survival rates have improved also should we not bother anymore?

The UK has some of the safest roads in the World. Safer than France, Holland, Germany and Belgium.

There is a strong argument to say road deaths are down because of action taken by the government to improve standards of safety equipment fitted in cars and improvements to the road infrastructure.

The government cannot change human nature and people will always drive like dicks especially young men under 25.

[img] http://mybroadband.co.za/vb/attachment.php?attachmentid=382&d=1214037416 [/img]

Junkyard - Your point is?

The thread is about MPs not being interested in the people they represent.

An example was made about their lack of interest in reducing deaths on the road.

I made the point that there is evidence that some work has been done to reduce road deaths by said MPs.

🙄

Reducing deaths of people IN those cars but not those outside, I'm aware of how UK safety standards stack up globally that's more a reflection of how poor the rest of the world is with 1.25 million people killed annually it's the eighth biggest killer but unlike the the more frequent reasons road transport kills young people. Local polution is also responsible for 10/20x these figures directly or indirectly by causing those more frequent reasons. TBH though we've all got die somehow my main dislike of excessive use is the social impact on the living.

If young people "always drive like dicks" there's plenty you can do about it and should , the reason nothing happens is because it's econimically costly and that age group has a vote which sort of brings us back to my original point.

In 1999, when Great Britain had the safest roads in Europe apart from Sweden, the government set a new national casualty reduction target, to be met by the year 2010. The target for 2010, compared to the average for the years 1994 to 1998, was a reduction of 40% in the number of people Killed or Seriously Injured (KSI) casualties, a reduction of 50% the number of children KSI casualties and a reduction of 10% in the rate of people slightly injured per 100 million vehicle kilometres.[2] By 2009, the results were: killed or seriously injured 44% lower; children killed or seriously injured 61% lower and the slight casualty rate was 37% lower

If young people "always drive like dicks" there's plenty you can do about it and should

Like what? Apart from raising the age limit for driving?

The human body isn't really designed to survive impacts above 15 mph. Travelling at high speed will always result in some deaths.
Sharing a road on a bike with some polystyrene on your head with vehicles that weigh more than 1 tonne and travel at 30 mph + is risky. If there is a collision there is only going to be one winner.

The government cannot change human nature and people will always drive like dicks especially young men under 25.

I suggest you look at drink driving, attitudes can change but it will take about 40 years based on the results with DD. In the 60's it was about 1640 deaths year from DD, last year 230.

Details [url= http://www.independent.co.uk/news/media/advertising/drinkdriving-christmas-2014-campaign-fifty-years-of-warning-films-9845088.html ]here in the Indy[/url] This years ad is a bit of a stunner halfway down the page.

Like what? Apart from raising the age limit for driving?

If your imagination thats limited it'll take more than my words to convince you.

The human body isn't really designed to survive impacts above 15 mph. Travelling at high speed will always result in some deaths.
Sharing a road on a bike with some polystyrene on your head with vehicles that weigh more than 1 tonne and travel at 30 mph + is risky. If there is a collision there is only going to be one winner.

Trolling Shirley?

Anyway back to the original point- I'm arguing for big government as opposed to the traditional Anglo Saxon free for all.

Anyway back to the original point- I'm arguing for big government as opposed to the traditional Anglo Saxon free for all.

Oligarchical big government or democratic big government ?

what is wrong with you people?

"serving the public interest to there best means?"

IT'S THEIR NOT THERE.

for godsake standards are really slipping around here.

oligarchy
??l????ki/
noun
a small group of people having control of a country or organization.

as so often is true, follow the money. the large donations a political party receives affect its policy making.

since large 'donations' are made by a small number of individuals - and donations control the policy-making of a government - the decision making of a government is controlled by a small number of individuals - therefore the uk is an oligarchy

So how do these mp people get their jobs?

The UK is not even close to being an oligarchy

Arguably one of the reasons why we have a relatively strong (?) recovery is the fact that the Tories, despite their and their opponents rhetoric, have actually followed a relatively loose fiscal policy - no one seeing the can in the road?

So how do these mp people get their jobs?

By genuflexion to current party policy and fellation of current party leader.

There's a strong argument to say road deaths are down because people especially kids stay clear of roads, instead choosing to sit in their bedrooms on xboxs getting fat...Using an extreme example to argue a point is pretty weak

cheekyboy - Member
By genuflexion to current party policy and fellation of current party leader.

That's odd, I could have sworn they were voted into their jobs on a regular basis - how many jobs have that obligation?

In most constituencies, you could put up a cardboard cutout and as long as it had the right colour rosette it'd be elected MP.

Why do they waste all that money campaigning then? Are they stupid? And what about the people who vote, are they completely bonkers?

Arguably one of the reasons why we have a relatively strong (?) recovery is the fact that the Tories, despite their and their opponents rhetoric, have actually followed a relatively loose fiscal policy - no one seeing the can in the road?

I know you are a committed Tory THM and you obviously want to blow the Tory trumpet, but let's look at the facts rather than your Tory spin.

The Tories inherited a recovering and growing economy, the reason they managed to delay the recovery by several more years (the global banking crises was six years ago for **** sake) is because of their policies of austerity.

You will see here that in 2010, two years after the global banking crises, and when the Tories came to power, they inherited a recovering and growing economy.

[img] [/img]

The Tories managed to halt the recovery and delay it by several more years.

Everybody that votes for anything other than what I vote for is a brainwashed ****wit

I vote for pies, pies and chips.

Junkyard - Your point is?

So how do these mp people get their jobs?

The UK is not even close to being an oligarchy

Arguably one of the reasons why we have a relatively strong (?) recovery is the fact that the Tories, despite their and their opponents rhetoric, have actually followed a relatively loose fiscal policy - no one seeing the can in the road?

I know you are a committed Tory THM and you obviously want to blow the Tory trumpet, but let's look at the facts rather than your Tory spin.

Nice try Ernie, but wrong as usual or simply trolling.

The Tories inherited a recovering and growing economy, the reason they managed to delay the recovery by several more years (the global banking crises was six years ago for **** sake) is because of their policies of austerity.

And you say others a spinning, brilliant! Great selective timing on the graph too. Be careful you don't get too giddy! Even the IMF have up spinning that kind of nonsense. Plenty of things to attack the Tories over, no need to make them up though.

Why do they waste all that money campaigning then? Are they stupid? And what about the people who vote, are they completely bonkers?

They're targeting floating voters in marginal constituencies. They're the only people who can change governments, most people live in constituencies with large majorities, where voting for a different party is pretty much pointless.

Nice try Ernie, but wrong as usual or simply trolling.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're not a Tory. Despite banging on what a great job the Tories do, as you have yet again in this thread, you wouldn't vote for them. You're a Labour voter aren't you ? No wait, I've just remembered, you're too shy to say how you vote 🙄

Great selective timing on the graph too.

I timed it to be in response to your Tory spin post which ignored the fact that the Tories inherited a recovering and growing economy.

Yes I thought it was excellent timing too, so that's at least one thing which we can agree on.

Oh yeah, I forgot, you're not a Tory.

You are getting there, good. It's a shame when people have to tie themselves to political parties. Makes it difficult to be rational at times

Despite banging on what a great job the Tories do, as you have yet

More selective quoting. Brilliant. But bad luck, bait left to float down the river.

The Tories managed to halt the recovery and delay it by several more years.

Anyhow, back to the original question. Oligarchy please - as long as it's me.

If anything, the graph you posted demonstrated that the world economies are surprisingly closely linked and that the party in power in any particular country has a minor effect.

No shit Sherlock ?

Why do you think I referred to the [u]global[/u] banking crises ? 🙄

Tories THM like to pretend that the crises was purely due to the incompetence of the British Labour government, when it was in fact due to the global incompetence of bankers and the neo-liberal experiment.

And it's not [i]"If anything the graph...."[/i]. The graph not only shows the global nature of the crises but also how the Tories inherited a recovering and growing economy [u]four years ago[/u]

Have a look at it again and note the situation in 2010 :

[img] [/img]

Note also how the UK and the Eurozone, both implementing strict austerity programmes, went back into negative growth while the US remained in positive growth.

All economies eventually recover periods of recession, the Tories simply delayed the recovery (it's been six years since Lehman Brothers went bust and helped trigger the crises) and with the help of THM they want to take the credit for that eventual delayed recovery.

Well done Ernie, you are being remarkably consistent in inaccuracies

1. Tories THM

2. it was in fact due to the global incompetence of bankers and the neo-liberal experiment.

3. both implementing strict austerity programmes

4. went back into negative growth (check ONS YoY data since 2010)

5. Tories simply delayed the recovery (see above)

6. with the help of THM.....

Quite brilliant

All the crowing from this shower of sh*t government over how UK economy is growing faster than our competitors in Europe, The German economy returned to its pre-recession figure in 2010, France in 2011, we thanks to the ideologically driven measures of this Government only achieved it this year.

THM if you are not a tory then state what party you vote for and save so many of us on here from making the same mistake,.

It's a shame when people have to tie themselves to political parties. Makes it difficult to be rational at times

In your defence Ernie, the IMF themselves used to make the same mistakes until reluctantly they had to conclude last month that

The UK's economy is expected to continue to grow strongly. Demand is becoming more balanced, with stronger business investment. But despite rapid employment growth, some slack remains in the labour market and labour productivity has been low

So if you want to give the Tories a hard time at least look in the right area, such as weak productivity. That's the reason why wages are depressed not ideology as is often spouted.

went back into negative growth (check ONS YoY data since 2010)

Which bit of [i]"the UK went back into negative growth"[/i] are you disputing ?

[img] [/img]

You will note from the ONS data that when the Tories came to power 2010 they inherited a recovering and growing economy (the opposite of what they claim).

You will also note from the ONS data that the UK went back into negative growth several times after the Tories came to power.

Try putting your glasses on. Negative growth is those bits [i]below[/i] the zero mark 💡

You will also note from my previous graph that when the Tories came to power in 2010 the UK economy was growing faster than the Eurozone countries, something which Tories like you prefer to keep quiet about.

And of course the dominate political force in the Eurozone is the conservative parties.

In your defence Ernie, the IMF themselves used to make the same mistakes until reluctantly they had to conclude last month that

The UK's economy is expected to continue to grow strongly. Demand is becoming more balanced, with stronger business investment. But despite rapid employment growth, some slack remains in the labour market and labour productivity has been low

Did you read this bit which I previously posted ?

All economies eventually recover periods of recession

It's been 6 years ffs. The Tories inherited a recovering and growing economy FOUR YEARS AGO.

Keep digging

1Q10 onwards (% YoY real GDP): 0.8, 2.1, 2.5, 2.2, 2.2, 1.4, 1.5, 1.5, 1.0, 0.6, 0.7, 0.4, 0.8, 1.7, 1.7, 2.7, 2.9, 3.2, 3.0

Tell me which number is a negative one?

We did have QoQ negative members (never 2 in a row) in 3Q10, 2Q11, 2Q12 and 4Q12.

Otherwise positive data - bad luck!

Yes, trying to pretend that Europe's malaise is related to Conservatives is brilliant spin even by your standards. Compare the main socialist government in Eu with the Tories and then try again.

At some point, the Tories may actually deliver some fiscal consolidation (they do spin that story) but may be that is why the EC announced this week that "some fiscal consolidation is necessary". To use your phrase, no shit Sherlock

Anyway still not even close to an oligarchy

Because you can't think of anything else to say THM you've decided to dream up things which I haven't said. I said that the UK went back into negative growth after the Tories came to power, the ONS figures show that.

I didn't say anything about year over year growth rate, but because you can't attack what I've said you've decided to attack something that I haven't said.

Anyway, I ain't got time for this nonsense, I'm going out and need to get ready 🙂

Enjoy yourself - nonsense and dreaming things up very apt descriptions, just need to be applied correctly.

Thanks fella, and you enjoy dreaming up more things I haven't said to justify your Tory spin 🙂

That's odd, I could have sworn they were voted into their jobs on a regular basis - how many jobs have that obligation?

I could also swear that prospective MPs need to be selected as candidates, this effectively rules out anyone capable of either original thought or true, objective, political acumen.

What recovery ? its smoke and mirrors mate, the only people to benefit will be the money jugglers.

Thanks cheeky, I am fully aware of the nature of the recovery thanks. Helps if you read what I say not what EL claims I say. Try the we are all doomed thread for a recent example. I think you will find that the money jugglers are having their own problems too.

I could also swear that prospective MPs need to be selected as candidates, this effectively rules out anyone capable of either original thought or true, objective, political acumen.

Prospective parliamentary candidates do not need to be selected by anyone. You just need £500 deposit and the signatures of 10 registered electors from the constituency that you wish to stand in.

Political parties understandably like to select the candidates which stand on their behalf, but you are not obliged to stand on their behalf.

Obviously you are unlikely like to win an election if you don't stand as the official candidate of a political party, but that's up to the voters to decide - they are fully entitled to vote for you if they want to. And they do occasionally vote for independents.

Any lack of independents in the House of Commons is down to the voters and no one else - so blame them if you are unhappy with election results.

http://www.parliament.uk/get-involved/elections/standing/

Any lack of independents in the House of Commons is down to the voters and no one else - so blame them if you are unhappy with election results.

Plus 1, even more so with the rise of cheap mass communication.