The Constiturents of Parliament

[Sukerkin]

Over the past few weeks we have had mention in some threads of the rise of the 'professional politician' and how that many of is see that as a retrograde step for any system that claims to be democratic.

Here is a short article on the BBC that addresses that very matter that I thought might be of interest to the politically 'active' here on the board as well of being of general interest to everyone else

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19299430

 

[Sukerkin]

For a bit of extra flavour, here are some snippets about some of the politicians mentioned in the article:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8689311.stm

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/chi-onwurah-mp-engineering-gender-balance-still-stuck-230426242.html

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/tory-mp-david-morris-seen-138806

:lol: Sorry, my anti-Tory bias showed with that one

Here's one that's a bit more 'work' related for Mr. Morris: http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/david-morris-mp/nuclear-power-is-on-the-horizon_b_1417415.html

http://rogerwilliams.org.uk/en/

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: Just noticed a spurlig earroar in the tittle of theece thred .

An extra 'r' crept into "Constituents" - it seems as well as taking excessive expenses, MP's are demanding additional letters in words describing them these days :lol:.

 

[Gnarlie]

Ermahgerd, Cernstertuernts!

Gnarlie

 

[Ken Morgan]

A professional Politician is a manager, which is fine IMO. Being an unprofessional Politician, ( a punter from a hundred other occupations), doesn't make you any more qualified then those already there. What we need are leaders who have vision, and will make that vision happen.

 

[Sukerkin]

:chuckles: It's not often I disagree with you Ken but the amongst the things you cannot afford to have in political leaders is vision and idealism . Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Pol Pot ... they all had vision.

So did Churchill, unfortunately - he cost us (the British) our place at the top table in world affairs.

What you need in charge are, as you say, managers. People who can keep the wheels turning for the benefit of all and who can tell the special interest groups (including the ones with all the money) to get in line. Sadly we'll never get that.

Democracy is a cloaking shroud to make us think we have a say whilst we blindly put even more power into the hands of the unelected 'Upper Class' who organise things for their own benefit.

 

[arnisador]

This is about the Commons?!? I thought it'd be about the Lords! Have they given up for now and changing that?

 

[Tez3]

We need people who have both common sense and a sense of duty, as well as feet firmly on the ground. Strangely enough these days this is more often found in the House of Lords rather than the Commons. Too often now we've got people in politics who are just out to make a name for themselves. Those of the 'old famlies' who are still in the House of Lords still have a sense that what they do should be for the benefit of the people, they still have more of a sense of duty to the country than those who go into politics because they want what they see as the trappings of power. The 'old money' people are easier to deal with than those of the 'new money' such as Cameron, Blair and that ilk.
Arnisdor, Parliament is both Houses and all parties that are in those Houses as well as the Queen.

 

[Sukerkin]

This is about the Commons?!? I thought it'd be about the Lords! Have they given up for now and changing that?

There has been a bit of an upset about that matter between the members of the government. aye. The rumour mill has it that it will not be too long before changes are proposed again tho'.

For me, I think it is a mistake to take the tack the 'reformers' are doing on the Lords. All that is needed is some proper oversight to stop the government of the day 'packing' the Upper House with their own choices. After all, the Lords is the balance wheel on the fly-by-night changes that the Commons put forward and without it the whims of political party expediency would become even more destructive than they are now.

 

[Ken Morgan]

:chuckles: It's not often I disagree with you Ken but the amongst the things you cannot afford to have in political leaders is vision and idealism . Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Amin, Pol Pot ... they all had vision.

So did Churchill, unfortunately - he cost us (the British) our place at the top table in world affairs.

What you need in charge are, as you say, managers. People who can keep the wheels turning for the benefit of all and who can tell the special interest groups (including the ones with all the money) to get in line. Sadly we'll never get that.

Democracy is a cloaking shroud to make us think we have a say whilst we blindly put even more power into the hands of the unelected 'Upper Class' who organise things for their own benefit.

I'm thinking of Canada's own Sir john A Macdonald when I'm talking vision, without him, our country would not exist. SWC didn't kill the British empire, war and circumstances did. Limited natural resources, WW1 & WW2, the rise of the USA & USSR, small population, the rise of colonial nationalism, etc. “It has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all the others that have been tried.” SWC. Sorry guys being Canadian, with British parents, and hence cousins, aunts and uncles, I find it hard to wrap my head around the whole class system thing. Suk I would argue a Tory PM could fulfill your every wish and you would still find something bad to say about the decision, the same way I could never say anything good about our Liberal party over here, Trudeau was a SOB....

 

[Sukerkin]

:grins: If a Tory did make policy decisions I agreed with, I am enough of a pragmatist to pass positive comment on them.

It does happen on occasion, tho' it is usually outside the parameters of economic matters e.g. Maggie refusing to allow the Argies to have the Falklands.

Mostly, however, Tories serve their own ... and I am not one of them and never will be.