is disappointment...

[combom]

are dissapointment, apathy and a ripped-off feeling the cornerstones of democracy?

[omega2618]

No!This is the feeling you get when a Parliament looks after its own interest,is answerable to no-one and has a government of two major parties that only have their own interest at heart.
Democracy is,'the government by the people through their elected representatives'.
The problem is we have an unelected Prime Minister with a team of dishonest,corrupt,lying and arrogant untouchable individuals saying Brown is the best man for the job whilst overseeing the worse unemployment and economic downturn since the last time the Labour Party was in office.
The other major party is not much better.

Hands up all those politicians that cannot recognise when their mortgage is paid off.
Hands up all those politicians in favour of a cash hand-out of between £20-60k if you lose or are de-selected 'for whatever reason' at the next election.
Hands up all those Labour politicians that find it easy to say 'duck pond and moat' in the same sentence but not 'Hazel Blairs made £13k by mis-use of the allowance system'.
Hands up all those politicians that choke over the word 'sorry'.

When I went to vote in my local council elections and European elections to excercise my democratic right I was amazed at what I was confonted with.
There was a choice of two candidates for the local election.(One Tory,one Lib-dem).The European list was as long as my arm.
The locally elected councillor will get minimal,published expenses the European representative will get a boarding pass for the biggest gravy train you can imagine.

Tony Benn said recently on Breakfast T.V. that this Goverment is the biggest threat to Democracy.
Time the system changed.

Rant over.

[combom]

its not just THIS government, it appears whether govt or opposition are responsible.

if id fiddled £1000 from the DSS, they prosecute me, if a politician steals £15,000 and all they have to do is pay it back and resign! i also think a lot are happy to resign, as the size of the trough has shrank and they cant feed like before, so they are still winning, even by losing!

and you still HAVE to vote, if you dont your letting extremists in by the back door, as they will always vote!

gordon brown doing a re-shuffle is only like rearranging your CDs on the shelf. the shelf is still there. a new govt is little more than "same sh*t, new wrapper", a reshuffle is "same sh*t, different order".

[omega2618]

Your quite right!It appears all governments and opposition parties both past and present have been dipping into the trough and taking a basin full.Worse still is the effort made to either cover it up or apportion blame.Michael Martin,the ex speaker,tried and succeded for months to stop the Daily Telegraph looking at expenses claims under the Freedom of Information Act and some of the claims made by Tony Blair 'accidently' found their way into a shredder.(Just how do you obtain 4 houses with one valued at £2m as a Prime Minister?)
Although many Ministers have resigned from their positions within the government,very few,if any,have resigned as M.P's.This is because a by-election would be needed and none of the political parties would want that to happen through fear of losing the seat.Far better that they should not seek re-election at the next General Election and therefore become eligible for the severence pay that they negotiated between themselves.(Currently,depending on position,between £20-£60k.)
You are spot on!Getting a huge bonus for what is in effect stealing.
Finally,it is very difficult for M.P's to rid themselves of their 'leader'.The mechanisms in place make it difficult at best and usually only occures when the 'leader' acknowledges that all is lost.
Like it or not,Parliament and this Government have all bases covered.

To qualify what Tony Benn meant in my previous post.He suggested it only needed a charismatic person that was an eloquent speaker,good,honest and in touch with ordinary folk to trigger the changes that would see the end to democracy as we know it.
So,whose it to be? Dr.Who,Robin Hood or Bob the Builder!

[combom]

that is why blair was popular, and brown isnt, its a popularity contest again!

"your doing something unpopular tony, so remember to smile!"

[coley1]

Although I don't condone any of the actions where politicians have 'cheated' via the system they created I think things need to be taken into context.

When they decide to become a professional politician in many cases they have to take a huge pay cut. Some of them were earning mega bucks and had to give that up to go professional!!!

Therefore when some of them have very big houses worth loads of money they more often than not earn't enough to get these big houses prior to becoming politicians. Not sure if this is the case for Tony Blair or not.

If you look at David Cameron his family's estate is worth something like £30million!!!

Of course this does not excuse them from claiming for silly things or paying off their mortgages or flipping etc.

I have heard some silly comments though r.e. he has millions he should pay his own mortgage. this misses the point. the rule should be a straight line, same for all, not the richer politician gets less. It should be they get the payment or not. I would suggest they got nothing for their own home and their London residence was paid for. this however may work out more expensive. I would then suggest that the London property should remain the property of the country and not the politician. They have residence there while they are an MP. Once they are not an MP then they have to hand back the keys. Grace and Favour homes should be for all of them rather than 1 chosing a £1m house in Kensington and another sufficing with a 1 bedroom flat. All the grace and favour house for non cabinet should be a standard size for all. Cabinet members who have to 'entertain' VIPs and foreign dignatorys should still have something a little better after all Image is King

On other expenses they should get like most employees get. A travel allowance same for all. If you want first class you pay the difference. If you want the more expensive hotel then you pay the difference (They are working away from home after all) If you want a 50" plasma then you pay the difference (This is in effect about the only one that is already implemented. they turned down several claims for £3000 TVs and only reimbursed for £750)

Luxuries should be at their own expense after all they would be having these same luxuries at home

At the end of the day while we are in the EU and they make 75% of the laws then we don't need 600+MPs. We need much much less to cover the remaining 25% of law. The civil servants do most of the MPs work anyway and are cheaper in the long run plus they don't change with each election.

Once the parliament was shrunk the remainder should be put on salary that is on a par with the responsibility they have of running the country. Either that or we would have to return to part-time politicians that are allowed to carry on with their other jobs too which does not serve anybody's purposes.

This system was always devised because the public often don't understand reality in that the most powerful people in the country were earning less than a bank manager and therefore while succesive governments (pre this labour one) didn't want to put the salary up appropriate to position because it 'wouldn't have gone down well with the public' they added this 'added extra' system which has gone on to be abused. If the public were a little more realistic and thought Mmmm A bank manager of a a single high street branch earns more than my MP they might admit that Peanuts = Monkeys and in general there are a lot of very good, very effective MPs. Pity about the current Lincoln one though. The system was bound to be abused!!!

At this stage we would have 400 or so politicians that are paid appropriately for the responsibility they have. Expenses would be altered to the same as every other job in the country. Politicians would not cheat to get money because the system would be more rigid.

I guess in summary I am saying that if we want the best people we have to pay them the going rate for the amount of responsibility they have and rather than having a gravy train with hundreds of hangers on enjoying the ride it should be trimmed down to necessity rather than 'This is tradition'.

As we saw last night we don't want proportional representation. BNP would be quite happy to have it though!!!

I won't get onto the Europe argument but I think we do need OUT. It isn't helping us any for the money we put in but it does help the Germans and French immensely.

I didn't vote any of the minorities

AC

[combom]

i voted, for a "minority party" not a right wing one though.

i suppose we have to remember the ppl caught "on the take" is the tip of the iceberg, they have been at it for decades, its not new.

camerons £30m estate isnt bought for him by us, even though we may maintain it

i believe all politicians should get a flat rate, if its not enough to maintain your massive estate, then use it to make money yourself!

proportional representation would work, it may increase extremist partys coverage, but itll make a lot more ppl vote to keep them out - 70% of the uk DIDNT VOTE last week!!!!!!! they are responsible for more than they think!

[coley1]

I'm not having a go at Cameron after all I voted for him in both elections...sorry I mean I voted for whoever the local ones were.

What I am saying is that we pay a proportion of the 'second home allowance'

Why?

they should pay for their original home(s) from their salaries. Why do they get to pick a house in London and then the taxpayer pay the mortgage for the politician to do with as he/she pleases at the end of their parliamentary stay? If they only stay in for one term then they get 4 years free mortgage on that home. they then take on the remainder themselves or sell the house at profit (in the right climate )

It should be that they get into parliament, they are given a 'grace and favour' appartment. When they no longer need it they hand the keys back etc. The taxpayer owns the property. No arguments and all the politicians get their 'residence' free from the fear they may actually be tempted to cheat money

With Cameron I don't think it's right we pay a huge chunk of his country home but then they are all as bad as each other. £22k of mortgage is as bad as £22k of toilet seats and TVs etc.

But I do think we should shed the hangers on and pay the remainder a salary that reflects the responsibility. Not going to happen though. Tradition overules far too much in this country

PR wouldn't get people out from in front of their TV in the living room of their council house which was paid for by taxpayers that voted. those people don't care, as long as their free cash comes in they on't go out of their way to walk 10 mins down the road to put an X in the box. Even they wouldn't have been watching anything detailing policies. More likely they will vote BNP because the only influence on them is the chap down the pub who is moaning about immigrants

I think there are a lot of 'closet' racists in this country. They are starting to come out now. Last night was not the worst we will see. They will get stronger as long as eastern europe floods in etc. Racism has gone from the old black/white/'asian' problem to british and non british these days.

I fear we will one day see a BNP parliamentary representative and that will be the day we have to hold our hands up and say something has gone seriously wrong!!!

As for the politicians - I saw Cameron and Milliband this morning saying 'We have to try and understand what the public are saying by voting in BNP., Its a sad day'

They know as well as we do but they can't say it. they are restricted. People voted BNP because of the flood of EU migrants into the country, and the Asylum seekers that are refused and then disappear into the countryside. While the tax payer is paying for the privelidge of housing and feeding people entering the country illegally while the home office take months to decide their future and then once decided let them free to roam even though they have been refused then a proportion of the populus is going to increase the popularity of the fascist parties!!! Now they have been elected once others will see that they can win and those who voted elsewhere because they though BNP had no chance may change their minds. It is all bubbling under the surface, a ticking timebomb, the politicians refuse to believe it but it will eventually break and it is us that will suffer!!!

AC

[Seahorse]

PR wouldn't get people out from in front of their TV in the living room of their council house which was paid for by taxpayers that voted. those people don't care, as long as their free cash comes in they on't go out of their way to walk 10 mins down the road to put an X in the box. Even they wouldn't have been watching anything detailing policies. More likely they will vote BNP because the only influence on them is the chap down the pub who is moaning about immigrants

Pardon? Are you suggesting that people who aren't 'wage earners' (for whatever reason - perhaps, say, because they're caring for a special needs child, or have health problems, or an elderly relative to look after) are some sort of scrounging, fascist, lazy, pointless wastes of space? I can assure you that living on benefits is no bar to intelligence or political awareness.

To qualify what Tony Benn meant in my previous post.He suggested it only needed a charismatic person that was an eloquent speaker,good,honest and in touch with ordinary folk to trigger the changes that would see the end to democracy as we know it.
So,whose it to be? Dr.Who,Robin Hood or Bob the Builder

Isn't that how Ronald Reagan got elected?

As for the original question, I was truly tempted to scrawl 'they're all b*stards' across both ballot papers last week! FWIW, I think MPs should be well paid - if they're doing it well, it's a difficult and time consuming job, afterall - but their salary should be a fixed sum, not something they can manipulate and augment as they see fit.

[coley1]

Pardon? Are you suggesting that people who aren't 'wage earners' (for whatever reason - perhaps, say, because they're caring for a special needs child, or have health problems, or an elderly relative to look after) are some sort of scrounging, fascist, lazy, pointless wastes of space? I can assure you that living on benefits is no bar to intelligence or political awareness.

Not at all. Benefits are there for a reason and for those who are entitled. It is the scrounger, dossers that cheat the system as much as the MPs that I was talking about. lol. I must learn not to generalise so much. Always gets me into trouble

I am not a wage earner at the moment. Can't get a penny out of the system though. Probs because I am inexperienced with the system and/or am honest We make do on the wife's meagre earnings at the moment.

I am happy for those with genuine needs to receive the benefits as that is what they are for. It's the ones that refuse to do jobs for less than X amount, then complain about there being too many foreigners, then complain the foreigners are taking all the jobs because if they had taken the jobs for less than X amount it would be more per week (I should think) than they receive from the system and also then the 'foreigners' wouldn't have come over because the jobs wouldn't be there It is those scroungers that have little interest in anything to do with the system apart from their freebies that I talk of.

AC

[combom]

...With Cameron I don't think it's right we pay a huge chunk of his country home but then they are all as bad as each other. £22k of mortgage is as bad as £22k of toilet seats and TVs etc....

your right, its a scam, the country buying a expensive house, apply dss rules to mps!

[arkley]

Calm down everybody calm down and listen to this,
Chap says: "Give it to me straight, Doctor. How long have I got?" The doctor says "Ten"
"Ten what? Months? Weeks?" The doctor goes on: Nine, Eight, Seven........

[omega2618]

I noted that the BNP won their seats with less votes than in 2004 because of the apathy of Labour voters in not turning out.(Some say upwards of 250k).
I also noted that Swedens Pirate Party won their Euro seat with a manifesto of 'free internet file sharing'.

Proportional Representation?

With the opportunity that it brings how about a Lincoln Maniac Party?

Lets have some ideas for a Manifesto!

[combom]

when my "extremely nice peoples party" comes to power, youll all be the first to go

[combom]

BTW MPs expenses last year where £93 million

[combom]

and the rest of it...

£2.2 bil foreign office
£2.1 bil culture budget
£10.2 bil home office
£21.7 bil tax credits
£38 bil defence
£88 bil education
£119 bil health
£164.7 bil social security
£175 bill borrowing

you can see why they are trying to get ppl off SS, but leave ppl without money = massive rise in crime, plus the govt are signed up to get children out of poverty, any solution costs too much so wont work!

bil = billion

[omega2618]

Don't forget contributions to the E.U. which equates to:-

£106,117 per minute
£4.648 billion per month or £1,799 for every tax payer in Britain.(Unless your an M.P. and can employ a tax consultant at the publics expense to get you out of paying your share.Sorry to bring it up again Darling.)

But we do get a lot in return.Just let me think about it for a minute................

No! You'll have to give me a bit longer.

[coley1]

I noted that the BNP won their seats with less votes than in 2004 because of the apathy of Labour voters in not turning out.(Some say upwards of 250k).
I also noted that Swedens Pirate Party won their Euro seat with a manifesto of 'free internet file sharing'.

Thats what the main parties want us to think but remember the last vote was a postal vote. 'Turnout' therefore much higher. All the winning parties got less votes than last time

However it suits the argument to suggest it was people not turning out to vote that gave BNP the win Whose to say people who postal voted BNP last time actually made the effort to open their front door this time?

Maybe the majority of the BNP vote was 'protest' voting and many of 2004 postal voters didn't bother voting at all this time?

Argument could be 'spun' both ways. Whats for sure though it the main parties have got to start looking at the immigrant/migrant issue before it is too late. The public won't buy 'they are adding to the economy' when they are shuffling a lot of their cash back home and then claiming back tax etc when they leave!!! They also don't buy that people can come for a couple of years, instantly get free medical treatment and then shuffle off back home when they have gotten the treatment they couldn't afford in their own country This is happening more and more.

Scrambled eggs anybody. Special of the week at West 'whim' ster this week

AC

[arkley]

I noted that the BNP won their seats with less votes than in 2004 because of the apathy of Labour voters in not turning out.(Some say upwards of 250k).
I also noted that Swedens Pirate Party won their Euro seat with a manifesto of 'free internet file sharing'.

Proportional Representation?

With the opportunity that it brings how about a Lincoln Maniac Party?

Lets have some ideas for a Manifesto!

Should that read, Manicfesto?

[combom]

there is a lot more to my list i posted, thats all i found out from a quick search!

i dont know how to say this without sounding racist, and im not, but - extremist parties do concern me, i do feel the bnp rise will result in a party of, well non-ukers, who organise themselves, and they will all vote for it, and could eventually result in the uk being run by, well non-uk ppl, our religion being non-christian etc. etc.

im all for integration, its the way ahead, but...

[Seahorse]

I can see your point combom, in that extremists beget other extremists, but I think (despite what the Daily Mail would have us believe) that the majority of people who come here do so because they want to live a 'British' way of life. Yes, they may want to retain their religion, or customs etc (and why not!?) but most also want to 'fit in', become part of society, get along with their neighbours etc.

Even if that weren't the case, I think it's unlikely that there would ever be enough radical 'foreigners' to out vote native Brits.

[combom]

there already is because most of those born here, dont bother with voting, the way we will stop it is to vote.

ppl dont vote, then they complain about the state of it all, as far as im concerned, if you dont vote you lose your right to complain about it!

perhaps us all voting is the answer, in fact make us vote, even if we tick a box I DO NOT WISH TO VOTE and have to write why, so voting for someone is faster than not voting, itll prob not work, but we need ppl to think rationally here to keep extremists, and what they bring and can cause out!

[coley1]

I can see your point combom, in that extremists beget other extremists, but I think (despite what the Daily Mail would have us believe) that the majority of people who come here do so because they want to live a 'British' way of life. Yes, they may want to retain their religion, or customs etc (and why not!?) but most also want to 'fit in', become part of society, get along with their neighbours etc.

Even if that weren't the case, I think it's unlikely that there would ever be enough radical 'foreigners' to out vote native Brits.

Think about the british born asians!!! They stand for election in their area (thinking yorkshire mainly at the mo) All the asians vote for them and you see the result. The last 10 years has seen a huge upsurge in the indian / pakistani community being selected in certain areas by labour. I would bet that they were picked just as much for their 'appeal' within the nominated community as their abillities.

ComBom is pretty much on the ball. If you look at Obama. The election would've been pretty close were it not for the fact that every 'Afro American' saw a champion and voted for him. He would've still won because he is a fantastic 'frontman' indeed similar to Blair in that image became substance.

Carry it forward a few years and weigh up our system where it is possible to have 5 or 6 parties vying eventually then one party maneouvring their canditates wisely in ethnic minority dominated areas (including british born) then that party could do well. Ally that with the inevitabe surge of support in the same constituency for BNP and then you have a situation where the main parties may lose a lot of votes!!!

Where you see ethinic candidates do well and that have large ethnic communities are where the BNP will also do well. The 2 go hand in hand.

There could eventually be some constituencys that are BNP vs Ethinic Party rather than Labour vs Con!!!

All a long way from the present but could well happen.

AC

[Seahorse]

Think about the british born asians!!! They stand for election in their area (thinking yorkshire mainly at the mo) All the asians vote for them and you see the result. The last 10 years has seen a huge upsurge in the indian / pakistani community being selected in certain areas by labour. I would bet that they were picked just as much for their 'appeal' within the nominated community as their abillities.

And the huntin', shootin', fishin' tory landowners haven't enjoyed the same benefits? Of course people will be inclined to vote for a candidate they feel a 'commonality' with. Not necessarily a good or bad thing, just how it is!

ComBom is pretty much on the ball. If you look at Abama. The election would've been pretty close were it not for the fact that every 'Afro American' saw a champion and voted for him. He would've still won because he is a fantastic 'frontman' indeed similar to Blair in that image became substance.

Do you not think that an awful lot of 'Rednecks' would have voted against Obama, purely because of his ethnic background? I reckon there may be one or two more of them than there are 'African Americans' (IMO, approaching a nonsense term anyway - would you call yourself 'Norman English', 'Viking English' etc?) so one can only presume that 'middle of the road' types, of whatever colour, were the deciding factor in his election.

Where you see ethinic candidates do well and that have large ethnic communities are where the BNP will also do well. The 2 go hand in hand.

But do they, really? I'm about as milk bottle white as you can get but have absolutely no animosity to anyone who isn't! As I've said before, of course there are extremists on all sides but I truly believe that the vast majority of folk just want to get along and go about their buisness. I think the electoral support for 'non British' (for want of a better term) candidates is more an intermediate process than a long term issue!

[combom]

...I truly believe that the vast majority of folk just want to get along and go about their buisness. I think the electoral support for 'non British' (for want of a better term) candidates is more an intermediate process than a long term issue!

i agree, but the problem is most of these wont bother voting, and the extremest do! goodwill and sensible thinking isnt enough in an election, we pay for the results for 5 years, and if they force a change in the law, possibly for a lot longer! look at the mess south africa is in with robert mugabe pro-black racist actions!

[Sponsored content]