chicken_badge
Gudni Bergsson
Looking forward to this, should be a cracker. Close, high scoring but the reds will edge it.
Is this the OMT then?
Is this the OMT then?
-
Dear Guest, Please note that adult content is not permitted on this forum. We have had our Google ads disabled at times due to some posts that were found from some time ago. Please do not post adult content and if you see any already on the forum, please report the post so that we can deal with it. Adult content is allowed in the glory hole - you will have to request permission to access it. Thanks, scara
Independence...
- Thread starter KerryDale
- Start date
I used to agree with this but I've had some experience in working with the elected officials and their advisors. In fact the decisions are not made on balance by the elected official, they come via discussions with experts and advisors. In most cases it's impossible for a minister to become an expert in the nhs or "business" and lead. If they screw up, they get moved to another post or put in the back benches for a year or so.
So who makes the decisions then? Who picks the experts and who are the advisors? These guys are not elected and are the same for every government. They all live in London pretty much and most have no deep knowledge of the subject, they are just civil servants who have fallen into the job.
Sent from my iPad using Fapatalk
monkeybarry
Ian Walker
****e OMT. Where are the badgers?
Do they have badgers in Scotland?
Is IrnBru going to go up in price?
Will will having The Proclaimers at festivals just to play one song?
Richie
Naybet
Of course they should get advice from various experts, why would we expect anything less? If anything that backs up my point, MPs are far better informed on issues than the majority of those who follow the issues, let alone the average Joe on the street.
The main problem with politicians is party politics, they will often vote against their instincts and beliefs to follow the party whip.
Drugs is a perfect example. All the evidence shows that criminalization of drugs is a failure, most MPs agree off the record but would never say it publicly for fear of losing the whip, their seat or most likely both.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
I would back Andy's point. I've worked quite closely with a government department - it is amazing how civil servants and elected Ministers make rash, semi-informed decisions that often have significant often unplanned effects on the UK exchequer, jobs and society. Insular meetings in rooms in Whitehall do lead to ill informed policies. Civil servants in ministries have little or no first hand experience of areas they reform and are often swayed by clever lobbying (often masquerading as expertise), rather than being able to understand and evaluate what is best for the country.
The Minister, who is also an MPs, relies on their civil servants who action the key details o most new policy. Apart from 'pet projects', Ministers are only really concerned with how they look. If a new policy or a reform causes a stir then the Minister starts to get involved more. Generally what happens in this scenario is they water down the policy to placate - there is no embarrassing u-turn but also less criticism. Will the policy work? Well that is secondary.
I have to say it is all too often shockingly ineffective. Uninformed civil servants try to implement the wrong measures, only for democracy and lobbying to kick in to highlight the errors. But then rather than put in place sound policy, the ministry tries to keep doing the wrong thing, but do it 'righter' leading to waste and expense. If Ministries were businesses they would fail.
I do agree that generally people are not in a good position to vote, to be informed on everything, and why should they be? We all rely on so called experts. But UK politics does not relate to real people, most are disillusioned with tired political formats. Both UK government - via the Ministries - and UK political traditions need to be shaken up.
The Minister, who is also an MPs, relies on their civil servants who action the key details o most new policy. Apart from 'pet projects', Ministers are only really concerned with how they look. If a new policy or a reform causes a stir then the Minister starts to get involved more. Generally what happens in this scenario is they water down the policy to placate - there is no embarrassing u-turn but also less criticism. Will the policy work? Well that is secondary.
I have to say it is all too often shockingly ineffective. Uninformed civil servants try to implement the wrong measures, only for democracy and lobbying to kick in to highlight the errors. But then rather than put in place sound policy, the ministry tries to keep doing the wrong thing, but do it 'righter' leading to waste and expense. If Ministries were businesses they would fail.
I do agree that generally people are not in a good position to vote, to be informed on everything, and why should they be? We all rely on so called experts. But UK politics does not relate to real people, most are disillusioned with tired political formats. Both UK government - via the Ministries - and UK political traditions need to be shaken up.
SpurMeUp
Jimmy Cantrell
As for the Scotland, well what can you say? It is intriguing. All the rational arguments and decent people seem to be with the No vote. 'Yes' is an emotional vote. But you can see Yes voters point. They have a chance to refresh their local government and politics. But should they get their way, it would end up just like the governance and politics they have now - or be worse.
But there is hope in voting Yes. There is potential. For a decade independence could work well. Scots might be energised and unified enough to create a better new system. But after that, malaise in the independence dream plus economic factors - an ageing population who need care and dwindling oil money - could lead to serious budget deficits and people leaving the country in droves.
The key is there is no answer to the currency. And secondly, no one knows whether Scotland could be unified and work together to put in place a new effective government and country.
But there is hope in voting Yes. There is potential. For a decade independence could work well. Scots might be energised and unified enough to create a better new system. But after that, malaise in the independence dream plus economic factors - an ageing population who need care and dwindling oil money - could lead to serious budget deficits and people leaving the country in droves.
The key is there is no answer to the currency. And secondly, no one knows whether Scotland could be unified and work together to put in place a new effective government and country.
Richie
Naybet
I agree with everything you are saying, but the answer is less government power not more masquerading as 'the will of the people' via referenda.
Everytime you buy something you are 'voting' for that business over another business. Sainsburys over Tesco, Waterstones over Amazon etc... Leave markets to work and allow people to vote with their feet. The only significant regulation I want to see out of government is to ensure the people have enough information at hand, and to make sure companies are fairly representing themselves.
An example of this is Claire Perrys Internet Censorship, supposedly in the name of child protection. Of course the proposed black listing through the ISP is a horrible way to do this, the correct response is to educate parents on what they should be doing to protect their kids. Computer Science is my field, I understand how the internet and computers work far better than Claire Perry but this is a perfect example of an idiot MP thinking they are doing the right thing but will making the situation a lot worse for a variety of reasons I won't list here. The point about referenda is poignant here, because it shouldn't be up to the people to vote whether government does or doesn't do this, the government shouldn't be doing it full stop.
I want a government with less power to interfere with our lives, but leaving that decision to politicians would be turkeys voting for Christmas
Well put.
I would also add with particular relevance to the Scottish referendum that almost all of these decision makers are elitist, well off and based in London. They are also there whomever the elected government is.
It's easy to see why they are considered out of touch with Scotland and that all parties are the same. It's not about elected government it's about who delivers government.
Sent from my iPad using Fapatalk
I really am not bothered by what happens. If they vote no, the Union remains and we carry on pretty much the same. If they vote yes the likelihood is that we will never have to suffer another Labour government in England. As a southerner who has been to Scotland only twice I have to say that Scottish politics is pretty irrelevant to me apart from the fact that between 1997 and 2010 they provided an unhealthy proportion of government ministers and therefore gave the UK an unhealthy pro Scotland bias.
I have heard people say that the Scots are too wise to vote yes but I disagree. This is a country that has always voted either for Labour or the slightly further left SNP. The cause of their problems is their habitual socialism not their alignment with the more fiscally wise English.
I have heard people say that the Scots are too wise to vote yes but I disagree. This is a country that has always voted either for Labour or the slightly further left SNP. The cause of their problems is their habitual socialism not their alignment with the more fiscally wise English.
Gilzeantoscore
Justin Edinburgh
Ha,ha you are going to be disappointed then, because Scots Llabour M.P.s will still be in Westminster and help form government after the next General election with more SNP members too in all likelihood. Yeah the whole nation, bar that one seat (yes one) that votes Tory is stupid. How patronising, explains why so many Scots want to break away from the U.K.
Yes, there will still be a smattering of MPs at Westminster who are Scottish by birth.
But the point is that they will be contesting English seats. So there can be no doubt that Labour will suffer hugely if Scotland votes for Independence.
As to SNP politicians, why on earth are you under the impression that they would want to stand for Parliament in a UK that no longer includes Scotland? A bizarre notion!
jts1882
Dean Richards
The Scottish Labour MPs would have made a difference to the final government only rarely. Blair had comfortable English majorities in seats (although not votes in 2005) and the Conservatives under Thatcher and Major would have won anyway. So apart from the current government (no need for a coalition) we would have to go back to 1974 for it to make difference (I'm not sure if it would have, though, as back then the Conservatives had MPs in Scotland).
That's all largely circumstantial, though. It's just as possible to imagine a time when general elections become routinely close affairs.
If they insist on voting to the left then they'll have to put up with people thinking they're somewhat less than bright.
People taking the Lib Dems seriously (still unsure why) makes that situation even more likely I'd say.
Also, as has been mentioned, historical results don't count for too much as Scotland wasn't as strongly Labour.
Lost Mango
Allan Nielsen
Tories in 2010 = 410,00
SNP in 2010 = 480,00
just because the Tories are spread out in Scotland and don't feature largely enough in more than one constituency doesn't make them extinct.
Also Scottish labour seats have had an impact overall for less then 2 years since 1950 when they got Labour over the line in 1972. every other Labour Govt since the war would have won on rUK votes anyway.
If I lived in Scotland I'd probably want to live where all the Tories live too.