Feel free to rephrase 4 then I am partisan and I phrased it in a way that suited my agenda.I will read your phrasing with a reasonably open mind.
Thinking about it (possibly a partisan viewpoint) I think to me it comes down to are politicians servants or masters. In my mind the answer is clear that they are servants,I fear under our present system they see themselves as masters
As to how politicians see themselves that's a whole other matter.
With 4, what you have is the distinction between delegates and representatives (however you like to phrase it. In servant terms you can have a steward who's trusted to manage the estate, or a housemaid who's been sent to buy eggs, and the varying degrees of autonomy in between).
So a different way to phrase 4 is that politicians are (to an extent, and here's the grey area) elected to use their judgement in situations that arise.
(I'm not rephrasing it precisely so much as talking around the point I suppose, but hopefully you take my meaning).
I personally while I understand your analogies think it is not the same. I have been in similar situations in companies where I am allowed to authorise so much and not a penny further. This is close to your maid style analogy
Politicians on the other hand feel they have the authority to authorise anything in the name of those that elected them. If a maid decided to order 100,000 quails eggs even though they could only eat 10,000 before they went off the maid would be sacked. A politician orders a millenium dome which is twice as wasteful and we get told "but you voted for him and by extension it even though it was never in any manifesto"
Just reread 3 now maybe I am misunderstanding you viewpoint because of the way I phrased 3
You are really thinking that an elected politician should represent the views of their party over the views of the constituents that voted for them?
Does that really seem like a representative democracy to you? where the views of the voters are ignored because the party says so? Where in here does the constituency representation happen?. In our parliament as OGH often states we vote for people to represent us not parties. If the constituency I am in happened to want to outlaw gay marriage should they not have that view represented by their elected representative (note I am against gay marriage but merely because I am against all state sanctioning of relationships, however living in a staunchly conservative muslim area I imagine they would be against gay marriage for other reasons). Your argument appears to be they get represented if it is convenient for the party of the member they voted for. Doesnt seem much of a representative democracy to me there
No, you wrote 3 as "politicians should party > constituents" and I disagreed with that.
Subject to the caveats of how you actually know what the constituents feel (not just the vocal ones) and that while legally they vote for people, in practice parties dominate voting decisions.
I wrote 3 deliberately that way
I feel 3 and 4 is what we currently have and in respect of 3 party does indeed come before constituents. After all you don't become a member of your cabinet by putting your constituents first
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
I think you are talking principles while I'm speaking practicalities.
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
If a political system is not built on principles it is built on sewage
I have so many responses tumbling over each other.
Sewage is better than clouds?
The practicalities of sewage are very important? Something about ivory towers. Foundations built from clouds aren't very stable. Foundations are a deeply practical matter? Get an engineer not a philosopher to build your house? Do you dream of the world as you wish it was, or try to improve it as it is? If a political system would serve the people, it must serve them as they are, not how you'd like them to be?
None are quite right since I haven't spent the time polishing them. (I suppose that marks me as insufficiently witty).
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
I think you are talking principles while I'm speaking practicalities.
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
If a political system is not built on principles it is built on sewage
I have so many responses tumbling over each other.
Sewage is better than clouds?
The practicalities of sewage are very important? Something about ivory towers. Foundations built from clouds aren't very stable. Foundations are a deeply practical matter? Get an engineer not a philosopher to build your house? Do you dream of the world as you wish it was, or try to improve it as it is? If a political system would serve the people, it must serve them as they are, not how you'd like them to be?
None are quite right since I haven't spent the time polishing them. (I suppose that marks me as insufficiently witty).
Your points are well made however maybe you took the sewage too seriously. Yes it is an ideal and that sometimes collides with pragmatism. However what I was trying to say was that we should aim for the skies with our political system. We will undoubtedly fall short of our aims however that is no worse than staying with the system we have where voters and election promises can be safely ignored after the election is over.
Give us direct democracy on day to day stuff,
Elected representatives to cope with the emergency items
Voter recall for those representatives who feel their constituents do not matter
An elected executive where we can vote on different party lines for different policies (in restaurant analogy terms picking our dishes rather than having to go for a set meal )
I feel while still an imperfect system this will give us a better system than we have now
Just reread 3 now maybe I am misunderstanding you viewpoint because of the way I phrased 3
You are really thinking that an elected politician should represent the views of their party over the views of the constituents that voted for them?
Does that really seem like a representative democracy to you? where the views of the voters are ignored because the party says so? Where in here does the constituency representation happen?. In our parliament as OGH often states we vote for people to represent us not parties. If the constituency I am in happened to want to outlaw gay marriage should they not have that view represented by their elected representative (note I am against gay marriage but merely because I am against all state sanctioning of relationships, however living in a staunchly conservative muslim area I imagine they would be against gay marriage for other reasons). Your argument appears to be they get represented if it is convenient for the party of the member they voted for. Doesnt seem much of a representative democracy to me there
No, you wrote 3 as "politicians should party > constituents" and I disagreed with that.
Subject to the caveats of how you actually know what the constituents feel (not just the vocal ones) and that while legally they vote for people, in practice parties dominate voting decisions.
I wrote 3 deliberately that way
I feel 3 and 4 is what we currently have and in respect of 3 party does indeed come before constituents. After all you don't become a member of your cabinet by putting your constituents first
I think when 3 tends to be discussed you have variations on 3 situations.
A: what it usually is is a clash between an MP's views and his party's, with constituency representation being a convenient fig leaf.
B: You have a vocal local campaigning group (who are loud but not necessarily representative).
C: Some clear issue of local support.
On election day you get a general view of ~2/3 of the electors of a constituency. I doubt that on a given issue (outside extraordinary circumstances) between elections MPs even hear from 5% of the electorate about it (unless they go and solicit views on it, and then it's hard outside dramatic issues).
So the principle of following the constituents will I agree with, but then I go back to practicalities again.
You are coming at this question from the point of view of the system we have.I am coming at it from the point of view of the system we have is no longer fit for purpose we need a new one. I am not trying to be difficult
I think you are talking principles while I'm speaking practicalities.
Which is an age old problem in political philosophy.
If a political system is not built on principles it is built on sewage
I have so many responses tumbling over each other.
Sewage is better than clouds?
The practicalities of sewage are very important? Something about ivory towers. Foundations built from clouds aren't very stable. Foundations are a deeply practical matter? Get an engineer not a philosopher to build your house? Do you dream of the world as you wish it was, or try to improve it as it is? If a political system would serve the people, it must serve them as they are, not how you'd like them to be?
None are quite right since I haven't spent the time polishing them. (I suppose that marks me as insufficiently witty).
Your points are well made however maybe you took the sewage too seriously. Yes it is an ideal and that sometimes collides with pragmatism. However what I was trying to say was that we should aim for the skies with our political system. We will undoubtedly fall short of our aims however that is no worse than staying with the system we have where voters and election promises can be safely ignored after the election is over.
Give us direct democracy on day to day stuff,
Elected representatives to cope with the emergency items
Voter recall for those representatives who feel their constituents do not matter
An elected executive where we can vote on different party lines for different policies (in restaurant analogy terms picking our dishes rather than having to go for a set meal )
I feel while still an imperfect system this will give us a better system than we have now
I have a weakness for a pithy one-liner. (ans now for sleep).
I think when 3 tends to be discussed you have variations on 3 situations.
A: what it usually is is a clash between an MP's views and his party's, with constituency representation being a convenient fig leaf.
B: You have a vocal local campaigning group (who are loud but not necessarily representative).
C: Some clear issue of local support.
On election day you get a general view of ~2/3 of the electors of a constituency. I doubt that on a given issue (outside extraordinary circumstances) between elections MPs even hear from 5% of the electorate about it (unless they go and solicit views on it, and then it's hard outside dramatic issues).
So the principle of following the constituents will I agree with, but then I go back to practicalities again.
We live in a connected age. Being unaware of your constituents views is not something that is necessary. Hell put a voting machine in every supermarket slip your ni card in and express your views. We have the means to make it happen.
Even however when an MP is aware of the likely views of their constituents on a matter they still feel the ability to vote against those views with impunity.
Where I do agree however with you is we cannot allow the system to be overtaken by small special interest groups. However our current system is definitely susceptible to that....example the new porn laws
Labour was accused of insulting the victims of the Mid Staffs hospital scandal last night after its health spokesman suggested it would have been better if the report into their deaths had never been published.
Oops, maybe better not to talk about the NHS either.
"Muslim extremist carrying a shotgun, machete and a suspected bomb takes up to 50 hostages at cafe in the heart of Sydney's financial district and forces crying women to hold an Islamic black flag up to the window "
"Muslim extremist carrying a shotgun, machete and a suspected bomb takes up to 50 hostages at cafe in the heart of Sydney's financial district and forces crying women to hold an Islamic black flag up to the window "
I know this will come as a big shock to people, but the BBC report of the incident doesn't contain the word "Muslim" at all, and talks about a "flag with arabic writing on it" where it might be more accurate to say "Shahada flag belonging to the extremist group Jabhat al-Nusra"
"Muslim extremist carrying a shotgun, machete and a suspected bomb takes up to 50 hostages at cafe in the heart of Sydney's financial district and forces crying women to hold an Islamic black flag up to the window "
"Muslim extremist carrying a shotgun, machete and a suspected bomb takes up to 50 hostages at cafe in the heart of Sydney's financial district and forces crying women to hold an Islamic black flag up to the window "
So the most recent is over 8 months old..., the oldest nearly 5 years....I know UKIP like to 'live in the past'....but 8 months ago doesn't count as 'news'....let alone 5 years.....
Yes, all parties contain people who shouldn't be put forward for elected office - but ideally you're not finding that out 20 weeks from the GE (or finding it out, dumping them, reinstating them, then having them stand down for the reason you dumped them for in the first place, 20 weeks before the GE...)
Yes, all parties contain people who shouldn't be put forward for elected office - but ideally you're not finding that out 20 weeks from the GE (or finding it out, dumping them, reinstating them, then having them stand down for the reason you dumped them for in the first place, 20 weeks before the GE...)
And we will all get terribly excited about it and say its the kippers falling apart and they are going to be sub 10% next week in the polls and all the usual hyperbole you see here, whereas if 1% of the voting public remember any of this by the new year I will be highly surprised.
I am not a Kipper, I really dont care who they put up for Basildon, if he's a nutter the public won't vote for him, if they vote for a nutter that's their democratic right, there is rather too much hyperventilation going on at the moment scrabbling for any bit of dirt people can find, all parties have nutters, some parties still have those nutters in place even after their nasty views were exposed.
Yes, all parties contain people who shouldn't be put forward for elected office - but ideally you're not finding that out 20 weeks from the GE (or finding it out, dumping them, reinstating them, then having them stand down for the reason you dumped them for in the first place, 20 weeks before the GE...)
the kippers falling apart and they are going to be sub 10% next week in the polls
Yes, all parties contain people who shouldn't be put forward for elected office - but ideally you're not finding that out 20 weeks from the GE (or finding it out, dumping them, reinstating them, then having them stand down for the reason you dumped them for in the first place, 20 weeks before the GE...)
the kippers falling apart and they are going to be sub 10% next week in the polls
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Good morning Rob. I've worked through the night and my brain is fried on caffeine. Where's the new thread? At least give me a First to start the week with...
Er.....the UKIP stories are current..... ..I know UKIP like to 'live in the past'....but 8 months ago doesn't count as 'news'....let alone 5 years.....
Meanwhile in the real world. New scottish leader declares UDI from Ed Miliband, shadow health secretary says mid staffs public enquiry should not have happened "Shadow Health Secretary said benefits of a public inquiry had not outweighed the reputational damage to the hospital" - Mail, Tories want to limit child benefit to two children and police are furious as "Officers claim covert investigations were shut down as they closed in on Establishment figures" in '80s & '90s enquiries.
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Good morning Rob. I've worked through the night and my brain is fried on caffeine. Where's the new thread? At least give me a First to start the week with...
Hah, unfortunately I don't know! Just keep hitting that refresh button
Meanwhile in the real world. New scottish leader declares UDI from Ed Miliband, shadow health secretary says mid staffs public enquiry should not have happened "Shadow Health Secretary said benefits of a public inquiry had not outweighed the reputational damage to the hospital" - Mail, Tories want to limit child benefit to two children and police are furious as "Officers claim covert investigations were shut down as they closed in on Establishment figures" in '80s & '90s enquiries.
I wonder which of those will turn out to be "controversial" and which "courageous"
Meanwhile in the real world. New scottish leader declares UDI from Ed Miliband, shadow health secretary says mid staffs public enquiry should not have happened "Shadow Health Secretary said benefits of a public inquiry had not outweighed the reputational damage to the hospital" - Mail, Tories want to limit child benefit to two children and police are furious as "Officers claim covert investigations were shut down as they closed in on Establishment figures" in '80s & '90s enquiries.
"Shadow Health Secretary said benefits of a public inquiry had not outweighed the reputational damage to the hospital"
Would he say the same about the Hillsborough inquiry and the police's reputation?
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Bit of an open question, to say the least, but have you thought of Red Letter Day? Then they’ll do all the posting!
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Bit of an open question, to say the least, but have you thought of Red Letter Day? Then they’ll do all the posting!
I think I have used them before, or something similar. It's an idea I might look into. Would prefer a tangible gift on the day itself though. The hunting continues....
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
I thought Christmas Eve was when most men did their Christmas shopping ;-)
If you are mail ordering stuff, dont forget the last posting dates
Thursday 18 December - 2nd Class and Royal Mail Signed For Saturday 20 December - 1st Class and Royal Mail Signed For Tuesday 23 December - Royal Mail Special Delivery Guaranteed
Since I am 8000 miles and 4 postal weeks away from most of my relatives I send an Amazon wishlist to my sister who buys the whole lot ready wrapped for me and distributes them!
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
The SLS myth is propagated by people trying to sell 'SLS Free' products to the credulous.......
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Which sulphates in cosmetics do you think are carcinogens on the scale of asbestos?
For the record, we don't always rip out asbestos of buildings. In most cases, as long as it isn't leaking out or major construction work isn't being done, the safest thing is to leave it unmoved, which is what usually happens.
-Please spare me the google search for articles (mostly from the industry) saying there are 'safe' levels and the risk is minimal. Let's just take that as read.
Post a peer reviewed article from a reputable source which says they aren't......
How can you possibly state a 'safe' level? SLS is an irritant -you can obviously say what concentration will literally burn through your skin, but you can't legislate how much people use, to what degree they rinse off, whether they're using a leave on cream with it in, whether other conditions will be exacerbated etc. etc. etc.
The SLS myth is propagated by people trying to sell 'SLS Free' products to the credulous.......
We also often get asked whether chemicals in shampoos and cosmetics can cause cancer. One email floating out there in cyberspace claims that sodium lauryl sulfate or SLS, an ingredient found in many shampoos, can cause cancer over time. The fact is that SLS is an irritant, not a carcinogen. It’s a strong detergent intended to remove oil and soil, but there is no link between use of this product and cancer risk.
Front page of Mirror Ed: He will introduce a law to ban foreign workers.
It will be interesting to see what "Junkers" has to say about that position given his recent criticism of the coalition for simply attempting to restrict benefits on foreign workers rather than banning the workers all together.
Front page of Mirror Ed: He will introduce a law to ban foreign workers.
It will be interesting to see what "Junkers" has to say about that position given his recent criticism of the coalition for simply attempting to restrict benefits on foreign workers rather than banning the workers all together.
Junkers will point at Article 45, and say "Non".
1. Freedom of movement for workers shall be secured within the Community.
2. Such freedom of movement shall entail the abolition of any discrimination based on nationality between workers of the Member States as regards employment, remuneration and other conditions of work and employment.
3. It shall entail the right, subject to limitations justified on grounds of public policy, public security or public health: (a) to accept offers of employment actually made; (b) to move freely within the territory of Member States for this purpose; (c) to stay in a Member State for the purpose of employment in accordance with the provisions governing the employment of nationals of that State laid down by law, regulation or administrative action; (d) to remain in the territory of a Member State after having been employed in that State, subject to conditions which shall be embodied in implementing regulations to be drawn up by the Commission.
4. The provisions of this article shall not apply to employment in the public service.
Morning everyone. Having an absolute mare trying to get gifts for my relatives. Anyone have any good suggestions for websites (won't have physical access to a store until christmas eve!)?
Notonthehighstreet.com
Thanks, I've been browsing their collection for the past hour or so.
Comments
Politicians on the other hand feel they have the authority to authorise anything in the name of those that elected them. If a maid decided to order 100,000 quails eggs even though they could only eat 10,000 before they went off the maid would be sacked. A politician orders a millenium dome which is twice as wasteful and we get told "but you voted for him and by extension it even though it was never in any manifesto"
I feel 3 and 4 is what we currently have and in respect of 3 party does indeed come before constituents. After all you don't become a member of your cabinet by putting your constituents first
Sewage is better than clouds?
The practicalities of sewage are very important?
Something about ivory towers.
Foundations built from clouds aren't very stable.
Foundations are a deeply practical matter?
Get an engineer not a philosopher to build your house?
Do you dream of the world as you wish it was, or try to improve it as it is?
If a political system would serve the people, it must serve them as they are, not how you'd like them to be?
None are quite right since I haven't spent the time polishing them. (I suppose that marks me as insufficiently witty).
Your points are well made however maybe you took the sewage too seriously. Yes it is an ideal and that sometimes collides with pragmatism. However what I was trying to say was that we should aim for the skies with our political system. We will undoubtedly fall short of our aims however that is no worse than staying with the system we have where voters and election promises can be safely ignored after the election is over.
Give us direct democracy on day to day stuff,
Elected representatives to cope with the emergency items
Voter recall for those representatives who feel their constituents do not matter
An elected executive where we can vote on different party lines for different policies (in restaurant analogy terms picking our dishes rather than having to go for a set meal )
I feel while still an imperfect system this will give us a better system than we have now
A: what it usually is is a clash between an MP's views and his party's, with constituency representation being a convenient fig leaf.
B: You have a vocal local campaigning group (who are loud but not necessarily representative).
C: Some clear issue of local support.
On election day you get a general view of ~2/3 of the electors of a constituency. I doubt that on a given issue (outside extraordinary circumstances) between elections MPs even hear from 5% of the electorate about it (unless they go and solicit views on it, and then it's hard outside dramatic issues).
So the principle of following the constituents will I agree with, but then I go back to practicalities again.
Nice talking to you.
Even however when an MP is aware of the likely views of their constituents on a matter they still feel the ability to vote against those views with impunity.
Where I do agree however with you is we cannot allow the system to be overtaken by small special interest groups. However our current system is definitely susceptible to that....example the new porn laws
NOM 1.46
Con maj 5.7
Lab maj 7
http://www.betfair.com/exchange/politics/market?id=1.101416490
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873911/Outcry-Burnham-claims-Mid-Staffs-probe-mistake-Labour-accused-insulting-victims-saying-better-report-never-published.html Oops, maybe better not to talk about the NHS either.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2873855/Gunman-takes-hostages-cafe-Sydney.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-30473388
They are starting to look a mess.
http://www.bristolpost.co.uk/N-gger-woodpile-Complaint-councillor-uses-racist/story-20715735-detail/story.html
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2013/feb/01/conservative-councillor-chris-joannides-facebook
http://www.itv.com/news/update/2013-05-03/sacked-conservative-councillor-loses-seat/
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/proof-camerons-tories-racist-sexist-191792
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/bob-frost-accused-of-racism-15560/
Are the Tories starting to look a mess as well ?
http://www.smh.com.au/national/flag-being-held-by-lindt-chocolat-cafe-hostages-is-not-an-islamic-state-flag-20141215-1279s0.html
The ones you posted:
February 27, 2014
1 February 2013
3 May 2013
2 Jan 2010
9 April 2014
So the most recent is over 8 months old..., the oldest nearly 5 years....I know UKIP like to 'live in the past'....but 8 months ago doesn't count as 'news'....let alone 5 years.....
Yes, all parties contain people who shouldn't be put forward for elected office - but ideally you're not finding that out 20 weeks from the GE (or finding it out, dumping them, reinstating them, then having them stand down for the reason you dumped them for in the first place, 20 weeks before the GE...)
I am not a Kipper, I really dont care who they put up for Basildon, if he's a nutter the public won't vote for him, if they vote for a nutter that's their democratic right, there is rather too much hyperventilation going on at the moment scrabbling for any bit of dirt people can find, all parties have nutters, some parties still have those nutters in place even after their nasty views were exposed.
https://au.news.yahoo.com/nsw/a/25772503/siege-situation-in-martin-place/
http://www.kentonline.co.uk/deal/news/bob-frost-accused-of-racism-15560/
"Bob Frost accused of racism after 'frogs', 'ragheads' and 'sons of camel drivers' comments on Facebook and Twitter by North Deal councillor"
for example appears still to be on the council in Deal
http://www.deal.gov.uk/Deal-TC/councillors-13588.aspx
Where's the new thread? At least give me a First to start the week with...
Would he say the same about the Hillsborough inquiry and the police's reputation?
If you are mail ordering stuff, dont forget the last posting dates Since I am 8000 miles and 4 postal weeks away from most of my relatives I send an Amazon wishlist to my sister who buys the whole lot ready wrapped for me and distributes them!
http://www.cancer.org/healthy/eathealthygetactive/powerfulchoicespodcasts/dispelling-cancer-myths Seems, fairly unequivocal.
Ed: He will introduce a law to ban foreign workers.
It will be interesting to see what "Junkers" has to say about that position given his recent criticism of the coalition for simply attempting to restrict benefits on foreign workers rather than banning the workers all together.