Forum menu
Yes very good Northwind, and true in some respects as they moved to the center in order to get elected. If they hadn't made such a mess 2006-8 they would still probably be in power. Merkel survived the financial crises.
JY,
Pay and talent are not that clearly linked IME it tends to show either who works the hardest or kisses the most arse rather than talent
Those who work hardest is no bad things surely? And arguably arse kissing is a useful skills in that environment.
My take, and I know this isn't shared by everyone, is that each role in the cabinet needs specific skills and we don't attract those skills to government for various reasons.
The Prime Minister for instance is basically a CEO. He/she is a figure head who drives the general direction but hires other people to make the smaller decisions for them. Experience as a CEO for a global company would be useful.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is an accountant/financial controller. Again, experience in these roles in a large organisation dealing with profit and loss would be very useful.
I also don't agree that you need people who have specific experience of all area of society, just an understanding of them. I do think you need people with experience of the world outside politics but I don't think you need to have been on benefits to understand them for instance. I think a simple rule that you can't be an MP without 10 years experience outside of politics, be it as a banker or a builder, would help this hugely.
Edit, just read the 2 paragraphs above and they could be seen as contradictory. I don't think they are as I think it depends on the role but I can smell the flames already...
Am late to the feast, but surely the convergence of the major parties shows the decline of genuine POLITICAL debate - sheer managerialism.
We need choices. We need alternative visions. We need alternatives to capitalism in crisis and its apologists in the cycling classes (hi Jambalaya - why not rename yourself Eton Mess? - and Boriselbrus) and please, no more about the Labour Party favouring the unions. There is so much to unpick in this erroneous statement!
dekadanse, that is very fair. A big part of the disillusionment with politics at the moment is that the 2 biggest parties (3 if you include the Lib Dems) are fighting over the same middle ground. There is little difference in their policies or the people that represent them.
There is however an argument that the reason this is the case is that the country is actually in a pretty good state right now. The NHS works OK, the justice systems is OK, the education system is OK. Yes there are things that could be improved but overall, we're doing all right. When this is the case I suspect there is little need for a vote at the extremes of either right or left and so no parties caters for that need.
@dekadanse hi - I am much more Cajun spiced poor mans rice than strawberries and maerange. Can't workout the Boris-el-brus ? Perfectly happy to consider an alternative to capitalism but please show me where an alternative system is already up and working well first rather than leap into the dark with no idea if it's actually going to work. Capitalism has delivered unparalleled quality of life for all, the poor are so much better off and better protected than they where 50, 100, 200 years ago.
What @lunge says, people love a good moan but things are working pretty well here, of course room for improvement (like any school report).
I think a simple rule that you can't be an MP without 10 years experience outside of politics, be it as a banker or a builder, would help this hugely.
why do you want to impose your rule on every other voter?
if don't think someone has the right experience, you shouldn't vote for them. you shouldn't try to stop everyone else voting for them!
please please please post a source for this, preferably a video of the gormless sod saying it sincerely.A UKIP voter in Clacton said he'd voted for the UKIP candidate because the Tory MP they'd had for years had been useless
A UKIP voter in Clacton said he'd voted for the UKIP candidate because the Tory MP they'd had for years had been useless
please please please post a source for this, preferably a video of the gormless sod saying it sincerely.
I saw the claim on Twitter, but sadly can't find a source.
This is the original source I think (retweeted by Carlton Reid, who I follow) - you'll have to make up your own mind on how reliable the source is:
https://twitter.com/Thatcherite4/status/520664127384350720
urban myth ? A good one though.
so how would this work then?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-29611875
the conservative (and shamefully, lib dem) mps abstained
would a lab/con coalition recognise a Palestinian state?
No - both parties are opposed to unilateral recognition outside the peace process.
Not so much, that's what we have the civil service to do. Otherwise the entire country'd stop working every time we have an election or a reshuffle or a Theresa May. Well OK, bad example.
😀
Seriously though, a couple I know who live/work in Belgium reckon the civil service (and therefore the country) has run better since they've been without a majority gov't as party politics don't seem to play much of a part/cause a hindrance these days. In fact, they swore their latest Federal coalition in the other day.
Do they have something right or are they likely to be building up major problems for the future? I don't know nearly enough about politics to see that far ahead.
[quote=kimbers ]the conservative (and shamefully, lib dem) mps abstained
Nope. The ministers abstained, which is the usual convention on a bankbench motion on anything, not them taking any sort of stand. It does say that in the story you linked...
do you really want nurses, plumbers etc to be MP's?
Why not?
I'm not sure that taking your average hairdresser and putting them in charge of the foreign office for example is necessarily a good idea.
Why not?
They speak to people all day, develop negotiating skills, are able ot help people get what they want? Why would they , beyond snobbery, be so much worse than say an adversarial lawyer who spent all there workinf life arguing a point of view rather than developing compromise? Why would an auditor , accountant or PPE graduate be intrinsically better?
replacing them with blue collar workers
They should know their place?
Those who work hardest is no bad things surely?
Personally I would prefer it if it was the most talented
Of course you dont want the perennially lazy either but there is a compromise.
And arguably arse kissing is a useful skills in that environment.
Yes who does not admire it and want to see more of this in politics and everyday life 😕
I also don't agree that you need people who have specific experience of all area of society, just an understanding of them. I do think you need people with experience of the world outside politics but I don't think you need to have been on benefits to understand them for instance. I think a simple rule that you can't be an MP without 10 years experience outside of politics, be it as a banker or a builder, would help this hugely.
I think this one is contradictory on its own - what do you mean exactly?
IMHO if you draw MOs from the narrow social strata of wealthy and well off then inevitable they wont have a clue about services designed to help the needy and the vulnerable as they never needed them or used them. They dont know anyone who does and they wont be able to understand. We have people dealing with education who were educated privately and their own kids go to private school for example
Perfectly happy to consider an alternative to capitalism
you do not have to you just need to make this fairer. It is not hard to do.
Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
If you are prepared to defend that and sing it praises as helping the poor you are either deluded or morally bankrupt.
Capitalism has delivered unparalleled quality of life for all
The rich get the best care,” she said. “The poor are left to die.”.......Ebola emerged 40 years ago, and, Chan said, there were no vaccines or other remedies because it has traditionally been confined to poor African countries. A profit-driven pharmaceutical industry had no incentive to make products for countries that could not pay, she said
Director Chan WHO yesterday on Ebola
Defend either that outcome or the wealth distribution whilst telling us how brilliant it is for the poor and how you cannot come up with anything better. 🙄
[img] 
[/img]
[img] 
[/img]
Nope. The ministers abstained, which is the usual convention on a bankbench motion on anything, not them taking any sort of stand. It does say that in the story you linked
Id just have thought that the lib dems would like to show that they have some sort of principles....
No - both parties are opposed to unilateral recognition outside the peace process
but from the article
But Labour MP Grahame Morris's Commons motion, backed by his party's leadership
[quote=kimbers ]Id just have thought that the lib dems would like to show that they have some sort of principles....
Plenty of Lib Dems (and some Tories - might be plenty, but I recognised less names, which doesn't really mean anything) voted yes in the list at http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141013/debtext/141013-0004.htm
Or were you expecting Lib Dem ministers to break with parliamentary convention over this? What other votes do you think they should do that for, or was this one unique?
well following convention or principles is the choice theyve made
its obviously a tough job, maybe they are worth it after all
Bit off topic @kimbers but happy to answer here. Motion was contrary to government policy so hard for Tories and Lib Dems to vote for it.
Indeed there could be the possibility of a Labour government recognizing Palestine as a state although in 10+ years in government they didn't make any such moves to do so. Such an action would put the UK at odds with the United States which is always going to be very tricky, we don't know for sure what discussions are held behind the scenes but such a move could easily isolate the UK. Its likely the next president of the US will be much more pro-Israel than Obama. Clinton has come out strongly pro-Israel and the Republicans are typically strongly pro. Recognising a state with a government run by a organisation classified as terrorists by the EU is also complicated.
[quote=kimbers ]well following convention or principles is the choice theyve made
🙄
JY some interesting reading on the Credit Suisse piece linked to in Gaurdian article.
If you have £50k you are in the top 10%, if you have £500k you are in the top 1% (note these amounts are total wealth so include your house / pension etc). When people think of "the 1%" they like to think of mega-yachts and billionaires but the reality is far from that. The biggest cause of wealth inequality is population growth in poor countries, eg India from 300 million to 1 billion is 75 years. We can do more to offer opportunity in this country to all but we can do little to influence other governments who see population growth as a route to their own national success.
well the UK abstained in the last UN vote for observer? status
but most countries said yes, Israel/Americas position has only been weakened by the recent Israeli bombardment and land grab or I doubt this vote would have ever been held
[img] 
[/img]
green=yes, red=no, yellow= abstain
to keep it vaguely on topic, it looks like labour now favour recognition, how would a lab/con coalition survive a vote that would probably change the UKs position?
Yep if the pesky poor people stop breeding there won't be any poor people left. Genuis.
Can we not just nuke them? Well... the ones not involved directly in making us cheap stuff, obviously?
if you have £500k you are in the top 1%
You say that as if having 500k assets is not wealthy 😯
Offensive, near fascist, twaddleThe biggest cause of wealth inequality is population growth in poor countries
Almost half of the world’s wealth is now owned by just one percent of the population.
The wealth of the one percent richest people in the world amounts to $110 trillion. That’s 65 times the total wealth of the bottom half of the world’s population.
The bottom half of the world’s population owns the same as the richest 85 people in the world.
Seven out of ten people live in countries where economic inequality has increased in the last 30 years.
The richest one percent increased their share of income in 24 out of 26 countries for which we have data between 1980 and 2012.
In the US, the wealthiest one percent captured 95 percent of post-financial crisis growth since 2009, while the bottom 90 percent became poorer.
The cause of this is not population growth in the third world. It is beyond disingenuous to suggest it as the cause
Its is indefensible ,we all know this and attacking the poor for the falling of capitalism is beyond heartless and moronic
FWIW the top 85 richest people own the same wealth as the bottom 50% in no way is that the fault of the poor breeding.
Still a troll bot and still failing the turing test and now with a nasty streak
shakes head in disbelief...even UKIP would distance itself from that comment.
Have a word with yourself will you.
dubious man is dubiousThis is the original source I think... you'll have to make up your own mind on how reliable the source is:
JY its a mathematical fact that if you add a billion people in a poor country wealth inequality will grow dramatically. You only need £2k to be in the wealthiest 50% globally. Re-distributing wealth in the developed world is going to make zero difference to these statistics. The greatest wealth inequality is actually in countries like China and India. Capitalism has delivered huge successes in terms of quality of life, which is why all the developing countries are so keen to adopt the system.
EDIT So the top 10% (ie those with £50k) own 87% of the worlds wealth. What should we do about that ?
Interesting article touching on this very subject today. The view from India...
[url= http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/14/-sp-western-model-broken-pankaj-mishra ]The western economic model is broken. So why insist on imposing it on the world?[/url]
Do the Guardian writers still hark back to days of imperialism?
The developing world has copied the so-called western model (to the extent that such a thing exists) and with considerable success. The model has hardly been imposed other than occasionally in response to financial bail outs by the likes of the IMF. Liberalisation and the integration into the world economy has lifted millions out of poverty and has reduced inequality between nations if not within them. It has been a remarkable success.
Where the "model" (sic) has failed has been in the over-use of debt. The current global malaise is the result of excess leverage pure and simple. Too much debt at all levels - households, corporates and governments - as everyone chose to bring forward consumption and delay payment. This has occurred across the developed and developing world with China being the most obvious example of the latter. So hardly a western model that is broken.
But it would be interesting to know which version of the western model they are talking about: German, French, Italian, Nordic, British, Irish, US? All seem quite distinct to me......
its a mathematical fact that if you add a billion people in a poor country wealth inequality will grow dramatically
Can we discuss what you actually said?
The biggest cause of wealth inequality is population growth in poor countries
It is not the fault of o poor people they are poor.
85 people own 50% of the wealth...still they should stop breeding the stupid stupid poor as it is their fault.
The model has hardly been imposed
The west was rich they were poor we only helped if we could make money. They could have starved or acquiesced to our requests to profit from helping them.
They chose the later and we exploited them to make money. Now they do it as well as we did.
I've always thought we might be better served by people whose main priority was to run the country well as opposed to getting/staying elected next time round.
I don't think that's what they are taught in politician school.
@binners, I tried my best to read that article but it was hard work and I frankly couldn't understand a word of it.
[i]But, following Geertz’s insistence on differences and variations, the ressentiment of the west articulated by nationalists in Russia, China, and India cannot be conflated with the resistance to a predatory form of modernisation – ruthless dispossession by a profit-driven nexus of the state and business – mounted by indigenous peoples in Tibet, India, Peru and Bolivia.[/i]
JY I appreciate that stats like the one you quoted below raise eyebrows - the where designed to do exactly that, but in practical terms what are you going to do about those multi billionaires in India, China and Russia ? We want to buy cheap stuff off the internet, cheap clothes etc and that's why these guys are rich. What do you propose to do about Mark Zuckerberg ? The stat I quoted is that the top 10% own 87% of the worlds wealth, equally if not even more shocking no ? We are discussing what I said, mathematically the prime reason for growing wealth inequality globally is population growth. If people want to have bigger families and countries want to boost their population that's fair enough but I don't think it should create a social or moral dilemma for us. If these multi-billionaire's didn't exist we'd still have very similar levels of inequality.
I quoted the £500k figure as I thought it was interesting to define the 1% in monetary terms and without a picture of a super-yacht. It's not trivial by any means but it's that high a figure is it ?
85 people own 50% of the wealth...still they should stop breeding the stupid stupid poor as it is their fault.
The stat I quoted is that the top 10% own 87% of the worlds wealth, equally if not even more shocking no ?
10 % is 600 million people and thw west has mor emoney - it i snot what I would call fair
85 people owning 50% is more shocking
We are discussing what I said, mathematically the prime reason for growing wealth inequality globally is population growth.
however you wish to phrase the issue of income inequality is not the fault of poor people breeding. One billionaire could wipe out all the issues of all the childbirth inequalities in all the third world ONE PERSON with one act.
Capitalism divides the wealth unequally - you can be comfortable with this or uncomfortable with this but you cannot deny it. Basically you cannot have winners without losers.
You chose to blame the losers for their plight I best not say what i think this makes you look like tbh but if you want to blame the poor for this then knock yourself out.
I have no idea why you are asking if a figure[500k] that puts you in the top 1% globally is a lot or not ...can you do maths or can you only do it with poor people breeding?
How extraordinary that the "poor" folk in the developing world do not understand the laws of international trade and comparative advantage on their own??? rather "patronising" to suggest really! Or perhaps they understand better than those in the developed world.
These people are hardly passive players in the global economy.
JY isn't that what Bill Gates is doing with his foundation ? Can one billionaire wipe out starvation permanently or just pay the bills for a fixed (short) period ? Capitalism is just the system of counting we have today, we've debated before (and I think we disagreed) that the prior system of subsistence farming was not much different (more talented farmers or those with better land where more successful, ie stayed alive) except everyone was poorer.
I really don't think you'll make much headway trying to take the wealth of Chinese/Russian/Indian billionaires and give it to those elsewhere with insufficient food, they won't even do that within their own countries. We in the UK are one of the most generous countries in the world with regard to international aid / per head of population.
I am really not blaming those people with nothing for being in that position, what I am pointing out is that we shouldn't be blaming the wealthy for being wealthy.
So we dont blame the greedy for being greedy and we dont blame them for not spending some of their billions on the needy?
everyone was poorer.
Nothing is as efficient at making money as capitalism and yet people still die of hunger and poverty. Poor people still dont get medication as there is no profit to be made from it.