MP Salary. Are we REALLY are it this together – E petition
“Whose” is the possessive form of who.
If you check my previous post and look carefully you will note that I typed “‘s” in bold to show how much I care about your grammatical corrections.
I’d simply like to suggest that the issue might be a little more complicated than you make out.
I haven’t mentioned anything about “complicated”.
So you wanted me to reproduce the text of a “political science journal” ? ffsPosted 4 years agoscuzzMember
So you wanted me to reproduce the text of a “political science journal” ? ffs
🙂 Nope. I don’t want you to do anything, but if you’re asking, it’d be nice if you didn’t try and pass off over-simplifications as fact. Oh, and while we’re at it, JY has a couple of good points he’d like you to address.Posted 4 years ago
The person in front of me in the queue at the last general election asked a volunteer what party that man with the nice hair was from. I’m sure she had an excellent understanding of the various policies. And most lib dem voters didn’t realise they were endorsing Tory policy…Posted 4 years ago
it’d be nice if you didn’t try and pass off over-simplifications as fact.
We have a parliamentary system which is based on the electorate voting for the candidates and political parties who’s policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament, that is “a fact”.
Individuals might vote in a certain way for all manner of reasons, including because a candidate has perhaps a nice pair of large knockers or an amusing mop of unkempt blond hair, but the electorate as a whole does not.
And yes, on occasions some people will not always vote for their first preferred choice if they feel they stand little chance of winning, and instead go for their second choice. Some electoral procedures such as French general elections actually help to give people a second choice if their first choice is eliminated.
Whatever the system it is designed to allow the electorate to choose those who’s policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament, even if they are given a second choice or some individuals decide to vote for the most handsome candidate.
That is the whole basis of our parliamentary system and there is nothing “ridiculous” about it.Posted 4 years ago
ernie_lynch – Member
Whatever the system it is designed to allow the electorate to choose those who’s policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament
I agree completely with this. I just don’t think you can assume it actually works like that. If you were to interview people on the way into the polling centre, how many do you think would accurately identify their chosen’ party’s policies on a variety of subjects? (or for that matter the parties they dislike?)
At the very least I’d say there’s probably an uninformed/misinformed/misled voter block that’s big enough to change the results of your average general election. Insert a Lib Dem insult here, if you like. And I don’t think anyone doubts the power of the media in this day and age.
Not going to even attempt to back that up with actual facts, though but I’d be fascinated if anyone has any- not sure where to start.Posted 4 years ago
You might think the system is flawed Northwind in terms of the “uninformed/misinformed/misled” and the “power of the media”, but the electorate chooses those who’s policies they most agree with to represent them in parliament.
If it bothers you then insert the words “believe” and an extra “them” into the sentence so that it reads : the electorate chooses those who’s policies they believe most agree with them to represent them in parliament.
And getting back to my point, that’s how MPs get their job. Upping MPs salaries won’t make people vote differently, although it obviously makes sense not to put off capable people by offering derisory salaries.Posted 4 years agojivehoneyjiveMember
If the system works, how is it that we had a hung parliament, then the parties chose between themselves how it panned out without any further input from the electorate?
This isn’t a democracy. The Queen has veto over laws concerning her and since she’s at least nominally in charge of the armed forces and the police and a lot of tax havens that doesn’t leave a whole lot that’s important for us to have the vote on.
If we want to change this situation through the ballot box, we can’t; her Majesty can simply veto our democratic decision.
Then we should remember how many times this country’s been successfully conquered. The Romans managed and we still have the top-down heirarchical societal structure they left us with. William the Conqueror took us over and we still live with decisions he made, like the monarch owns all the land (if you’re a freeholder, you only own title to the freehold, not the freehold itself. That belongs to her Maj, you remember, the one we never elected and can’t vote out of office). Then the Dutch bankers funded William of Orange to come over and get us all tied up in paying eternal debts to the banks, which has worked out very nicely for the banks but means much of our efforts don’t go towards furthering our own interests. And we put up with all of this. Greece had it easy.Posted 4 years ago
funnily enough a lot of MPS bothered to turn up for voting today
😕 That wasn’t today according to what you have posted – it was July last year.
And contrary to your claim MPs don’t get a vote on their pay. That’s the whole point – people don’t think MPs should be allowed to vote on such matters, so they don’t anymore.
And yes, last year they did turn up to debate the issue in the House of Commons, all three parties were united in their opposition to Ipsa’s proposed MPs pay rise.
All three party leaders disagreed with the move when it was first proposed earlier this yearPosted 4 years agowobbliscottMember
Ultimately we all want clever and capable people within the ranks of our political elite. Have we got that at the moment? I don’t think so. The clever and capable people are all off raking it in doing something else. Maybe if we paid a sensible salary for the role then we’d attract the sorts of people we want to represent us.
I know what a senior manager in the NHS earns and its more than a politician on the cabinet, so by that comparisons it seems to me politicians are underpaid, and in the comparison of the senior NHS manager I know and their role, the is PM significantly underpaid. You couldn’t pay me enough to be the PM, its an impossible job. Also compared with cretins like Bob Crow whose ripping union members and taxpayers alike off to the tune of £140k per year and a council house that could be used to house a family in genuine need.Posted 4 years agojrbSubscriber
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/9932113/Adviser-sacked-by-David-Cameron-after-Armed-Forces-pay-row-paid-the-price-for-supporting-troops.htmlPosted 4 years ago
so it’s ok for an independent body to recommend an MP’s pay rise but not for an independent body to recommend an extra 0.5% pay rise for the forces. Just says it all
The topic ‘MP Salary. Are we REALLY are it this together – E petition’ is closed to new replies.