EC1
On a break
maybe he was one of the 7 that got thrown to us,,rubbed wrong person up wrong sometime..yes he was unlucky as he was still alive and still got thrown to wolves..maybe he was out of reach of help
Last edited:
Paedo Ring
- Thread starter Grasshopper
- Start date
They have been contradicted and the reasons you think you gave were so feeble and ignorant they didn't deserve a response, not least because you fell at the first fence when you failed to see a massive chronological weakness in your timeline by about two centuries. You said it was because voters found it easier and wanted the simplicity of parties. You failed to realise that at the party formation stage the average voting population of the constituency was three people and a daschund called Colin!!! (which incidentally, if you look at the declaration of the result for you'll see UKIP's first electoral presence). Parties were created in the interests of the minority of the population and continued to reflect and serve those minority interests for centuries. You celebrate this as "natural" most fiar minded people would recognise it as corrupt and morally bankrupt. Incidentally Clive, you'd have been excluded from this model too, so perhaps there is hope for it
Voters never got any say in it. By the time they were allowed in the system it had already taken root, and the MP became the servant of the party and not the electorate
Parties are therefore a manifestation of protecting mutual self-interest and ultimately as it spins out of control, the party itself which becomes an all serving behmoth that we don't frankly need. Parties are the legacy of personal landed interests which begat capital interests.
He was. He failed to give his unqualified support to a key coalition policy and quell speculation that he might challenge the cosy Clegg arrangement for the leadership and bring down the government (promote his democratic right to represent the people in other words).
At this point the whips office produce something rather helpful, or in this case it was something Vicky Pryce had told a journalist (Phillapa Oakshott I believe?) who just happens to be the wife of Lord Oakshott, that Chris Hulne had ducked a speeding offence and she'd taken the hit for him.
Not going to give that the time of day. You didnt answer the points about division of roles and expertise in a party and the fact that it is far from just the uk where parties have naturally been formed. It's everywhere.
and it's rubbish that voters are not given the choice. Havering local council is run by independents and so are some others.
and it's rubbish that voters are not given the choice. Havering local council is run by independents and so are some others.
I did actually (as the points you made which you thought were knock out blows were actaully little girlie slaps easily rebutted), but I also realised I would have to do a hell of a lot of explaining such was the demonstrable gaps in your own knowledge, and there was no point posting it as you wouldn't read anything of that length. I got as far as 2000 words and was just entering the turn of the last century when I realised I was wasting my time.
At least you seem to have accepted that at the time which these party's formed now, there was no democracy to speak of, and consequently no chance that they could be held to account. The parties were full of Marquis's, Duke's and Lord's pursuing their own landed interests. A central pillar of your hypothesis simply crumbles away
At least you seem to have accepted that at the time which these party's formed now, there was no democracy to speak of, and consequently no chance that they could be held to account. The parties were full of Marquis's, Duke's and Lord's pursuing their own landed interests. A central pillar of your hypothesis simply crumbles away
Actually you can start answering this yourself. Research the current cabinet (you can do this on Wikipedia). Note down all those who have worked for any extended period in an industry and distinguished themselves to the point that they might be considered an expert, or studied by way of recognised and credible qualification in the field of expertise for which they are now responsible.
Obviously Vince Cable stands out as an economist with Shell transferring his expertise to business industry and science, he does have some connection, but I'm happy to challenge you to a game in support of your assertion that the parliamentary process promotes expertise. For every expert you can find, I'll find you two who aren't expert, or have next to no identifiable background in the field into which they've been thrust.
Are you up for that Clive? Let's see how many 'experts' you can identify - you never know you might win - in fact if you really believed what you were saying, you'd be a lock to win wouldn't you given the handicap I've set myself of 2 to 1
You might also like to search on "Chloe Smith Deloitte Touche" and put in the words "I'm sure you'll pick it up Cameron" - it's hysterical and makes your assertion of parties encouraging expertise look like nothing more than a wishful aspiration hopelessly shattered on the rocks of amateurism. Cameron thought she was an accountant, and promoted her to the Chief Economic Advisor to the Treasury becase she'd worked for Deloitte Touche (no other reason). She had to tell him that she'd never studied accountancy and worked in some generic corproate function even though she was barely there. To use in context the famous Paxman interview with her; Experts? "Is this some kind of joke"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqiFr0uppVk
Before you can seriously claim this is a system that promotes expertise, you nreally need to explain to me how someone like Chloe Smith can be given the position of 'number 3' in the HM Treasury - I look forward to hearing your defence
Just to give you another example, the current shadow Defence Secretary is a former teacher of mine. Real expert!!! And you might recall that Alan Johnson quipped how he'd have to read an Economics text book when Miliband made him Shadow Chancellor. Indeed, George Osborne's background to fiannce was a 2:2 in History followed by working for the NHS. Teresa May was a management consultant (could be anything) but didn't realise that a deadline for a date (an appeal against extradition in this case) was 23.59 of the date named and not 00.01. How expert is that? I'm sorry, but that is basic stuff that her civil servants were entitled to expect her to know.
Politics is full of some frankly criminal mismatches of expertise. How many of the current cabinet would you actually appoint to their positions from 650 applications, plus the House of Lords (as technically they're available too)?
What you'll come to realise sooner or later Clive, is that the expertise is actually in the possession of the Permanent and Under Secrataries of the Civil Service, occasionally some full time researchers, SPAD's, and preferred Think Tanks. Your assertion that the politician is an expert is rarely true. In fact in most cases its badly off the mark
Last edited:
How do you know this? Because they participate in a General Election?
Well let's take the last General Election, as General Elections traditionally see by far and away the biggest turn out
The total vote cast was 29,687,684
The total number of registered voters in 2012 according to the ONS was 46,139,000 (this has fallen slightly which is normal outside of a GE year)
Therefore approximately 64% of the 'registered population' voted
In 2011 The Electoral Commission were asked to look into the redrawing of boundaries, they concluded that the UK had 6,000,000 eligible unregistered voters
These don't appear on the ONS figure.
In total 57% are endorsing the General Election - its hardly a massive vote of confidence is it
I won't bother over laying Council, European, or Police election turnouts onto it for you but I'm sure you'll accept that more people don't participate in these, than do
If you take this forward into a 'whole democratic picture' the overall landscape is one of more non players than participants
To be honest Clive, I've voted in elections before, and I've voted for parties pushed on me, as well as spoiling papers by letting them know what I think of them too, but I've never voted with any sense of 'demanding' that I have the current party structure in place in the sense that I endorse it. I'd prefer to vote against a party rather than being forced into approving one. I've never felt that I'm demanding representation from any of the parties in the sense that a consumer might make a demand on a supplier
Account from the Telegraph regarding the Nigel Evans (conservative) rape case. It encapsulates much of how the party interest comes into conflict with the pursuit of 'the right thing'
The 28-year-old alleged victim, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had been working in Mr Evans’s office while completing a politics degree when he claims he was the victim of a sexual assault.
He told the court he had been staying at the MP’s constituency home in Pendleton, Lancashire in 2009 when the incident occurred.
He explained that after a night of heavy drinking he had been asleep on the sofa when he awoke to find Mr Evans with his hand inside his boxer shorts.
“I immediately pushed Mr Evans and I shouted, I think it was along the lines of ‘What the F do you think you are doing?” he said.
He told the court that he had confided in the politician about sexual abuse he had suffered as a youngster and felt Mr Evans’s actions had been a “particular betrayal”.
But he said when the matter was referred to the Chief Whip he had been disappointed by his attitude.
“Mr McLoughlin’s was one of mainly irritation. He sighed and huffed the whole time. He said ‘so what do you want to happen now? My response was that that I thought Mr Evans should resign, from his seat as an MP, I think I said immediately.
“Mr McLoughlin said ‘it could not be done, the timing is not right, I would find it very difficult to explain why an MP is leaving his seat at this point before a General Election.”
The alleged victim explained how Mr McLoughlin said the unmarried MP could not say he wanted to spend more time with his family.
It continued
But the witness said John Randall, who was the Deputy Chief Whip and was also at the meeting, had been more sympathetic and appeared “genuinely concerned” about what had happened.
The alleged victim said he recommended that Mr Evans receive help to come to terms with his sexuality and also his drinking, describing him as a “high functioning alcoholic” who drank heavily everyday.
The witness told the court: “It was suggested I should take some time off from the office, Mr Evans would be heavily sanctioned by the Whips’” he said.
He said it was also agreed that if Mr Evans was caught drinking on the parliamentary estate, he would be escorted off the premises by the Whips.
But he said in time it became clear that what had been promised was not being delivered because Mr Evans was drinking again and there was no sign of any counseling.
Earlier the court heard how Tory MP Conor Burns was warned he would be treated as a reluctant witness if he did not provide a statement to police about an earlier alleged incident.
The MP for Bournemouth West said Lancashire Police had persistently asked him to provide a statement about an alleged assault that took place in 2003, despite him twice telling them he did not have a clear recollection of what had happened.
Mr Evans allegedly indecently assaulted a young Party agent by twice trying to put his hand down his trousers during a function at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool.
Mr Burns, who was a prospective parliamentary candidate at the time, had warned Mr Evans he was drunk and told him to go to bed.
He said Lancashire Police had contacted him last July, following Mr Evans’s arrest on suspicion of rape, requesting a statement, but he had told them he could not remember the event clearly enough to provide a witness statement.
He told the court: “I did not feel my recollection was robust, strong or clear enough to provide a meaningful statement to aide them in their enquiries.”
But he said he was warned he would brought before a judge and treated as a reluctant witness if he did not agree.
He told the court: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.”
Another witness to the incident claimed he had seen the alleged victim “thrashing around very violently” with the MP’s hand down the front of his trousers.
Mark Formosa, a former Tory councilor said he had been in a bar at the Imperial Hotel one evening during the conference when he had became aware of a “fracas” involving two men.
He told the court: “I saw the younger man thrashing around very violently from side to side trying to wrench himself free from Mr Evans' grip. Mr Evans had his hand down the front of his trousers and was maintaining his grip and it seemed obvious that the younger man was not able to get him off him.
"I intervened along with several others in order to assist the younger man to get Mr Evans off him. We pulled him off and pushed him back towards the bar."
Mr Evans, the MP for Ribble Valley, is accused of two counts of indecent assault, six of sexual assault and one of rape.
The 28-year-old alleged victim, who cannot be identified for legal reasons, had been working in Mr Evans’s office while completing a politics degree when he claims he was the victim of a sexual assault.
He told the court he had been staying at the MP’s constituency home in Pendleton, Lancashire in 2009 when the incident occurred.
He explained that after a night of heavy drinking he had been asleep on the sofa when he awoke to find Mr Evans with his hand inside his boxer shorts.
“I immediately pushed Mr Evans and I shouted, I think it was along the lines of ‘What the F do you think you are doing?” he said.
He told the court that he had confided in the politician about sexual abuse he had suffered as a youngster and felt Mr Evans’s actions had been a “particular betrayal”.
But he said when the matter was referred to the Chief Whip he had been disappointed by his attitude.
“Mr McLoughlin’s was one of mainly irritation. He sighed and huffed the whole time. He said ‘so what do you want to happen now? My response was that that I thought Mr Evans should resign, from his seat as an MP, I think I said immediately.
“Mr McLoughlin said ‘it could not be done, the timing is not right, I would find it very difficult to explain why an MP is leaving his seat at this point before a General Election.”
The alleged victim explained how Mr McLoughlin said the unmarried MP could not say he wanted to spend more time with his family.
It continued
But the witness said John Randall, who was the Deputy Chief Whip and was also at the meeting, had been more sympathetic and appeared “genuinely concerned” about what had happened.
The alleged victim said he recommended that Mr Evans receive help to come to terms with his sexuality and also his drinking, describing him as a “high functioning alcoholic” who drank heavily everyday.
The witness told the court: “It was suggested I should take some time off from the office, Mr Evans would be heavily sanctioned by the Whips’” he said.
He said it was also agreed that if Mr Evans was caught drinking on the parliamentary estate, he would be escorted off the premises by the Whips.
But he said in time it became clear that what had been promised was not being delivered because Mr Evans was drinking again and there was no sign of any counseling.
Earlier the court heard how Tory MP Conor Burns was warned he would be treated as a reluctant witness if he did not provide a statement to police about an earlier alleged incident.
The MP for Bournemouth West said Lancashire Police had persistently asked him to provide a statement about an alleged assault that took place in 2003, despite him twice telling them he did not have a clear recollection of what had happened.
Mr Evans allegedly indecently assaulted a young Party agent by twice trying to put his hand down his trousers during a function at the Conservative Conference in Blackpool.
Mr Burns, who was a prospective parliamentary candidate at the time, had warned Mr Evans he was drunk and told him to go to bed.
He said Lancashire Police had contacted him last July, following Mr Evans’s arrest on suspicion of rape, requesting a statement, but he had told them he could not remember the event clearly enough to provide a witness statement.
He told the court: “I did not feel my recollection was robust, strong or clear enough to provide a meaningful statement to aide them in their enquiries.”
But he said he was warned he would brought before a judge and treated as a reluctant witness if he did not agree.
He told the court: “They said if I would not give a statement I would be required to appear before a judge, come to court and be a reluctant witness. I felt very uncomfortable about that.”
Another witness to the incident claimed he had seen the alleged victim “thrashing around very violently” with the MP’s hand down the front of his trousers.
Mark Formosa, a former Tory councilor said he had been in a bar at the Imperial Hotel one evening during the conference when he had became aware of a “fracas” involving two men.
He told the court: “I saw the younger man thrashing around very violently from side to side trying to wrench himself free from Mr Evans' grip. Mr Evans had his hand down the front of his trousers and was maintaining his grip and it seemed obvious that the younger man was not able to get him off him.
"I intervened along with several others in order to assist the younger man to get Mr Evans off him. We pulled him off and pushed him back towards the bar."
Mr Evans, the MP for Ribble Valley, is accused of two counts of indecent assault, six of sexual assault and one of rape.
Last edited:
I'm sure we'll get back to the thread title in the fullness of time, as it doesn't look like a story that's going to go away, but there's a few things to update (before someone else gets them).
The first concerns some factual errors in chronology on my part. I basically got my recollection of Whig history and its factionalism wrong. It doesn't alter the substance of what I was suggesting, but the detail isn't right (as opposed to Clive's assertion - which is wrong in substance and diagnosis)
In order to understand the political party structure we have to go back to how these things were formed and evolved. Broadly speaking the political grouping known as the Tories dates from the 1670's. This was not the result of a popular demand and sop to democracy as Clive would have you believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was very much more as I described, a collection of privleged individuals representing themselves and their allies in the pursuit of their own wealth. They did this under the guise of a nominal constituency in which their candidacy, vote, and majority was inbuilt. These landed gentry worked together to promote each others individual interests to the mutual indivudal benefits of all involved. Membership was exclusive. You needed to be able to demonstrate that you were reliable, useful, and possessed sufficient influence to join the club of voters. They could easily support sub optimal decisions if it benefited indivudal(s) within their membership, provided that the favour would be returned. This is why I referred to it as corrupt. Such a structure I believe is corrupt in conception and operation. If the objective of parliamentary democracy was to make the best decisions in support of the demos, then this would most likely be achieved if we could have experts making those decisions unburdened by artifically imposed constraint (the political party).
Here's the sting though. Without the cloak of the party though, the indvidual(s) would increasingly be renedered impotent spectators regardless of their expertise. For this reason the structure performs another corruption, and the concept of loyalty to the party above the electorate starts to emerge. If you betray your friends, you're ejected from the club. With ejection comes loss of influence
Schisms do start to emerge as competing self-interest groups vie with each other for supremacy. This is the genesis of the political party structure and the over arching characteristics are exclusiveness and avarice. 'The People' and a democratic mandate are notable by their exclusion. Whigism remains the dominant affiliation but you have Pittists and Reformers, and Radicals which later become the Chartists (if I've got that timeframe right?)
As we start to move in the production age the means of wealth creation starts to alter. The landed estates and agrairian economy is about to be swept away. Pitt is dead and Peel becomes the torch carrier for the faction of the Tories. In 1834, in the wake of the Great Reform Act, the 'Conservative Party' is founded even though it had been operating for decades previous. With the numbers stacking against the opposition the Liberals form in 1859, even though a radical brand of Whigism had equally operated before this.
Labour and Co-operative movements come later but they're largely ineffective until such time as their natural vote is allowed to participate in elections. This is of course resisted for decades as the whole political party structure is based on self-interest and no one is about to invite a third group that has the potential represent the people to the table. It's only the events of the first world war and the reprecussions across Europe that convinces Britain to make this sop. By now though the template is established. You have to form a party to challenge the status quo
At this stage I want to link this little item I unearthed on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30379986
In truth the fella hasn't done badly given that it was written in the 1930's and was a prediction of what the country would like in 100 years time. I'd partcularly draw Clives attention to his prediction for 'Politics'. In the first case he predicts greater participation with government being much more responsive to the people (he's clearly aware of the fault line). He also suggests that by now democracy should be moving along the path to maturity and capable of ditching the straight-jacket that is the party structure with all its corrupting and artificial impositions of imperfect decisions. He suggests this acronistic entity has had its day and won't have any useful future role. Instead he suggests that we'll be calling out for "governance by experts" (again another contradiction of Clive's assertion that our current MP's are expert - they aren't!)
Smith died in the 1930's but I suspect he'd have been more convinced of getting this right than many of his predictions were he to see how the country responded when faced with an existential crisis in 1939. At a time when we needed to make correct decisions like never before did we fall back on the party political structure? No. We formed a government of national unity that true talent from across the spectrum. This is really an admission of the limitations of the party political structure
I suspect that he's probably describing the future, albeit he's under estimated other factors.
The parliamentary process reproduces in its own image. Those who populate have done very nicely thankyou, and won't therefore see fault lines in it. The pressure for change will have to come from outside of it, be it through protest or through demonstration of superior models.
I don't see that the climate is right for protest. It's always possible that confidence in it could be eroded through a combination of apathy or people perhaps turning to other leaders in recognition that they actually have a greater impact on society than duly elected puppets who serve their party above all else.
I don't believe as Clive does however, that there aren't some subtle strands within the democratic family. You might argue for instance that the American Presdiential system is closer to governance by expert whereby a President appoints an executive in much the same way as a multi national enterprise would. You could argue the EU embodies some of this as well. Neither are without their fault lines.
In the UK we get by with inexperts fronting up (the politicians) whilst the expertise is behind them in the policy machinary of Whitehall
The first concerns some factual errors in chronology on my part. I basically got my recollection of Whig history and its factionalism wrong. It doesn't alter the substance of what I was suggesting, but the detail isn't right (as opposed to Clive's assertion - which is wrong in substance and diagnosis)
In order to understand the political party structure we have to go back to how these things were formed and evolved. Broadly speaking the political grouping known as the Tories dates from the 1670's. This was not the result of a popular demand and sop to democracy as Clive would have you believe. Nothing could be further from the truth. It was very much more as I described, a collection of privleged individuals representing themselves and their allies in the pursuit of their own wealth. They did this under the guise of a nominal constituency in which their candidacy, vote, and majority was inbuilt. These landed gentry worked together to promote each others individual interests to the mutual indivudal benefits of all involved. Membership was exclusive. You needed to be able to demonstrate that you were reliable, useful, and possessed sufficient influence to join the club of voters. They could easily support sub optimal decisions if it benefited indivudal(s) within their membership, provided that the favour would be returned. This is why I referred to it as corrupt. Such a structure I believe is corrupt in conception and operation. If the objective of parliamentary democracy was to make the best decisions in support of the demos, then this would most likely be achieved if we could have experts making those decisions unburdened by artifically imposed constraint (the political party).
Here's the sting though. Without the cloak of the party though, the indvidual(s) would increasingly be renedered impotent spectators regardless of their expertise. For this reason the structure performs another corruption, and the concept of loyalty to the party above the electorate starts to emerge. If you betray your friends, you're ejected from the club. With ejection comes loss of influence
Schisms do start to emerge as competing self-interest groups vie with each other for supremacy. This is the genesis of the political party structure and the over arching characteristics are exclusiveness and avarice. 'The People' and a democratic mandate are notable by their exclusion. Whigism remains the dominant affiliation but you have Pittists and Reformers, and Radicals which later become the Chartists (if I've got that timeframe right?)
As we start to move in the production age the means of wealth creation starts to alter. The landed estates and agrairian economy is about to be swept away. Pitt is dead and Peel becomes the torch carrier for the faction of the Tories. In 1834, in the wake of the Great Reform Act, the 'Conservative Party' is founded even though it had been operating for decades previous. With the numbers stacking against the opposition the Liberals form in 1859, even though a radical brand of Whigism had equally operated before this.
Labour and Co-operative movements come later but they're largely ineffective until such time as their natural vote is allowed to participate in elections. This is of course resisted for decades as the whole political party structure is based on self-interest and no one is about to invite a third group that has the potential represent the people to the table. It's only the events of the first world war and the reprecussions across Europe that convinces Britain to make this sop. By now though the template is established. You have to form a party to challenge the status quo
At this stage I want to link this little item I unearthed on the BBC website
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30379986
In truth the fella hasn't done badly given that it was written in the 1930's and was a prediction of what the country would like in 100 years time. I'd partcularly draw Clives attention to his prediction for 'Politics'. In the first case he predicts greater participation with government being much more responsive to the people (he's clearly aware of the fault line). He also suggests that by now democracy should be moving along the path to maturity and capable of ditching the straight-jacket that is the party structure with all its corrupting and artificial impositions of imperfect decisions. He suggests this acronistic entity has had its day and won't have any useful future role. Instead he suggests that we'll be calling out for "governance by experts" (again another contradiction of Clive's assertion that our current MP's are expert - they aren't!)
Smith died in the 1930's but I suspect he'd have been more convinced of getting this right than many of his predictions were he to see how the country responded when faced with an existential crisis in 1939. At a time when we needed to make correct decisions like never before did we fall back on the party political structure? No. We formed a government of national unity that true talent from across the spectrum. This is really an admission of the limitations of the party political structure
I suspect that he's probably describing the future, albeit he's under estimated other factors.
The parliamentary process reproduces in its own image. Those who populate have done very nicely thankyou, and won't therefore see fault lines in it. The pressure for change will have to come from outside of it, be it through protest or through demonstration of superior models.
I don't see that the climate is right for protest. It's always possible that confidence in it could be eroded through a combination of apathy or people perhaps turning to other leaders in recognition that they actually have a greater impact on society than duly elected puppets who serve their party above all else.
I don't believe as Clive does however, that there aren't some subtle strands within the democratic family. You might argue for instance that the American Presdiential system is closer to governance by expert whereby a President appoints an executive in much the same way as a multi national enterprise would. You could argue the EU embodies some of this as well. Neither are without their fault lines.
In the UK we get by with inexperts fronting up (the politicians) whilst the expertise is behind them in the policy machinary of Whitehall
simmo
Senior Jockey
I have. Unfortunately at this time, none of the parties are selling anything I want. They are all morally bankrupt (smaller parties included) with an interest solely in obtaining power, not in making decisions that the people who voted for them actually want.
This becomes even more true the further down into tiers of elected individuals you get. Local councillors are the worst.
Even worse than them though, are the unelected masses that actually dictate policy. If people really understood how little decision making our politicians (of all stripes and sizes) actually have a legitimate say in, they'd be absolutely horrified.
Doesn't make sense to me simmo. I would be a bit put out if someone I voted for didnt want power. And if they don't make the decisions people want then vote them out.
How any one can suggest that we are not represented and then suggest "governance by experts" is beyond me. For all the faults of the party system at least there is some accountability. I have no interest at all in an executive that is completely unelected, most especially the leader. We know where that will take us.
How any one can suggest that we are not represented and then suggest "governance by experts" is beyond me. For all the faults of the party system at least there is some accountability. I have no interest at all in an executive that is completely unelected, most especially the leader. We know where that will take us.
Last edited:
But presumably if you were having an operation, you'd want an 'expert' surgeon to carry it out, and not a supermarket butcher? or you'd prefer qualified teachers in a classroom, and our military to have soldiers rather than ballet dancers. Why then do you have volunteer guessers in public policy. And there are of course democratic structures within an executive that would permit the removal of the corrupt and the incompetant
As an aside, the russel brands of this world (superbly taken apart by craig brown in private eye last week) are really protesting against democracy. Wasnt he exposed when the bbc stupidly gave him space on Newsnight? The whole problem as they see it is that the electorate are too stupid to vote for an authoritarian collapsed economy run by simpleton heroin addicts.
As ever with the extremes on left and right, in their mental illness, they believe they know what's best for everyone.
the rest of us tell them to fck off at the ballot box at every opportunity.
As ever with the extremes on left and right, in their mental illness, they believe they know what's best for everyone.
the rest of us tell them to fck off at the ballot box at every opportunity.
Wrong. Those are specialist fields with straight wrong and right ways of doing things. Politics is far more complicated than that. It is largely economics, rule of law and foreign policy. You can "experts" in all those fields and they will not agree on anything. Especially economics.
The decisions are not how things are excuted but whether they are and to what degree. Just because you have an in house lawyer in a business you do not automatically sue every client or supplier for breach of contract do you?
As in business, leaders who are specialists in one field are often the worst leaders.
In life there are big picture people and "specialists" . I know who I would want in charge. There has to be a degree of understanding on any subject and certain politicians are going to much stronger in some areas rather than others. That is natural.
a good financial director doesn't have to be an expert in tax or audit or raising finance. In fact he needs to know just enough about each but be able to see it in relation tothe rest of the business. That is what is important.
Last edited:
There's certainly some merit in that Clive, and one need look no further than the background of the Investment arms of the banks for evidence of what happens when you put a crazed gambler in charge of the roulette wheel.
We have of course seen the advance of the 'career' politician in recent years as an attempt to address this deficit in much the same way as academe produced a raft of 'Business Studies' gradutate in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and the dreaded MBA that followed, but then politics is becoming an extension of 'managerialism' anyway which is why the threat to it is posed by alternatives such as big business and to a lesser extent, celebrity.
We have of course seen the advance of the 'career' politician in recent years as an attempt to address this deficit in much the same way as academe produced a raft of 'Business Studies' gradutate in the 70's, 80's, and 90's, and the dreaded MBA that followed, but then politics is becoming an extension of 'managerialism' anyway which is why the threat to it is posed by alternatives such as big business and to a lesser extent, celebrity.
That's because you confuse observation with advocacy, so it would be "beyond" you.
As it happens I'm open minded on it. Pure democracy and models of greater participation in the decision making process are of course possible and from a moral perspective superior to this thing we currently have. They do of course carry all sorts of other dangers, and in this regard the pursuit of democracy can be a serious threat to society as it lurches into popularism with inexpert people mandating unqualified people to act in their name. You need something above that which regulates abuse and competancy, (all other professional bodies have oversight where the incompetant can be struck off in front of a panel). In Greece they had system called 'ostracism' where every year the worst politician was voted into a ten year exile and required to leave Athens! There's also the issue about having a strong state capable of defending itself against hostile actions and that nearly always needs centralised command. IT's one the biggest issues Lenin failed to reconcile. Whereas he wanted to break up sovereign Russia into a union of autonomous soviet states united in the pursuit of socialism but setting their own agendas that responded to their own needs, none of them would have been strong enough to survive the assault they'd doubtless face (and indeed did with a year or two). In this regard the pursuit of democracy and decentralised was kyboshed by the need to defend the gains, and this required centralised command and control
Last edited:
simmo
Senior Jockey
I absolutely do not want an unelected government - we already have one. Anyone who thinks the politicians make the decisions is living in cloud cuckoo land.
Prince Andrew erm............. let's wait and see
The official denial was as predictable as it was inevitable, but a number of newspapers have been very quick to name people, dates, and describe incidents - I don't suppose it's at all possible they've been sitting on this story for years and waiting for an opportunity. Will also be interesting to see if it sparks a flood of others coming forward as it has done in previous cases where the sheer number becomes overwhelming
The official denial was as predictable as it was inevitable, but a number of newspapers have been very quick to name people, dates, and describe incidents - I don't suppose it's at all possible they've been sitting on this story for years and waiting for an opportunity. Will also be interesting to see if it sparks a flood of others coming forward as it has done in previous cases where the sheer number becomes overwhelming
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
I do think it is an unfair system where the accused -- Prince Andrew -- can be named but the accuser can remain hidden behind the Jane Doe #3 moniker. A bit partisan and discriminatory.
I also wonder if this alleged sexual assault should be filed under paedophilia? Jane Doe was 17 at the time, yes? Jailbait definitely; but was she a child? Hardly.
Not wanting to appear to be designating degrees of ghastliness about paedo crimes, but still ..............
I think the issue here is that it took place in the USA and as such their jurisdiction applies (do they have a death penalty in Florida? - not that the offence carries one, but it would be turn up wouldn't it?)
The Telegraph have wasted no time finding photographs of Andrew with his hands round the waist of one of the girls (the one whose waived her anonymity) and the fixer (Epstein) has a conviction for under age. It all looks very murky. At this stage he's not actually being charged with anything, or even under investigation - but it is just starting to lift the lid just a little bit, and of course introduces a whole new international dimension to this sordid mess
One thing I do know is that everytime I've spoken to researchers or journos about the 'whose who list' of miscreants, his name crops up every bloody time without prompting. Now that could of course be the rumour that feeds a rumour, becomes the truth etc but the speed with which the details were printed tells me there's a hell of a lot being sat on
The Telegraph have wasted no time finding photographs of Andrew with his hands round the waist of one of the girls (the one whose waived her anonymity) and the fixer (Epstein) has a conviction for under age. It all looks very murky. At this stage he's not actually being charged with anything, or even under investigation - but it is just starting to lift the lid just a little bit, and of course introduces a whole new international dimension to this sordid mess
One thing I do know is that everytime I've spoken to researchers or journos about the 'whose who list' of miscreants, his name crops up every bloody time without prompting. Now that could of course be the rumour that feeds a rumour, becomes the truth etc but the speed with which the details were printed tells me there's a hell of a lot being sat on
Without knowing what your view was at the time, but did you extend the same clemency to Berlusconi for being duped by "Ruby the heart stealer". I actually thought Berlusconi's excuse was the best I've ever heard. Remember he tried to get her off the charge because she told him she was related to Honsi Mubarak and he didn't want to create an embarrassing international incident - so he shagged her instead. :lol:
"Don't worry Honsi. I only shagged your favourite niece, wouldn't want anything untoward happening to her or any incident that could jeopardise our friendship now would we"
Last edited:
icebreaker
At the Start
- Joined
- Jun 12, 2005
- Messages
- 2,957
Oh, don't get me wrong. I'm of the firm belief that both the Berlusconi behaviour and the so-far only alleged sexual escapade of Andrew are morally and criminally wrong.
I'm only questioning if the Jane Doe #3 case is an example of paedophilia? This thread is entitled the "Paedo Ring"; I'm wondering if we can justifiably associate the sexual encounters with a 17-y-o as paedophiliac.
I'm only questioning if the Jane Doe #3 case is an example of paedophilia? This thread is entitled the "Paedo Ring"; I'm wondering if we can justifiably associate the sexual encounters with a 17-y-o as paedophiliac.
Tanlic
Senior Jockey
If we can a lorra lorra people are going to be in deep trouble.............if you need a lift to the police station let me know :lol: