why do i need to do that your missing the point and as usual being rather condescending.... They dont need posh they dont need expensive, they may need to meet somewhere so why do it in the most expensive place, why not do it somewhere cheaper and save us all a load of money.........and while we are at it id get rid of half of them and double up what work they do......thats the reality of the public sector for everyone else why not them bast ids.
MP's are not a realistic cross section or representation of the diversity of the UK. A disproportionate amount are from priviledged backgrounds, the Dennis Skinner's are the notable exceptions due to their rarity. The likes of Tony Benn are notable due to their priviledged backgrounds, but left wing views..again, notable by their non conformity to the norm that is the unrepresentative demograph of parliament. The House of Lords is even more extreme in this regard , also this is gradually being diluted the end of hereditary peers..Good on Benn for rejected his and campaigning for the Peerage Act.
Ah, so this is where everyone is. Its the Politicians turn to be moaned about. Whilst I hold no truck with most of the current crop, there have been notable exceptions. Some have truly changed the world. For the better. I think i said somewhere that we get the government we deserve. If we feel we deserve better then change it. Keep changing it till you get what you need. Iteration. We're skint. Politicians need paying properly whether you like it or not. The 'public' service or shall we just say civil servants are paid a lot lot more. Plus they are heavily staffed compared to the private sector. Pay peanuts get monkeys. The current lot are shit. Thats just our bad luck. We paid peanuts. Everyone is skint because the UK is skint. No point asking for raises when theres no money in the pot. Ive taken a big pay cut and keep quiet because I can see we are skint. I also know my industry is the first in and the last out of recession. Construction. Some people are going to get away with it. Good luck to them. Good times will return. They always do. Its all cyclical. Currently we are in a re-run of the 1980's. I look forward to the re-run of the 90's where I spent mot of that time smashed out my skull having a great time. But you need the shit to recognise the diamond. Now can we just fucking return to slagging off the panigale.
I want open primaries and some power of recall. The party machines are just too powerful and it would seem that most MP's eventually go native. An MP's first alliegence and responsibility should be to their constituents; at the moment I just don't that think it is. If I have to account for my expenses I don't see why they can't do the same.
Good point. It's perfectly true that MPs, varied though they are, do not reflect the whole population in proportion to their characteristics. There is severe under-representation of criminals, poorly-educated people, and dimwits. As I have already suggested, those who are worried about this problem might take steps towards curing it by offering themselves for election.
So apart from Cranker...public school educated, middle class Chesire-ite, no one up for it then ;-) Maybe thats the problem
i would say that there are plenty of criminals within the House of Parliament, and House of Lords..whether theyve all been convicted like Geoffrey Archer is another point, but there are plenty in disgrace...im not sure if Nigel Evans has been convicted yet of the homosexual rape allegations made against him... One could argue that Blair was a war criminal for obvious reasons, but i wont as it will no doubt invite a patronising tirade.
did a quick google for fun..apart from the obvious people like chris hune and jonathan aitken, a few others popped up that i'd forgotten about..too many to list but a few are: John Stonehouse, 7 years for theft and faking his own suicide! John Smart child sex abuse. Lord Taylor of Warwick fiddling expenses David Chayter more expenses (but there is a huge list of those) Lord Hanningfield Private Eye has quite an exhaustive list... theres probably quite a lot of dimwits, although well educated dimwits....unfortunately its difficult to calulate exact numbers as it would entail the co-operation of all members of the House(s) and a robustly implemented methodolgy to test the members. the results would also be need to be quantified with a cohesive strategy, which would have to be peer reviewed....however, i suspect that several MP are, in all probably, numb as a piss-stone.
I didn't say there weren't any; I said they were severely under-represented in comparison to the general population. John Stonehouse was 40 years ago, by the way. The question is: do you want MPs to be more representative of all sections of society? Or do you want them to be clever, knowledgeable, well-educated and honest?
<br><br>thats assuming that you cant be representative of society whilst being clever knowledgable well educated and honest...........by the people for the people...<br> <br>
i would take issue with 'severely under-represented', particularly with the percentage of criminals. Of the 650 seats in the House of Commons i would say that the percentage of people convicted of criminal and civil offences is at least equal to that in the general populace. This thread reached an impasse a few posts in, then became inconsequential and tediously didactic thereafter.
