A,"local person",could just as well be a Lawyer,a Plumber,or a Doctor;their choice of career is immaterial,it's their views on how they would govern the country that's important,surely. And the people of an area would have a better chance of understanding the real views of a Candidate if he/she came from the local area,and wasn't parachuted in to a safe seat so that they are guaranteed election,as so many seem to be. And politics seems to be the only field where you can be ignorant,inexperienced etc,and still get the gig,as the vast majority of MPs are from professions that have nothing to do with politics. You presumed wrongly: I want Politicians who (a) act solely in the interests of the Country (b)actually know what they are talking about,not just the politics of it.
I find myself in a quandary. My own thoughts on political figures are mixed, some are (the politos)are admirable in their attempts to keep an even keel . Others, are down right self serving (ss I may be in that position) bigots with a thirst for exemplary powers. Then there are the union pussy suckers. Of unions per se I have no truck, however, why should any working person have to pay to work (union fees -robbing bastards). Those said fees are then passed onto a political party. How very mafia like. Unions...... a divisive means of class separation.
I have tried to extract some meaning from this sentence, but without success. What on earth could you be trying to say?
If you imagine you are being condescended to, is it because you identify yourself with those untrained, inexperienced, ignorant amateurs? Or for some other reason?
Pete, it's sad that you don't seem able to hold a discussion without trying to belittle other members of this forum. As I said, you're clearly an intelligent person with interesting views on many subjects, but when challenged, your automatic reaction seems to be to try and draw the other party into some sort of personal confrontation. It's bizarre behaviour
Blimey Pete you want to stay off the red wine..but I'll try again,just for you (a)I want Politicians who make decisions for the good of the population,not because it appeases their particular brand of supporter,their mates,or their social class (b) for example,a Transport Secretary knowing something about the actual nuts and bolts of transport,instead of just reading about it,or talking to a couple of his millionaire ship-owning mates. There,wasn't that difficult,was it?
Really. Your behaviour in this thread has been to insult me gratuitously, out of the blue, but then decline to engage in the ongoing debate. And you call my behaviour bizarre!
Oh I see. You've moved on to indulging a utopian fantasy, in no way connected to the world of political realities. Fine, carry on by all means.
Pete: this is an observation. My opinion. This: is a complement. And this: is (sadly) evidenced by far too many posts on this forum. I can't see any insults, just observations, compliments and facts. Personally, I enjoy a bit of debate, a bit of banter. Even with PC Andy. Everyone has different views and we don't have to agree with them. It's good to have our views and opinions challenged good debate might even change views), not so good to be insulted or belittled.
We all have our dreams,Pete. Yours comes across as a fairyland where everybody loves the EU and wants more Government,where everyone in the so-called Public Sector works their fingers to the bone performing miracles for Joe Public,and that all the little people should keep quiet and let the Professionals look after them The reality is that most of us see Politicians as a bunch of self-serving crooks who've feather bedded themselves into a nice cosy lifetime paid for by people much poorer than them,we detest the EU because bloody politicians lied to get us to join what has turned out to be a job creation scheme for those that can't get a proper job ,and that a great number of Public Sector worker are irrelevant,unnecessary,lazy,and whatever they do is half arsed and far too expensive,but they never take any blame or get the Spanish Archer...You better hope you don't wake up to everyone elses reality,old bean:biggrin:
Have you ever had a blue collar role where union membership is mandatory? Tantamount to blackmail. I have considered my view and it remains the same. Unions should not have the right to enforce membership to have a particular role within a company - public or private. Saying that you can opt of the political subsidy is somewhat irrelevant, the payee is still subsiding the union who will have greater funds available to bank role the politics.
Enforced membership of a union was what was known as a "closed shop". All forms of closed shop in the UK have been strictly illegal since 1990, and are in any case contrary to European law. Currently applicable law is the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Consolidation) Act 1992 section 137 etc. So sorry, but no mandatory membership and no blackmail; no individual ever has to subsidise a political party by virtue of trades union membership. Of course we all have to subsidise political parties in our roles as customers and employees of firms whose directors decide to make political contributions, but we don't get any vote about that.
Please stop behaving like a politician by giving the impression you speak for us all when you say " we" unless you refer to a specific group that you truly represent. We don't all subsidise political parties as customers and employers etc. You don't know where we all work, if we all work, or who we use to provide services and goods.
By all means join in any debate you like, express any views you please, and expect to be shot down in flames if you can't defend your corner. You started off in post #23 calling me an "arse", out of the blue. Fine, I can cope with playground name-calling. But it's a bit rich you now saying it's "not so good to be insulted"! Frankly it's not very interesting arguing about what-I-said-then-you-said; I would rather get back to the issue the thread is about. If you have any opinions about Unite, trades unions, etc I would quite like to hear them.
"We" means the whole population of the UK generally. I am not speaking for us, obviously, I am speaking about us.
I`m a big fan of caveats Pete, I recommend slipping them in where you can. You see, I`m giving my opinion and not claiming anything for we or us regardless of if it is for or about. On a different note, what a top word caveat is, right up there with diaphanous in my opinion !
Now in my ivory tower I must disagree. There have been three occasions where I have refused to join a union and three occasions I have been told by Ltd Co management to be good fellow and join because it upsets the union members, therefore effectively a closed shop. Any fees paid to a union which has a financial political affiliation WILL subsidise those payments, even if you request that the portion you pay not to be levied towards the political payment. So sorry does not suffice P. And you do get a vote, you can leave said establishment and move on. Or even be creative and form your own business with good employee relations and no political affiliation.
