But then, I don't see the Tories as "the enemy" like so many people do, nor do I see it as unnatural or some form of betrayal when political parties would work together, even where there's a fair gulf between them on a number of issues; and it always amuses me when people go on about this or that party being "the enemy", and then in the same thread you'll find someone else moaning about how political parties these days are carbon-copies of one another. Yeah, the Lib Dems have pretty much done themselves over politically because of what they've acceded to in return for power and influence in Government, and the moniker "Judas" may have more merit in respect of specific issues over which they've made concessions that are concessions too far for some; but that's their bed and they have to lie in it, and I don't think the moniker applies merely by dint of choosing to join a coalition Government. On that specific decision alone, they had no options that couldn't be regarded as a betrayal on some level, from some perspective or other. Propping up a discredited Labour Party in Government would have been a betrayal (and according to the Parliamentary arithmetic, futile). Sitting pretty in Opposition would also have been a betrayal (as they'd have likely blown the one chance they had in a generation to show they had the balls to take responsibility in Government). About the only thing that could have made life easier for the Lib Dems is if somehow the two larger parties had decided to get together and form a Grand Coalition, leaving the Lib Dems as the chief Opposition party. That would have been a good result for them - it worked, albeit temporarily, for the FDP in Germany - but outside of wartime, there's probably a snowball's chance in Hell of it actually occurring in the UK.
And the old yarn of "politicians should be forced to do XYZ before attaining office" seems to be fashionable again, but I rather think I'll buck the trend on that one, too: it's up to the electorate to decide which of the available candidates they wish to become their local representative, and I don't see why electors should have their democratic choice constricted by some pompous pronouncement that only people who have been on JSA, been a teacher/nurse/policeman/fireman/civil servant, had "real world" experience in the private sector, don't have a PPE degree from Oxford and/or don't have a substantial private income (for such, if memory serves, is the distillation of all the pompous pronouncements made on this board in the recent past in respect of that issue) should be eligible to stand as a candidate.
If you decide you'll only vote for candidates who've been on JSA or Income Support, then good for you - that's your democratic right. Let the rest of us pick the candidate we like best, even if it's someone who hasn't ever been on JSA or Income Support.
I agree with pretty much all of that.
Regarding constiuency elections, I do think that, too often, the qualities of the individual candidate are far over-shadowed by the political party that they represent.
For example, if you were a determined working-class Labour voter, and the Labour candidate was a well-off businessman, but the Tory candidate was from a fairly modest background, would you switch to Tory?
Probably not, I suspect...if actual people came into it, you'd probably vote as if you were selecting the party's prime-ministerial candidate.
It's a shame really, and I do think this skews democracy towards voting for a distant, central figure, when really constituency elections should be about selecting a local person, who understands the local community and the needs of the people who live there.
Regarding constiuency elections, I do think that, too often, the qualities of the individual candidate are far over-shadowed by the political party that they represent.
whilst that is something I dont like, its not that bigger deal, since that MP will take the party whip, and more or less vote how the whip tells them.
So really that it is true for both campaigning and when they actually are an MP.
whilst that is something I dont like, its not that bigger deal, since that MP will take the party whip, and more or less vote how the whip tells them.
So really that it is true for both campaigning and when they actually are an MP.
I don't like the whip system either.
Or political parties for that matter. They're a mechanism by which the views of constitutents get lost, where democracy gets diluted, and we get governed by an establishment consensus (the 'Westminster bubble' is the fluffy name for it these days), all formulated by a closed door elite.
Or political parties for that matter. They're a mechanism by which the views of constitutents get lost, where democracy gets diluted, and we get governed by an establishment consensus (the 'Westminster bubble' is the fluffy name for it these days), all formulated by a closed door elite.
It's a parody of democracy.
Regards,
Cypher
Unfortunately, the constitutional framework in which we operate - where our Government is formed from our primary legislature - means that the alternative to having political parties could very well be worse. Imagine if you had 650 independent MPs all elected on their own distinct personal manifestos, and somehow you had to get at least half of them to get together and form a Government after every election, without having any clue whatsoever in advance what the final agreement and the subsequent Government programme might look like. People would have no idea what Government they'd get following the poll. It'd make the coalition negotiations look like a walk in the park by comparison - assuming, of course, that the MPs we elected could agree on forming any kind of workable Government at all.
Unfortunately, the constitutional framework in which we operate - where our Government is formed from our primary legislature - means that the alternative to having political parties could very well be worse. Imagine if you had 650 independent MPs all elected on their own distinct personal manifestos, and somehow you had to get at least half of them to get together and form a Government after every election, without having any clue whatsoever in advance what the final agreement and the subsequent Government programme might look like. People would have no idea what Government they'd get following the poll. It'd make the coalition negotiations look like a walk in the park by comparison - assuming, of course, that the MPs we elected could agree on forming any kind of workable Government at all.
Parliament can elect its own cabinet and ministers to look after government departments. They can table legislation, as can any member of Parliament; I also like the idea of the public being able to table it also via e-Petitions.
MPs can then vote freely, and in accordance with how the local people they represent feel about it. For, if they don't, they'll be voted out next time around.
Parliament can elect its own cabinet and ministers to look after government departments. They can table legislation, as can any member of Parliament; I also like the idea of the public being able to table it also via e-Petitions.
MPs can then vote freely, and in accordance with how the local people they represent feel about it. For, if they don't, they'll be voted out next time around.
Regards,
Cypher
An interesting idea, but that's not how our system works at present: right now, the Head of State appoints a Prime Minister to form a Government, and the Prime Minister then appoints Ministers.
The other problem is that I'm not sure that having individual Parliamentarians, or small groups of them, let alone the general public at large, draft legislation would result in any greater quality of draft legislation than that produced by Governments with the full resources of the Civil Service committed to such efforts.
And finally, I don't know how one could realistically bring about an end to political parties anyway.
One, it provides a fairly easy short-cut that makes democracy more accessible: if someone stands on a Labour ticket, for instance, there are plenty of safe assumptions people can make about that candidate if they're not covered in their personal campaign literature, because people know the sort of things Labour likes to promote and on which it likes to legislate. Electors don't have to treat each election as a tabula rasa and have to learn afresh everything they can about each of their candidates before making a decision - a situation that would risk the rise of an intelligentsia being the only people who can be bothered to get engaged in the electoral process, or worse, demagoguery.
And two, it's a natural outgrowth of politics. Like-minded people in politics will club together into factions for much the same reasons that people everywhere club together and form organisations: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you're elected as an MP standing on a platform X, Y and Z, you would be doing your constituents a disservice if you didn't attempt to promote the platform points on which you were elected by teaming up with other like-minded MPs who also stood on a platform of X, Y and Z. Some of them will have be smarter or more knowledgeable than you or simply have ideas you haven't thought of on at least one of those points - and of course sharing ideas as part of a team enables you to come up with better ideas. That's how we ended up with political parties in the first place: people got together to further common aims, and the reason we still have them is because, quite simply, it works.
It was employment.I wasn't on a job training scheme and thinking back on it no, the money wasn't particularly good
Were you under 18? Unde 18s have always been paid less.
I can see it's pointless attempting to debate with you or any other supporters of these schemes though, as it's obvious you'd support the goverment ideals no matter what. I expect you'll be happy when we do bring back the workhouses...seems like it's only a matter of time with the way things are going.
You can see why Clegg might be deluded as he's entered the political stratosphere, but you would think his MPs and party activists would be screaming their heads off as they get to hear about what a mess these policies are actually making of people's lives? It isn't rocket science to work out that a system thats using graduates as tesco shelf stackers, and leaving the tesco stacker unemployed, is plainly ridiculous and wasteful. Nor is it difficult to work out that declaring that almost anyone can work with almost any illness is a ridiculous harmful policy. Why isn't the Liberal party up in arms about all this - its not as if its going to go away, and people will vote for them if they don't say anything about whats going on is it.
You can see why Clegg might be deluded as he's entered the political stratosphere, but you would think his MPs and party activists would be screaming their heads off as they get to hear about what a mess these policies are actually making of people's lives? It isn't rocket science to work out that a system thats using graduates as tesco shelf stackers, and leaving the tesco stacker unemployed, is plainly ridiculous and wasteful. Nor is it difficult to work out that declaring that almost anyone can work with almost any illness is a ridiculous harmful policy. Why isn't the Liberal party up in arms about all this - its not as if its going to go away, and people will vote for them if they don't say anything about whats going on is it.
All excellent points. I think Clegg is done for anyway in terms of ever being someone anyone would vote for again, but this is the sort of scandal that could destroy a whole party and the fact that not even one politican seems to be protesting against it is shocking.
Were you under 18? Unde 18s have always been paid less.
I can see it's pointless attempting to debate with you or any other supporters of these schemes though, as it's obvious you'd support the goverment ideals no matter what. I expect you'll be happy when we do bring back the workhouses...seems like it's only a matter of time with the way things are going.
When people resort to tired "well I suppose you'd welcome back the workhouse" type of comments then you're right - it is pointless debating with someone.
When people resort to tired "well I suppose you'd welcome back the workhouse" type of comments then you're right - it is pointless debating with someone.
Nice way to place your own stubborness upon my shoulders as though it originated with me. People like you are why I don't usually post in the Politics forum.
What would you call being forced to work for less than minimum wage, then?
Nice way to place your own stubborness upon my shoulders as though it originated with me. People like you are why I don't usually post in the Politics forum.
What would you call being forced to work for less than minimum wage, then?
slave labour is the common term
or the Work Programme when you are a politician or employee of any of the "providers"
You can see why Clegg might be deluded as he's entered the political stratosphere, but you would think his MPs and party activists would be screaming their heads off as they get to hear about what a mess these policies are actually making of people's lives? It isn't rocket science to work out that a system thats using graduates as tesco shelf stackers, and leaving the tesco stacker unemployed, is plainly ridiculous and wasteful.
That's as maybe, but there isn't a great deal any British government can do to turn back the clock against the inevitable consequences of economic globalisation and the technological revolution, not to mention a global downturn. Nor is it really Government's business to create white-collar graduate jobs out of thin air and keep them going exclusively through Government expenditure. About the only levers they do have are: (1) in terms of how much cheap labour we import from outside the EU, but even turning off that tap completely probably wouldn't do all that much to help today's graduates who are finding it difficult to get work; and (2) subsidising jobs.
The Government is doing a bit of (1) and a bit of (2), and essentially your argument is that they aren't doing enough of (2). (And one doesn't need to go far on this board to find plenty of people who think they aren't doing enough of (1) either.)
Nor is it difficult to work out that declaring that almost anyone can work with almost any illness is a ridiculous harmful policy.
I'm not sure where you get the notion that it is Government policy to declare that "almost anyone can work with almost any illness". As I understand it, the kinds of decisions that have led to this sort of perception have been made by the likes of ATOS, not directly by any political party in Government.
Why isn't the Liberal party up in arms about all this - its not as if its going to go away, and people will vote for them if they don't say anything about whats going on is it.
What, in your book, would constitute an adequate protest on the part of the Lib Dems, and against what specific policies - as opposed to the caricatures you present that are somewhat tangentially related to actual Government policy - and what realistic alternatives should they be offering?
I wonder how many people whinging about it have been subjected to it?
About the same number I'd guess.
In principle I see nothing wrong with a scheme like this.
It would be more palatable to all those who oppose it if it were done so that the number of hours a person was required to work for would, at NMW, equal the value of their JSA. In fact I'd be hard pressed to understand why anyone, even those like me in receipt of JSA, would have a problem with that. And I'd still prefer it if the scheme wasn't used to bolster profits at large companies, but to assist SMEs and the public sector and charity groups.
I actually chose to volunteer to give something back for my JSA. I did a 48 hour week the week between Christmas and New Year, because for the charity group I work for that is the busiest time of year.
I was initially placed with that charity as part of New Deal; 35 hour weeks for 13 weeks, and I didn't get a choice in the matter. On the whole it was a positive experience, and I enjoyed the work enough and the people I worked with so much that 2 years on, and after a period of P/T - Temp work, I still volunteer there. These days its usually 2 or 3 days a week; but if other people are off sick or away on holiday or just don't want to volunteer that week then it can easily get up to a 5 day week.
Unlike many here I rarely choose to pontificate on matters I have no direct experience of.
Or political parties for that matter. They're a mechanism by which the views of constitutents get lost, where democracy gets diluted, and we get governed by an establishment consensus (the 'Westminster bubble' is the fluffy name for it these days), all formulated by a closed door elite.
im not fan of parties either, but I dont think they are going anywhere, the whip is a symbol of why the party system is not a good one.
As for shelf stacking, I had a job doing that once, shockingly I didnt need a trail scheme, and yet there was nothing really on my CV before that. I dont know why companys have stopped giving people a fair chance, and why we need to create this massive waste of tax payers money over low skilled first jobs, we never used to need it.
I suspect if we got rid of it, they would soon start hiring without it again.
Nice way to place your own stubborness upon my shoulders as though it originated with me. People like you are why I don't usually post in the Politics forum.
What would you call being forced to work for less than minimum wage, then?
You made the stupid comment about supporting the workhouse so if it didn't originate with you I'd love to know where you think it did.
It's a 4-8 week voluntary work experience scheme that you can walk away from after one week but after that carries a penalty if you don't commit to the finish.
As far as I can tell if you've been out of work for a prolonged period that voluntary aspect becomes mandatory.
You make it sound like slavery. Not quite sure how 4-8 weeks giving your time up to try and improve your job prospects is comparable to slavery myself - but then you probably wouldn't expect me to.
A couple of things...
Show me the government sponsored back to work training scheme that has ever paid the equivilent of the minimum wage because I don't know of any and in the event that you can't kindly explain why it's only a problem now that doesn't sound like being anti-tory and or anti-tesco because that seems to be the motivating factor.
An alternative and affordable solution given the climate would be....?
It's a 4-8 week voluntary work experience scheme that you can walk away from after one week but after that carries a penalty if you don't commit to the finish.
As far as I can tell if you've been out of work for a prolonged period that voluntary aspect becomes mandatory.
All correct.
Regarding the BIB. What happens if in week 2 the employer changes the times/conditions of your placement.
Say for example you agree to 40hrs a week, between Mon-Sat 8-6. Most people would see that as reasonable.
In week 2 the employer changes that to 40hrs week, between Sun-Thu 8pm-6am.
And you live 15 miles away and are reliant on public transport.
You can't drop out, because you'll lose your benefits.
Comments
I agree with pretty much all of that.
Regarding constiuency elections, I do think that, too often, the qualities of the individual candidate are far over-shadowed by the political party that they represent.
For example, if you were a determined working-class Labour voter, and the Labour candidate was a well-off businessman, but the Tory candidate was from a fairly modest background, would you switch to Tory?
Probably not, I suspect...if actual people came into it, you'd probably vote as if you were selecting the party's prime-ministerial candidate.
It's a shame really, and I do think this skews democracy towards voting for a distant, central figure, when really constituency elections should be about selecting a local person, who understands the local community and the needs of the people who live there.
Regards,
Cypher
So really that it is true for both campaigning and when they actually are an MP.
what Cypher said
I don't like the whip system either.
Or political parties for that matter. They're a mechanism by which the views of constitutents get lost, where democracy gets diluted, and we get governed by an establishment consensus (the 'Westminster bubble' is the fluffy name for it these days), all formulated by a closed door elite.
It's a parody of democracy.
Regards,
Cypher
Unfortunately, the constitutional framework in which we operate - where our Government is formed from our primary legislature - means that the alternative to having political parties could very well be worse. Imagine if you had 650 independent MPs all elected on their own distinct personal manifestos, and somehow you had to get at least half of them to get together and form a Government after every election, without having any clue whatsoever in advance what the final agreement and the subsequent Government programme might look like. People would have no idea what Government they'd get following the poll. It'd make the coalition negotiations look like a walk in the park by comparison - assuming, of course, that the MPs we elected could agree on forming any kind of workable Government at all.
Parliament can elect its own cabinet and ministers to look after government departments. They can table legislation, as can any member of Parliament; I also like the idea of the public being able to table it also via e-Petitions.
MPs can then vote freely, and in accordance with how the local people they represent feel about it. For, if they don't, they'll be voted out next time around.
Regards,
Cypher
An interesting idea, but that's not how our system works at present: right now, the Head of State appoints a Prime Minister to form a Government, and the Prime Minister then appoints Ministers.
The other problem is that I'm not sure that having individual Parliamentarians, or small groups of them, let alone the general public at large, draft legislation would result in any greater quality of draft legislation than that produced by Governments with the full resources of the Civil Service committed to such efforts.
And finally, I don't know how one could realistically bring about an end to political parties anyway.
One, it provides a fairly easy short-cut that makes democracy more accessible: if someone stands on a Labour ticket, for instance, there are plenty of safe assumptions people can make about that candidate if they're not covered in their personal campaign literature, because people know the sort of things Labour likes to promote and on which it likes to legislate. Electors don't have to treat each election as a tabula rasa and have to learn afresh everything they can about each of their candidates before making a decision - a situation that would risk the rise of an intelligentsia being the only people who can be bothered to get engaged in the electoral process, or worse, demagoguery.
And two, it's a natural outgrowth of politics. Like-minded people in politics will club together into factions for much the same reasons that people everywhere club together and form organisations: the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. If you're elected as an MP standing on a platform X, Y and Z, you would be doing your constituents a disservice if you didn't attempt to promote the platform points on which you were elected by teaming up with other like-minded MPs who also stood on a platform of X, Y and Z. Some of them will have be smarter or more knowledgeable than you or simply have ideas you haven't thought of on at least one of those points - and of course sharing ideas as part of a team enables you to come up with better ideas. That's how we ended up with political parties in the first place: people got together to further common aims, and the reason we still have them is because, quite simply, it works.
Were you under 18? Unde 18s have always been paid less.
I can see it's pointless attempting to debate with you or any other supporters of these schemes though, as it's obvious you'd support the goverment ideals no matter what. I expect you'll be happy when we do bring back the workhouses...seems like it's only a matter of time with the way things are going.
All excellent points. I think Clegg is done for anyway in terms of ever being someone anyone would vote for again, but this is the sort of scandal that could destroy a whole party and the fact that not even one politican seems to be protesting against it is shocking.
When people resort to tired "well I suppose you'd welcome back the workhouse" type of comments then you're right - it is pointless debating with someone.
http://www.workhouses.org.uk/intro/
interesting, but totally irrelevant
Nice way to place your own stubborness upon my shoulders as though it originated with me. People like you are why I don't usually post in the Politics forum.
What would you call being forced to work for less than minimum wage, then?
slave labour is the common term
or the Work Programme when you are a politician or employee of any of the "providers"
That's as maybe, but there isn't a great deal any British government can do to turn back the clock against the inevitable consequences of economic globalisation and the technological revolution, not to mention a global downturn. Nor is it really Government's business to create white-collar graduate jobs out of thin air and keep them going exclusively through Government expenditure. About the only levers they do have are: (1) in terms of how much cheap labour we import from outside the EU, but even turning off that tap completely probably wouldn't do all that much to help today's graduates who are finding it difficult to get work; and (2) subsidising jobs.
The Government is doing a bit of (1) and a bit of (2), and essentially your argument is that they aren't doing enough of (2). (And one doesn't need to go far on this board to find plenty of people who think they aren't doing enough of (1) either.)
I'm not sure where you get the notion that it is Government policy to declare that "almost anyone can work with almost any illness". As I understand it, the kinds of decisions that have led to this sort of perception have been made by the likes of ATOS, not directly by any political party in Government.
What, in your book, would constitute an adequate protest on the part of the Lib Dems, and against what specific policies - as opposed to the caricatures you present that are somewhat tangentially related to actual Government policy - and what realistic alternatives should they be offering?
No it is relevent. If you read it.
My guess is none of them.
I wonder how many people whinging about it have been subjected to it?
About the same number I'd guess.
In principle I see nothing wrong with a scheme like this.
It would be more palatable to all those who oppose it if it were done so that the number of hours a person was required to work for would, at NMW, equal the value of their JSA. In fact I'd be hard pressed to understand why anyone, even those like me in receipt of JSA, would have a problem with that. And I'd still prefer it if the scheme wasn't used to bolster profits at large companies, but to assist SMEs and the public sector and charity groups.
I actually chose to volunteer to give something back for my JSA. I did a 48 hour week the week between Christmas and New Year, because for the charity group I work for that is the busiest time of year.
I was initially placed with that charity as part of New Deal; 35 hour weeks for 13 weeks, and I didn't get a choice in the matter. On the whole it was a positive experience, and I enjoyed the work enough and the people I worked with so much that 2 years on, and after a period of P/T - Temp work, I still volunteer there. These days its usually 2 or 3 days a week; but if other people are off sick or away on holiday or just don't want to volunteer that week then it can easily get up to a 5 day week.
Unlike many here I rarely choose to pontificate on matters I have no direct experience of.
As for shelf stacking, I had a job doing that once, shockingly I didnt need a trail scheme, and yet there was nothing really on my CV before that. I dont know why companys have stopped giving people a fair chance, and why we need to create this massive waste of tax payers money over low skilled first jobs, we never used to need it.
I suspect if we got rid of it, they would soon start hiring without it again.
You made the stupid comment about supporting the workhouse so if it didn't originate with you I'd love to know where you think it did.
It's a 4-8 week voluntary work experience scheme that you can walk away from after one week but after that carries a penalty if you don't commit to the finish.
As far as I can tell if you've been out of work for a prolonged period that voluntary aspect becomes mandatory.
You make it sound like slavery. Not quite sure how 4-8 weeks giving your time up to try and improve your job prospects is comparable to slavery myself - but then you probably wouldn't expect me to.
A couple of things...
Show me the government sponsored back to work training scheme that has ever paid the equivilent of the minimum wage because I don't know of any and in the event that you can't kindly explain why it's only a problem now that doesn't sound like being anti-tory and or anti-tesco because that seems to be the motivating factor.
An alternative and affordable solution given the climate would be....?
All correct.
Regarding the BIB. What happens if in week 2 the employer changes the times/conditions of your placement.
Say for example you agree to 40hrs a week, between Mon-Sat 8-6. Most people would see that as reasonable.
In week 2 the employer changes that to 40hrs week, between Sun-Thu 8pm-6am.
And you live 15 miles away and are reliant on public transport.
You can't drop out, because you'll lose your benefits.
See where the problem is?