La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The intelligent anarchist votes for everybody on the paper, and thereby spoils his vote. Very true. Simply not voting is not good enough, is no real protest, and sends no clear message. Imagine the impact of 9000 spoilt ballots in each constituency in a general election? Now for the UK, that would be a warning of approaching anarchy. Will it happen? - no. Because politics is so removed from people these days in the UK, and all that will happen is that the turnout will go down again overall. As I said earlier, the whole system is too far gone, and in no way represents a democracy. I wasn't saying that in not voting there is some solutions to the problems in liberal democracy and those mentioned in this thread. I was responding to Manshimajin who gave the impression that people should be made to vote. A spoilt ballet is a small protest or shows that you have no confidence in those who are up for election. but I wasn't talking about spoiling ballot papers. I just wouldn't have anything to do with the system by not voting. No reform is going to eradicate the apathy that exists in a liberal democracy such as ours or in the UK. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The intelligent anarchist votes for everybody on the paper, and thereby spoils his vote. S It would have far more impact if the ballot paper had a last option: "NONE OF THE ABOVE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Yesterday in Parliament: MPs- "Mister Speaker - we are all fiddling our expenses and it's now public knowledge, you will have to resign!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 The intelligent anarchist votes for everybody on the paper, and thereby spoils his vote. Very true. Simply not voting is not good enough, is no real protest, and sends no clear message. Imagine the impact of 9000 spoilt ballots in each constituency in a general election? Now for the UK, that would be a warning of approaching anarchy. Will it happen? - no. Because politics is so removed from people these days in the UK, and all that will happen is that the turnout will go down again overall. As I said earlier, the whole system is too far gone, and in no way represents a democracy. I wasn't saying that in not voting there is some solutions to the problems in liberal democracy and those mentioned in this thread. I was responding to Manshimajin who gave the impression that people should be made to vote. A spoilt ballet is a small protest or shows that you have no confidence in those who are up for election. but I wasn't talking about spoiling ballot papers. I just wouldn't have anything to do with the system by not voting. No reform is going to eradicate the apathy that exists in a liberal democracy such as ours or in the UK. I was replying to Sebrof. If I was replying to you I'd have quoted you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Albert Tatlock Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 God help us all if it's got to the stage that Esther Rantzen and Lynn Faulds-Wood are thinking of standing at the next election. Mind you, at least with those teeth Esther couldn't get her nose in the trough. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Mind you, at least with those teeth Esther couldn't get her nose in the trough. She could eat an apple through a chain-link fence though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
When Skies Are Grey Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Speaker is to resign this afternoon..... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Speaker is to resign this afternoon..... It's shocking how much it is plastered all over the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 It's shocking how much it is plastered all over the news. It's fairly historic - if he hadn't gone it would have been likely that he would have been the first speaker to be sacked since 1695. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Sacked by whom? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
P.K. Posted May 19, 2009 Share Posted May 19, 2009 Two Crocodiles were sitting at the side of the River Thames. The smaller one turned to the bigger one and said, 'I can't understand how you can be so much bigger than me. We're the same age, we were the same size as kids. I just don't get it.' 'Well,' said the big Croc, 'what have you been eating?' 'Politicians, same as you,' replied the small Croc. 'Hmm. Well, where do you catch them?' 'Down the other side of the river near the HOC car park.' 'Same here. Hmm.. How do you catch them?' 'Well, I crawl up under one of their all expenses paid cars and wait for one to unlock the car door. Then I jump out, grab them by the leg, shake the shit out of them and eat 'em!' 'Ah!' says the big Crocodile, 'I think I see your problem. You're not getting any real nourishment. See, by the time you finish shaking the shit out of a Politician, there's nothing left but an arsehole and a briefcase.' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
La_Dolce_Vita Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 It's shocking how much it is plastered all over the news. It's fairly historic - if he hadn't gone it would have been likely that he would have been the first speaker to be sacked since 1695. I know what you mean, just think it is all so trivial. The emphasis is placed more on what has happened to some speaker in some place where the decisions are made rather than focusing unswervingly on what is actually going to be done about these thieving bastards getting all this money in 'expenses'. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jimcalagon Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 Gordon Brown said that there is going to be a special body set up to look into irregularities with MPs expenses. As Ian Hislop pointed out there already is one - it's called the Fraud Squad. Last time I looked "Obtaining money by deception" was a criminal offence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chinahand Posted May 20, 2009 Author Share Posted May 20, 2009 The speaker oversaw the fees office which approved much of the skullduggery. There are, at least, two sides to this - a corrupt system which had ceased to have any connection with "real" expenses for doing Parliamentry work outside the consituency; and examples where MPs fraudulantly make claims beyond those even allowed under this corrupt system. If I was being robust I'd say in the first case there have been instances where an official and an MP have colluded to defraud the taxpayer; while in the latter it is just the MP who has responsibility. I think it is very unlikely any justice will be done in the first case (though I hope there will be a political cost with deselection and rejection by the electorate of the worst offenders) - whatever happens to the perpetrators, all MPs are tainted by an unethical, corrupt system where claims which had little to do with genuine expenses were approved and allowed over a period of years, if not decades. Sure the current speaker merely inherited the system and so its slightly unfair he's the fall guy - but he ran it over a period of many years and showed himself totally incapable of understanding that he couldn't be the defender of the system, but had to take on root and branch reform. In the second case I hope criminal proceedings are started; and I wouldn't shed any tears if the net was cast widely making as many MPs as possible squirm and have to justify how their claims fit in with the standard criteria that all claims must be for wholly, exclusively and necessarily' costs incurred in the course of parliamentary business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sebrof Posted May 20, 2009 Share Posted May 20, 2009 ...........the standard criteria that all claims must be for wholly, exclusively and necessarily' costs incurred in the course of parliamentary business. Those are not the standard criteria. MPs, oddly, are considered to be self-employed (well, who else would employ these scumbags?). So the criteria are "wholly and exclusively". It is not necessary that they be "necessary". If MPs were employed, as opposed to self-employed, you wouild be correct. S Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.