Election results

[Space cat]

The idea of being in a political party is that you all agree on the same policies

Not necessarily. If you want to be an MP, you might join a party if you broadly agree with a lot of its policies because the only alternative is to stand as an independent and that, in our political system, would put you at a severe disadvantage.

"Labour is a broad church" is an often heard statement. If you agree with the general idea of taking from the rich to help the poor, you will most likely be welcome. You views on non class-based issues might be entirely different. Strictly speaking, it's your constituents' views that matter. Did you bother to ask them what they think about abortion - or blood sports - or magic mushrooms???

So you agree with the core policies of your chosen party. Getting rid of civil servants to pay for a tax cut is a good idea - except that huge numbers of your constituents work for the DVLA. Which way will you vote now?

 

[Lincsbodger]

The idea of being in a political party is that you all agree on the same policies

Not necessarily. If you want to be an MP, you might join a party if you broadly agree with a lot of its policies because the only alternative is to stand as an independent and that, in our political system, would put you at a severe disadvantage.

"Labour is a broad church" is an often heard statement. If you agree with the general idea of taking from the rich to help the poor, you will most likely be welcome. You views on non class-based issues might be entirely different. Strictly speaking, it's your constituents' views that matter. Did you bother to ask them what they think about abortion - or blood sports - or magic mushrooms???

So you agree with the core policies of your chosen party. Getting rid of civil servants to pay for a tax cut is a good idea - except that huge numbers of your constituents work for the DVLA. Which way will you vote now?

yes but if that party gets in power, and it only has a small majority, the Party Leader and the Whips need every vote to carry there policies into law. therefore they woudl no take kindly to you voting against the. Thats what a whip does, he whips the members to the vote.

If you vote against your own party, you are likely to be kicked out, because the whole point is you are a united front in parliament.

Its possible that if you vote against the party, and they are in government, they could lose the vote, and that may bring them down if its a vote of confidence, such as the Queens Speech, so basically you just committed suicide. I would suggest at least that would get you ejected from the party and possibly turned into a pariah politically.

No MP votes against his own party, unless he knows he can get away with it without causing any harm.

 

[RedHerring2]

If you vote against your own party, you are likely to be kicked out, because the whole point is you are a united front in parliament.

except in a total majority government, like facism, communism, nazism etc you might end up in prison or worse.

 

[Space cat]

-- if that party gets in power, and it only has a small majority, the Party Leader and the Whips need every vote to carry there policies into law.

But therein lies the flaw in our political system. Why should any government assume an automatic right to get EVERY policy into law? We elect MPs to represent our views in Parliament. If a majority of them agree that a government policy is a good one then, and only then, should it be passed.

No MP votes against his own party, unless he knows he can get away with it without causing any harm.

No argument there. That's why I suggested anonymous voting. It's an established principle everywhere else. As I understand it, a trades union cannot call a strike without a secret ballot of all its members. Strange, isn't it, that the government that passed that law didn't have a secret ballot of its own members first!

 

[Lincsbodger]

-- if that party gets in power, and it only has a small majority, the Party Leader and the Whips need every vote to carry there policies into law.

But therein lies the flaw in our political system. Why should any government assume an automatic right to get EVERY policy into law? We elect MPs to represent our views in Parliament. If a majority of them agree that a government policy is a good one then, and only then, should it be passed.

You DONT vote so EVERY MP gets a say. Essentially you vote for a collection of MP's who have all the same views, and theres two or three groups to choose from.Our system has one party in government and one party in opposition. The role of the opposition is important, they are there to point out the flaw in government policy, to act as devils advocate and offer alternatives.

Furthermore , it is the right of the government to govern. You CANNOT govern effectively if parts of you legislative plan get voted down. How can a government plan financially long term if next year a hndful of ther eown MP's decide they dont like it and vote the budget down? It makes nonsense to be in government then.

Furthermore, the whole point here is that you would not get members of the other parties voting for your policies, because they probably have very different policies.

You seem to misunderstand how the system works. Its not a consensus system, its a democratic system, it works on rule by the majority, the majority being the party in government.

 

[Space cat]

You seem to misunderstand how the system works.

I do understand how it works. I just don't like it because I've seen how it works. One minute, inflation is off the scale and you're paying 35% income tax because public sector workers got guaranteed pay rises but they still won't empty your dustbin. Next thing you know, the mortgage rate is 15%, which you can't pay because your employer went bankrupt, so you're out on the street while the money grubbers are down at the wine bar playing wad - but they'll still have to leave at closing time because of some legislation left over from the first world war.

 

[Norcon]

Going off topic slightly but why are teachers paid so much?
I had a part time apprentice work with me a few years ago who was studying to be a woodwork teacher.
He told me his starting salary would be 19k. I told him he wasn't worth that to which he told me to f*** off.
In a few years he would be earning 24k and finishing around 32k with his professional development and then I suspect the usual inflationary rises kick in and a huge gold plated guranteed pension at the end of it all.
I was sweating my ba@@s of as a qualified pipe fitter with some experience and struggling to earn 20k. The company I worked for came close to going bust just about midway through the bliar years until they shed half the office staff.
They are doing OK now.
The MD is a ruthless bloke.
I wish we had a prime minister like him!

 

[skitzee2k]

Going off topic slightly but why are teachers paid so much?
I had a part time apprentice work with me a few years ago who was studying to be a woodwork teacher.
He told me his starting salary would be 19k. I told him he wasn't worth that to which he told me to f*** off.
In a few years he would be earning 24k and finishing around 32k with his professional development and then I suspect the usual inflationary rises kick in and a huge gold plated guranteed pension at the end of it all.
I was sweating my ba@@s of as a qualified pipe fitter with some experience and struggling to earn 20k. The company I worked for came close to going bust just about midway through the bliar years until they shed half the office staff.
They are doing OK now.
The MD is a ruthless bloke.
I wish we had a prime minister like him!

Well from what I can gather, the huge salary was intended to pull the best people into the field....problem is you only need basic qualifications..so it got filled up with people who wanted loads of cash, a power trip, 6 hour days and 10 weeks holiday a year, with pension etc as you have mentioned.

You should require a special degree. For example, I have a MA in theology and could pretty much walk in after some basic training.
...and i would be terrible at it.

 

[Lincsbodger]

Teachers. Ive met a few in my 20 year career installing IT networks in schools. Theres basically two main sorts of teachers.

One sort works in Primary schools. This are mainly wet watery middle aged women who drive Ford Ka's, and are totally computer illiterate, cant spell, cant add, wouldnt know where Moldavia is and hasnt the faintest idea about History except what she has read in the kids text books. She teaches cos she likes kids but doesnt want to look after them all the time. I given a few of them laptops in my time, they tend to look at the machine blankly and wonder where the wool bobbin goes.

The other sort works in Secondary Schools. They do this because they get cracking holidays, free trips overseas in the summer, but they have to put up with being ****ed over by the Government, the Head, the pupils, the public and even the cleaning staff. I dont know why this sort teach they must be bonkers. They are all labour voters and its a waste of time trying to debate politics with them. These are the people most likely to try and shut you up by calling you a racist if you dare question the labout governments immigration policy.

 

[Lincsbodger]

You should require a special degree. For example, I have a MA in theology and could pretty much walk in after some basic training.
...and i would be terrible at it.

Im staggered at the number of teachers ive met with 1st and upper 2nds and they cant spell, cant add, cant write a letter, and have no idea about history, geography, maths, english, or anything practical.

 

[joe-90]

I bet they know about apostrophes though.