no. boris has been replaced by someone who dresses up like thatcher. lets be clear here. a) white b) white like tathcer c) white literally nothing else matters to the 160,000 odd right people who voted this absolute clown in. please log in to view this image please log in to view this image and yes this is actually real. the UK as a lib dem, remainer who is a hard line try right wing brexiteer for PM. Someone who will do and say anything she is told for this chance to be a complete and utter disaster.
They all shat all over their own principles in order to further careers. No moral integrity, just naked ambition. A sad fact of life that those who seek power are the ones who can be entrusted with it the least.
true. very very true. And all the more reason to just replace them after 5 years no matter how good, bad or indifferent. blair was in too long. but brown was also in too long. labour made a bad error allowing Blair to be untouchable and seeking his enduring legacy. Thatcher was obviously in far too long. the tories have now been "in" far far far too long and have worked through every **** house, ale house and donkey sanctuary for leaders to the point they have a brainless gormless twat in charge and no end in sight to the snouts in the trough. even if the two were rotating back and forth it'd keep somewhat honest power grabbing in play rather than pure decadent snuffling for every truffle going.
Thing I don’t ever get with politics is how if one party says something, the other has to disagree and say it’s wrong. I know a lot of the time they prob do get it wrong but surely sometimes they’ll do something that is actually good… and rather than just all agreeing and saying yup that’s a good idea and then maybe working together to improve on it and make it work for eveyone… its an automatic nope that’s not right what about this this and this. The opposition to whoever is in power is like that person that work who always manages to find the fault in a new piece of software/process, but can never actually provide any constructive feedback on how to fix it.
The other thing is how they just aren’t held accountable to things in their manifesto. Each election should have clearly written down, this is what we’re going to do if they fail to do it, there should be actual consequences. Their ‘to do list’ should be made available and constantly be referred back to. It’s no different from when you start a new project. You have a project manager who sets out the deliverables and how to achieve them. You have a RAG status and you mark of when things are done and when things should be completed by. makes it easy for everyone to follow
Well, I think, yes... They have to constantly barrage you with reminders of how they're better than the other party, so have to say everything the other side is doing is wrong... ... But also, if they agree, they're probably not going to say anything at all, so it won't make the news.
I think it's always important to not have too much power in one party. Doesn't matter if left or right. In UK that means having a close-to-even number of seats between in power and out-of-pocket. Make it so the crazier ideas can't be passed through if the more independent members of the party don't agree. If Tories (or labour) only have a few seats majority, they can't pass stupid laws (like banning inconvenient protests) In US that means not having President, Representatives and Senate all being the same party.
Even happens in local politics mate, I have to work with it. They even did it over free school meals ffs
Agreed. Things don't always go as planned but they should be expected to do at least 75% of what they say
They also sacrifice their own opinion to tow the party line. Their constituency didn't vote for them to act like a sheep!
there's so many ways to stimy progress that if a party was actually asked to show they met their claims they'd all be ****ed. The best you get out of politics is a general direction of progress and the odd specific reform or rights. if one side says its going to fix the nhs you can be the other side is trying to slow progress in committees and using unions and all sorts behind the scenes to prevent them doing it. when a politician only sees the nhs as a means to get votes and not a health service they need (cos they are all rich) then they will toy with it to garner votes (see brexit) then on the other side there sis not good outcome for an opposition mp or party seeing the other side improve lives. so you might be elected on a platform of helping people but you go out of your way to block and prevent it happening. thus it ever was. If you go back to athens, the birth of democracy such "party" style politics were in play. the rich didn't like the idea of the thick morons in the lower classes making decisions. Plato and Aristotle criticized democratic rule as the "numerically preponderant poor tyrannizing the rich". there are many cases of self harm in the ancient Athenian histories such as voting to execute Socrates, was it not Plato that said of democracy that with too much freedom, no requirements for anyone to rule, and having no interest in assessing the background of their rulers (other than honoring such people because they wish the majority well) the people become easily persuaded by such a demagogue's appeal to try to satisfy people's common, base, and unnecessary pleasures. A perfect demonstration of western issues today.
yet most do vote for that. Not that many people look at their candidate in a GE. they either vote blue cos the always did (blue or red) or they look at the leaders debate and will pick cameron v milliband or boris v corybn so they pick the best "leader" in theory an MP has no more function than to pass legislation. once the cabinet and leeder are in place really they are literally a number to shut up and vote. it'd be nice to think each bit of legislation is lovingly crafted by all 650 doing thier best to create fair and equal laws for the country but in reality they are just there to vote as they are told.
Perhaps all sitting MPs should be made to use the NHS, public transport and such during their tenure - then they might actually try to make the things better. Or at least they'll resign pdq.
I'd say almost the exact opposite as in theory they have quite a few other functions but in reality many behave as you say .
But in the main the only real output is legislation As providing checks on government doesn't actually exist as question time is a rabble shouting and once there's a majority there are no checks really.
Und? He had a massive majority. The media was more effective at holding him to account than the opposition. He's only out cos his own party decided he was no longer any use.
