This government taking us all for mugs

[Iain]

problem is, who do you put in? Bear in mind that it needs to be someone who is actually present today, there will be no white knight riding in to save the day. Who (naming names) would you actually pick? I struggle. Rishi?

 

[ADL]

I’d happily accept rishi or what’s that scrawny army chap - Rory? The one with a pinky ring who smoked opium in Afghan. He gets my vote on those credentials alone

 

[lawsy]

problem is, who do you put in? Bear in mind that it needs to be someone who is actually present today, there will be no white knight riding in to save the day. Who (naming names) would you actually pick? I struggle. Rishi?

It’s an institution.
I’d say majority of the MP’s now will act exactly the same. But when they started out, they wouldn’t have.
The institution and its ways change people.
They may start out wanting to make a difference for the people, but invariably end up greedy, only making a difference for themselves and others around them.

History shows us, that sadly it’s human nature. Power corrupts.

 

[Iain]

I’d happily accept rishi or what’s that scrawny army chap - Rory? The one with a pinky ring who smoked opium in Afghan. He gets my vote on those credentials alone

So you have Rishi as your main man, and Rory on drugs and policing, what does the rest of the dream cabinet look like? Do they all have to begin with the letter R?

Honestly, i haven't got a clue who you would actually replace all this lot with, the entire political population seem to be hiding just in case someone askes them a question.

 

[ADL]

So you have Rishi as your main man, and Rory on drugs and policing, what does the rest of the dream cabinet look like? Do they all have to begin with the letter R?

Honestly, i haven't got a clue who you would actually replace all this lot with, the entire political population seem to be hiding just in case someone askes them a question.

Haha I’m not sure the letter R theme is sustainable. I’d keep rishi where he is. Rory for deputy being back Ken Clarke as PM.

He had some tegrity

 

[Schuey]

Will be the same old outcome, internal investigation finds nothing, Met Police will say nothing to see here and no further investigation needed, BoJo carries on as normal and then Cummings will release the next thing to the media. BoJo seems indestructible and dodges every bullet. Some serious corruption going on...

 

[Iain]

It’s an institution.
I’d say majority of the MP’s now will act exactly the same. But when they started out, they wouldn’t have.
The institution and its ways change people.
They may start out wanting to make a difference for the people, but invariably end up greedy, only making a difference for themselves and others around them.

History shows us, that sadly it’s human nature. Power corrupts.

funny thing , and I know this will sound mad, but I would pay them all a lot more, but and its a big but, the increased pay would come with a lot of conditions, i.e PM on a Mil a year, but this means no outside affiliations, no hospitality, no expenses claims to do up housing etc I think currently the there is an acceptance that these roles are not that highly paid and as a result a certain amount of additional income is to be expected.

I wonder if paying more, but setting much stronger standards would get a better candidate, rather than paying less but having unlimited options to fill your pockets

 

[fireblade1]

As above it’s actually frightening what we have ended up with and what our alternatives look like, even if we forget about the corruption , constant lies and complete lack of any type of morals or values they are in the majority a group of complete Morons who have no real life experience or common sense.

 

[fireblade1]

funny thing , and I know this will sound mad, but I would pay them all a lot more, but and its a big but, the increased pay would come with a lot of conditions, i.e PM on a Mil a year, but this means no outside affiliations, no hospitality, no expenses claims to do up housing etc I think currently the there is an acceptance that these roles are not that highly paid and as a result a certain amount of additional income is to be expected.

I wonder if paying more, but setting much stronger standards would get a better candidate, rather than paying less but having unlimited options to fill your pockets

Would add to this employ someone who actually has some life experience of the job in question, if your going to be the health secretary then at least have some experience in this field , same for education, security etc,

 

[Snowdog]

Good points raised regarding this disgrace.

I don't think we can rely on honesty and integrity from any of the tory party. The rot starts at the top, and has corrupted its way into the lower levels, and affiliations too. As we've seen time and time again on the following day's newsrounds, dispensable minions are despatched with scripts to follow, in order that delay and obfuscation is ensured. They are in it together, just like criminals with alibis.

Johnson's normalisation of lying has been a mainstay of his so-called career. Without these enablers, stuff like the preferential, and seriously dodgy PPE deals could not have happened. They created systems to ensure opportunities for profiteering by their own kind.

Oh, and those actions not only inevitably worsened the pandemic, coupled with late/poor guidance, but put NHS front line workers at serious risk due to lack of decent kit. Many of those deaths could have been avoided, of that I am sure. I digress somewhat, but that saga offers a clear example of their hypocrisy, and what they feel is acceptable behaviour. All done whilst throwing the dead cat of clapping for the NHS on the table. Bastards.

As for opposition, who knows? Not a tory as far as I'm concerned. What this country needs right now is opposition by tactical voting.
The single goal is to get tories out. I don't care who may get in, as I struggle to see how any other party could a) do a worse job, whilst b) screwing us over and c) showing contempt for us all and the very political system they infest. Once they are out, we can move on.

Sunak? fk that. At first assessment I was optimistic about him, but that's worn off - we're talking about the man who is apparently the wealthiest in the HoC. And this man is making fiscal decisions that impact lives of people whose daily financial battles are something he has never experienced? We're talking about people that don't understand the loss of 20 quid a week to lower income families. I don't know about you guys, but I can relate to that, and I suspect I am not alone here.

These people are by choice, segregated and isolated from normal society, they are detached and utterly clueless about the real world WE occupy. So the points about real life experience are 100% valid in the midst of this political obscenity.

Over recent years the one (ex) tory that I gained some respect for was indeed Rory Stewart. Given the state of our politics, and what I hope to be a wider awakening, he could run as independant and do well I believe, but whether he would is another question entirely.

The Gray investigation represents a milestone whatever the outcome. If it goes further with possible retribution, good, the whole system can learn from that and ideally be modernised to prevent repetition. If it's dismissive then it's like giving a green light to do what the hell they like, and it will get worse. As for what has our country become - a joke, internally and internationally.

The reality is quite simple as I see it. These people have navigated their lives, often coming from privileged backgrounds, to position themselves such that it is they that benefit from their roles, not those they allegedly represent.
Even previous generations of senior tories have criticised what's going on. If that does not serve as a warning I don't know what does.

 

[rsk21]

Would add to this employ someone who actually has some life experience of the job in question, if your going to be the health secretary then at least have some experience in this field , same for education, security etc,

Poltiics is a funny old game mate and historically many of the most successful politicians have bene those who have done several, seemingly unrelated, jobs in the cabinet i.e. Been home sec, education sec and say Defence sec.

As a result they tend to get moved around on their ability to get things done/follow party line/appeal to the electorate in the role than any given direct experience - Pritti is a current very good example with her hard nosed persona being seen as right for Home sec with its police, crime and immigration issues.

The particular role which always fascinate she is that of Chancellor where we have people who haven't so much as bene the account payable clerk of the local builder's merchant tasked with balancing the books of one of the world's richest nations !

Behind the scenes in every dept are a whole host of people who actually do know their given subject inside out but the nature of govt is that their insights/recommendations/knowledge can easily be over ruled if the guy or girl in the big seat doesn't like it.

 

[Snowdog]

funny thing , and I know this will sound mad, but I would pay them all a lot more, but and its a big but, the increased pay would come with a lot of conditions, i.e PM on a Mil a year, but this means no outside affiliations, no hospitality, no expenses claims to do up housing etc I think currently the there is an acceptance that these roles are not that highly paid and as a result a certain amount of additional income is to be expected.

I wonder if paying more, but setting much stronger standards would get a better candidate, rather than paying less but having unlimited options to fill your pockets

Let me throw this one in. I'm sure that many here are familiar with the phrase "performance related salary increase". Well it seems it's (other people's) money that motivates them, so how about dangling that carrot?
Fixed salary with no penalisation is hardly a motivator. In fact it offers a safety net whilst they explore their dodgy sidelines, often.

 

[ADL]

funny thing , and I know this will sound mad, but I would pay them all a lot more, but and its a big but, the increased pay would come with a lot of conditions, i.e PM on a Mil a year, but this means no outside affiliations, no hospitality, no expenses claims to do up housing etc I think currently the there is an acceptance that these roles are not that highly paid and as a result a certain amount of additional income is to be expected.

I wonder if paying more, but setting much stronger standards would get a better candidate, rather than paying less but having unlimited options to fill your pockets

I’m with you on this. Maybe attract some people to the job who are capable rather than vain!

 

[rsk21]

Let me throw this one in. I'm sure that many here are familiar with the phrase "performance related salary increase". Well it seems it's (other people's) money that motivates them, so how about dangling that carrot?
Fixed salary with no penalisation is hardly a motivator. In fact it offers a safety net whilst they explore their dodgy sidelines, often.

Good luck working out how performance is judged in a political environment.

The rationale behind a fixed salary in politics is to avoid corruption and subjectivity.

If you add PRP into the mix you open the door to even more than we see now plus finding an appropriate mechanism would be nigh on impossible.

I'm much more in @Iain's camp of pay more to attract a better quality of candidate.

 

[swistak]

Could start with civil service. Tech jobs in civil service are crazily out of touch. A director/CTO for home office makes less than a facebook engineer with 2 years experience

 

[rsk21]

Could start with civil service. Tech jobs in civil service are crazily out of touch. A director/CTO for home office makes less than a facebook engineer with 2 years experience

This is a great point - the professions are full of ex civil servants (especially HMRC) who can command a proper salary.

If it wasn’t for the pension the civil service would be decimated

 

[Snowdog]

Good luck working out how performance is judged in a political environment.

The rationale behind a fixed salary in politics is to avoid corruption and subjectivity.

If you add PRP into the mix you open the door to even more than we see now plus finding an appropriate mechanism would be nigh on impossible.

I'm much more in @Iain's camp of pay more to attract a better quality of candidate.

I'm not saying I've thought of the detail on this one, I'll happily admit that, it just strikes me that from another perspective they are being given a fixed sum with no measures in place to either confirm they've delivered on their responsibilities or not.
I will grant you that there is an awful lot of abstraction in this area and perhaps that's an issue in itself. On this one I'm also somewhat reminded of the way in which the Lords works (please correct if mistaken) where they get paid regardless of actually doing anything FFS.

As you say, they have a fixed salary right now, intended to avoid corruption...but I think many would agree and that hasn't worked, evidenced by all the dodgy contracts that have been questioned.
And if anyone tries to tell me that a company that coincidentally won a contract, despite no background, having existed for 5 minutes, has company members that just happen to be mates of an MP...doesn't have equally dodgy channels to contribute to some unnamed Cayman islands account or some hitherto unknown trust....I'll show my @rse in Woolworths (you may need to be a certain age to relate to that!)

In breaking news it seems that the Speaker (he of little or no balls) has granted Labour an urgent question on partygate today. What that means in practice I am unsure. I just hope it doesn't buy time to come up with more bs so that we don't see Johnson getting a new one torn at tomorrow's PMQs

 

[schooee]

I'd have David Davis as PM, one of the only true conservatives left that actually believes in what he says and stands up for what's morally correct.

 

[CitizenKan]

funny thing , and I know this will sound mad, but I would pay them all a lot more, but and its a big but, the increased pay would come with a lot of conditions, i.e PM on a Mil a year, but this means no outside affiliations, no hospitality, no expenses claims to do up housing etc I think currently the there is an acceptance that these roles are not that highly paid and as a result a certain amount of additional income is to be expected.

I wonder if paying more, but setting much stronger standards would get a better candidate, rather than paying less but having unlimited options to fill your pockets

I definitely see the logic in this. The problem is to make it meaningful you'd probably also have to prohibit them taking on any private sectors roles after they leave politics, and I am not sure how workable that would be. Having said that if the money is good enough and they're getting a decent pension, maybe that would be OK?

 

[Snowdog]

Oh look, Johnson couldn’t even be bothered turning up for the question raised, happening right now.
Utter contempt.