Inherited wealth millionaires sitting as labour politicians

reply to post by stumason
labour scares me as well but ol nigel looks like part of the family with that looks to me but ukip seems the way to go

Originally posted by stumason


Another thing people forget (or don't even realise) about our system is that political parties are not recognised in Parliament - when you vote, you do so for the candidate not the party, but most don't realise this and the parties behave as is this wasn't the case as well.

I always thought this was a good thing, ie parliament is made up of individually elected MPs and the government is the one with most seats either a party or collation. It gives independent MPs a chance. MPs collectively can veto any action by the government, even dismiss it. Agree with the rest of your post tho.

reply to post by Shiloh7


Unions have adopted a weird mentality now, like investment is ultimately better for worker. IMO part of the reason for labors tax credits was not so much to subsidize workers with families but to subsidize the companies that they worked for, so they could pay min wage.

Both Labour and Conservative parties have abandoned their traditional base during the last 30 years. Much of that had to do with the growing middle class. Both parties were aiming for the middle class vote, as it was the largest voting block. A political parties aim is to get the most votes. That's why it's almost impossible to put a rizla paper between the policies of the 3 main parties who all promote a form of neo liberalism.

Labour should take most responsibility for the abandonment of their working class roots and ideologies. Using immigration as a means to prop up their support has caused all sorts of problems. They need a total clear out, anyone who served under Brown or Blair is tainted and should step down from their position at the trough.

It could be argued that white working class now have more support in Nigel Farage, the tax dodging, ex city trader, than anyone from the actual working classes.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
Looking at our political labour bench in the UK I see that most of its seats are filled by millionaires who have inherited or had the easy way to wealth opportunity - yet they represent the labour party.

Joe public accepts these people because we have little or no choice, but is it a conspiracy by the wealthy to back people who have no relation to the public over whose lives they govern by basically what is a two party system only?

I don't know about the USA but presume as the class system seems to apply to mostly those with their unelected royalty feeding off the fat of the land, if there is a similar division politically there as well?

I am not saying that the wealthy should be penalysed against working for the working class but I wonder how, from their backgrounds, they really understand the general public and their situation - especially during these times of such austerity?

Star and flag - this is something I've been thinking about a lot recently, and I think you can see the same thing all the way back through history.

I also think we've been hoodwinked into fighting each other (i.e. us the poor) with things like racism, which is an emotive response to the days of slavery.

The false picture has been painted that slavery was white people taking advantage of black people, but if you actually look at your history you'll see that ORDINARY white people (i.e. like me and you, working people who account for 99.9% of the population) couldn't even feed themselves properly, they didn't have slaves, they couldn't afford themselves, never mind affording a slave.

The white people in England for example had to start working down mines, in factories, in the fields, etc at 5 years old.

You can read about their miserable existence if you look for contemporary accounts. We all had it equally as bad as one another.

The white people of England were being taken advantage of by the land owners, mine owners, factory owners, etc.

In other words it was the poor being taken advantage of by the RICH - using them as cheap labour so the rich got richer.

The black people who were taken as slaves were taken advantage of by the RICH - using them as cheap labour so the rich got richer.

And all the while they controlled the government and law making and decided where public funds should go so that whatever money they took from us in taxes, etc, went straight back into their own pockets.

They controlled the country and used it's laws etc for their own interests at the poor peoples expense.

And we are in exactly the same situation today.

They were caught recently fiddling their expenses, lining their pockets with our money, and they're all still in their jobs.

They are pushing through a huge increase in their salary while everyone else is being told their will be no wage increases.

They are on the boards of companies while supposed to be working on behalf of the people.

They are taking money from all and sundry for "special treatment" etc.

It's no different today than it was back then, they control the whole shooting match, it doesn't matter which party wins the election, it's the same groups of people all representing each other who are in power.

But we're being hoodwinked into fighting each other over silliness so that we don't all stop and turn on the real problem makers.

When you have someone as utterly moronic as Boris Johnson stating that the £250,000 per year he got paid for writing an article once a week for a newspaper is "chicken feed" then you can see how much worse the true state of affairs with these people must be.

If the equivalent of 10 years wages for us plebs is "chicken feed" then how much money is he getting his hands on from other places, and other people?

It's time for change.

reply to post by stumason


I didn't realise the point about voting for the candidate. They are sold to you as from a specific party.

I have always thought that in a democracy a whip should not exist because politicians should be voting as their constituents wish - so naive....

It disgusts me that when we come to a vote on the death sentence suddenly all politicians develope a conscience and blatantly decide to use their personal conscience on the vote in hand. Very undemocratic - I am not making a comment on bringing back the death sentence only the principle politicians adopt when this subject arises.

reply to post by Power_Semi


You know your history, we were the original slaves/serfs etc and have been since our leaders became kings - albeit the right of kingship which was never inherited but dependant on the successful running of the land, rivers and seas and prosperity for all. Oh yes and the King did not hold personal wealth - what a monstrosity we have in its place today.

Also looking back through history one can equate the Barons with the bully boys of their time - seems outrageous which one looks hard at the House of Lords and the inherited peerages. (I know they are disappearing) They didn't get rich then without crime being committed, yet they pose so respectable today.

Originally posted by Shiloh7
reply to post by stumason

 

I didn't realise the point about voting for the candidate. They are sold to you as from a specific party.

I have always thought that in a democracy a whip should not exist because politicians should be voting as their constituents wish - so naive....

It disgusts me that when we come to a vote on the death sentence suddenly all politicians develope a conscience and blatantly decide to use their personal conscience on the vote in hand. Very undemocratic - I am not making a comment on bringing back the death sentence only the principle politicians adopt when this subject arises.

MPs usually represent a party but can also be an independent (which would be impossible if you voted only for a party). A party or collation of MPs with the most seats in Parliament forms the government.

We have first past the post system, it has advantages and disadvantages. It supposedly makes for a more representative system, IE each constituency is represented so constituency's with lower populations have has much political power as those with higher populations.

It also has the effect of making MPs more accountable to their constituents, ie its him you vote for not the party. In systems where you vote for the party it kinda guarantees MPs or equivalent, seats.

reply to post by Redarguo


spot on, I couldn't agree with you more on tax creditds due to low wages. We also have the lowest pensions in Europe yet are one of the wealthiest countries in the world. How does it work so badly here for the public?

I saw a discussion on the new Shale gas that the Americans have been able to enjoy (not getting into fracking) but I understand that because over here (things are different) the public won't get the full benefit of cheaper fuel, despite its location under our feet. Again labour politicians should be pushing for this and fighting to help lower our extortionate fuel charges.

reply to post by Redarguo


I know there are reasons why proportional representation and the moving of boundaries is a no-no to the Conservaties but I noticed that when in for a long time, the Labour party did nothing about this issue either.

I suspect no parliamentary system is perfect but I do think a system where accountability should be in place.
In the past when disgraced, MPs resigned, today they cling to their seat by their teeth if thery have to.

I don't think an MP should be allowed to stand for election until they have worked in the big wide world and experienced it. Many come in through working in Local Authorities and then step in, which is better than those that come straight from University and a research job initially. Its the lack of experience that worries me. But, we should be OK with Cameron because isn't he related to so many top people in the world starting with our very own Queen.

Labour, as a party, definitely do not understand the people they are suppose to be representing. Miliband is so spineless its embarrassing! I never thought i would see some top labour MP's AGREEING with the cuts made by the Con's and even saying they wouldnt reverse them.

Those people in parliament, most of them come from middle-class backgrounds - Went to good schools, never went without, never worked a "normal" job, struggled to make ends meet etc. They get paid a salary that keeps them from knowing the every day struggles of your average brit - And its not just OUR government.

It would seem to me, across the globe, governments are filled with people who are only really serving themselves and their mates. With that kind of mentality in place, we are accepting that a select group of people are making a career out of doing nothing for anyone except themselves.

As one poster on the bbc comments website said, Democracy is for 1 day every 4 years. I agree.

reply to post by Shiloh7


The reason goes all the way back but was amplified by the act of suppressing the unions' by Margaret Thatcher, former members left or new members chose not to join the union's as they now had virtually no power and it was seen as a waste of the falling wage to give some to the union, now the union's pay the TUC that in turn Payed the Labour party which no longer exists and the last Labour leader was Neil Kinnock.

The New Labour party and the migration of young Tory's.
Following this many former Conservative party members and junior members smelling the death of the socialist labour party like ravenous wolves started circling the dying and impoverished body of the Labour party, they then went in for the kill by inserting former Tory party financial backers and replacing the ailing funds from the TUC ensuring that only there own interests are represented by both main political party's.

Gordon brown was a fat cat as was well known, and Tony Blair was actually a Junior member of the Conservative party and saw an opportunity for himself by joining the Labour party, this allowed those financial backers to get there man into the post and removed any remaining old school labour members.


There is an old saying that power and money corrupt but they also attract the corrupt.
The age of enlightened British politics is over, even the act of devolution was a divide and conquer strategy as all the top politicians now standing in all the party's are, to use a very English term "All My Arse", they do not represent us, our interests as a nation, our wellbeing as a nation and neither are any of them actually patriot's but are all a group of corrupt greedy fat cat's and like Tony Blair before him David Cameron will seek to retire in France.

Part of the problem was that in the 1980's the politicians got younger in response to criticism that they were not in touch with the younger generation but in fact this means they are those whom are planning for a life after politics and that engenders corruption and vested self interest were the older politicians of the past in British politics may have been old scoundrels but they at least were planning for the nation more than themselves and were harder for corporations to bribe or own.

Regardless of weather you were left or right, labour or conservative a lack of democratic choice is bad for us all especially since the party are now neither labour or conservative but are merely the empowered corporate lobby group that has totally usurped the house's of parliament.

reply to post by LABTECH767


Sadly you are so right. Thanks for the deeper insight into our present dilemma. Its not food for thought, its food for indigestion. I pity France.

I don't think an MP should be allowed to stand for election until they have worked in the big wide world and experienced it.

100% agree. All the top politicians of all major parties are pretty detached. All from the same posh schools.