| Debate in The Commons now 15:03 - May 10 with 1882 views | noggin |
Tory politicians having a jolly good laugh while debating, amongst other things, the cost of living crisis. They really are scum! That's all. |  |
| |  |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:20 - May 10 with 1810 views | STYG |
Any footage of that place is usually enough to set me off. It's a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this country.
If I talked over someone at work, I'd be spoken to. If I laughed and jeered and shouted at a colleague in the manner they do, I'd be spoken to or disciplined. If I fell asleep, I'd be spoken to or disciplined and if I decided to sit and watch porn at work then I'd be lucky to get another job anywhere.
That's basic for some 16 year old kid working in B&Q. The higher up you go, the more you are paid, the better educated you are, the higher your personal standards should be expected to be. But this utter dripping of scum will sit there laughing along and having a jolly whilst they are supposed to at least pretend (like their predecessors pretended) to care about drowning migrants, parents who can't afford to feed their kids or pensioners sitting on buses to keep warm.
The very least we should demand from that place is that respectful debate is held by people willing to listen, speak when it is their opportunity to do and represent the people. Instead they are like an giggling assembly full of the naughty kids trying to break a supply teacher and impress each other. Their behaviour is actually worse than anything you'd ever see from children. It's mental. [Post edited 10 May 2022 15:22]
|  | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:46 - May 10 with 1700 views | Darth_Koont |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:20 - May 10 by STYG |
Any footage of that place is usually enough to set me off. It's a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this country.
If I talked over someone at work, I'd be spoken to. If I laughed and jeered and shouted at a colleague in the manner they do, I'd be spoken to or disciplined. If I fell asleep, I'd be spoken to or disciplined and if I decided to sit and watch porn at work then I'd be lucky to get another job anywhere.
That's basic for some 16 year old kid working in B&Q. The higher up you go, the more you are paid, the better educated you are, the higher your personal standards should be expected to be. But this utter dripping of scum will sit there laughing along and having a jolly whilst they are supposed to at least pretend (like their predecessors pretended) to care about drowning migrants, parents who can't afford to feed their kids or pensioners sitting on buses to keep warm.
The very least we should demand from that place is that respectful debate is held by people willing to listen, speak when it is their opportunity to do and represent the people. Instead they are like an giggling assembly full of the naughty kids trying to break a supply teacher and impress each other. Their behaviour is actually worse than anything you'd ever see from children. It's mental. [Post edited 10 May 2022 15:22]
|
Politics is a game to far too many of them. The work to push policies and enact legislation seems to very much take second place.
But I’d say that isn’t purely down to the politicians. Unfortunately our shocking media are more than complicit, perhaps even mostly to blame, for hollowing out our politics and turning into some macabre entertainment and rolling soap opera. That even colours public debate in politics where people are blithely ignorant or uncaring of policies (and far too many of the underlying issues affecting the country) and love projecting onto the personality and flimsy words of politicians.
Imagine if ITFC was just about “characters” rather than real character and ability. We’d have a pub team ... or pretty much Jewell’s last squad.
Governing the country, representing each and every citizen, removing injustice, and preparing for the best future *should* be a serious job for serious people. But we’ve outsourced it to clowns cheered on by circus lovers. |  |
| |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:59 - May 10 with 1659 views | STYG |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:46 - May 10 by Darth_Koont |
Politics is a game to far too many of them. The work to push policies and enact legislation seems to very much take second place.
But I’d say that isn’t purely down to the politicians. Unfortunately our shocking media are more than complicit, perhaps even mostly to blame, for hollowing out our politics and turning into some macabre entertainment and rolling soap opera. That even colours public debate in politics where people are blithely ignorant or uncaring of policies (and far too many of the underlying issues affecting the country) and love projecting onto the personality and flimsy words of politicians.
Imagine if ITFC was just about “characters” rather than real character and ability. We’d have a pub team ... or pretty much Jewell’s last squad.
Governing the country, representing each and every citizen, removing injustice, and preparing for the best future *should* be a serious job for serious people. But we’ve outsourced it to clowns cheered on by circus lovers. |
For years I have said that politicians should be paid £100k a year, given no expenses and banned from having any other business interests whilst they remain in politics, and having a code of ethics that anything they go into later cannot allow them to directly profit from decisions they've taken in power.
This is a decent amount of money for anyone to live a comfortable life, without them being in it for the money.
It dramatically reduces any potential conflict of interests for the super rich to enter or for people to make decisions that suit them and their mates.
It's a decent amount to want to continue earning by actually being good at your job and it's also low enough to make sure that the majority of people doing such a difficult job are doing it because they actually care about doing good.
The moment you allow people like Sunak (to whom the salary is chicken feed and it's all about power) the moment you have a real problem because they have the power to make decisions that make or save them fortunes.
As for the scum that is the media, the above sorts that out too. The media no longer have a dog in the fight and perhaps would have little choice but to, you know, report the truth? [Post edited 10 May 2022 16:00]
| | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 16:05 - May 10 with 1642 views | mylittletown |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:46 - May 10 by Darth_Koont |
Politics is a game to far too many of them. The work to push policies and enact legislation seems to very much take second place.
But I’d say that isn’t purely down to the politicians. Unfortunately our shocking media are more than complicit, perhaps even mostly to blame, for hollowing out our politics and turning into some macabre entertainment and rolling soap opera. That even colours public debate in politics where people are blithely ignorant or uncaring of policies (and far too many of the underlying issues affecting the country) and love projecting onto the personality and flimsy words of politicians.
Imagine if ITFC was just about “characters” rather than real character and ability. We’d have a pub team ... or pretty much Jewell’s last squad.
Governing the country, representing each and every citizen, removing injustice, and preparing for the best future *should* be a serious job for serious people. But we’ve outsourced it to clowns cheered on by circus lovers. |
And the public gets what the public wants (P. Weller)
Unfortunately those clowns, charlatans and astonishingly ignorant t0ssers have been voted in by other idiots.
Imagine 34,844 people in Lichfield voting for Michael Fabricant, who is about as obvious a clown as you can get, or 32,113 people in New Forest West voting for Desmond Swaine who must be close to as stupid a man as you will ever see in public life. |  | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 16:29 - May 10 with 1572 views | STYG |
| Debate in The Commons now on 16:05 - May 10 by mylittletown |
And the public gets what the public wants (P. Weller)
Unfortunately those clowns, charlatans and astonishingly ignorant t0ssers have been voted in by other idiots.
Imagine 34,844 people in Lichfield voting for Michael Fabricant, who is about as obvious a clown as you can get, or 32,113 people in New Forest West voting for Desmond Swaine who must be close to as stupid a man as you will ever see in public life. |
I mean in some ways you have to admire the Tories for 'going there'.
MASSIVE generalisation, but growing up I had many different people at my state school from the well off to the dirt poor. Most of the poor were because they came from the poor themselves. Their parents were not bright (and that is down to opportunities they had probably more than their work ethic) so they weren't pushed to be anything, they weren't bright and so it went.
The rich kids all grew up to vote for Tories to protect their money. The 'thick' ones grew up to vote labour because they were more interested in helping them.
But a while back the sneaky Tories cottoned on to this. Some of the 'thick' people I knew from school were sooooo thick that they could sell them any old load of rubbish through the media and that was just the right amount of stupid people to see them over the line.
There are some people out there who should be opposed to the Tories as they are the ones keeping them where they are and denying them the chance to make something better of themselves, to have a job, to be able to get education, to give their kids something to aim for but no. They are sold some rubbish that they are sadly not bright enough to see through.
Again, I know that's a shocking generalisation but from my own experiences of people I know, there is a level of people at the bottom of the intelligence ladder that are the classic turkeys voting for Christmas because they just don't have the ability to separate facts from fiction. | | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 16:45 - May 10 with 1504 views | mylittletown |
| Debate in The Commons now on 16:29 - May 10 by STYG |
I mean in some ways you have to admire the Tories for 'going there'.
MASSIVE generalisation, but growing up I had many different people at my state school from the well off to the dirt poor. Most of the poor were because they came from the poor themselves. Their parents were not bright (and that is down to opportunities they had probably more than their work ethic) so they weren't pushed to be anything, they weren't bright and so it went.
The rich kids all grew up to vote for Tories to protect their money. The 'thick' ones grew up to vote labour because they were more interested in helping them.
But a while back the sneaky Tories cottoned on to this. Some of the 'thick' people I knew from school were sooooo thick that they could sell them any old load of rubbish through the media and that was just the right amount of stupid people to see them over the line.
There are some people out there who should be opposed to the Tories as they are the ones keeping them where they are and denying them the chance to make something better of themselves, to have a job, to be able to get education, to give their kids something to aim for but no. They are sold some rubbish that they are sadly not bright enough to see through.
Again, I know that's a shocking generalisation but from my own experiences of people I know, there is a level of people at the bottom of the intelligence ladder that are the classic turkeys voting for Christmas because they just don't have the ability to separate facts from fiction. |
As soon as you introduce race and/or immigration into the story the whole class and economic argument tends to go out of the window.
Xenophobia beats any logical analysis in a wide cross section of the electorate. | | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 17:08 - May 10 with 1407 views | Oldsmoker |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:59 - May 10 by STYG |
For years I have said that politicians should be paid £100k a year, given no expenses and banned from having any other business interests whilst they remain in politics, and having a code of ethics that anything they go into later cannot allow them to directly profit from decisions they've taken in power.
This is a decent amount of money for anyone to live a comfortable life, without them being in it for the money.
It dramatically reduces any potential conflict of interests for the super rich to enter or for people to make decisions that suit them and their mates.
It's a decent amount to want to continue earning by actually being good at your job and it's also low enough to make sure that the majority of people doing such a difficult job are doing it because they actually care about doing good.
The moment you allow people like Sunak (to whom the salary is chicken feed and it's all about power) the moment you have a real problem because they have the power to make decisions that make or save them fortunes.
As for the scum that is the media, the above sorts that out too. The media no longer have a dog in the fight and perhaps would have little choice but to, you know, report the truth? [Post edited 10 May 2022 16:00]
|
If they have no expense account then they are open to the "Let me take you to lunch" offer.
They may feel obliged to "return the favour" or "scratch the back" that just scratched theirs.
Of course, there is no obstacles to the free lunch at the moment but at least with an expense account they can opt for the M&S Foodhall sarnies option. |  |
| |
Login to get fewer ads
| Debate in The Commons now on 17:53 - May 10 with 1326 views | HARRY10 |
"or years I have said that politicians should be paid £100k a year, given no expenses"
How would that work for an MP from Aberdeen v one from London ?
The real problem, and always has been is the stupidity of voters - as above, Mickey Fab
There are two types who enter Parliament. Those who are there to help others, and those who are there to help themselves..............
"........but as long as they keep them darkies and furriners out I'll vote for them." | | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 18:31 - May 10 with 1269 views | Swansea_Blue |
Were they mass debating? Or was that only Neil Parish (badum tish!). (I see that BJ's chief of staff actually came out and publicly criticised the female MPs who'd compalianged about Parish viewing porn in the House. As you say, there's certainly a very large scummy element there).
Anyway, back on subject. Seemingly BJ announced there would be new measures to address the cost of living crisis and a Treasury source confirmed that's nonsense - there's no plans on the way or in the pipeline. They're just making it up as they go along, trying to get to the end of today with no thought for tomorrow.
Meanwhile people choosing between fuel or food, workers only having one meal a day. And the press are engaging in petty culture wars (and most people are playing along and joining in, sadly). |  |
| |
| Debate in The Commons now on 21:29 - May 10 with 1131 views | jeera |
| Debate in The Commons now on 18:31 - May 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Were they mass debating? Or was that only Neil Parish (badum tish!). (I see that BJ's chief of staff actually came out and publicly criticised the female MPs who'd compalianged about Parish viewing porn in the House. As you say, there's certainly a very large scummy element there).
Anyway, back on subject. Seemingly BJ announced there would be new measures to address the cost of living crisis and a Treasury source confirmed that's nonsense - there's no plans on the way or in the pipeline. They're just making it up as they go along, trying to get to the end of today with no thought for tomorrow.
Meanwhile people choosing between fuel or food, workers only having one meal a day. And the press are engaging in petty culture wars (and most people are playing along and joining in, sadly). |
I was just reading the BBC piece there; Queen's speech etc, where Johnson said we can't spend our way out of trouble.
Can we maybe just have the money back they wasted then please as that would at least be a start?
But this bit made me laugh from Patel when discussing the Public Order Bill.
"The Liberal Democrats called the proposed changes "dangerous and draconian", but Home Secretary Priti Patel argued they were needed to deal with a "self-indulgent minority who seem to revel in causing mayhem and misery".
No irony there whatsoever. |  |
| |
| Debate in The Commons now on 07:28 - May 11 with 934 views | Vic |
| Debate in The Commons now on 15:20 - May 10 by STYG |
Any footage of that place is usually enough to set me off. It's a microcosm for everything that's wrong with this country.
If I talked over someone at work, I'd be spoken to. If I laughed and jeered and shouted at a colleague in the manner they do, I'd be spoken to or disciplined. If I fell asleep, I'd be spoken to or disciplined and if I decided to sit and watch porn at work then I'd be lucky to get another job anywhere.
That's basic for some 16 year old kid working in B&Q. The higher up you go, the more you are paid, the better educated you are, the higher your personal standards should be expected to be. But this utter dripping of scum will sit there laughing along and having a jolly whilst they are supposed to at least pretend (like their predecessors pretended) to care about drowning migrants, parents who can't afford to feed their kids or pensioners sitting on buses to keep warm.
The very least we should demand from that place is that respectful debate is held by people willing to listen, speak when it is their opportunity to do and represent the people. Instead they are like an giggling assembly full of the naughty kids trying to break a supply teacher and impress each other. Their behaviour is actually worse than anything you'd ever see from children. It's mental. [Post edited 10 May 2022 15:22]
|
The OP mention (rightly) one half of the house, but all your observations here fit both sides of the house.
Personally I don’t subscribe to the doctrine that all politicians are in it for what they get out of it. I’ve known a few (Red, Blue and Yellow) and all these have been in it to serve and try to make our country a better place. They just have very different philosophies on how to do that.
But the behaviour of some in the house is still a disgrace and I agree with your observations and comments. But let’s not tar them all, especially one side over the other, with the same brush. |  |
| |
| Debate in The Commons now on 08:27 - May 11 with 876 views | GlasgowBlue |
| Debate in The Commons now on 07:28 - May 11 by Vic |
The OP mention (rightly) one half of the house, but all your observations here fit both sides of the house.
Personally I don’t subscribe to the doctrine that all politicians are in it for what they get out of it. I’ve known a few (Red, Blue and Yellow) and all these have been in it to serve and try to make our country a better place. They just have very different philosophies on how to do that.
But the behaviour of some in the house is still a disgrace and I agree with your observations and comments. But let’s not tar them all, especially one side over the other, with the same brush. |
Re your second paragraph.
Jo Cox and David Ames are two examples of members of Parliament who were in it for the right reasons. Cox, an advocate for refugees and casualties of bloody conflicts. Ames, the epitome of a good great constituency MP.
But it shouldn’t take people being murdered to highlight that there are good people on all sides of the house who are in politics for the right reasons. [Post edited 11 May 2022 10:33]
|  |
| |
| Debate in The Commons now on 10:13 - May 11 with 823 views | eireblue |
| Debate in The Commons now on 18:31 - May 10 by Swansea_Blue |
Were they mass debating? Or was that only Neil Parish (badum tish!). (I see that BJ's chief of staff actually came out and publicly criticised the female MPs who'd compalianged about Parish viewing porn in the House. As you say, there's certainly a very large scummy element there).
Anyway, back on subject. Seemingly BJ announced there would be new measures to address the cost of living crisis and a Treasury source confirmed that's nonsense - there's no plans on the way or in the pipeline. They're just making it up as they go along, trying to get to the end of today with no thought for tomorrow.
Meanwhile people choosing between fuel or food, workers only having one meal a day. And the press are engaging in petty culture wars (and most people are playing along and joining in, sadly). |
Tut tut so negative, there are buses to ride in don’t you know…..look if people huddled together on buses and tried not to move and breathe too much, I think you’ll find a shared packet of own brand plain biscuits can go quite far… |  | | |
| Debate in The Commons now on 11:17 - May 11 with 736 views | Darth_Koont |
| Debate in The Commons now on 10:13 - May 11 by eireblue |
Tut tut so negative, there are buses to ride in don’t you know…..look if people huddled together on buses and tried not to move and breathe too much, I think you’ll find a shared packet of own brand plain biscuits can go quite far… |
They’d also get to see more of our wonderful country on the bus. Then maybe they wouldn’t be taking so many negative pot shots and doing the UK down – just because they’re cold and hungry. | |
| |
| |
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
