Trump Inauguration

I think you need to learn to respect the result last year's election. Stop moaning and accept democracy. This the will of the people.

 

What specifically are you referring to? Policies? I'm no Starmer fan at all - I think he's a liar - but Id like to know your specifics.

 

Answer came there none!

 

Good to see that Trump signed an executive order last night to finally resolve the Trans debate in America. According to his order, everybody should be categorized according to their sex at conception. The only problem is that *all* fetuses are female at the time of conception, so he's made it so that he is the first female President *and* blocked the federal government from recognizing anyone as a man. He just doesn't realise yet.

 

I feel there's been a concerted effort by the tory sphere to try and get across that 'everyones the same' and in some minds, it's stuck.

I don't believe that at all, I do think power can corrupt though, and it's hardwired in one particular side if the political fence, and systems in the HoC are decades out of date, and to get to power, and success there are often trade offs and uncomfortable decisions. Changing mind isn't lying. Has Starmer lied, I suspect so in some instances. Nobody tells the complete unadulterated truth every minute of every day for their entire lives. Has he taken decisions that were solely to be elected, undoubtedly. Has he changed his mind about things when looking at things through the prism of government and not trying to get airtime as an opponent, for sure. Is he making decisions now that are aimed at improving the country rather than himself, yes, I believe so... That in itself is a big change.

There was a really interesting book by Isabel Hardman called why we get the wrong politicians. Very insightful read in the main and worth a browse.

 

Thanks for the recommendation, I'll have a look for it.

 

Why we get the wrong politicians by Tyketical Masterstroke

1) The job doesn't pay enough to attract the best people
2) There should be half as many MP's on double the salary. No additional taxpayer cost and better people attracted.

 

Only if you also remove any access to external funds. No second jobs outside the public sector (so doctors and lawyers can work to retain industry qualifications). No donations to individual politicians at any level and maximum donations to parties at a level that equals the playing field, so something like 1 week at minimum wage (currently £450, so round it up to £500).

All stocks and shares have to be in a blind (is that the correct term) trust rather than specific entities and any rented properties must be passed to a company for the duration of their time in Parliament.

The politicians would never vote for it though.

 

Agree with the last few posts. Pay them more. The PM should not get the same salary as someone on Band M at Barnsley Council.

 

Yep, agree with all this.

 

I'm finding I agree and disagree at the same time which probably highlights the complexity.

At the top levels of Parliament, I'd find it difficult to think of a role as stressful and difficult as Prime Minister and Chancellor. I'm not up to date with pay scales, but i think salaries are circa £160k.

There are footballers who earn that in 2-3 days. Law Partners who easily clear a million, CEO's on £6.5m with bonuses and stock options.

I'm not calling for those uplifts, but it's clear remuneration for the most stressful jobs doesn't meet the level they should.

You've constituency MPs who put second jobs first... I'm thinking Geoffrey Cox and Nigel Farage, the latter I believe hasn't even hosted a surgery yet.

They are both overpaid for what they do as MP's.

The book I mention put a really good point across. The road to being an MP can be incredibly difficult. To get to be a candidate, a huge amount of effort and sacrifice is needed, and most if not all is self funded. And support for candidates before election campaigns and after is non existent. People relocate putting family life under strain and have to find tens of thousands of pounds to get by. You therefore need to be pretty wealthy just to start the race. It might explain the seeming trough mentality and a want to claw back what they've given up.

I'm not sure increasing MP pay actually gets around those obstacles, and some funding towards candidacies might be beneficial to change barriers to entry.

You're always going to get a swathe of people who deem themselves special or crave the riskier side of notoriety in the public eye, I'm not sure how you vet such characters out, especially the sociopaths used to playing caricatures of themselves.

 

He didn't though did he.

 

Yes

 

As I've said elsewhere, they officially have two genders, but everybody falls into only one of them. According to the definition in the Executive Order, the federal government now sees everyone as female.

 

Apart from the fact that he did, I agree.

 

Heil to the Chief is what they sing to the president these days.

 

I'm not sure I agree with this part..
. " To get to be a candidate, a huge amount of effort and sacrifice is needed, and most if not all is self funded. And support for candidates before election campaigns and after is non existent."

It may be true for independent candidates, but for prospective MP's of the big parties, the Party pays the candidates £500 deposit, and for the election leaflets, and Royal Mail does a free drop to every elector. Due to spending limits very little can be spent outside that.
The only exception I can think of in recent years was Reform (or Brexit Party) who required candidates to pay for their own deposits and leaflets.

 

100% this except for the part where he did

 

That's during an election, not before they are a candidate.