Politics really annoys me!

[Mulder]

I don't know if we're allowed to discuss politics on here, given the way it often descends into a slanging match. However, to reassure you, I don't intend to make any party political points but just talk about the whole business.

I get very annoyed when some political decision is made, not simply without regard to the evidence, but actually contrary to it (I'm sure you can all think of examples). Then there is the flagrant abuse of logic and statistics to justify ludicrous decisions. And once these bad decisions have inevitably caused problems, there are attempts to re-write history to avoid the blame. Politicians, it seems, are always right all the time, and were always right in the past. They take credit for things when they go well (even when it is demonstrably in spite of their crass decisions rather than because of them) and blame 'world conditions' (or something else out of their control) when things inevitably go wrong.

I could go on but even writing about these people annoys me so I'll stop before I get really upset.

[SimonC]

I couldn't agree more, Mulder.

I think the problem is that we're encouraged to look at politics, or government, as an entity in itself. Government is, of course, just a group of politicians, and when you look at them as individuals, well, they're mostly a sorry lot aren't they? ???

I'm not sure how well many of them would do in the 'real world', relying on their own skills and enterprise. Generally, I think they're about as much use as a chocolate kettle.

I get very annoyed when some political decision is made, not simply without regard to the evidence, but actually contrary to it (I'm sure you can all think of examples).

WMD.

[ZERO]

Politicians also leave me incredulous sometimes, however someone must be doing something right or our countries would be like Zimbabwe.
Faceless public servants?

[LucaAltieri]

Politicians also leave me incredulous sometimes, however someone must be doing something right or our countries would be like Zimbabwe.
Faceless public servants?

Sort of.

The cabinet are terrible. Slaves to the media.

However, a lot of backbencher MPs are good. I remember my local MP while I was living in London was a good example. Left me with the dilema of not wanting to vote for labour but having no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn, the labour candidate, was simply the best man on the ballot.

Backbenchers, good.

Media hounds, bad.

[brodski]

Sort of.

The cabinet are terrible. Slaves to the media.

However, a lot of backbencher MPs are good. I remember my local MP while I was living in London was a good example. Left me with the dilema of not wanting to vote for labour but having no doubt that Jeremy Corbyn, the labour candidate, was simply the best man on the ballot.

Backbenchers, good.

Media hounds, bad.

What kind of experience of MPs do you base this on?

Do you have any idea of the workload of even the most junior of ministers? or have any insight into their decision making processes?

They are often portrayed as “media hounds”, but frankly it is the media that portrays them that way...
Woz it that sun wot won it? Probably not, but they’ll keep claiming they did, the same principle applies here..


To be perfectly honest, in many was I find that backbench MPs are swayed by the media much more than ministers.

[LucaAltieri]

What kind of experience of MPs do you base this on?

Do you have any idea of the workload of even the most junior of ministers? or have any insight into their decision making processes?

They are often portrayed as “media hounds”, but frankly it is the media that portrays them that way...
Woz it that sun wot won it? Probably not, but they’ll keep claiming they did, the same principle applies here..


To be perfectly honest, in many was I find that backbench MPs are swayed by the media much more than ministers.

Are you joking? The ministers in the limelight are constantly giving knee-jerk decisions. For the last 10 years Labour have felt the need to employ spin doctors.

Decisions aren’t made based on what’s necessarily good for the country, but what plays well with the media. Hence the focus on immigration and similar non-issues.

That said, in my experience, many MPs who don’t hold important roles in the cabinet are far more concerned with representing the people. Call me a cynic, but that’s probably why they don’t hold important cabinet positions.

[brodski]

Are you joking? The ministers in the limelight are constantly giving knee-jerk decisions.

utter nonsense, complete and utter hogwash in fact. Do you have any idea of the background work that goes into most government decisions? The preparation? The time it takes before the media even notice?
“constantly making knee-jerk decisions”? Come on, let’s see you name them, and then weigh them against the decision which are taken every day.

For the last 10 years Labour have felt the need to employ spin doctors.

er, yes, and how was this different in previous decades?
tell you what, name me one large organisation which does not employ press and public relations people?
What do you think this proves?

Decisions aren’t made based on what’s necessarily good for the country, but what plays well with the media.

and I suppose you'd have evidence for this?
I mean, if this government and other previous governments only take decisions based on what would play well in the media, then they must overwhelmingly get positive media coverage, yes? In fact, seeing the government described in anything other than a positive light must be a shocking rarity…

Hence the focus on immigration and similar non-issues.

immigration is a "non issue"? wow. Open borders for all is it?
Are “the people” you seem to think are completely neglected in decision making processes, also not concerned about immigration?

That said, in my experience, many MPs who don’t hold important roles in the cabinet are far more concerned with representing the people. Call me a cynic, but that’s probably why they don’t hold important cabinet positions.

I won’t call you a cynic, I will however call you ill-informed on this matter.

[Mulder]

See, I said discussing politics leads to trouble ... sorry folks ...

[LucaAltieri]

I’ll gladly talk politics with you if you drop the condescending tone. You don’t agree, fair enough. Sarcasm isn’t necessary if your point is strong enough to stand up alone. Unlike many of the matters discussed on here, politics is a game largely about opinion and perspective. If you’re just going to be rude when expressing your opinions about our political representatives then I’m not in the mood to listen to them.

utter nonsense, complete and utter hogwash in fact. Do you have any idea of the background work that goes into most government decisions? The preparation? The time it takes before the media even notice?

I don’t doubt that writing legislation and passing bills through the houses takes an awful lot of preparation. However when the agendas are set it’s quite obvious that knee-jerk decisions are made. The government only consider knife-crime and issue when someone has just been murdered. If it’s not in the news it’s apparently not on the agenda.

There’s a constant battle for popularity.

An opposition policy gets good press, it then becomes government policy. Granted there is the chance they both looked at the numbers and came to similar conclusions but what’s the more likely scenario? What are the chances they’re even working with the same numbers, in the same way, with the same agenda? That’s even before you get into the differences of political opinion.

er, yes, and how was this different in previous decades?
tell you what, name me one large organisation which does not employ press and public relations people?
What do you think this proves?

Fair enough point. It proves that decisions need to be spun. The merit of the idea isn’t enough, they need someone to hammer home, “this is a good thing, honest.” Is it surprising to see PR people in modern politics? Not really. Is it a good thing? Debateable.

and I suppose you'd have evidence for this?
I mean, if this government and other previous governments only take decisions based on what would play well in the media, then they must overwhelmingly get positive media coverage, yes? In fact, seeing the government described in anything other than a positive light must be a shocking rarity…

Poor choice of words, perhaps. You’re right, very rarely is any politician portrayed in a positive light by the media. It sells far more to attack everything. They react to the attacks is perhaps more the real situation. MRSA for example. That becomes a big issue with the press, then the government deal with it. Very good, but why wasn’t hygiene in the NHS an issue before the press picked up on it?

immigration is a "non issue"? wow. Open borders for all is it?

Sarcasm, you know full well the point I was making. Relative to other issues it’s of extremely minor importance but you wouldn’t think it if you look at the focus the last election campaigns took. Immigration is an overwhelmingly positive thing for the country. The major problems with it are only a question of infrastructure. However, despite the disproportionate focus on immigration in the last election we still have those problems with infrastructure. So for all the talking about immigration, they still didn’t do anything/enough.

Are “the people” you seem to think are completely neglected in decision making processes, also not concerned about immigration?

I don’t remember saying anyone was neglected, it’s not a question of who should be making the decisions; more how they arrive at them. Anyway, to answer your question… I don’t believe the politicians themselves care terribly about immigration. I’m sure they’re aware that it’s trivial in all senses. Certainly culturally there are far bigger issues. Binge drinking ranking far higher on the “to do” list than immigration.

I won’t call you a cynic, I will however call you ill-informed on this matter.

Well, perhaps I am. I’m not a Whitehall insider by any means (and if you are, then please do tell). However it certainly appears to my eyes that the people who set the agenda often don’t put the good of the country first. Whether that’s for PR issues or personal gain. Many policies are inconsistent and make token gestures rather than dealing with anything.

Case in point: The government put up “green taxes” but then allow public transport prices to increase year on year. Token gestures but little substance… and certainly not putting the good of the country first.

[SKIRRID5]

I've said it before (on another thread) and I'll repeat, democracy is the real problem. In so far as there has been democracy in this country during the last half century or so, it has made things worse, not better.. There is, I know, no other option in a civilised country, but - democracy doesn't work.
Good illustration: Boris Johnson is probably going to be Mayor of London.

[dashwood]

utter nonsense, complete and utter hogwash in fact. Do you have any idea of the background work that goes into most government decisions?

and they still muck it up. its an old boys club for toffs and solisitors who arn't good enough to do the job they trained for.

in 40 years i have never heard a politition answer a straight question, which doesn't realy matter because they would only lie anyway.

there in no such thing as democracy so why should we care who is in power anyway?

[Lord Muck oGentry]

I can't quite find the words for this:
http://www.unlockdemocracy.org.uk/?p=1258

" ...proposals in the draft Constitutional Renewal Bill to reform the role of the Attorney General which would allow the Attorney General to intervene in court cases for reasons of national security. This exemption could prevent future judicial reviews such as this one.”

All right, I've now thought of a few words that might do: weak-kneed, lickspittle, corrupt, mendacious, brazen, impudent and noose.

[Matt]

Our present implementation of democracy isn't so great at getting the best man for the job to perform the role. However it's pretty good at getting really bad people out of power.

[dashwood]

eventualy, but good point.

[brodski]

The problem with discussing politics, and the political process, is that people say that “politics is all about opinions”, and the go on to make factually incorrect statements. I am not disputing anyone’s right to their own opinion, however I am disputing peoples rights to their own “facts”.
It is the difference between saying that “stem cell research is wrong” and saying that “doctors want to carry out stem cell research, which is based on bas science) because they like to murder babies”. One is a matter of opinion, the other is making a claim of fact (all be it one riddled with opinion and judgement).

Lets take the claim that ministers are all” toffs and failed lawers”
Of 24 members of the cabinet
1 real toff, 2 “almost toffs”
8 lawers.

In fact economists and political scientists outnumber lawyers, although training in any one of those thee disciplines is obviously going to be a benefit for working in government.
The majority of the cabinet are neither toffs nor lawyers.
Many members of the cabinet have distinctly working class backgrounds, have you ever wondered why few, if any, of the women in the cabinet even near 5 feet tall?
It's not because of their aristocratic background.