View Full Version : governments
why do we elect them ?
looking at labour and what it has done to push this country forward and improve it they have done little........
tony and his cronies have made a laughing stock of the law people getting murdered... houses being broken in to yet the victims are the worse off
and the economy where is it going ? we should encourage growth by cutting interest rates increase wages and making it easier for people to spend there hard earned cash
continuous tax rises a tv licence many dont want even the DVLA are increasing prices petrol going up as well
the NHS continues under successive governments to be a poor service throwing money does not work at all you need to get on the ground at the heart of the facilities cut admin and red tape employ highly skilled higly qualified nurses/surgeons from abroad give them tax breaks so they can adjust to the the climate of the uk
personally i cant see the notion of putting a government in if they are going to lie through there teeth to get in to office
if you look at the political spectrum there is no one who can really challenge labour the tories Ian duncan smith is trying to change that but i dont see him as a leader in his current persona he needs radical reforms with radical changes
And the alternative (with a realistic chance of achieving power) is ?
Ahh politics. Now where is the religion and sex ? :)
To be honest, I think there's gonna be a civil war soon. But we do need governments to represent the majority, unfourtunatly.
To be honest, I think there's gonna be a civil war soon. But we do need governments to represent the majority, unfourtunatly.
i hope things dont turn bad i think a party needs to step in that will fight for what is right and bring back a safer country that has positives caring for the elderly tighten up benefits to stop abuse improving public transport the only party that seems to have that type of notion is the uk independence party
http://www.independence.org.uk/home.shtml
but could you trust them ? after all party's lie and decieve to get in to power......
<snip> but could you trust them ? after all party's lie and decieve to get in to power......
u cant trust any politicians
u cant trust any politicians
exactly so why do we constantly put these lieing idiots in to power ? does no one care about this country ?
we need to think of an alternative........
exactly so why do we constantly put these lieing idiots in to power ? does no one care about this country ?
we need to think of an alternative........
philosophers should rule ;) .......re: plato's republic
to be fair kronas.....if we put anyone in charge they will become power mad and we will have the same problem.....it's a psychological fact that power changes ones behaviour
philosophers should rule ;) .......re: plato's republic
and you think they could handle they power :rofl:
to be fair kronas.....if we put anyone in charge they will become power mad and we will have the same problem.....it's a psychological fact that power changes ones behaviour
power does change people but its what they do with it that counts im sure there are people out there who really want to improve this country for the better but cant
so what do you do then ?
and you think they could handle they power :rofl:
power does change people but its what they do with it that counts im sure there are people out there who really want to improve this country for the better but cant
so what do you do then ?
yes i do think they could handle the power........
the problem is once u become the ruler of the country....u get tied up in so much red tape that you can't always fulfill their promises.............
plus unless society wants to change they cant do anything too dramamtic
yes i do think they could handle the power........
you said no one can handle the power without it going to there head everybody is human.......
the problem is once u become the ruler of the country....u get tied up in so much red tape that you can't always fulfill their promises.............
plus unless society wants to change they cant do anything too dramamtic
yes red tape is a nuscence i did state that before..
it is possible to do things but politicians want to do it there way but make such stupid decisions dont they have brains yes they use 'spin' and advisors but really.......
you said no one can handle the power without it going to there head everybody is human.......
yes red tape is a nuscence i did state that before..
it is possible to do things but politicians want to do it there way but make such stupid decisions dont they have brains yes they use 'spin' and advisors but really.......
philosophers arent human,.,.....we are the super race ;) ............im JOKING
yaha no "ruler" is ever going to sufficeintly be able to rule
Labour ha I can't stand those idiots. I still remember the petrol riots. The whole country had enough of the high petrol tax. He must have seen this for himself but what did he do. He made that speech on the Tuesday grinning and smiling in front of his voters (My how happy that made me)
I’m just glad I never voted for the thieving b@stard. He changed the whole labour party to get in power and people couldn’t even see from then what he was going to do.
He also says how well the country has been doing under labour. Well think back. It was the conservative party that brought us out of recession before most other countries. Infact we were one of the first to come out of it. Labour inherited this but has been raising tax’s ever since
the NHS continues under successive governments to be a poor service throwing money does not work at all you need to get on the ground at the heart of the facilities cut admin and red tape employ highly skilled higly qualified nurses/surgeons from abroad give them tax breaks so they can adjust to the the climate of the uk
Thats because he rushed it. He poured money into it to keep the do gooders happy. We all knew it would be wasted. Our NHS is as famous as swish cheese because of all its holes.
When a three gets so big it helps to prune it. Large companies do this but NHS na throw them some billions
Atomic22
11-10-2003, 18:30
the people that seem to do all the moaning about tony and his cronys are the ones who hated the tories and voted them in....
bring back maggie is what i say
When I grew up with Maggie and Ronald, politics still seemed to mean something, it wasn't spin.
I think part of Tony's plan was to increase people's apathy for politics, that way he could get away with more!
When I grew up with Maggie and Ronald, politics still seemed to mean something, it wasn't spin.
Same here
aliferste
11-10-2003, 19:24
Has noone here actually read "Animal Farm" ?
:)
homealone
11-10-2003, 19:40
When I grew up with Maggie and Ronald, politics still seemed to mean something, it wasn't spin.
I think part of Tony's plan was to increase people's apathy for politics, that way he could get away with more!
Trouble is Xaccers, I think he is succeeding, the process of government seems to me, to be something "ordinary" people feel less & less involved in. Turnouts at elections are getting lower & lower.
As well as the half truths dressed up as spin, I think people are less inclined to want to bother to elect a local MP to represent them, when they know that MP will be forced to toe the party line on most issues. MP's should be allowed to vote in a way that truly represents the opinion of their constituents, not just be pawns in a numbers game to suit the whims of the Prime Minister & the Cabinet.
Why do we keep voting in politicians? Because we want someone to do the jobs that we don't want to do.
It is very true that people often get the government they deserve, Labour in the UK and the Republicans in the USA are prime examples of this!
Here's a prediction for the next election. Labour will win, but it will be the first UK General Election in history where the turnout is around 50% because most people simply can't be bothered with the whole lot of them.
There again, to quote Douglas Adams, Arthur C Clarke et al, anyone who is *capable* of being elected to a position is, ipso facto, entirely unsuited to *hold* that position.
Terry Pratchett went one better in "The Last Continent". In the country on the Discworld known as XXXX (which is not, in any way, much like Australia) as soon as they elect a politician they throw them in jail because "it saves time later"!
Why do we keep voting in politicians? Because we want someone to do the jobs that we don't want to do.
wrong i dont certainly think thats the case i vouch for myself though.....
Vote for Ian Duncan Smith!!!!
Without a "none of the above" option we're not truly democratic.
I tend to agree with the idea that goverments are voted out, not voted in.
I think the worst thing that happened to labour was John Smith passing away.
He seemed genuine to me.
Not that I would have voted for him though!
And the worst thing I think happened to politics was spitting image going off the air
why do we elect them ?
looking at labour and what it has done to push this country forward and improve it they have done little........
tony and his cronies have made a laughing stock of the law people getting murdered... houses being broken in to yet the victims are the worse off
and the economy where is it going ? we should encourage growth by cutting interest rates increase wages and making it easier for people to spend there hard earned cash
hear !hear!
philosophers should rule ;) .......re: plato's republic
to be fair kronas.....if we put anyone in charge they will become power mad and we will have the same problem.....it's a psychological fact that power changes ones behaviour
So you do what the Taoists say: Don't let anyone near a position of power if they actually want the position.
the people that seem to do all the moaning about tony and his cronys are the ones who hated the tories and voted them in....
bring back maggie is what i say
Perhaps a slightly watered down Maggie........ :)
The Diplomat
12-10-2003, 15:52
Maybe it is the time they are allowed to stay in power unchallenged???
Perhaps on a more frequent basis, the government of the day should have to go back to the people for a continued mandate.
As far as voter apathy goes, it is almost certain that 1/2 the people won't turn out next time..... whilst we can't force people to vote, they might be more inclined to if they knew that a turnout of say 60% would be declared null and void.
Just a couple of ( probably ill thought out ) ideas. :)
And the worst thing I think happened to politics was spitting image going off the air
You are so right, I love that program. I still can't believe that they got away with some of the stuff they broadcast!!
Maybe it is the time they are allowed to stay in power unchallenged???
Perhaps on a more frequent basis, the government of the day should have to go back to the people for a continued mandate.
The trouble with that is that the encumbent govornment would be too scared to do anything radical or long term as that might upset voters. They would thus stick to short term mass appeal policies to try to get good soundbites and snappy slogans........erm .....a bit like this govornment really :rolleyes:
You are so right, I love that program. I still can't believe that they got away with some of the stuff they broadcast!!
I doubt that they'd bring anything like that back now. The nearest thing we have is 2DTV and that is a very pale (and feeble) imitation...
The trouble with that is that the encumbent govornment would be too scared to do anything radical or long term as that might upset voters. They would thus stick to short term mass appeal policies to try to get good soundbites and snappy slogans........erm .....a bit like this govornment really :rolleyes:
this is what i am getting at politics is all about spin and wooing voters with what they want to hear i find it highly annoying and it makes me angry that they are unable to fit the right polices in place make the right decisions for the country :grind:
this is what i am getting at politics is all about spin and wooing voters with what they want to hear i find it highly annoying and it makes me angry that they are unable to fit the right polices in place make the right decisions for the country :grind:
Thats just because they're incapable and/or incompitent.
So you do what the Taoists say: Don't let anyone near a position of power if they actually want the position.
yes if someone wants a position of power it tends to mean that they are those who strive to have power and therefore will eventually mis-use it.......
if we are going for any position of power we inherently have some want to use the said power in some way, whether it be in a political sense, or simply in a relationship sense....... regardless the want for power is generally not a good thing....even the best intentions can become way laid........
and yes i've read "animal farm: to whom ever asked
yes if someone wants a position of power it tends to mean that they are those who strive to have power and therefore will eventually mis-use it.......
i dont agree with that not everyone is power hungry im sure there are those who want to do the right thing although there will always be some who will prioritize there needs and wants in there spell of power if they obtained it
if we are going for any position of power we inherently have some want to use the said power in some way, whether it be in a political sense, or simply in a relationship sense....... regardless the want for power is generally not a good thing....even the best intentions can become way laid........
i totally disagree with that
Thats just because they're incapable and/or incompitent.
very true but they surely cant be all incompitent ?
or does it apply to all politicians :D
i dont agree with that not everyone is power hungry im sure there are those who want to do the right thing although there will always be some who will prioritize there needs and wants in there spell of power if they obtained it
i totally disagree with that
very true but they surely cant be all incompitent ?
or does it apply to all politicians :D
we were talking about those who "want" power.........
we disagree...makes a change ;)
we were talking about those who "want" power.........
and that is what i was responding to
we disagree...makes a change ;)
yep...........
and that is what i was responding to
yep...........
kronie i was saying that the people that want power not that everyone wants power
kronie i was saying that the people that want power not that everyone wants power
i think there is a misunderstanding here i was replying to your post on the basis of those who want power you are suggesting those who want it will abuse it which is what i disagree with and commented on.......
i think there is a misunderstanding here i was replying to your post on the basis of those who want power you are suggesting those who want it will abuse it which is what i disagree with and commented on.......
ok i apologise..........im in a BAD mood and mis read it............
ok maybe not everyone would mis use their power, but there is a high possiblity that they would..........will be back to you when i find the details of some of the psychological expereiments re power
ok i found the psychological experiment i was referring too.......ok Zimbardo conducted an experiment in which, he had a group of men, some of the men were randomly assigned the position of prisoner and others the role of guard........it was found that the guard's, became power crazed, they began doing things which we deemed as inappropriate, and if i remember rightly the experiment had to be stopped..........
the guys in the experiment, where ordinary american citizne's they had no history of being over powering, etc, however their behaviour did change once they had the label "guard"
ok there are some experiment methods that could have been questioned, but the basic premise remainds the same
edit: apoloigise for all the spelling mistakes, my mind isnt with it today
ok there are some experiment methods that could have been questioned, but the basic premise remainds the same
ok so the basis of this research was grabbing a bunch of people out of nowhere and putting them in positions of power.......
i dont think each and every person out there who wants power will abuse it i dont think psychologically and mentally every person is the same in the way that they think and percieve things everyone reacts in there own way to positions of power and pressure
ok so the basis of this research was grabbing a bunch of people out of nowhere and putting them in positions of power.......
i dont think each and every person out there who wants power will abuse it i dont think psychologically and mentally every person is the same in the way that they think and percieve things everyone reacts in there own way to positions of power and pressure
indeed, however, the guys who were guards were selected randomly out of the subjects and all of them portrayed a change in behaviour
yes we are all different, im just showing you that there is a high possibility that this will occur, nothing within human nature is set in stone, there are no absolutes when it comes to human behaviour
yes we are all different, im just showing you that there is a high possibility that this will occur, nothing within human nature is set in stone, there are no absolutes when it comes to human behaviour
yes thats true i was disagreeing with your notion that everyone who wants power will abuse it i certainly think that is not the case
is this on topic we were talking about governments
:spin:
yes thats true i was disagreeing with your notion that everyone who wants power will abuse it i certainly think that is not the case
is this on topic we were talking about governments
:spin:
well since we are talking about who we should vote in, etc,. governments have power...........thus it has relevance
edit: bexy is gonna shut up now
very true but they surely cant be all incompitent ?
or does it apply to all politicians :D
I don't suppose that there are any absolutes. So just some of them, but enough of them.
Why do we keep voting in politicians? Because we want someone to do the jobs that we don't want to do.
wrong i dont certainly think thats the case i vouch for myself though.....
No offence intended, but is that because that's what you actually think, or only because you haven't thought about it that much?
Let me ask you a few questions:
For instance, would you want to decide how much tax people pay?
Would you still do so when you have loads of people on one hand demanding that you cut taxes and an equal amount on the other hand who demand you raise them?
If you decide to cut taxes, what do you say to the pensioners who get less pension every year and who don't benefit from lower taxes?
If you decide to raise taxes, how do you justify that to all the people who voted for you who are now worse off and who are claiming that you are wasting their money by spending it on child support/ foreign aid/ prisons/ drug rehabilitation programmes etc?
And that's just *one* example of the sort of decisions that politicians have to make.
It's nice to think "If I ruled the world..." etc, but how many people *really* want the responsibility which, ipso facto, goes with it? I don't think most actually would want it, so they're quite content to let someone else do it and then complain because they're not doing it "right".
No offence intended, but is that because that's what you actually think, or only because you haven't thought about it that much?
Let me ask you a few questions:
For instance, would you want to decide how much tax people pay?
yes i would keep it so that if you earn more you get taxed more but at fair rates maybe a rebate system towards the end of the fianancial year not all of the money would come back to the higher earners but some of it.......
Would you still do so when you have loads of people on one hand demanding that you cut taxes and an equal amount on the other hand who demand you raise them?
If you decide to cut taxes, what do you say to the pensioners who get less pension every year and who don't benefit from lower taxes?
other policies by the previous government would have to be analyzed and if they were deemed to being doing an insufficent job then funds would be redirected........
If you decide to raise taxes, how do you justify that to all the people who voted for you who are now worse off and who are claiming that you are wasting their money by spending it on child support/ foreign aid/ prisons/ drug rehabilitation programmes etc?
i would atleast set out the facts and figures and show the public where the monies are going or coming from not all the info but a basic outline
And that's just *one* example of the sort of decisions that politicians have to make.
It's nice to think "If I ruled the world..." etc, but how many people *really* want the responsibility which, ipso facto, goes with it? I don't think most actually would want it, so they're quite content to let someone else do it and then complain because they're not doing it "right".
i have given the explination to your previous questions should cover the 'if i ruled the world' bit
<snip>
i have given the explination to your previous questions should cover the 'if i ruled the world' bit
A good set of answers.
Now here's the catch...
To get elected as a politician, you have to be a member of a political party.
That party has a manifesto which promises certain things and says it's going to to X, Y and Z in a particular way. These may not be the same way that you want to do things, but, over all, you agree more with the things that the party you are a member of says than any other party's policies.
So you now have to decide whether to "toe the party line" and do what the manifesto promises or try to "do your own thing" and risk alienating either your voters or your fellow party members...
Somewhere along the line you are going to have to compromise your beliefs and intents in order to get yourself the job.
Could you do that?
A good set of answers.
Now here's the catch...
To get elected as a politician, you have to be a member of a political party.
That party has a manifesto which promises certain things and says it's going to to X, Y and Z in a particular way. These may not be the same way that you want to do things, but, over all, you agree more with the things that the party you are a member of says than any other party's policies.
the manifesto would have to be agreed upon by all or the majorty of the members of the party
So you now have to decide whether to "toe the party line" and do what the manifesto promises or try to "do your own thing" and risk alienating either your voters or your fellow party members...
Somewhere along the line you are going to have to compromise your beliefs and intents in order to get yourself the job.
Could you do that?
i would make sure the party is with my beliefs and the system of laws and processes i would make allowences to the party on some issues those would be argued at a later date/party meetings at which a comprimise would be thought of which is fair to all
i would make sure the party is with my beliefs and the system of laws and processes i would make allowences to the party on some issues those would be argued at a later date/party meetings at which a comprimise would be thought of which is fair to all
But in the labour party at the moment, there are many who's beliefs are different to the party line.
You can't make sure the party is with your beliefs.
But in the labour party at the moment, there are many who's beliefs are different to the party line.
yes thats where you set your stall out to them on the pressing issues which are going to affect and take up the majorty of your term........
that is offsetting any unexpected problems such as the iraq business which should be confired with to the party obviously there will be a few upset with your decision but you cant please everyone you have to do what you think is best
You can't make sure the party is with your beliefs.
you cant on everything but as long as the ideology and actions of the majorty are along the lines of yours things should be fine
Ive Said it before and Ill say it again...
If we all decided to vote for the UK Independance party then there would be a force to be reckoned with.
I got their literature today and im signing up tomorrow.
u cant trust any politicians
That's not true. There are some decent politicians. Just not as many as we would like.
Personally, I think there are decent politicians in all parties. It would be nice if they would all get together in one party and put these other scumbag politicians out of business.
The sad thing in all this is that Tony Blair is expecting a third term and there are people out there, who believe wrongly that he has improved things and who will be willing to elect him in again.
Scarlett
14-10-2003, 10:27
The other problem is that there are certain government departments that have absolutly no power to change policy as its all been given to Brussels. How do you explain that to people ?
Answer you don't, you keep your head down, follow every new dictat/rule/reg with a zeal that would make Saddam proud and hope that no one notices.
The other problem is that there are certain government departments that have absolutly no power to change policy as its all been given to Brussels. How do you explain that to people ?
Answer you don't, you keep your head down, follow every new dictat/rule/reg with a zeal that would make Saddam proud and hope that no one notices.
If that's true then we need to come out of Europe and hopefully have politicians who are brave enough to do it.
Beware of the Man who WANTS to be in charge and don't vote for him.
Look over his shoulder and see who really in in charge and don't vote for him.
Look for the man running away at full speed and insist he be in charge because he has the common sense not to want to be a power crazed despot.
However the reality is,we usually pick the person who is out of the room at the time we are picking a leader.Well that's what happens on any committee I've ever served on. :)
Incog.
Beware of the Man who WANTS to be in charge and don't vote for him.
Look over his shoulder and see who really in in charge and don't vote for him.
Look for the man running away at full speed and insist he be in charge because he has the common sense not to want to be a power crazed despot.
Incog.
So we should vote for Michael Portillo then? :D
Scarlett
14-10-2003, 12:03
If that's true then we need to come out of Europe and hopefully have politicians who are brave enough to do it.
I suggest you pick up a few copies of Private eye and see what you think.
As for me, I'm not too sure if staying in or out is the best thing but not being honest abpout it is most certaily a :nono:
Beware of the Man who WANTS to be in charge and don't vote for him.
Look over his shoulder and see who really in in charge and don't vote for him.
Look for the man running away at full speed and insist he be in charge because he has the common sense not to want to be a power crazed despot.
However the reality is,we usually pick the person who is out of the room at the time we are picking a leader.Well that's what happens on any committee I've ever served on. :)
Incog.
Unfortunately, that doesn't always work. Politicians have cottoned on to the idea that you never announce you are a potential leadership candidate but rather suggest characteristics that leaders should possess, which by some strange coincidence happened to be possessed by themselves.
Nor, in my experience, are all candidates power crazed despots.
I know of a lot of my colleagues who wanted leadership positions, who were good leaders. Unfortunately, their faces did not fit and so instead of picking a suitable person the voters picked a 'politically correct' one, who proceeded to demonstrate how ineffectual he/she was.
Beware of the Man who WANTS to be in charge and don't vote for him.
Look over his shoulder and see who really in in charge and don't vote for him.
i dont see the reasoning behind that someone who actually understands the needs and wants of this country rather then just banking on spin and lies you would rather have someone who does the 2 things i have mentioned previously :rolleyes:
Ive Said it before and Ill say it again...
If we all decided to vote for the UK Independance party then there would be a force to be reckoned with.
yes you have converted me my son :p
http://www.independence.org.uk/home.shtml
I could not agree more with the comments of NTL user above,
As for staying out or going into Europe, we are actually more than 90% of the way there and only this week we have been told by Toby Liar that we are not going to get a referendum on Europe.In other words it doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t matter what you, the voting public, think we are going into the European constitution whether we like it or not no matter the consequences.
We give 15 million a day to Europe and the small amount of that money which eventually comes back is mainly spent on government sponsored sectarianism or to put into in their own naive politically correct version of "minority integration and development". This has been going on for years under our very noses without anyone noticing all the while the people of Britain delve deeper into their tax-laden pockets.
We cannot just sit on the fence with Europe people have to make a decision but their ability to make an "informed decision" is radically reduced whilst the government of the day deal with it in the underhanded way that they do.Hoodwinking the public into beleiving everything is going to be okay. Make no mistake El Presendente BLIAR will have is shot one way or another and he doesnt care who pays for it.
I think I would agree with the general statement that the majority of the public distrust any politician. If you asked a direct question of the public like †œDo you think the majority of politicians are trustworthy †œ I think you would get a majority answer NO. It is a damn shame.... because I also agree with the statement that there are honest politicians... I know a few who are honest but unfortunately like Blair stick by their view despite them being wrong the problem is when this leads to arrogance, and complacency then it can become a very dangerous thing. Politicians forget they are there to represent OUR needs and wants not THIERS.
I think we should have shorter terms of office for Governments for example when a new party comes to office they are given only 3 years then after three years it is up to the public to vote them in on a 12 monthly basis after thatâ₠¬Ã‚¦ This way is will keep them on their toes and prevent any future tragedy of government we have now.
It would make sure that politicians listen to their voters and I suspect it will attract more voters knowing that they know they can make a difference more quickly.
There are alternatives such a Krona above says the UKIP (see link above)
Now and we CAN make a difference and sshow these LIARS and CHEATS that we are not prepared to put up with their LIES anymore
Lets Get britian back on track to what it SHOULD be doing.... Taking Care of BRITIAN.
Scarlett
14-10-2003, 15:42
I think we should have shorter terms of office for Governments for example when a new party comes to office they are given only 3 years then after three years it is up to the public to vote them in on a 12 monthly basis after that? This way is will keep them on their toes and prevent any future tragedy of government we have now.
The only problem with this is the there is no way that any government could get anything done without guarenteeing that if they lost the next election, the next government would just spend as much money shutting it down again. and as for the yearly elections again it comes down to the same issue and will make thnings worse. Why concentrait on a long term issue as your up for ellection in x months time. better to go for a quick fix now and make sure that you keep your job.
Everyone accepts there are long-term issues and unless there is some radical rethinking of Government bureaucracy then we will continue on a one-way slide downwards. There will be some initial problems because of current government overspending today its always the same and was one reason why labour voter gave labour that other chance in their second term.
My view is this. Firstly getting rid of the bureaucracy would speed things up and I would certainly welcome improved systems to deal with the red, blue, green and black tape that currently dogs progress we only need to look at the state of our policing to see the problems we have.
This may be hard but will work if implemented and people will take pride in what they do rather than see is as a dead end endless task as they do now.
Currently our nurses, doctors, teachers, social services, and emergency services are demoralised. Many officers know they cannot provide the service they want to and are bogged down as overpaid form fillers.
These are critical areas in which rapid and quick changes need to be made.
Once this starts to filter down the system everyone will feel and reap the benefit and will not want to go back.
The thing is, with long term issues our current government is still blazingly blinded by short-term solutions, which do not work. We hear sound bites now and again but that is all they remain because of failed policy on top of failed policy, lies, deceit and incompetence.
It is time we put the competence back into our services only then can any government hope to put any policy through might have a chance of working.
In other words, the problems are created by the system itself not the policies that are introduced.
Agree with everything exept the last line......the system created the policies.
Everyone accepts there are long term issues and unless there is some radical rethinking of Government bureaucracy then we will continue on aone way slide downwards.Unfortunately there will be some inital problems because of current government overtspending today its always the same.
Firstly getting rid of the bureaucracy would speed things up and I would certainly welcome improved systems to deal with the red, blue, green and black tape that currently dogs progress we only need to look at the state of our policing to see the problems we have.
This may be be hard but will work if implemented and people will take pride in what they do rather than see is as a dead end endless task as they do now.
Currently our nurses,doctors, teachers,social services and emergency services are demoralised.
Many know they cannot provide the servie they want.
These are Critical Areas in which rapid and quick changes need to be made.
Once this starta to filter down the system everyone will feel and reap the benefit and will not want to go back.
The thing is, with long term issues our current government is still blazingly blinded by short term soultions which dont work.We hear soundbites now and again but that is all they remain because of failed policy on top of failed policy, lies, deceit and incompetence.
It is time we put the competence back into our services only then can any government hope to put any policy through might have a chance of working.
In other words the problems are created by the system itself not the policies that are introduced.
The policies generate the system intended to deal with the relevant issues and the problems are caused by the mismatch between the policies and the issues.
Take crime. In our country police will spend copious amounts of time trying to catch a drug dealer. Eventually he gets caught and gets taken to court where he is sentenced and he gets say 5 years but with good behaviour he may be out in 3 or 4 years and the process starts all over again as he starts to re-offend which is in keeping with the general trend.
In Malaysia, drug dealing carries the death penalty. Convicted drug dealers don't re-offend, they are executed. So the criminal population is reduced and police don't spend their time trying to catch the same criminals over and over again.
Because of the British government policy of keeping criminals out of prison our police are demoralised by an ever increasing number of drug dealers.
Malaysian police, by contrast, don't have that problem to the same degree.
So by changing the policy, you change the system and you change the outcomes.
The trick is to formulate a policy, which generates a system that deals effectively with the issues.
And that can not only be dealt with in the short term it can also be applied to all public services.
Agree with everything except the last line......the system created the policies.
I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t agree,
The parties creates the policies,
The polices are implemented to produce the "System"
If the System then doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t work or accommodate the policy to make it work time and time again as has already been proven then one needs to look further into why the system isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t flexible enough to adopt what can be good policies.
Tagging is a policy which is a good idea yet, has shown to work yet our prisons are still full? This was just one example of a good policy that works well
Why? Well the policy works but the system is coming to a standstill and our Judges whilst sentencing are now mindful of our full prisons.
If our prisons are full it is not because the police arenâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t doing their job is it? yet people come out and re-offend why?
Partially because drugs are more readily obtained in prison as they are on the outside.
Again the system is failing not the policy.
The police have few problems in catching criminals but response times to more minor crimes which are on the rise such as Burglary Anti Social Behaviour, is very poor indeed why? Because they are, too busy filling in 40 or so forms for each arrest
Sometimes the implementation of a policy can be problematic and that is not because the policy is bad but because the system fails to accommodate or the implementation has gone wrong or badly handled. Our systems are not flexible and this inflexibility is what is causing the problem. People are resistant to change and seem only to want to act when it is too late. All the while our country is going to pot.
the manifesto would have to be agreed upon by all or the majorty of the members of the party
Unfortunately what sometimes tends to be the case is that those who want to get into politics find themselves effectively forced to join the party whose manifesto has the least number of policies they disagree with.
I strongly dislike the "party political" system because it encourages (or forces) MPs to vote for what the *party* wants, rather than what their constituents want.
I donââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t agree,
The parties creates the policies,
The polices are implemented to produce the "System"
If the System then doesnââ‚ƚ¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t work or accommodate the policy to make it work time and time again as has already been proven then one needs to look further into why the system isnââ‚Âà ‚¬ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â‚¬Å¾Ã‚¢t flexible enough to adopt what can be good policies.
Tagging is a policy which is a good idea yet, has shown to work yet our prisons are still full? This was just one example of a good policy that works well
Why? Well the policy works but the system is coming to a standstill and our Judges whilst sentencing are now mindful of our full prisons.
If our prisons are full it is not because the police arenâ₠¬Ã¢â€žÂ¢t doing their job is it? yet people come out and re-offend why?
Partially because drugs are more readily obtained in prison as they are on the outside.
Again the system is failing not the policy.
The police have few problems in catching criminals but response times to more minor crimes which are on the rise such as Burglary Anti Social Behaviour, is very poor indeed why? Because they are, too busy filling in 40 or so forms for each arrest
Sometimes the implementation of a policy can be problematic and that is not because the policy is bad but because the system fails to accommodate or the implementation has gone wrong or badly handled. Our systems are not flexible and this inflexibility is what is causing the problem. People are resistant to change and seem only to want to act when it is too late. All the while our country is going to pot.
The parties themselves are part of the system. In a communist state the policy is to have one party government to facilitate control. In a democracy, the policy is to have more than one party to facilitate choice.
In our country the policy is not to build any more prisons. The effect of this is that a) existing prisons become overcrowded b) criminals are kept at large instead of being put inside c) the police become unnecessarily overloaded and d)society has to come up with alternative 'punishments'.
Change the policy and build more prisons. The effect is that a) overcrowding is reduced b) crimininals who deserve a custodial sentence can have them c) the workload for police becomes more manageable because there are fewer crimes as fewer criminals are not free to commit them and d) society does not have to turn itself on its head looking for new solutions when old ones work.
The policy of not jailing criminals means that there are plenty of unsolved crimes because the police did not have the staff to deal with the crimes and thus there are plenty of 'uncaught' criminals. Prisons are overcrowded but they are not 'full' as there are still plenty of criminals out there. In some areas the police crime solving rate is as low as 9%. That is caused by having to deal with repeat offenders who were not dealt with as they deserved in the first place.
As for drugs in prisons, the policy is that prisoners should not have drugs. If they are getting drugs then the prison as part of the system needs to have its internal organisation changed. All you need to do is supply prisons with on site drug tracker dogs, which will not only be used to patrol the prison but will be in visiting areas so that visitors cannot pass drugs to prisoners. Random drug tests on prisoners and random cell and body searches for drugs could also be effective. Hidden CCTV camera systems could also be helpful as could random searches of staff's belongings to ensure that guards are not supplying drugs to prisoners. Prisoners found using drugs, possessing drugs or dealing in drugs can have there sentences extended. Guards supplying drugs can be jailed. The two rules for dealing with crime are to increase the chances of being caught and to have effective sanctions. Loss of freedom is the most effective sanction in a humane society. Loss of life in a less humane one.
Prison is not a solution but it is an effective remedy. It gives us breathing space and by keeping criminals off the streets it makes crime more manageable until we can come up with the changes in society that obviate the need to be criminal.
I agree its the sytem thats the problem but would say that parties dont become part of the system until they are elected.
I agree its the sytem thats the problem but would say that parties dont become part of the system until they are elected.
Issues are based around human need. To satisfy human needs people create policies, which in turn requires a framework or system to meet that policy and address the needs.
Example:
Policy:
To get and remain fit.
System/Framework:
a) Devise fitness programme
b) Decide review date of fitness programme
c) Implement fitness programme over agreed timescale
d) Review effectiveness of programme
The system is the means by which you implement your policy. After each review you get the opportunity to either improve on your policy by changing or adjusting the system or throw out the policy altogether depending on your findings at the review.
The political party system is merely a means to an end. If the party system did not exist another system would exist in its place possibly with different ends.
vBulletin® v3.8.11, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions Inc.