Closing the "Cradle of Democracy"

[JohnD]

No, Chris, You first used the private schools argument, I 'merely' followed it up.   I did so to point out that the Supreme Court upholds the Law that Parliament decides, not the other way around, but it seems you are able to  infer your own arguments from mine, which is why I'm not a lawyer!       There is no Labour policy on private schools, as yet, and the suggestion of appropriation is clearly extreme and unnecessary.      Others in the Party believe that to remove the charity status of many private schools would be a sufficient blow for equality, when the only charity on offer is a meagre number of scholarships.

And the Supreme Court did not find that this prorogation was unlawful because of its duration, in fact they specificly rejected the duration argument of Gov lawyers who invited them to say how long would be lawful.   Instead the Justices, all eleven of them with no dissenters, said that it was unlawful because it frustrated Parliament's functions.   In the delightful Scots word,  it 'stymied' the House.

The BMA's role in the establishment of the NHS was NOT its finest hour, but that requires another thread!

John

[Bob Horner]

Hi John

i think it’s me you are arguing with and not Chris!  I think it was me wot started the public school hare running

bob 

[Nick Jones]

As a former public school boy, though not one you will ever heard of, I feel it necessary to point out that they should not all be tarred with the Eton brush.

i certainly wouldn’t argue that most need to do a LOT more to justify their charitable status though.

[AB|W]

If I start a hypothetical school of excellence in let us say surgery and after a few years many of the top surgical appointments are ex alumni of that school would the labour party move to have it closed down as it dominates the market place for surgeons?

 

And Eaton & Oxford specialise in politics so what is the difference?

Alan

[JohnD]

How would you tell, Alan, if the excess of 'top surgeons' from your school was because they were experts, or because their old mates hired them, even though they are more klutz than cutter?

Clinical results might show if they were quack or ducky, so can political results do the same?  In which case, the present Government in which 64% of Cabinet members went to private schools are shown to be charlatans straight away.

As for Oxbridge, it's not as bad as it once was

     

Data from the Sutton Trust

And, Oxbridge and the rest of the  Russel Group of Universities, are arguably among the best in world, so less of a problem there.

John

[AB|W]

Ah so we have to recruit some really badly skilled people to highly paid jobs so that we can then establish a benchmark.

Now I begin to understand labour philosophy and Jeremey Corbyn's elevation to leadership.

I hope they don't introduce that yardstick for airline pilots.

Alan

 

[JohnD]

No, Alan, you're another who reconfigures other's arguements to their own, namely to recruit numbskulls to high positions.   The performance of the presenet UK Government, and Opposition, would indicate that this has been a leading point of policy recently.

John

 

 

[Nick Jones]

On 9/24/2019 at 9:56 PM, Chris W said:

Not sure who you profoundly disagree with Nick but if it is me, you have no idea how I vote in GEs or the Referendum because I have never disclosed it.

I was disagreeing with PeterCs comment about unelected Brussels commissioners laughing at us.  As for the rest, it's a case of "if the cap fits"......

[Nick Jones]

2 hours ago, JohnD said:

The performance of the present UK Government, and Opposition, would indicate that this has been a leading point of policy recently.

It was a prominent member of the current cretins-convention masquerading as a government (the odious Gove), who suggested that "the people have had enough of experts".  

Their extensive use of non-experts is not a conspicuous success though. 

[Bob Horner]

Its funny that a thread that tried to address the issues around the decision of the Supreme court and its constitutional signficance ends with general mud throwing and partisan insult throwing.  Rather like Parliament really!  These days we seem so partisan that we cant discuss anything with good humour and an element of self awareness of our own prejudices and views.  I uphold anyone's right to use colourful language and I do like to see people being passionate about the their beliefs but using colourful language to,make a point is one thing  - simply using it to insult is quite another.  I love robust debate and argument but modern debate seems to want to demonise and/or insult the speaker rather than address the arguments put forward.   We quickly focus on the devisive, emotive bits (eg public schools) and not the constitutional issues that my example tried to shed light on.  

Bob

 

 

 

 

 

.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

[RogerH]

Hi Alan,

Corbyn was elected as Labour leader because he had no contest. The other three candidates were seriously useless in the arts of oratory and twisting an argument.

During the election campaign I said to the missus - he will win it because he can talk a good talk.

 

I mentioned on another forum (Football) that also have a very long political 'Boris' thread that if you state a lie loud enough and for long enough it will become the truth.

 

On the 20 years run up to the referendum did anybody state that if we leave it must be with a deal.

Cameron certainly didn't mention 'deal' when he announced the referendum and good old Nige always stated a clean break.

The SNP certainly didn't. The Labour party didn't because at the time Corbyn was pro-leave

 

Roger

 

 

[JohnD]

Roger, You forget that Cameron did have a deal in mind when he went to the EU and strove, hopelessly, for a change in that or  in the UK's relationship  with it, or ... anything, because he had promised the rabid anti-EU faction of the Tory party that he would get a deal or call a referrendum!    His alternative was to expel them from the Party, abhorrent to him and many Tories, and clearly not to Alexander de Pfeffle Sulk, who has expelled twenty Europhiles.

And, the "Big Lie" is a political tactic with a dark history, so should be mentioned with extreme care.   The words you quoted "if you state a lie loud enough and for long enough it will become the truth"  are close enough to those of Dr.Joseph Goebbels as to raise the hackles of any democrat, of right or left.  See: https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/joseph-goebbels-on-the-quot-big-lie-quot  We should be aware of the history while striving to avoid repeating it.

Bob, Good sense, but any partisan insult throwing here pales in comparison with the language "in another place".  

John

[AB|W]

Roger,

I really believe a leader should be just that, one with leadership qualities that can make you pick up your rifle and go over the top by the power of their oratory, not just the least undesirable of the candidates.

Churchill, Thatcher and Neil Kinnock had the power of the spoken word, I see very few MP's or prospective MP's with that talent and I see little prospect of that changing when many MP's have careers that are school-university-MP without experience of the real world and the baptism necessary to hone their skills and experience. Even comedians and actors need to spend time on the circuit as a learning process, few skilled professionals spring fully formed from university.

I also note that  the basic annual salary of an MP is £79,468 which I contrast with Tube drivers who have a starting salary of over £50k with some earning over £100k. Ok not a direct comparison I know but I feel that such salaries do not attract the best candidates and once someone has real talent and real world skill there is little to attract them to the bearpit of UK of UK politics. Would I suggest higher salaries certainly not for the majority of MP's, as high salaries also attract the wrong type of candidate perhaps we should pay a bonus by past results voted on in their individual constituencies at the next election time. More practical perhaps would be increasing salary with each re-election as if re-elected it would show a measure of voter satisfaction. Isn't that what happens to most of us?

 

Alan

https://metro.co.uk/2018/12/16/tube-drivers-paid-100000-year-8254829/

[richy_rich]

Quote

It is a well-known fact that those people who must want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it... anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job.

Douglas Adams

[JohnD]

Teeth of the gods, Alan, haven't we had enough of politicians  who are such orators as to make you get yourself killed in their cause?   What version of the twentieth century did you read? 

Your comparison of MPs and tube drivers salaries is weakened when you realise that there are over 3000 Underground train drivers.   Nine of them earned more than £100K in 2018, and one hundred earned about the same as an MP's salary (3%).     The high  earners no doubt had the same pressures and desires to make money as the one in five (20%) of MPs who have second jobs, one of them Nadhim Zahawi (Cons. MP for Stratford-upon-Avon) earning ten times his salary from his own business consultancy, several directorships and property investment.    Mr.Zahawi is clearly of the highest calibre, and did not find an MP's salary a disincentive when he can receive such significant remuneration elsewhere.

But your point that modern politicians (Mr.Zahawi excepted) rise without trace through school, Uni, jobs in Public Relations to spad and MP, avoiding all contact with the real world, is shared by Jeremy Paxman!  His programe "Why are our politicians so crap?" concluded that their preponderance was largely due to this.   Still available on My5 and worth a view, if only to see Paxman back in growling mood, after playing the nation's favourite uncle for so long on University Challenge.

Richy,   Adams was a past-master in the use of hyperbole for comic effect.  Sad to say, he did not live to see his aphorism disproved, by President Obama, but should have realised that there have been several others whose effect on the US has been progressive.   Lincoln, FD Roosevelt, Kennedy and Johnson for a start.    

John

Edited September 27, 2019 by JohnD

[PeterC]

Is not being a politician a skill that has to be learned on the job. I see little relevance of working a period in the so-called reak workd, and necessarily one miniscuel corner of it. Detailed knowledge is neither necessary nor desirable in a polticicna, but a generalist apporach and ability to listen to, and communicate wth, the electorate is essential. And that is a skill that can only be learned on the job of being a poltician. And that is why they seem to us to be a race apart, we have not acquired polticla skills ourselves with which to judge them.

Peter

[DeTRacted]

17 minutes ago, PeterC said:

And that is why they seem to us to be a race apart, we have not acquired polticla skills ourselves with which to judge them.

So they are the Eloi and we lesser beings are the Morlocks ?  

 

[PeterC]

29 minutes ago, DeTRacted said:

So they are the Eloi and we lesser beings are the Morlocks ?  

 

The other way round. We control the real world, they have to bend to our whims. I long ago gave up thinking politicna have any serious control over the world , except at the margins. We vote them out if they stray too far from what is acceptable....tax, the NHS, crime...they have to respond to te electorate. The 2008 banking crisis reveaeld their lack of control, relegation to a firefighting role.

And that is why they are uttrly useless at tackling CC=GW, overpopulation etc. For that we do need Eloi.

 

[DeTRacted]

If I recall correctly the Eloi were the pretty but lazy and useless ones.  The Morlocks were the nasty 'rude mechanicals' who made things work to keep the Eloi alive. (For a while at least !)

Could be the answer to food shortages. Eat politicians. 

[JohnD]

It's not the politicians, its the financiers in whose pockets they sit.

See: https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

Over £8 BILLION has been bet on the crash out deal.     I am no expert, but I believe this means that people have anticipated drastic falls in the worth of UK shares after that, and have contracted to sell them at current prices, while being able to buy them st the post crash price.    It's called 'selling short'.   The perpetrators are all hedge funds, who - surprise! - havebeen heavy supporters of the Tpry party, and more criminally, the Vote Leave campaign, and the leadership campaign of Alexander de Pfeffle Sulk.

John

[richy_rich]

Well, yes, I think I've mentioned it before but I believe one of the big drivers of a lot of this has been the desire by many people to not have to adhere to the incoming EU Anti Tax Avoidance directive which comes into force in 2020.  One of the 'big' concessions Cameron asked for pre-referendum was an opt-out for off shore trusts from the new transparency regulations, it was denied but I suspect if they'd have got only this one single opt-out we'd never have had a referendum and the talks would have been considered a great success.

The UK is very keen on this because, perhaps surprisingly, offshore tax havens are one of the UK's 'things' https://financialsecrecyindex.com/en/introduction/fsi-2018-results The UK appears relatively low on this this list (which is topped by Switzerland, no less), however all the blue lines are UK overseas territories (Cayman Islands etc.) and are home to many shell companies and schemes run by a massively efficient network of lawyers, accountants, actuaries and consulting groups mostly based in London.  As the leak of the Mossack Fonseca data showed the public and sometimes the law generally take a dim view of this sort of thing.

Unsurprisingly, there's a lot of money tied up in all of this as well as plenty of people's (relatively innocent) careers.  I can see why those with a vested interest in this would fund whatever they thought was the best way to keep their businesses going.

37 minutes ago, JohnD said:

I am no expert, but I believe this means that people have anticipated drastic falls in the worth of UK shares after that, and have contracted to sell them at current prices, while being able to buy them st the post crash price.    It's called 'selling short'.

Pretty much that, there are other ways to profit in a falling market too but shorting is essentially as simple as borrowing a share and giving it back later.  Say you had a share in Halfords and were quite happy to hang on to it for a few years but I think brexit is going to negatively affect sat nav sales I could ask to borrow your Halfords share for, say, 6 months.  You agree and I take it and immediately sell it for a tenner.  If it happens that I'm right and due to massive queues on UK motorways everyone stops buying TomToms and the Halfords share price halves, I can now buy one for a fiver and give it to you.  You've lost nothing (yet) as you've got your one share back (although you technically have an unrealised loss of £5) and I've now magically got £5 in my pocket.

[JohnD]

THank you Richy fopr explaining that so clearly!

I am, unsurprisingly, a supporter of the worth of a professional, for his knowledge and expertise, as an equal of the labourer, but that bit of professional expertise seems mean and worthless.    But I suppose I'm biased.

John

[RedRooster]

32 minutes ago, JohnD said:

THank you Richy fopr explaining that so clearly!

I am, unsurprisingly, a supporter of the worth of a professional, for his knowledge and expertise, as an equal of the labourer, but that bit of professional expertise seems mean and worthless.    But I suppose I'm biased.

John

I may have only taken 15 minutes to do that job, but its taken me thirty years to be able to do it in that time, you are paying for the thirty years not the 15 minutes.

RR

[JohnD]

Then we agree on that, RR

J.

Edited September 28, 2019 by JohnD

[Chris W]

13 hours ago, JohnD said:

It's not the politicians, its the financiers in whose pockets they sit.

See: https://bylinetimes.com/2019/09/11/brexit-disaster-capitalism-8-billion-bet-on-no-deal-crash-out-by-boris-johnsons-leave-backers/

Over £8 BILLION has been bet on the crash out deal.     I am no expert, but I believe this means that people have anticipated drastic falls in the worth of UK shares after that, and have contracted to sell them at current prices, while being able to buy them st the post crash price.    It's called 'selling short'.   The perpetrators are all hedge funds, who - surprise! - havebeen heavy supporters of the Tpry party, and more criminally, the Vote Leave campaign, and the leadership campaign of Alexander de Pfeffle Sulk.

John

Oh dear John.  This article has been de-bunked by Full Fact and the normally pro-remain FT.  At best, it is based on shoddy research , at worst it is just propaganda.

You're welcome