The home of intelligent horse racing discussion
The home of intelligent horse racing discussion

Politicians – why is the truth so difficult?

Home Forums Lounge Politicians – why is the truth so difficult?

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #4320
    Racing Daily
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1364

    Why does every answer have to circumvent the point at hand, without actually hitting it?  Where did it get written that politicians are obliged to NEVER tell it as it is, rather speaking in half-truths, inuendo and pseudo lies?<br>Why can’t we have a govt that tells it like it is?  I am going to vote for any party other than New Labour at the next election, because my line of thinking is that any party is better than a party that has shown itself to be a hoard of liars.  We will be saying that about Cameron too, after he has served two terms of evasive, dishonest tory rule.  But i’ll get to that hurdle when it becomes apparant.<br>My ultimate question is ‘should there be a maximum of two terms of govt for any PM, before they HAVE to have a leadership change?'<br>It is quite apparant to me that Blair has well overstayed his welcome.  Go Blair, before you are embarassingly kicked out by your own party.  While you have a shred of dignity left.

    #103312
    Racing Daily
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1364

    Quote: from Grasshopper on 2:35 pm on Sep. 6, 2006[br]<br>Two: Politicians are, for the main part, beholden to their party political superiors, and not the electorate they are supposed to represent. <br>

    This is my problem.  We are required to vote for a party, any party, knowing very well that they will completely ignore our wishes once they are elected.  We don’t get to say ‘none of the above’ if we are not happy with any of them.<br>I don’t want a govt that is the ‘best of a bad bunch’, no more than I would back a 50 rated handicapper because it is racing against 48 rated platers.  I want a govt by the people and for the people.  Until we get that, we simply do not have a democrasy.  Our opinion don’t mean jack-sh|t.  That is why I am so passionate about politics at this moment in my life.

    #103313
    Sailing Shoes
    Member
    • Total Posts 368

    Quote:  no more than I would back a 50 rated handicapper because it is racing against 48 rated platers.  

    I strongly suggested you revise this ideology, it appears the horse you not going to back has 2lb’s in hand :biggrin: :biggrin:

    #103314
    lollys mate
    Member
    • Total Posts 625

    My view on politicians, for what its worth, is that they really are not in touch with reality. And when asked a question, they simply dont have the answers, so they have to bluff their way through.

    A lot like Grasshopper and Aranalde  :biggrin: :biggrin:

    #103315
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    RD, your disillusionment is shared by me .  <br>What also worries me is that I agree with all of Grasshoppers comments too! This can’t go on :biggrin: <br> One of the main shortcomings of our MP’s is that that’s all they are – professional politicians. Few have ever bothered to dip their toes into the everyday world of their constituents. They leave university, a few get qualifications (Lawyers seems to be the current vogue) but never actually practice at their profession. Many others simply become research assistants to MPs.<br> Few of them have ever had to worry about having enough money to meet their Mortgage payments or council tax,  they have no real understanding of what it’s like living in poor areas,  of pension shortfalls, of the risk + profit and loss of running their own business,  of deadlines, of  sacking and hiring staff,  of rowdy neighbours, of non-existent police,  crap schools & crap teachers for their offspring, of how ever-increasing bureaucracy stifles business etc. They exist in a separate world. (And that applies with bells on for MEPs.) <br>The only part of our democratic process that had any experience of  life at the sharp end was in the House of Lords. But even that’s going the way of becoming a party-list fifth rate, gold-plated taxpayer funded boondoggle.

    #103316
    lollys mate
    Member
    • Total Posts 625

    Got your next name Gloria………

    "I – naturally – shall be the power behind the throne. "

    Cistern………….:biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin: :biggrin:

    P.S.  I’ll take the job btw. I got the green tights already!

    #103317
    insomniac
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1453

    Och Aye GH. Is the nation ready to be run by the Racing Forum’s equivalent of the Last of the Summer Wine ?

    #103318
    lollys mate
    Member
    • Total Posts 625

    Feeling flush are we Glorr ?;)

    #103319
    dave jay
    Member
    • Total Posts 3386

    .. none of them a really worth a light.

    If you were ship-wrecked on a desert island with 100 people and it was down to who went in the pot, I’d give you 6/4 it would be the politician first, it wouldn’t be much use for anything else.

    #103320
    Drone
    Participant
    • Total Posts 5123

    Quote: from dave jay on 9:03 pm on Sep. 6, 2006[br].. none of them a really worth a light.

    .

    Apart from the Beast of Bolsover and Boris

    #103321
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    don’t be too sure, dj.

    even the poorest politician tends to have a strong sense of self-preservation.

    witness one Edmund Brooks, who joined in the meal but contrived to escape paying for it:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regina_v._ … 6_Stephens

    <br>best regards

    wit  

    #103322
    stevedvg
    Member
    • Total Posts 1137

    Our MPs are what they are – career politicians.

    The sensible goal of any career politician is to get himself re-elected.

    For that reason, our politicians are followers, not leaders.

    Parties benefit when they align themselves to the views of the electorate which is, of course, far easier than trying to change the minds of the British people.

    So, we get political parties who are just saying the same empty rhetoric so they don’t alienate swinging voters (who are, typically, centrist).

    The individual politicians are made up of 2 groups:

    (1) The policy makers. These are the ones with drive and ambition (and super-inflated egos).

    (2) The back benchers & loyalists. These are politicians who’s primary motive is to stay on the right side of the party leaders.

    They vote with the party every time. They trot out the party line whenever they’re interviewed and, in return, the expect the party to be loyal to them.

    Every day, they betray their constituents by handing over their votes to the party whip and, frankly these people are a waste of space and an affront to the principle of democracy.

    Watching the news today, it’s interesting to hear some of the labour MPs saying that they want Blair to declare a timetable for his retirement.

    What they’re really saying is that the country hates Blair and wants him to go. And, the longer Blair stays the more we’ll grow tired and disgusted with the Labour Party as a whole.

    Many of these MPs are in seats that labour won in 2001 and are well aware that, unless things change and change soon, there likely to be out of a job after the next election.

    While I think they’re nothing but a bunch of no-mark s**t
    weasels, I do like the fact they’re honest enough to admit that what they really care about is a Labour win next time out (i.e. their job safety), not the benefit of the country.    

    Steve

    #103323
    Racing Daily
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1364

    "To preserve one’s life is generally speaking a duty, but it may be the plainest and the highest duty to sacrifice it. […] It is not correct, therefore, to say that there is any absolute or unqualified necessity to preserve one’s life."

    That was a very good link wit.<br>I’d be interested to know if that case is still relevent in law.  It makes a cast iron precident for the pro-euthenasia brigade to argue with.  

    #103324
    wit
    Participant
    • Total Posts 2155

    RD,

    According to Professor Simpson’s book about the case, the only reason that Dudley and Stephens were tried was that (a) Dudley took to bragging about what he’d done and (b) that caused public repugnance because  they had cheated – they had not followed the approved practice, which was to draw lots.  

    Apparently to this day all sailors, naval and merchant, know the exact "custom of the sea" to be followed in such situations, although not many talk about it and its not to be found in any textbook.  

    The ethical choice is seen to be between either participating in drawing lots and risking the short straw, or not participating at all and risking death by starvation.    

    By that measure, what was the ethical position of  the third man, Edmund Brooks, who escaped unpunished ?

    <br>The case is still very relevant to English law – necessity is still no defence to murder, albeit  reasonable and proportionate self-defence may be a mitigation on a manslaughter charge.    

    Even had they drawn lots, in an English court there is still no defence of consent against a murder charge –  they would have put their faith in nobody wanting to bring them to trial in an "understanding" sea-faring community.

    <br>For the euthanasia angle:

    Take the case of a suicide pact where one participant helps another die, but then loses his bottle and fails to carry out the rest of the plan to kill himself.    The survivor can’t be heard to say ‘we had a pact between us, I had planned to kill myself too but he wanted me to kill him anyway so I helped him to do it’.  Even if they both help each other and one survives, the survivor will still be charged with the other’s murder.

    Its essentially the "suicide pact scenario gone wrong" that has militated against legalising euthanasia in England.     Although one can sympathise with doctors and carers not wanting to be criminalised for helping a terminally-ill person to die, there is perceived  to be a stronger counter-argument in the "slippery slope" point from Dudley and Stephens of opening the door to abuse, typically where relatives or others would benefit financially from the death.    

    This comes strongly out of Lord Coleridge’s judgment (albeit a bit of heavy going):

    http://www.justis.com/titles/iclr_bqb14040.html

    <br>In AH Clough’s sardonic dictum:

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>><br>Thou shalt not kill, but needst not strive<br>Officiously to keep alive.<br><<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

    though nowadays medical technology does blur the line between what can be seen to be "causing" and what "omitting to strive officiously".

    best regards

    wit<br>

    #103325
    Racing Daily
    Participant
    • Total Posts 1364

    It appears to me that it would be quite easy to simply say the ‘victim’ was already dead.  Why they didn’t say that is, quite frankly, beyond me :confused:

Viewing 15 posts - 1 through 15 (of 24 total)
  • You must be logged in to reply to this topic.