Monarchy debate 'I should have just deleted these posts' edition

[OANST]

I'm pretty sure this thread is about Lenin now. Stop going off topic.

[Varrok]

Our current president of Poland makes grammar/vocabulary errors in his speeches.

[OANST]

Yeah, but at least he isn't the president of the Netherlands.

[Havoc]

That's because we don't have a president.

[OANST]

Who's 'we' again? What were we talking about?

[Varrok]

He also shaved moustache and looks totally indistinctive.

[MeechMunchie]

Riiiiiiight. Have you heard of something called 'the current government'?

Yeah. And your proposed government is even worse.

Oh the horror

[Wings of Fire]

At the very least, STM's proposed government probably wouldn't have Ian Duncan Smith.

[Nate]

That's completely correct. If it wasn't for Wallis Simpson, there's half or more chance we'd currently have a king.

We'd probably have a Chancellor, given that Edward was rumoured to be a Nazi sympathiser.


WRT Scrabtrapman's proposed form of government: I largely agree that the party system is broken. But my friend who works as a public servant developing policy and writing bills hates the idea. She makes the point that most politicians have no fucking idea what a law is about and trusts the party to tell them that it's a good idea. Bear in mind that - outside of the USA - the vast majority of bills voted on in parliament are uncontroversial and supported by both parties. But if each individual MP had to have every single law explained to them in detail, it would be a beaurocratic nightmare. And the potential for pork-barrelling would be frightful.

On the other hand, if we could limit our politicians to people who both cared to understand and had the mental capacity to understand every single bill, that would make it a far, far better system of government. Good luck finding those people, though.

[Manco]

I think a problem with that would be that politics should ideally be as open as possible. What you’re suggesting in that last paragraph is a system where only the most intelligent and those with the best knowledge of the legal system will get power. Considering how self-interested and sometimes outright malicious politicians are already, I’m not sure that would be a good thing.

[DarkHoodness]

On the other hand, if we could limit our politicians to people who both cared to understand and had the mental capacity to understand every single bill, that would make it a far, far better system of government. Good luck finding those people, though.

Maybe there's a realistic alternative to that: Having more politicians in power with a variety of backgrounds, who live in the real world amongst the general population and are more aware of people's needs - Instead of the majority of idiots currently in power who have had segregated upbringings and live privileged lifestyles, and are therefore completely out of touch with society. Then they'd hopefully have a better idea of what proposed bills would be damaging to society and which ones would be beneficial.

But then that'd be hard to ask for and difficult to enforce, like with a majority of ideas which may improve the status quo. And perhaps I'm being naive again considering that sourcing such people may be impossible - Those who enter politics with good intentions probaly either don't get very far, like a few people I know who have tried, or maybe they have to become malicious themselves just to play the politics "game" and compete with other politicians for serious positions of power.

[Wings of Fire]

Look

I can very easily improve politics in the UK and make the political atmosphere much healthier with a very simple idea:

'As servants of the public, politicians are professionally bound to exclusively use the services they profess to champion. An elected official cannot use private healthcare, a private schooling system or hold any stakes or interests in privately owned broadcasting and other media outlets. The same goes for every person serving the BBC and other trusts.'

It puts politicians right in the firing line of their own mistakes and gives them a level of personal responsibility. It also kills privately vested interests. The best thing is that all the parasites will object instantly and have to come up with weak reasons to give to the people using these public services on why they are not good enough for them. Removing political families from the oldboy system of public schooling would also make parliament far more open and fresh.

[DarkHoodness]

@WoF - My point exactly, and that's a good idea. A lot of politicians don't have to live their lives under the effects of their decisions. They probably wouldn't act so much like shitheads and would instead think very carefully if they did.

For example you had the whole scandal the other month with Ian Duncan Smith claiming that he could live off his proposed weekly benefits cap (£53 a week) while he was screwing about with the welfare system - But he didn't back up his claims and actually go out there and live how the benefit claimants would do, while also cutting off his job security and accumulated funds. More realistically he should have at least carefully studied how those people would live under his proposals, which of course he didn't and instead just looked at his calculations on a bit of paper.

[Xavier]

'As servants of the public, politicians are professionally bound to exclusively use the services they profess to champion. An elected official cannot use private healthcare, a private schooling system or hold any stakes or interests in privately owned broadcasting and other media outlets. The same goes for every person serving the BBC and other trusts.'

Ok, what do we need to do to make this happen?

[Nate]

Ok, what do we need to do to make this happen?

Better politicians, to propose and pass that law.

[Bullet Magnet]

Guy Fawkes 2?

[Strike Witch]

Electric Boogaloo.