Question about Question Time (Political)

[Ricoh]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I live in the north myself, thank you!

I just don't believe it is democratic for 3.5% of the UK electorate to dictate how the rest of the UK lives. I would have just the same opinion if Cornwall, Wales or Northern Ireland wanted to govern England.

Having said that, at least a Northern Ireland parliament would allow road closures for road racing!

Anyone north of Watford Gap lives in the north, according to estuary dwellers.

Surely you wouldn't object to Wales having an upper hand in running the affairs of the UK, surely not! But I'm with you regarding the potential of Sturgeon and Salmond dictating policy. If that happens I think the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be given the opportunity to annex Scotland, by democratic means of course.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

Anyone north of Watford Gap lives in the north, according to estuary dwellers.

Surely you wouldn't object to Wales having an upper hand in running the affairs of the UK, surely not! But I'm with you regarding the potential of Sturgeon and Salmond dictating policy. If that happens I think the people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland should be given the opportunity to annex Scotland, by democratic means of course.

As we are in the United Kingdom I have no problem with Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales having a proportionate say in how the UK is run.

As we are in the EU I would even concede that Brussels might have a say in some matters.

But as I have said already, I really do not think it is right or democratic that 3.5% of the UK's population should dictate how the remaining 96.5% lives, whatever their politics. And remember, this includes Wales and Northern Ireland where they have their own devolved powers.

[Zuiko]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

As we are in the United Kingdom I have no problem with Scotland and Northern Ireland and Wales having a proportionate say in how the UK is run.

As we are in the EU I would even concede that Brussels might have a say in some matters.

But as I have said already, I really do not think it is right or democratic that 3.5% of the UK's population should dictate how the remaining 96.5% lives, whatever their politics. And remember, this includes Wales and Northern Ireland where they have their own devolved powers.

I get that, Nigel, but is it the fault of the SNP or the electoral system? Both the Conservative and Labour parties have perpetuated the patently unfair first past the post system because historically it has favoured them jointly at the expense of the LibDems in particular, whose percentage of MPs has not even come close to their percentage share of the vote.

Now it seems we have a political stalemate in which neither of the two main parties are able to gain the confidence of the electorate to give them a decisive mandate and suddenly the minority parties are able to wield a disproportionate influence with their disproportionately low number of seats, which seems to me to be a form of ironic justice. I get that the SNP may (depending upon the overall results of the election) find themselves in a position of having disproportionate influence over the whole of the UK, when they have a narrow agenda focussed on Scotland but the same surely applies to Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Unionists. Okay, neither of the latter two have an aspiration to take their countries out of the Union but both make no secret of the fact that they will use any additional influence they may gain as a result of a hung parliament to lever more funding for their provinces.

The point is that up until now Labour and Conservatives have been happy to perpetuate a blatantly unfair electoral system that has effectively given them a political cartel in which they alternate power. Now the Tories in particular are bleating about the prospect of the SNP providing Labour with the key to Downing Street when their time would be better spent formulating some credible and fair policies that will appeal sufficiently to both their current LibDem partners and the public to ensure that they can continue for the next five years as senior partners in a coalition government.

As an aside, Ed Miliband has said that he has no interest in forming a coalition with the SNP, although I do accept that (like any politician) his word is no more reliable than the information on Grant Shapp's Wikipedia page.

[Wally]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

We can only postulate of what the final election outcome will provide. What some might not realise, is that the SNP are presently the third largest party in UK politics with over 100,000 supporters.. and it's increasing in numbers through dissent.

Recent comments have shown that many staunch Labourites are now changing sides in protest of what New Labour has become with many laying the blame at Blairs doorstep for their change of heart. The consensus is, that New Labour are no longer the party of the so called working class? In addition to all of this, there are many more who remain undecided. It also transpires that Ed isn't as popular north of the border as he would like to think he is.

As for the Trident issue, I honestly think it should be dumped - or mothballed - in favour of a carrier force with airborne nuclear capability if having nuclear weapons is a must have, which I don't think it is. The £billions saved would be better spent on infrastructure projects.

I guess we'll all just have to await the final outcome. As has been suggested, a sea change in our political system would not all be a bad thing.

My thoughts on the scores on the doors... three in the same bed.

[Otto]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I really do not think it is right or democratic that 3.5% of the UK's population should dictate how the remaining 96.5% lives, whatever their politics.

Isn't that pretty much what we have already though, with voters in just a few marginals determining the overall result of the election? Our electoral system is broken. It works OK when there are only two parties but that is no longer the case.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I get that, Nigel, but is it the fault of the SNP or the electoral system? Both the Conservative and Labour parties have perpetuated the patently unfair first past the post system because historically it has favoured them jointly at the expense of the LibDems in particular, whose percentage of MPs has not even come close to their percentage share of the vote.

Now it seems we have a political stalemate in which neither of the two main parties are able to gain the confidence of the electorate to give them a decisive mandate and suddenly the minority parties are able to wield a disproportionate influence with their disproportionately low number of seats, which seems to me to be a form of ironic justice. I get that the SNP may (depending upon the overall results of the election) find themselves in a position of having disproportionate influence over the whole of the UK, when they have a narrow agenda focussed on Scotland but the same surely applies to Plaid Cymru and the Ulster Unionists. Okay, neither of the latter two have an aspiration to take their countries out of the Union but both make no secret of the fact that they will use any additional influence they may gain as a result of a hung parliament to lever more funding for their provinces.

The point is that up until now Labour and Conservatives have been happy to perpetuate a blatantly unfair electoral system that has effectively given them a political cartel in which they alternate power. Now the Tories in particular are bleating about the prospect of the SNP providing Labour with the key to Downing Street when their time would be better spent formulating some credible and fair policies that will appeal sufficiently to both their current LibDem partners and the public to ensure that they can continue for the next five years as senior partners in a coalition government.

As an aside, Ed Miliband has said that he has no interest in forming a coalition with the SNP, although I do accept that (like any politician) his word is no more reliable than the information on Grant Shapp's Wikipedia page.

You are right of course John. The SNP is simply manipulating a broken system to their advantage, as any politician would.

I personally dislike Sturgeon, Salmond and their politics, but we cannot deny that they have reinvigorated interest in politics north of the border in a way that we desperately need down here.

Sadly, I suspect most voters have become disenfranchise with the whole electoral system in England; not just because the system is skewed, but because whoever you vote for you get a politician!

Recent comments have shown that many staunch Labourites are now changing sides in protest of what New Labour has become with many laying the blame at Blairs doorstep for their change of heart. The consensus is, that New Labour are no longer the party of the so called working class?

Blair undoubtedly has a lot to answer for, and not just the direction that New Labour followed under his leadership. Blair craved power at all costs, and so wanted the widest possible spectrum of voters. And as my dear, late mother used to say, he thinks (or thought) that everyone likes him!

(I always thought he missed out on his true vocation as a double glazing salesman!)

In truth I don't think Labour has been the party of the working classes for a very long time; and well before Blair in fact. The likes of Michael Foot, the hapless figures of Jim Callaghan and Dennis Healey, the ranting Beast of Bolsover and their links with (and tacit support for) some fairly extreme union leaders probably did as much harm as anything.

I'm not too sure what characterises Labour voters these days, but my guess is that anyone who belongs to a trade union, works in public services, has a civil service pension, or receives any kind of state benefits is fair game. However, from my own personal experience they really don't give a stuff about anyone else, least of all the self employed, and that encompasses a heck of a lot of people nowadays.

[Zuiko]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I'm not too sure what characterises Labour voters these days, but my guess is that anyone who belongs to a trade union, works in public services, has a civil service pension, or receives any kind of state benefits is fair game. However, from my own personal experience they really don't give a stuff about anyone else, least of all the self employed, and that encompasses a heck of a lot of people nowadays.

[SteveJ]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

Well put John.... Me and my partner have been through the system implemented by the Con-cervatives, and have to sit there with the media and government demonising us.
As a man with a conscience and morals i could and would never vote Concervative.

Steve

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I guess it's inevitable that people will vote for the party that they perceive might benefit them the most on a personal level, or at least do them less harm. So your description of typical Labour voters is probably quite accurate. The Tories, of course, traditionally draw the bulk of their support from people in the higher tax bracket (and you don’t have to be exceptionally well-paid to fall into that category) plus people with reasonably significant savings and investments. This includes people who are employed, self-employed or retired. There’s nothing wrong or sinister about how either of the main parties appeal to what they perceive as their natural demographic, but I’m sure we would all benefit in the long term if they were both a little more understanding and inclusive of those who fall outside the spectrum of their traditional support.

I can understand you supporting the Conservatives, Nigel, because of your personal experience of Labour not giving a stuff about people like you. Likewise, I hope you can appreciate why my personal experiences at the hands of the Tories prompts me to lean towards Labour, if only as the lesser of the two evils.

My big issue with the Conservative led coalition is the way they have effectively demonised all welfare benefit claimants, whilst systematically lying about how they are “helping disabled people back into work.” My personal experience of this policy is that the only “help” offered was a place on the Work Program along with all the fit and healthy long term unemployed, with no specialist assistance for the disabled jobseeker. Even then, I had to ask to get on this program and when I suggested that I would also benefit greatly from some kind of work experience to establish my capabilities I was told that nothing like that was available!

Granted, not too much of this was different to what was available under Labour, but the Tories really put the boot in by limiting the NI contributions basebut d element of ESA (which I was claiming) to 12 months when previously it was indefinite. So ultimately the “help” in my case amounted to withdrawing my benefit and seeing if I would sink or swim. So can you wonder at why, whilst not exactly a Labour supporter, I harbour a deep-rooted resentment towards Cameron and his henchmen?

You might be surprised to learn that I would be happy to vote for a 'socialist' system if I felt it was implemented fairly. The problem with Labour and New Labour as I see it is that some 'working people' have always been much more equal than others; depending on who they work for, and which union (if any) they belong to.

There is also a great deal of hypocrisy amongst the Labour ranks. They like to brand the Tories as wealthy toffs, and yet many of them are equally wealthy, if not more so, and probably went to the same public schools! There is also the 'snouts in the trough' syndrome, which despite their claims, they are past masters at!

Only today we learned that Margaret Hodge, "Labour's fiercest critic of tax avoidance and offshore funds", (The Times), has received £1, 500,000 in share dividends from a family fund in Lichtenstein. If I din't know better I would have said she was a wicked Tory!

Likewise, our former constituency MP bought two flats in Bristol for around £500,000 in a crooked deal with a 'dodgy Australian', for his sons to live in whilst at university.

Even the late Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who I greatly admired as a politician in his later life, spent more than £250,000 having fences installed around his estate to stop common people from using his private foreshore. And yet these people claim to represent the working classes!

I have to admit I am not a great admirer of Cameron or Osborne. A lot of their policies seem to have been ill thought out, and could be construed as 'gesture politics'. Some of the more mature Tories, such as Ken Clarke, speak a lot more sense than all of the current bunch put together; although sadly modern politics seems to be a young man's game.

I don't agree with "demonising benefit claimants" (as you put it), but there does seem to be a genuine problem with people choosing worklessness as a lifestyle choice, whilst many of those who are in work lead poorer lives than some of the more inventive benefit claimants. It cannot be right for anyone to be better off on benefits than those who go to work to pay for those benefits, surely?

I fully accept that there are people, who for not fault of their own, need help and support form the state; and that help should be freely given. But the state cannot give that help unless the economy is in reasonable health, and people are working to pay for it. We were getting to the stage under the last Labour government (we can only hope) that at some point the money really would run out.

We can argue about how you build a strong economy, but I would aver that "squeezing the rich until the pips squeak" (Dennis Healey) is not the way to do it. But Labour still doesn't seem to have learnt its lesson. Anyone who has the misfortune to need a company car to carry out their work will know what I mean; as yet company vans and 4 x 4 'utility' vehicles, used primarily for bullying other road users, are somehow exempt. Why?

Then we have the proposed Mansion Tax, which to my mind seems just plain nasty, like many of their other 'spite taxes'. I wonder how many MP's (Labour included) are already working out ways to avoid that one?

[Zuiko]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

You might be surprised to learn that I would be happy to vote for a 'socialist' system if I felt it was implemented fairly. The problem with Labour and New Labour as I see it is that some 'working people' have always been much more equal than others; depending on who they work for, and which union (if any) they belong to.

There is also a great deal of hypocrisy amongst the Labour ranks. They like to brand the Tories as wealthy toffs, and yet many of them are equally wealthy, if not more so, and probably went to the same public schools! There is also the 'snouts in the trough' syndrome, which despite their claims, they are past masters at!

Only today we learned that Margaret Hodge, "Labour's fiercest critic of tax avoidance and offshore funds", (The Times), has received £1, 500,000 in share dividends from a family fund in Lichtenstein. If I din't know better I would have said she was a wicked Tory!

Likewise, our former constituency MP bought two flats in Bristol for around £500,000 in a crooked deal with a 'dodgy Australian', for his sons to live in whilst at university.

Even the late Sir Anthony Wedgewood Benn, who I greatly admired as a politician in his later life, spent more than £250,000 having fences installed around his estate to stop common people from using his private foreshore. And yet these people claim to represent the working classes!

I have to admit I am not a great admirer of Cameron or Osborne. A lot of their policies seem to have been ill thought out, and could be construed as 'gesture politics'. Some of the more mature Tories, such as Ken Clarke, speak a lot more sense than all of the current bunch put together; although sadly modern politics seems to be a young man's game.

I don't agree with "demonising benefit claimants" (as you put it), but there does seem to be a genuine problem with people choosing worklessness as a lifestyle choice, whilst many of those who are in work lead poorer lives than some of the more inventive benefit claimants. It cannot be right for anyone to be better off on benefits than those who go to work to pay for those benefits, surely?

I fully accept that there are people, who for not fault of their own, need help and support form the state; and that help should be freely given. But the state cannot give that help unless the economy is in reasonable health, and people are working to pay for it. We were getting to the stage under the last Labour government (we can only hope) that at some point the money really would run out.

We can argue about how you build a strong economy, but I would aver that "squeezing the rich until the pips squeak" (Dennis Healey) is not the way to do it. But Labour still doesn't seem to have learnt its lesson. Anyone who has the misfortune to need a company car to carry out their work will know what I mean; as yet company vans and 4 x 4 'utility' vehicles, used primarily for bullying other road users, are somehow exempt. Why?

Then we have the proposed Mansion Tax, which to my mind seems just plain nasty, like many of their other 'spite taxes'. I wonder how many MP's (Labour included) are already working out ways to avoid that one?

"The creatures outside looked from pig to man, and from man to pig, and from pig to man again; but already it was impossible to say which was which.”

I agree with much (but not everything) of what you say, Nigel. The problem is that we have a culture of confrontational rather than consensus politics, yet when you look beyond the rhetoric all politicians seem to share the same moral deficiencies and self-interest.

Regarding benefits, based upon my personal experiences of claiming disability benefits my main complaint is not the lack of financial support but the lack of practical help to find a job within my capabilities. I was no longer able to perform the job I had done all my adult life and didn't have a clue what I could do as an alternative. I would have appreciated a detailed assessment by an expert in disability employment followed by a range of work experience which I would willingly have done unpaid. In fact, when I was processed into the benefits system and was placed in the Work Related Activity Group I naively assumed that this would happen and was rather pleased. I was naturally shocked, bewildered and disappointed to discover it meant nothing of the kind and was in fact a cynically worded façade for an irrelevant, over-simplified and generalised screening process, administered by a private company clearly on a tick box commission system to reward rejection of claimants. An independent tribunal overturned the decision in my case but the DWP simply started the process to reassess me when they should have used their resources more effectively to give me some genuine and practical help to return to the workplace. Once I was no longer in receipt of Employment Support Allowance the DWP simply lost interest in me and left me to rot. Bearing in mind that the DWP simply follow government policy, I may perhaps be excused for having formed the opinion that the unholy trinity of Cameron, Osborne and Duncan Smith are incompetent liars who deliberately conceal the truth about disability claimants, allowing the gutter press to demonise in the eyes of the public a highly vulnerable group who deserve much better help and support. I am lucky in that I have an occupational pension that enables me to survive, but my heart goes out to those in a similar situation but without the pension who are driven to desperation, even suicide.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I agree with much (but not everything) of what you say, Nigel. The problem is that we have a culture of confrontational rather than consensus politics, yet when you look beyond the rhetoric all politicians seem to share the same moral deficiencies and self-interest.

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

In the real world we all have to work with people that we may not agree with, but we just get on and do the job to the best of our abilities. Why should politicians be any different?

I also resent the attitude of those who hold the view that they have a God given right to govern, and should be governing, irrespective of what the electorate says on the matter. If you believe in the system, why hold a grudge when the electorate exercises its democratic right to boot you out?

I agree that that is a disgrace and unforgivable, and of course the buck, quite rightly, stops with the politicians.

But how many of these life-affecting decisions are taken by box ticking jobsworths with a who spend a lifetime filling in forms without even seeing the real person behind the NI number? Is it really government policy to treat people in this way, or it just the way the policy is interpreted and administered?

Irrespective of the personal hurt, there are many very 'able' disabled people who could be an asset to the country in some way (and be able to support themselves) if only they were given the support they needed. Aside from medical conditions, there are many people who have become disabled through their work, and who could continue to support themselves and industry in some way if only the support was available.

[Zuiko]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I wholeheartedly agree with that.

In the real world we all have to work with people that we may not agree with, but we just get on and do the job to the best of our abilities. Why should politicians be any different?

I also resent the attitude of those who hold the view that they have a God given right to govern, and should be governing, irrespective of what the electorate says on the matter. If you believe in the system, why hold a grudge when the electorate exercises its democratic right to boot you out?



I agree that that is a disgrace and unforgivable, and of course the buck, quite rightly, stops with the politicians.

But how many of these life-affecting decisions are taken by box ticking jobsworths with a who spend a lifetime filling in forms without even seeing the real person behind the NI number? Is it really government policy to treat people in this way, or it just the way the policy is interpreted and administered?

Irrespective of the personal hurt, there are many very 'able' disabled people who could be an asset to the country in some way (and be able to support themselves) if only they were given the support they needed. Aside from medical conditions, there are many people who have become disabled through their work, and who could continue to support themselves and industry in some way if only the support was available.

That's exactly right, giving us the tools and support - and giving employers incentives to employ us - would be far more cost effective in the long run.

Ironically, when I was desperately trying to find a job I might be able to do, a number of vacancies became available for Jobcentre advisors in my area. I figured that this would be ideal for me, because having pronounced me fit for work the same organisation would have to make adjustments for my disability or prove itself wrong! Also, I was sure that having experienced the system from the other side would give me an advantage. My application passed the initial selection stage and I was invited to sit an exam which was basically describing how I would handle a variety of difficult face to face situations. It was very similar to much of the customer service training I had received in the bank and I instinctively knew what they were looking for, even if it might not be my preferred cause of action. I received a letter confirming I had passed, but regretting to inform me that other applicants had been considered more suitable and I had not been selected on that occasion. Hmmm, I wonder why? Surely it would have been an excellent opportunity to provide employment for a difficult to place moderately disabled person the wrong side of 50? But maybe they realised too what I said earlier about having to make adjustments or prove themselves wrong.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

That's exactly right, giving us the tools and support - and giving employers incentives to employ us - would be far more cost effective in the long run.

Ironically, when I was desperately trying to find a job I might be able to do, a number of vacancies became available for Jobcentre advisors in my area. I figured that this would be ideal for me, because having pronounced me fit for work the same organisation would have to make adjustments for my disability or prove itself wrong! Also, I was sure that having experienced the system from the other side would give me an advantage. My application passed the initial selection stage and I was invited to sit an exam which was basically describing how I would handle a variety of difficult face to face situations. It was very similar to much of the customer service training I had received in the bank and I instinctively knew what they were looking for, even if it might not be my preferred cause of action. I received a letter confirming I had passed, but regretting to inform me that other applicants had been considered more suitable and I had not been selected on that occasion. Hmmm, I wonder why? Surely it would have been an excellent opportunity to provide employment for a difficult to place moderately disabled person the wrong side of 50? But maybe they realised too what I said earlier about having to make adjustments or prove themselves wrong.

I don't understand why employing less able people has become such a big issue. When I started work back in the 1970's there were quite a few staff members who had been severely disabled by Polio, and another chap I remember who had contracted Meningitis as a child. There were also a few others who had suffered quite significant injuries fighting during WWII, including the loss of eyes and limbs.

There were nothing like the mobility aids that we have today, yet these people were able to enjoy near normal professional lives working alongside fully able bodied colleagues in buildings with few modifications. We now have some ludicrous (in my view) legislation regarding disabled access where nobody will ever need it*, and yet we cannot employ someone with a mild physical disability in a high street office.

*(I came across a disabled lavatory in a shipyard this week, where the only access was along a very steep and narrow stairway, and where the only people working would need to be adept at climbing ladders and getting into very tight spaces with the necessary tools.)

[Zuiko]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

I don't understand why employing less able people has become such a big issue. When I started work back in the 1970's there were quite a few staff members who had been severely disabled by Polio, and another chap I remember who had contracted Meningitis as a child. There were also a few others who had suffered quite significant injuries fighting during WWII, including the loss of eyes and limbs.

There were nothing like the mobility aids that we have today, yet these people were able to enjoy near normal professional lives working alongside fully able bodied colleagues in buildings with few modifications. We now have some ludicrous (in my view) legislation regarding disabled access where nobody will ever need it*, and yet we cannot employ someone with a mild physical disability in a high street office.

*(I came across a disabled lavatory in a shipyard this week, where the only access was along a very steep and narrow stairway, and where the only people working would need to be adept at climbing ladders and getting into very tight spaces with the necessary tools.)

It could be, of course, that there was a very genuine reason why other applicants for the Jobcentre positions were considered more suitable than me. However, I would have thought that having got through the initial selection and passed the exam I would at least have merited a face to face interview where I would have the opportunity to impress.

[Naughty Nigel]

Re: Question about Question Time (Political)

Who knows. I would imagine the criteria used in some of the selection processes for government agencies are stranger than fiction.

I once applied for a job with a government department, and whilst they said I was ideally qualified I was turned down owing to my appalling (yes I admit it) handwriting!

I can type at 60+ WPM, but even in this computerised age they insisted that I apply in handwriting. Presumably they thought I couldn't fill in their forms and tick boxes quickly enough.