dangel (20-09-2012)
Haha.
Basically the pledge was made on the assumption that they would never get into power.
What a joke, politicians. Proves what comes out of their mouth is actually from somewhere down south. I will never support Lib Dems ever
Trust ProfileHEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
So are you happier supporting Labour or the Tories then? Because obviously neither of those parties has ever backed down on an election pledge...![]()
If you make politics a viable career, then you'll get career politicians. Career politicians will do whatever is necessary to keep their bosses (which theoretically, in a democracy at least, is the populace) happy and keep themselves in a job. Anyone here ever promised to deliver something - anything - at work then failed to achieve it?
If you haven't, then I've got a job interview I'd like you to attend
edit: I should probably point out that I don't have sound at work so haven't watched the youtube clip in the OP - I'm just working on general principles here and assuming the world hasn't massively changed in the last few days![]()
Unfortunately there is no other viable alternatives. All of them just have policies based on getting the maximum voters response rather than the long term benefit of the country. So much chop and changing after each election. Suffice to say politicians always have an agenda.. theirs not the country's
Trust ProfileHEXUS Forum FAQ and Colour coding/Post Count awards
'The Fox is cunning and relentless, and has got his Fibre Optic Broadband'
This is true, but begs the question, who is the boss?
If you are in the Government (that is, a minister) then your boss is the Prime Minister (and the Chief whip) as well as the electorate in your constituency. If you are a back bencher, or a member of the opposition, then you are answerable to your constituents.
The politician's dilemma (especially a Minister's) is when Government policy conflicts with their constituents interests. As a crude example, a politician in a constituency with high unemployment might have to support a project (say a nuclear power station) that will provides hundreds of jobs for his constituency, but perhaps oppose his party's stance on nuclear power. Does he follow his party, which would oppose the plan, or his constituency members who would support it?
A cynic would say that he'll support the line that does him the most benefit, but I think many politicians do find these issues and have to find a pragmatic solution. Not a job I would want to do.
But there are some honorable politicians who put their constituent's interests first - these are the ones that often remain on the back benches.
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(")
![]()
Been helped or just 'Like' a post? Use the Thanks button!
My broadband speed - 750 Meganibbles/minute
BTW I typically vote Lib Dem, but we all have to to be able to laugh at ourselves, this is just a bit of fun.
Well as a recent example there is always Justine Greening who was moved on from transport after putting her constituents first.
Indeed, that's just one of the problems with us having a centuries-old political system that simply isn't appropriate for dealing with modern issues. Adding party politics to the mix really doesn't help, nor the fact that we have the same number of MPs representing the UK population now as we did in the 1840s - anyone see a problem there?
Our "representative democracy" is currently neither, and could do with a massive rethink (IMNSHO, of course).
Is it not a good thing that this dilemma exists? If politicians only ever got pressure from one direction then they wouldn't even need to think.
The "pledge" was a bit more than the traditional political promise, though .... and we all know what political promises are worth. Or if anyone doesn't, I recommended a couple of quiet evenings with the 'Yes, Minister' and 'Yes, Prime Minister' boxed sets.
The truly embarrassing thing was the 'stunt' with the signed, printed pledges that, as far as I can make out, were pretty categorical and left absolutely none of the usual political wiggle room.
Willzzz nailed it in post 2 - for years (and not just with this) the LibDems have made an art form of the political promise, all the while secure in the expectation (due to a totally loaded and grossly unfair voting system) that they'd not get a toe, much less both feet, under the tables of power. And then they did. Ooops.
Oh, and that clip is beautifully done, though, and Clegg seems to have taken it in goods humour ..... not that he had much choice.
And you know what. The selfish, short termist, two faced individuals we call politicians mirror those who vote them in. Perhaps if voters would vote based on what they believe is best for their constituency or maybe even their country, particularly in the medium to longer term, perhaps politicians would be forced to act in those interests.
Unfortunately, the average voter simply gets their opinions reading the opinion section of the sun and repeating it verbatim so what chance is there of any party that will actually act in the country (and indeed the voters) actual best interests?
Ask yourself this, whenever you see a voter being interviewed on TV or hear them on the radio, when do you ever hear one not justifying their choice of vote based on what's best for them?
"In a perfect world... spammers would get caught, go to jail, and share a cell with many men who have enlarged their penises, taken Viagra and are looking for a new relationship."
From what I can recall he came across well in the live tv debate but now the format is pointless beyond giving them free air time. Let them earn their votes by going to every city and dialog with the people on the street and in the town halls.
the man's a maggot, hopefully their sod-awful coalition will be over soon
B@
politicians on youtube!
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)