Armed with naivete...

[DominicJ]

Dom, same olde point here: I do donate to a political party but I am poor so my donation isn't very much in the Grand Scheme of Things. Sadly, because of the difference between rich and poor, the poor person who genuinely believes they have a point weilds a lot less clout (in this situation and many others) than the rich person who also believes he has a point.

But as I said, average political donations over the electoral cycle, are roughly number of votes cast x 5.
If democracy is for sale, the price isnt high, so why not pay it?
We cant pay it alone of course, but we can pay it in a group with little trouble.
Also, I'd advise against donating to a party, and go straight to a candidate.

I am a politician.
To get elected, I need three things.
1. People to deliver my literature
2. Money to pay for the printing,
3. Money to pay someone to deliver.

If you want two hours of my time, all you have to do is ring me up and we can go for a nice walk and stuff some letterboxes whilst you mould my opinion about an issue.
Or you can write me a fat cheque and insist I attend a dinner to receive it, where you mould my views on an issue.
Thats just the way it is.

It costs about £500 to print and pay for delivery of a leaflet to every house in my ward, or just £250 to print and use volunteer walkers.
At the end of the day, whoever prints and delivers the most usualy wins, so whoever has the most money wins, Labour outdelivered me 5:1 last year using postal union money to do it.
Amazingly, the guy is a strong supporter of postal subsidy.
Did they "buy" his vote, or did they find a guy who agreed with them and back him?
Its not really possible to say, and more than likely both occur, from people putting "their man" in power, to flat out buying people who are already in power.

There are far more rich people than poor, if everyone who voted for me gave me a fiver as well (or delivered 200 leaflets), I'd be rather closer to the bloke who just gets a cheque fat for the spending limit from one source.

In general, you seem to assume that if a given person states an opinion and for some reason they are unable to back it up with their own money (including, they spend all their own money on simply getting-by) then their opinion's worth nowt. Is this what you genuinely believe?

Nowt?
No, not nothing, but words are just words. Any*one* can say any*thing*.
There is neither risk, nor commitment.
I can say I can fly
But if I refuse to jump off a building?


I believe freehold land will make a solid investment over the long term, even at its "peak".
Thats just words,
I believe freehold land will make a solid investment over the long term, even at its "peak" and I believe this so strongly I borrowed 5 years wages to buy land.
Thats words, and a follow on action.
One *should* be weighted much more than the other, not more likely per se, but the person saying it certainly believes it more.

Anyone who wants dirty money out of politics just has to provide a source of clean money (or money subsitute).
If your *really* want clean politics, that shouldnt be an issue, if you want clean politics less than Sky TV, or that 2litre instead of the 1.6, or that yearly family holiday, or that saturday morning lie in, well thats your choice, youre free to make it, and you get what you choose.

[RenewableCandy]

Yes but I wasn't talking about politics as it's done on the local scale (which reminds me I have some leaflets to deliver today...) but of what happens to Our Man once he gets anywhere near a position of taking serious decisions (e.g. transport or energy policy). At that point the big money weighs in and there are, at least in the current system, not enough safeguards to ensure that he carries on doing whatever it was we voted him in for, and doesn't "change his mind" as a result of said money.

As the original article pointed out, being swayed by gifts is a fundamental human, social, characteristic. Even I don't expect politicians to accept the gifts and remain un-swayed. If we want democracy as described "on the tin", the gifts (including things like walking into related "consultancy" posts after being voted out) have to stop.

[DominicJ]

David Cameron is still the MP for Witney, he still faces election like every other MP.
He's still at the mercey of the Conservative MP's, who can challenge him for leadership, and they are all at the mercy of their constituents who can fail to re-elect them.


Of course, we could muzzle the government and make it not worth the effort to bribe, you cant hand over a brown envelope and get on the "NHS prefered supplier list" if there isnt an NHS, but most people seem to think thats a bad idea.

[SleeperService]

David Cameron is still the MP for Witney, he still faces election like every other MP.
He's still at the mercey of the Conservative MP's, who can challenge him for leadership, and they are all at the mercy of their constituents who can fail to re-elect them.


Of course, we could muzzle the government and make it not worth the effort to bribe, you cant hand over a brown envelope and get on the "NHS prefered supplier list" if there isnt an NHS, but most people seem to think thats a bad idea.

Yes, but by then the damage has been done, the incoming MP says they can't do anything as it's too late and we're still stuffed. Happened here in Erewash which had one of the biggest swings to the Tories in the country. Labour had watched while 'the market' destroyed most of the local employers. Now the remaining employers are offering minimum wage for skilled trades because there is nowhere else to go.

[RenewableCandy]

Of course, we could muzzle the government

so we could, but it appears the Big Money has beaten us to it

Yes, MPs face re-election and the prospects of being booted out. But what does one do, as a humble voter, after finding that both major parties have been more-or-less pocketed by big money? Quite a few people had joined the 3rd party in the hope that it won't get its hands dirty. Some former members of same, looking at the difference between what they voted for and what the coalition of which they are one part, is actually doing, have left said 3rd party and joined ours (local membership has doubled in 2 years: I know 'cause I do the Newsletter ).

But I can see a pattern emerging here. If the relationship between politics and money stays as is, any party who gets in will fall victim to the same rot. If there's no need for change, that's something most people can live with. Bit if we're faced with a need to change fundamentally (e.g. to an economy which can deliver reasonably without the need to constantly grow, or, to one which can provide people with basic needs in the absence of cheap FFs) then we need politicians who'll respond to information and not just to money.

[DominicJ]

Yes, MPs face re-election and the prospects of being booted out. But what does one do, as a humble voter, after finding that both major parties have been more-or-less pocketed by big money? Quite a few people had joined the 3rd party in the hope that it won't get its hands dirty

So join the 4th?
The 5th?

Or ignore party labels.
I cant be bought, I'm too ****ing stubborn, but the reaction I get from greens is near criminal.
I explained you tax litter, only packaging, and I thought some little old lady was going to stab me.

Bit if we're faced with a need to change fundamentally (e.g. to an economy which can deliver reasonably without the need to constantly grow, or, to one which can provide people with basic needs in the absence of cheap FFs) then we need politicians who'll respond to information and not just to money.

But If
Which is exactly the problem.
We might be right, but even we cant decide on how to deal with peak oil, and for most people, its a very big "might".
Its all well and good saying, "respond to information", but whos?
Mine?
Biffs?
RGR's?

[RenewableCandy]

Yes, MPs face re-election and the prospects of being booted out. But what does one do, as a humble voter, after finding that both major parties have been more-or-less pocketed by big money? Quite a few people had joined the 3rd party in the hope that it won't get its hands dirty

So join the 4th?

Dunnit!

...the reaction I get from greens is near criminal.
I explained you tax litter, only packaging, and I thought some little old lady was going to stab me.

I'm really sorry, I've read this several times, then tried going backwards, missing out every 3rd letter, etc, and I still can't see what you mean...

Its all well and good saying, "respond to information", but whos?

Well, going by reports such as those recently mentioned from Chathem House, and "Prosperity without Growth?" from the (former) SDC (and across the Pond, the Hirch Report), HMG doesn't seem too bad at collecting its own perfectly good information. There's also the openly-visible information carried in things like the price of oil, the frequency of various types of natural distaster/infrastructure failure, etc.

Lack of information is not the problem. Deciding on priorities after that, now that's a different matter

[DominicJ]

Or ignore party labels.
I cant be bought, I'm too ****ing stubborn, but the reaction I get from greens is near criminal.
I explained you tax litter, only packaging, and I thought some little old lady was going to stab me.

Yeah even I'm struggling wth that.

I quite like trees, super efficient cars and such.
So, in the 1 and a half horse race that east manchester, I think I should be a reasonable compromise candidate for most "greens".
I was trying to convince one of that, she asked me about a "litter tax" and I explained, littering was already illegal, and as a specific act, could not be taxed.
All that could be taxed is "packaging" and since I recycle mine, I didnt fancy that idea.
Also, the UK only has a shortage of "landfill" due to EU dictat rather than a shortage of holes in the ground.

She flipped out and released the hounds after I had closed her gate.....

[RenewableCandy]

Oh, right

Of such things is Local Politics made...

[JohnB]

Now the remaining employers are offering minimum wage for skilled trades because there is nowhere else to go.

There's a neat suggestion circulating on Facebook at the moment:

"Put the politicians on minimum wage and watch how fast things change"

[emordnilap]

Heh heh.

Put them on the average wage even (independently verified of course).