If only that were the case, Red-ode, mate. We have seen by the desperation to grab every penny they can of someone else's money (ours), the interest in wealth at Westminster. It's my belief that they turn to politics because they see it as an easy way of getting money, and if they were any good at their professions, which, as you point out, are generally high paying ones, they wouldn't enter parliament. I think an MP is a job for the sort of loser who can sit for hours in those tedious nit-picking meetings that political parties love, long enough to get others to put them up for election. But can't do a proper job good enough to make the money they want.

And these seem to be precisely the sort of people who are easily preyed upon by the lobbyists of the rich and powerful, who must see the task of persuading politicians to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Decent people like you and me and the other fine people who follow Salford and post on this forum would at least behave according to the dictates of our principles.

But yer MPs, fed and watered by these people, seem either to respond unsubtlely, so you get a cash for questions scandal, or to do it slyly, like arranging to add a quiet line or two to massive legislation documents.

No, I think bartonflyer's idea might work. If they had to depend upon their own initiative to raise the standard of living of the whole country, then maybe they'd take it seriously. Although I like lukicj's demarchy idea, which in all my years as an armchair situationist I'd never heard of until this post, and so had to sneak a quiet glance at Wikipedia.

OK, my turn to apologise for ranting on.

Here's Bill Hicks's take on it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRXLDKS ... re=related

If only that were the case, Red-ode, mate. We have seen by the desperation to grab every penny they can of someone else's money (ours), the interest in wealth at Westminster. It's my belief that they turn to politics because they see it as an easy way of getting money, and if they were any good at their professions, which, as you point out, are generally high paying ones, they wouldn't enter parliament. I think an MP is a job for the sort of loser who can sit for hours in those tedious nit-picking meetings that political parties love, long enough to get others to put them up for election. But can't do a proper job good enough to make the money they want.

And these seem to be precisely the sort of people who are easily preyed upon by the lobbyists of the rich and powerful, who must see the task of persuading politicians to be like shooting fish in a barrel. Decent people like you and me and the other fine people who follow Salford and post on this forum would at least behave according to the dictates of our principles.

But yer MPs, fed and watered by these people, seem either to respond unsubtlely, so you get a cash for questions scandal, or to do it slyly, like arranging to add a quiet line or two to massive legislation documents.

No, I think bartonflyer's idea might work. If they had to depend upon their own initiative to raise the standard of living of the whole country, then maybe they'd take it seriously. Although I like lukicj's demarchy idea, which in all my years as an armchair situationist I'd never heard of until this post, and so had to sneak a quiet glance at Wikipedia.

OK, my turn to apologise for ranting on.

Here's Bill Hicks's take on it:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpRXLDKS ... re=related