Do you really BELIEVE what politicians say?

Do you really BELIEVE what politicians say?

Author
Discussion

rich888

2,610 posts

198 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Foppo said:
Good points rich 88.I am 65 the older generation and I don't like the status quo.

I can't complain have a decent standard of living but started full time work at 16.

I hope you don't begrudge me my bit extra which I have payed for over the years.
I have no problems at all with your income which you paid for years ago with your taxes, what annoys me intensely is the continual abuse of taxpayers money whether it be the overpaid head masters 130K pay, or stupidly expensive road improvements, or the gold plated government taxpayer funded pension pots, etc.. the list is endless...

MrBrightSi

2,912 posts

169 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Apologies to you both, i wasn't saying it was a 100% definite, but i fear saying these kinds of things for fear of being labelled some feely leftie/socialist/commie by some of the older folks.

If there is such a wide strong consensus on the problem, why are no solutions ever spoken of? Why do we continue if for years everyone has attested to knowing the true depth of the problem?

littleguy

190 posts

120 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
I'm relatively 'lucky' in the sense that I know a fair few politicians. A few years ago, I was approached to go down that line and decided against it.

Whoever it was who said that the manifesto should be seen as a contract, in my mind, has it absolutely spot on. There are obvious problems with that in that times and the economy change quite rapidly. Also, it would lead to headline grabbing promises - which I guess already happen.

When I went to meetings, it was made clear that I would be expected to tow the party line and, to me, that is where the problem lies. A conservative could never say that labour had a good idea or vice versa. This leads to parties' focus being directed at a)getting voted in and b) being limited in their approach. When you add to that, the voting patterns whereby a larger percentage of older people vote rather than younger, it leads to distorted policies.

Back to the main question of the thread, most of the politicians I have met are doing it for 'the right reasons' but when there's little to no accountability for the statements made, it makes it very tough to believe anything.


BGARK

Original Poster:

5,493 posts

245 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
littleguy said:
most of the politicians I have met are doing it for 'the right reasons'
And here in lies one of the biggest issues, if you have gone into a job position straight from school without any other real-world experiences you might well believe that what you are doing is the right thing, those surrounding you also believe they are doing the right thing, look at human nature and the reason cults are formed.

If you try and challenge this viewpoint you are seen as the enemy, and you are vilified for questioning their strange beliefs.

The car-respray analogy was a good one, nothing will change until eventually the wheels fall off and the rest of us are asked to push a bit harder!

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
rs1952 said:
I am not a salesman, but I have come across few instances in my life when selling things (mainly cars to keep it on PH topic smile ) when it has been clear to me that the person had already bought it in their head before they came to see it. IMHO politics works in much the same way.

Many people want to buy into a dream - their own personal Utopia. They believe, rightly or wrongly, that their particular party will bring them that Utopia. If they believe strongly enough, they will lap up any old drivel that their chosen party says, not because it is believable or often even feasible, but because "their man" has said it. Then, when their party gets into power and their personal Utopia hasn't arrived, they get bitter on internet forums and the letters pages of newspapers "and will never vote for them again" - but they usually cool down and do actually vote for them again come the next election wink

Religions have been doing this for years of course - something bad happens, and its God taking retribution for your sins, and nobody bats an eyelid. When, however, wannabe politicians do the same - was it "last year's floods were caused by gay marriage" or something like that? - somebody wants his head on a plate. And that brings me to the final point.

The interesting phenomenon we have at the moment is a public-school educated former City trader and ex Conservative party member who has become all things to all men. When you actually look at the detail of much what he has to say, and even more when you look at the manifesto pledges of the party he represents, you find that much of it is unworkable, not feasible or just plain daft. But you won't find many people agreeing with that viewpoint on PH, for to many on here he is the "New Messiah who speaks the truth." They believe him because they want to believe him, not because what he says is believable. He has shown them the sunlit uplands, and all they need to do is follow him to get to that personal Utopia I've been rabbiting on about.

One day, if and when that party gets a go at power, when it comes to pass that they fail to deliver their manifesto pledges and are just as bad as all the rest, there are going to be some very unhappy punters on PH. They will then probably be calling for that man's head on a plate... wink


Edited by rs1952 on Saturday 18th October 22:07
This ties in a lot with my beliefs.

I don't believe any promises from any party. This thread tends to suggest that everyone contributing to it believes that you can't trust any politician: they lie. Yet on other threads we have those who believe in Farage as if he is not, for some reason or other, a politician. Yet he would appear to me to be archetypal. He is the consummate politician. Why should he deoiver when others do not?

Vote for the one who will do least damage, promises less than the others, and who admits they haven't got many of the answers.

I was told that in the election that outed Atlee and brought in Churchill the former said 'more years of the same' = rationing. Churchill reckoned that expansion and easing of the purse strings was possible. Everyone knew there was still little money but voted for Churchill and he didn't deliver on his promises. But then, according to those at the time, no one sensible expected him to.

I didn't relieve believe that but now, of course, I've seen many elections where I've voted for a party that promised much that they could not deliver.

Despite the fact that Farage would not be able to deliver on his promises even if he did get a majority, he runs, according to some, the third largest party, by way of intended votes, in the country.

I find it bewildering.

Yet if any politician stood up and said: 'We'll not do much, but just try and fix the problems as they arise.' no one would vote for them.


MrBrightSi

2,912 posts

169 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
So Derek, you're saying a chunk of blame rests with the electorate too.

I agree on that one, we all believe these promises with our bags of salt poised but never utilised.

Interest in politics is at a low, most of the voting public do not care any more, which is a scary thing.

I remember seeing something on that Keiser report, he's a crazy man, but reported on the whole London buying water cannons to fight austerity riots. To me having the money for shiny riot gear when telling the public (you're about to use it on) that there's no money smacks a bit of bull.

Slaav

4,240 posts

209 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
BGARK said:
Slaav said:
Apologies in advance but would you (of) minded if I don't take your post that seriously?

Think about it, drop ten of us into an island scenario and within a very small time, we would have voted for a 'leader' vs anarchy.
Absolutely, rip it to shreds if you like, I think out of daft ideas sometimes comes great inspiration. Who needs to be serious all of the time.

I agree completely about finding a leader, my point was that it probably would not be a politician that became the leader, if anything they would be the first thing on the menu! (again not necessarily being serious).
Now I agree with you smile


Thorodin

2,459 posts

132 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Many are guilty of conflating the ‘real’ world with political imperatives. The desires and ambitions, hopes and fears of ordinary people are miles away from the realpolitik relevance in a global, or even continental, sense.

However unjust it may seem to the committed domestic political activist/commentator there are more important issues than speed cameras, gay marriages or minimum wage levels. These are for local politicians. National officers should rightly be primarily concerned with the country’s standing and progress in the wider world.

My point is that the electorate is deluded into thinking that a manifesto is a promise of where the Government wants to go (it pointedly carries no ‘break clause’ concerning ‘other more important considerations’), whereas it bears no similarity to their actual objectives – ergo a fake promise/premise – and should be seen as such. That’s the on-topic qualifier and explains the reason why nobody believes any noise from the Westminster trumpet!

Taking a wider view, there seems to be many hang-ups around the old fashioned polarisation of politics. Left v Right v Middle dogma in extremis, no matter what the outcome and people appear determined to pursue impossible and outdated dreams because of this mistaken and faulty ideology of a bygone age, resulting in paralysis.

What is required is consensus, although as in the case of pre- and post- Christian Roman Senate, treachery and corruption may be endemic.

So, to my earlier hopes for a more realistic approach to modern day pre-election bribes, perhaps there should be a more pragmatic approach with National Aims as to our standing and participation in world events such as Middle East diplomacy, Famine and Health endeavours, Peace in conflict areas etc. Relatively minor matters could be decided locally, with the added advantage of removing blaggards in bi-annual emergency by-elections. Apologies for these pipe dreams, wine with Sunday lunch speeds the pen.


Edited by Thorodin on Sunday 19th October 15:08

Derek Smith

45,514 posts

247 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
MrBrightSi said:
So Derek, you're saying a chunk of blame rests with the electorate too.

I agree on that one, we all believe these promises with our bags of salt poised but never utilised.

Interest in politics is at a low, most of the voting public do not care any more, which is a scary thing.

I remember seeing something on that Keiser report, he's a crazy man, but reported on the whole London buying water cannons to fight austerity riots. To me having the money for shiny riot gear when telling the public (you're about to use it on) that there's no money smacks a bit of bull.
But what can one do?

I'd have liked to take an active part in politics but I couldn't because I didn't have the time and, for police officers, it was banned.

There was a similar move against the established parties at the time of the Social Democratic party. The difference between them and UKIP is that they talked a lot of sense, had three intelligent and committed people in control, plus David Owen. Whilst one might not have believed entirely in their political philosophy, they were quite unpolitical. The interviews, mainly in the press which was largely, if not entirely, anti, seemed to indicate that Jenkins and Williams especially would go along the best route for the country as a whole. For this they were pilloried for not having a manifesto.

They were to the left of centre but this was at a time when labour was under control, or possibly threat, from the nutty left and the nutty right of the tories was - well, the nutty right of the tories. They were a breath of fresh air.

They also had a sensible plan for the economy. At one time, if memory serves, a poll reckoned they had around 40%.

They caused labour to move right, and we got - eventually - Smith and then Blair. This took away the support from the SDP. Also Owen became a bit stroppy.

That was, in my time at least, the only time a new party with experience in government and a reasonable take on what needed doing, looked to change the face of British politics. Yet all they did was rescue the liberals from obscurity, which they have been trying to regain ever since.

So what can one do?

Apart from moan.


NicD

3,281 posts

256 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Derek Smith said:
MrBrightSi said:
So Derek, you're saying a chunk of blame rests with the electorate too.

I agree on that one, we all believe these promises with our bags of salt poised but never utilised.

Interest in politics is at a low, most of the voting public do not care any more, which is a scary thing.

I remember seeing something on that Keiser report, he's a crazy man, but reported on the whole London buying water cannons to fight austerity riots. To me having the money for shiny riot gear when telling the public (you're about to use it on) that there's no money smacks a bit of bull.
But what can one do?

I'd have liked to take an active part in politics but I couldn't because I didn't have the time and, for police officers, it was banned.

There was a similar move against the established parties at the time of the Social Democratic party. The difference between them and UKIP is that they talked a lot of sense, had three intelligent and committed people in control, plus David Owen. Whilst one might not have believed entirely in their political philosophy, they were quite unpolitical. The interviews, mainly in the press which was largely, if not entirely, anti, seemed to indicate that Jenkins and Williams especially would go along the best route for the country as a whole. For this they were pilloried for not having a manifesto.

They were to the left of centre but this was at a time when labour was under control, or possibly threat, from the nutty left and the nutty right of the tories was - well, the nutty right of the tories. They were a breath of fresh air.

They also had a sensible plan for the economy. At one time, if memory serves, a poll reckoned they had around 40%.

They caused labour to move right, and we got - eventually - Smith and then Blair. This took away the support from the SDP. Also Owen became a bit stroppy.

That was, in my time at least, the only time a new party with experience in government and a reasonable take on what needed doing, looked to change the face of British politics. Yet all they did was rescue the liberals from obscurity, which they have been trying to regain ever since.

So what can one do?

Apart from moan.
the problem with being a politician is having to be whiter than white, else risk being smeared or blackmailed later on.

Not many worthwhile people have lead completely law abiding lives. After all, we change as we grow up.

So that leaves the ste bag professional 'I never inhaled' types we have today

its our own fault I guess.

soad

32,829 posts

175 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught?

rich888

2,610 posts

198 months

Sunday 19th October 2014
quotequote all
soad said:
Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught?
Because they have spun so many lies for so many years now, and are surrounded by people that only ever agree with what they say, that they actually believe their own propaganda - was going to say bull*hit but thought it was a bit crude. wink

I think the fact that we have three political parties named the Lib, Lab, Con says it all. What a very cosy political cartel if ever their was one.

CamMoreRon

1,237 posts

124 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
MrBrightSi said:
Right, so im not alone in my mistrust.

How does everyone want to sort this though? Im not talking about heads on pikes, just what would stop the lies?

Would making a parties pre-election promises binding by law stop it?
fk them all off and start again with honest people with experience in a field, rather than immature public schoolboys with no real world relevance. Career politicians who only care about winning elections are the reason people don't trust politicians and are so disconnected from politics. None of them actually care about change, just about scoring points and winning votes.

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
CamMoreRon said:
fk them all off and start again with honest people with experience in a field, rather than immature public schoolboys with no real world relevance. Career politicians who only care about winning elections are the reason people don't trust politicians and are so disconnected from politics. None of them actually care about change, just about scoring points and winning votes.
Surprisingly I tend to agree with this except that in order to gain influence and change things people need to win elections and to do this they need to win votes....unless you can suggest another way.

CamMoreRon

1,237 posts

124 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
mrpurple said:
Surprisingly I tend to agree with this except that in order to gain influence and change things people need to win elections and to do this they need to win votes....unless you can suggest another way.
What I mean is that when politicians make promises solely to win votes (like the Cons are doing in response to UKIP) it's insincere and they have very little chance of following through properly, if at all. I think policy should be a reflection of a party's beliefs, rather than a kneejerk reaction to voter swing. To me it just shows that they only care about getting out votes, not about what we think.

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
CamMoreRon said:
mrpurple said:
Surprisingly I tend to agree with this except that in order to gain influence and change things people need to win elections and to do this they need to win votes....unless you can suggest another way.
What I mean is that when politicians make promises solely to win votes (like the Cons are doing in response to UKIP) it's insincere and they have very little chance of following through properly, if at all. I think policy should be a reflection of a party's beliefs, rather than a kneejerk reaction to voter swing. To me it just shows that they only care about getting out votes, not about what we think.
You pays your money and takes your choice......I know Lib/Lab/Cons have been insincere for years....Hence why I am prepared to give UKIP the benefit of the doubt.

krunchkin

2,209 posts

140 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
Not sure if this has been posted elsewhere - but if you want just one of many examples of the clusterfk of elitist tts who pretend to be oppostition to each other as they merely play musical chairs with power-

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justine_Thornton

Ed Milliband's wife is best mates with George Osborne's wife. They went backpacking together

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frances_Osborne

Edited by krunchkin on Monday 20th October 14:36

2013BRM

39,731 posts

283 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
soad said:
Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught?
Not so much not get caught as don't give a toss what the electorate think, this is why they are st scared of UKIP upsetting their cosy little coterie, they might have to work for a living

mrpurple

2,624 posts

187 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
2013BRM said:
soad said:
Why do politicians believe they can lie and not get caught?
Not so much not get caught as don't give a toss what the electorate think, this is why they are st scared of UKIP upsetting their cosy little coterie, they might have to work for a living
Wonder how what is going through at the moment compares with this?

"UKIP supports the recall of MPs as was originally promised in the Coalition Agreement, whereby 20% of the electorate in a constituency must sign a recall petition within eight weeks. The approval of MPs will not be required to initiate a recall petition."

http://www.ukip.org/policies_for_people

andymadmak

14,482 posts

269 months

Monday 20th October 2014
quotequote all
MrBrightSi said:
So Derek, you're saying a chunk of blame rests with the electorate too.
Yes, that is 100% right. We get the politicians we deserve. Really. The fact is that any politician who REALLY told it like it was would never be elected. The people simply want to believe that things are better than they are. Witness the public sector strikes last week. We have a 80billion a year deficit right now and the public sector feels it deserves a pay rise!!!!!!!! And the trouble is that enough of the electorate will agree.
Part of the problem is this bizarre notion that the Government of the day has any money of its own, and that it's this money that can be spent on everything. The truth of course is that the only money a government has is that which it raises from us in taxes or borrows on our behalf! The fact that so much of the electorate fail to grasp this basic fact means there is complete disconnect between what is possible to deliver and what the public wants. So parties focus on what they think they can "give" without letting on what they have to "take" in order to finance the giveaway.

MrBrightSi said:
I agree on that one, we all believe these promises with our bags of salt poised but never utilised.
The basic information is there for all to see. 80 billion deficit ought to mean everyone knows bloody well that most cannot be delivered! The situation is further complicated by groups like the Lib Dems who fuel popular expectations by making promises they fully expect to never have to keep (like tuition fees) only to find reality biting them on the arse when they unexpectedly get into office! Rather than just say "hey, we never thought we'd have to deliver on this" they blather on about how they "only just found out how bad the finances are" or " the Conservatives won't let us" etc - thus further poisoning the well.

MrBrightSi said:
Interest in politics is at a low, most of the voting public do not care any more, which is a scary thing.
It is scary, but only because people don't want to believe the politicians (why should they?) but equally they do not want to face the reality of the current situation. It's like double denial. Hence my comment that no politician DARE to say what really needs to be done. Thus the sacred cows continue to graze in the pastures of ignorance.


MrBrightSi said:
I remember seeing something on that Keiser report, he's a crazy man, but reported on the whole London buying water cannons to fight austerity riots. To me having the money for shiny riot gear when telling the public (you're about to use it on) that there's no money smacks a bit of bull.
And in this you reveal the perils of a little knowledge. Water cannons for london = how much? Cost of dealing with the deficit = how much? The suggestion implicit in your comment is that the choice was between buying water cannons or spending the same money dealing with austerity. You have to understand the scale of the problem to realise just how far apart those numbers are.