b) I meant why is it a given that you would be corrupt?
c) Probably true, most of us aren't willing to go to the required lengths.
d) They get further than the rest of us do... Or if that's not the best route to implement the changes you know would be beneficial perhaps you'd be better in an advisory or journalistic role. Have you even written to any current politicians explaining your findings/arguments?
e) Would you know if you did see it though? Are you really in that well informed a position? I think it's pretty much a given that the overwhelmingly vast majority of people with jobs (including politicians) put at least some effort into their jobs. And I'm a consequentialist, so I have no problem at all with the ends justifying the means :)
(f) I'm not suggesting that we all go out and become MPs, just trying to point out that the (vast) majority of us are not in a position to know better in any subject than those who spend their lives (and private educations, if you want to stereotype) studying it. Politics isn't any different just because we have newspapers to read...
(b) because virtually every single one currently in power is? and to get there it's pretty much a given that you have to become corrupt or you'll lose out to someone who already is?
(c) :)
(d) no. I don't see the point, all the ones here care about is flagwaving.
(e) well currently I see them attempting to criminalise a drug that pretty much everyone on the drug advisory council has said shouldn't be criminalised... that "informed" thing goes both ways. I wouldn't say most politicians are too informed in matters of science, yet seem to think they can blithely ignore it, and only seem to want to hire scientists to rubber stamp what they already think and give their populist policies the air of legitimacy. Maybe I'm not informed in how science works, either. :?
(f) that's not really my point, though. Politics, in and of itself, is pretty much about how to get elected. There's other stuff, like economic, social, scientific, etc. etc. policies, but if you ask me, your contention (as i already suggested) that we aren't well enough qualified to judge politics should also apply to politicians- they seem to think (look at what alan johnson said when he fired professor nut) that they're uniquely qualified to pontificate about everything, while I would argue that the experts in those fields are the only ones qualified. I'm not necessarily complaining about the politics (though I am too)- I'm complaining about how arrogant they are, when, on the one hand, they complain when anyone else tries to complain about politics (and people like you fall for it), but feel perfectly qualified to pontificate about every subject under the sun. I would also point out that politicians are the only people who get appointed based on a popular vote; we don't appoint doctors, scientists, etc. etc. (cynics would say "any job which matters") that way.
Moaning and debate are two VERY different things. Nothing in this thread constitutes debate. Engaging in intelligent and constructive debate is of course something to encourage, but when nobody here has a genuine argument or point to make that's not going to happen. B is a pretty narrow take on what I said in my original post...
please don't presume that none of us has a genuine argument. I have plenty of genuine arguments, and I'm sure plenty of the others in here do too.
(a) John Major - son of a music hall performer, left school with 3 O-Levels
(b) We could argue about "average wage", and many of the above may have won scholarships to good schools before going on to top universities - but it was all through their own hard work.
Politicians aren't all born with silver spoons in their mouths.
(a) and it didn't show. at all. :lol:
(b) I never said they all were toffs. but if you take a poll of how many are toffs, versus how many people in the general population are toffs, I imagine there's a bit of a discrepancy there.
and hard work or gip? :lol:
