POLITICS is by definition a devious profession

[GabbyLoggon]

So I believe there is no more point in blaming a politition for being devious; than it would be blaming a swimmer for getting wet.

Its the job that moulds them into what they are.
I, like you dear reader, keep looking for a straight forward politico. Optimism gone bonkers. But I do of course like some politicians more than others.
And you can always look at their policies.

Please dont let this depress you. |The truth is always uplifting. Never despair.(But
I occasionally do../.briefly)

Politics is only devious because people are devious. Politics is the struggle for power without resorting to war. Its a nasty business but not as nasty as war. And our political system is very good, the gap between rich and poor not so stratified as you see in much more corrupt systems which are only political in name. I count my blessings. Its not depressing at all. We've a lot to be happy about.

Monkey - the gap between rich and poor has been growing for the past 30 years. It might not be as bad as in some developing countries but that's hardly an achievement.

yeah, growing but still within acceptable standards. we have no Mumbai slums and our politicians still work on strategies to improve society.

Why isn't that an achievement? Its a huge achievement if you take into consideration we are the exception not the rule

straight forward politico - Hague and David Davies methinks. Wedgie Benn Snr as well I think.

I don't think comparisons with the Mumbai slums are particularly appropriate for the UK, tbh.

Read the Marmot review if you think the gap in incomes is within acceptable limits. It's shocking.

Hague was convincing at 14 years of age

David Davis fell out with Cameron (And is now getting playful revenge.)

He is a rare bird: A tory MP from a bona fide working class background.
I we have to have Tories, I would prefer Davis to Cameron.

What's so worrying is that most politicians now are people who quite simply have always wanted to be politicians.
Which can only be to our detriment, as they have so little experience of normal lives.

Hague was genuine at 14.

David Davis fell out with Cameron. (And is now getting playful revenge.)

Davis is a rarity. A Tory MP from a working class background.

well that's a matter of opinion Edam. The point I was making was that things could be much worse here. Its always a good idea to get things into context that all. The difference is out political system strives to address these challenges, not ignore them.

Minty, I'd hate the country to be run by people who didn't want to be politicians. Hows that work?

Like jury service? We could all take turns in the House of Lords. Might come in a bit expensive on the old ermine, though.

Monkey, everything's a matter of opinion but it's a bit depressing if the best we can do as one of the largest economies in the world, a member of the G8 and the first country to industrialise, is to say 'hey, at least it ain't as bad as Mumbai'.

(But I suspect Minty means we should have politicians who have done other jobs first, not just PPE at Oxbridge, few years as a researcher then into a safe seat.)

Monkeytrousers, I think less of people who have seen politics as their career path since school, and gone about achieving the goal to become very young ministers.
Mind you, Tony Benn can hardly be said to have experienced first hand the need for social reform, but he's ok. So it's not like it's a rule or anything.

It would be very difficult for things to be seriously, murderously squalid here, though - mild climate, no threat of natural disaster, population rising but not yet at critical mass. It would mean the dismantling of every bit of infrastructure that we have.

We managed serious, murderous squalor here at least from the increase in urbanisation following the industrial revolution up to the twentieth century. And there were pretty squalid parts before and after that.

But to stick to the topic, I'd rather have competent than honest.

Yes but the point is that by and large, squalor isn't a feature of our society now, is it? With the odd anomalous exception. We'd have to dismantle the welfare state, the NHS, stop all maintenance by the council, repeal all laws pertaining to building and planning permission, hike the price of fuel up to improbable levels (oh hang on, they've done that...).
I mean, there's a reason why we have all those things in place, and broadly speaking, it is the legacy of the industrial revolution.

The weather, population size and lack of natural disaster aren't major factors though. The welfare state (which is really the philosophical center of all the things you mention) since the second world war - so about 50 years. It's a lot quicker to destroy something than to build it.

Minty, I think it's rather the result of the fight for political representation by the working classes and those of the middle classes who interested themselves in social reform. With a few honourable exceptions, the mill owners, factory owners and MPs from rotten boroughs had no interest in changing the system that served them so well. People had to fight for better conditions, no-one was handing it to them out of generosity.

The prime minister Lord Liverpool sent the troops in to shoot political protesters at Peterloo in Manchester. The police broke up meetings of the incipient Labour party using their truncheons pretty freely. My godmother's father was thrown out of his tied cottage - literally put on the streets with his wife and three children - for daring to stand for the council for a different party to the mine owner. (And in the 30s she and her mother were spat at when they went door to door trying to raise funds for the first Marie Stopes family planning clinic for married women.)

Oh, and the current government is heading towards dismantling the welfare state. They are already planning to throw all hospitals out of the NHS, turning them into private institutions (but under the label of social enterprise to make it sound nice). The big society idea is just a front for privatisation and leaving the poor to the mercies of charities.

The welfare state was brought in by people who had suffered six years of terrible warfare involving civilians as well as troops. The war effort brought all social classes together in daily life and showed the middle and upper classes that the workers were not an underclass but decent ordinary people. The working classes weren't prepared to go back to the dreadful conditions of the 30s after serving their country during WW2. It was a new, enlightened, social compact. It's lasted for 50 years but might well be about to crumble.

I tend to agree with Edams analysis. This is a Tory government. The FibDems tag along for a sniff of power. We are not ALL going to suffer to the same extent. Cameron is being less than honest about that.

I hear deputy NICK is in charge this week
while Cameron is on holiday.

Nick is touring town and city halls for public meetings. Is he coming to your place?