"They are all as bad as each other"

[Bigga]

I get the non conforming argument as I recognise the person you describe in your post.

The all politicians the same argument is a tool of division that creates apathy in the electorate. All sides in have devious, even perverse minority of MPs in their parties. Sadly these are the one that make the headlines and shame the genuine public servants who do their jobs with diligence and attention to details that keep the country moving.

So what difference is the individual politician making if they have to kowtow to the whip?

This, ultimately, is the point.

 

[mat]

So what difference is the individual politician making if they have to kowtow to the whip?

This, ultimately, is the point.

It is.

We have an archaic system which needs breaking down and rebuilding. But that's not going to happen because some powerful people and organisations would have to lose some of their power and influence to achieve it.

 

[Bigga]

It is.

We have an archaic system which needs breaking down and rebuilding. But that's not going to happen because some powerful people and organisations would have to lose some of their power and influence to achieve it.

It does make wonder if people are going to discuss the premise in good faith.

We'll see.

 

[Coatigan]

Sometimes, they just Are all as bad as each other. And that is all there is to it.

 

[FogBlueInSanFran]

So to conclude - politicians aren’t the problem, the real problem is the voters, the politicians just get paid to reflect us - if they didn’t they wouldn’t get voted in.

In the US at least, they (our Congressional reps) have two jobs — to represent the views of their constituents (to “reflect us”) and then to ensure that those views are incorporated into legislation. Different politicians reflect different “us-es”; as such, no “us” gets everything they want, unless the “us-es” all agree (which is infrequent), which leads to the widely-held view that politicians are ineffectual, because no “us” gets it all.

 

[Alan Harper's Tash]

Sometimes, they just Are all as bad as each other. And that is all there is to it.

When do you think this last occurred?

 

[Bigga]

So, what people need to stop doing is believing politicians "reflect us". Let me use the extreme, the US, as an example:

Healthcare, guns, education, war, policing, abortion rights.

Here, in the UK, we are subjected to media [as they are in the States] that plants the seeds of the extreme few in favour of the legislation wanted and only THEN the few "agree" with those views.

Of course, there are a few times that doesn't happen, but all-in-all, our society is herded in the direction wanted by the protagonists/ villains.

 

[blueinsa]

Argue as much as you like about are they as bad as each other, the truth is policy wise there is a fag paper between them all because they are all a part of the same system that has always and will always have the rich and poor and the haves and have nots.

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem it matters not a jot for the vast majority.

I’ve seen plenty of governments over my lifetime and the same issues persist.

 

[The Future’s Blue!]

Argue as much as you like about are they as bad as each other, the truth is policy wise there is a fag paper between them all because they are all a part of the same system that has always and will always have the rich and poor and the haves and have nots.

Labour, Tory, Lib Dem it matters not a jot for the vast majority.

I’ve seen plenty of governments over my lifetime and the same issues persist.

It may seem small to you as you have a certain slant, but there are huge differences, especially with this current government.

As you say, they’re all the same.

 

[Postman Pep]

As much as I agree it's a lazy argument, vacuous shit like this is not going to make it go away

 

[Rascal]

So, let me ask you, @Rascal , is the statement that I make that 'both parties are basically the same' the same or different than your outlook?

If they are different, doesn't it mean that the individual politician, ultimately following party lines, has to come under the banner that gets your goat?

If they are the same, does it not become an inherent truth, then?

If a copper is 'well-meaning' to you in person, but still beats you back at a peaceful protest, what does that say, in general?

I think mate you are looking at it from a party political perspective where as my intention was to look at it from an individual MPs perspective. By that I mean say are Lisa Nandy and Rees-Mogg both in Parliament with the best of intentions. I do honestly believe that they both believe they are there to do good. Now whilst I may fundamentally disagree with both of them on issues and they may be following party guidance as part of collective responsibility that does not change their intentions on entering Parliament. They may have to support what I would consider awful and odious legislation, yet still retain their good intentions. Obviously though the question becomes what are good intentions and the only answer I have to that is the ballot box.

Which takes me back to one of my original concerns, thinking that MPs are all the same is a threat to Democracy and the best way to measure any MPs intentions is through an election and if we begin to consider MPs as being all the same I worry that affects voter turnout, it de-legitimises mandates and support for Parliament falls further. That could create a vacuum and authoritarians exploit vacuums.

 

[Bigga]

I think mate you are looking at it from a party political perspective where as my intention was to look at it from an individual MPs perspective. By that I mean say are Lisa Nandy and Rees-Mogg both in Parliament with the best of intentions. I do honestly believe that they both believe they are there to do good. Now whilst I may fundamentally disagree with both of them on issues and they may be following party guidance as part of collective responsibility that does not change their intentions on entering Parliament. They may have to support what I would consider awful and odious legislation, yet still retain their good intentions. Obviously though the question becomes what are good intentions and the only answer I have to that is the ballot box.

Which takes me back to one of my original concerns, thinking that MPs are all the same is a threat to Democracy and the best way to measure any MPs intentions is through an election and if we begin to consider MPs as being all the same I worry that affects voter turnout, it de-legitimises mandates and support for Parliament falls further. That could create a vacuum and authoritarians exploit vacuums.

So, why aren't 'good intentioned' MPs pushing for leadership?

Why do they allow themselves to fall in with the pack, rendering 'good intentions' pointless??

That's my question.

 

[Rascal]

Interesting post @Rascal - out of interest why did you include Larry the cat in your poll for next tory leader? Most probably for the humour factor/ballot spoilers which I do get it made me laugh.

Correct, it humoured me mate.

The serious side is cat is winning, it’s a microscopic experiment to say “all are the same”… your post extrapolates that out from a few Tories to all politicians. All Tories are dripping in cash, corrupt and who don’t care about the poor.. or the NHS - I do note though @Rascal you did object to this narrative, much to your credit.

I can be reasonable when I am not being my bombastic tribal self.

You even hear Labour MPs saying it’s doesn’t matter who wins the Tory leadership they’re all as bad as each other. I’m sure the tories said the same about labours leadership campaign, all lefty tossers or some such nonsense. You read it page after page in the thread on here by the same people who’ll undoubtedly tell you it’s only the right who think “all politicians are as bad as each other” - the irony being lost on them. There is little serious discussion about the issues at hand - there rarely is - it’s just mud slinging and tribalism. We are all guilty of this to some extent.

Agree 100%

It was alluded to elsewhere in this thread which by the way is a really thoughtful thread almost devoid of tribalism that our political system is broken, I do believe that needs to be addressed properly. Hopefully the next Government will look at it and maybe set up a Royal Commission to look at how our system can be improved and whilst I have never been convinced by PR , maybe it is time our country modernised because FPTP produces idiosyncrasies such as the 2005 election which Labour won with 36.1% of the votes yet received 56.5% of the seats, whilst the Lib Dems won 22.6% of the votes but only 9.9% of the seats. That is insane when you consider it and has to impact on voter turnout.

So to conclude - politicians aren’t the problem, the real problem is the voters, the politicians just get paid to reflect us - if they didn’t they wouldn’t get voted in.

There is a lot of truth in that

 

[meltonblue]

Interesting post @Rascal - out of interest why did you include Larry the cat in your poll for next tory leader? Most probably for the humour factor/ballot spoilers which I do get it made me laugh. The serious side is cat is winning, it’s a microscopic experiment to say “all are the same”… your post extrapolates that out from a few Tories to all politicians. All Tories are dripping in cash, corrupt and who don’t care about the poor.. or the NHS - I do note though @Rascal you did object to this narrative, much to your credit.

You even hear Labour MPs saying it’s doesn’t matter who wins the Tory leadership they’re all as bad as each other. I’m sure the tories said the same about labours leadership campaign, all lefty tossers or some such nonsense. You read it page after page in the thread on here by the same people who’ll undoubtedly tell you it’s only the right who think “all politicians are as bad as each other” - the irony being lost on them. There is little serious discussion about the issues at hand - there rarely is - it’s just mud slinging and tribalism. We are all guilty of this to some extent.

So to conclude - politicians aren’t the problem, the real problem is the voters, the politicians just get paid to reflect us - if they didn’t they wouldn’t get voted in.

I’d add the current system to your last paragraph. Part of the issue is we don’t have a parliament or then a government that does accurately reflect the voter base.

 

[I'm With Stupid]

There's also the "Keir Starmer is really a Tory" rhetoric. To which I would say I'd rather have a Tory that has to please the Labour backbenchers to keep his job, than a Tory who has to please the Tory backbenchers to keep their job.

 

[remember arthur mann]

So, why aren't 'good intentioned' MPs pushing for leadership?

Why do they allow themselves to fall in with the pack, rendering 'good intentions' pointless??

That's my question.

Probably because there's not many of them.
Generally you're probably going against the grain, so it's self defeating.

 

[Rascal]

So, why aren't 'good intentioned' MPs pushing for leadership?

Why do they allow themselves to fall in with the pack, rendering 'good intentions' pointless??

That's my question.

What you are saying in reality is that MPs enter the HoC with bad intentions. There may be an element of truth in that but two examples. Thatcher and Johnson. I find it incredulous that either of those entered politics to do harm. I despised Thatcher and my thoughts on Johnson are well documented but I genuinely do believe they had good intentions however it turned out for both of them.

As for being part of the pack, that is the nature of our tribalist form of government, its confrontational. Look at how the HoC is set up, opposing sides which makes co-operation and collaboration appear difficult. MPs sit behind their leadership like Legions stood behind their Generals. Then of course there are MPs who are ambitious, power is enticing and even those with good intentions are not immune to the trappings of power. There will be without doubt MPs who entered the HoC with the intention of being advocates for their electorate who have been offered high office and find it impossible to refuse because serving ones country is a reason for entering Parliament.

Tony Blair in his final PMQs said the following

" Some may belittle politics, but we know as people engaged in it people stand tall and whilst I know it has many harsh contentions it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster and if on occasion it is a place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for pursuit of noble causes"

I am no fan of Blair, but that statement is simply magnificent.

 

[Bigga]

Probably because there's not many of them.
Generally you're probably going against the grain, so it's self defeating.

Maybe.

 

[Bigga]

What you are saying in reality is that MPs enter the HoC with bad intentions. There may be an element of truth in that but two examples. Thatcher and Johnson. I find it incredulous that either of those entered politics to do harm. I despised Thatcher and my thoughts on Johnson are well documented but I genuinely do believe they had good intentions however it turned out for both of them.

As for being part of the pack, that is the nature of our tribalist form of government, its confrontational. Look at how the HoC is set up, opposing sides which makes co-operation and collaboration appear difficult. MPs sit behind their leadership like Legions stood behind their Generals. Then of course there are MPs who are ambitious, power is enticing and even those with good intentions are not immune to the trappings of power. There will be without doubt MPs who entered the HoC with the intention of being advocates for their electorate who have been offered high office and find it impossible to refuse because serving ones country is a reason for entering Parliament.

Tony Blair in his final PMQs said the following

" Some may belittle politics, but we know as people engaged in it people stand tall and whilst I know it has many harsh contentions it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster and if on occasion it is a place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for pursuit of noble causes"

I am no fan of Blair, but that statement is simply magnificent.

If Johnson went into Gov with good intentions, he ended up hammering us and he's now trying to implement cutting taxes for the people which was vehemently opposed by Sunak.

Ironic.

I think it may have been "low skullduggery" in Blair's time, but that has changed now as we see it unfold in front of us with these politicians.

As for "noble causes", that means sweet FA when the people are an afterthought to big business.

 

[inbetween]

What you are saying in reality is that MPs enter the HoC with bad intentions. There may be an element of truth in that but two examples. Thatcher and Johnson. I find it incredulous that either of those entered politics to do harm. I despised Thatcher and my thoughts on Johnson are well documented but I genuinely do believe they had good intentions however it turned out for both of them.

As for being part of the pack, that is the nature of our tribalist form of government, its confrontational. Look at how the HoC is set up, opposing sides which makes co-operation and collaboration appear difficult. MPs sit behind their leadership like Legions stood behind their Generals. Then of course there are MPs who are ambitious, power is enticing and even those with good intentions are not immune to the trappings of power. There will be without doubt MPs who entered the HoC with the intention of being advocates for their electorate who have been offered high office and find it impossible to refuse because serving ones country is a reason for entering Parliament.

Tony Blair in his final PMQs said the following

" Some may belittle politics, but we know as people engaged in it people stand tall and whilst I know it has many harsh contentions it is still the arena that sets the heart beating a little faster and if on occasion it is a place of low skullduggery, it is more often the place for pursuit of noble causes"

I am no fan of Blair, but that statement is simply magnificent.

Perhaps the problem with the system is how you have described it, it's based upon voting for a person to represent you however in reality it's centred around one person who you do not vote for. Only the people of Uxbridge voted for Boris Johnson and less than 0.1% of the country voted for him to be the Tory party leader and PM.

It shouldn't be the case but it's a fact that Boris Johnson or any PM for that matter wields far more power than your MP. A party leader has the power to effectively eliminate your MP if they vote in their constituents interests and against the party, this is where the disconnect exists between the voter and the MP. It's because MP's suddenly are forced to consistently vote with their party and not necessarily their constituents or else face consequences.

Just now for example example we have a ridiculous situation where our next PM will likely promise tax cuts just months after that same person voted within the last regime to increase taxes. How is a system that allows this behaviour representative let alone democratic? Did anyone vote for tax increases and then tax cuts 6 months later?

So what is my point, ultimately I think we're kidding ourselves. We do live in a democracy but only to the point where every few years we get to vote for someone. That's where it ends, what that person then does once they're elected is a completely different matter. Most people truly vote for the party and PM who sets the agenda however in 2 months time we'll have a new PM with a new agenda that no-one voted for and the MP's will vote with that PM, it's just farcical really.

The only single issue I've ever seen where democracy has truly been exercised is Brexit and the reason why is because that decision was taken away from MP's. That's why it attracts so much energy on either side because actually this time your vote stood for something and actually did make a big difference.