discernihg choice
Steve B
regarding a recent item in the news,
whom would you most believe?
a) scientist
b) politician
Oz
prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
--
Oz
Buddenbrooks
"Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message
news:MPG.255e78487...@news.freedom2surf.net...
I think you will find they both believe in the importance of the truth.
Politicians value it so highly that they keep it safely out of free speech.
Old Codger
is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
and probably ignorance also.
In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
over almost any politician. :-)
--
Old Codger
e-mail use reply to field
What matters in politics is not what happens, but what you can make
people believe has happened. [Janet Daley 27/8/2003]
Old Codger
Oz
>
>"Steve B" <st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote in message
>news:MPG.255e78487...@news.freedom2surf.net...
>>
>> regarding a recent item in the news,
>>
>> whom would you most believe?
>>
>> a) scientist
>>
>> b) politician
>>
>
>I think you will find they both believe in the importance of the truth.
Er, maybe, but choosse (hic!0)one ....
>Politicians value it so highly that they keep it safely out of free speech.
>
Quitem but wgich uin (hic) thius caawe....
--
Oz
Steve B
oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> Oz wrote:
> > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
> >> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >>
> >> whom would you most believe?
> >>
> >> a) scientist
> >>
> >> b) politician
> >>
> >
> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> >
> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
> and probably ignorance also.
to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
electorate to keep them in office. OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if
politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
>
> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
> over almost any politician. :-)
>
Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing
themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
Oz
>In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>> Oz wrote:
>> > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>> >> regarding a recent item in the news,
>> >>
>> >> whom would you most believe?
>> >>
>> >> a) scientist
>> >>
>> >> b) politician
>> >>
>> >
>> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>> >
>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
>> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
>> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
>> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
>> and probably ignorance also.
>
>to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
>electorate to keep them in office.
No, but sadly they often need large grants to keep their department in
wages. This can cause them to 'exaggerate the value of their research',
to put it politely. This is particularly true of anything which has a
public exposure. BSE was a glaring example of many.
>OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if
>politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
Indeed, nor perhaps clerics although it depends how radicalised religion
becomes. There once was a very good reason as islam tends to show rather
well right now.
>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
>> over almost any politician. :-)
>
>Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
>intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing
>themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
>A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial
evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to
support it. Common glaring lies are:
"Nobody ever saw evolution in action".
and
"Nobody had ever seen any missing links"
although that's rather a truism when expressed like that when they
really mean
"Nobody has seen intermediate stages in evolution"
which is totally wrong.
--
Oz
Buddenbrooks
"Oz" <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote in message news:yFBT5HB7...@OzHome.com...
> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>
> That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial
> evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to
> support it.
The human mind seems to be quite capable of believing two quite exclusive
truths.
Most of us model the behavior of the parts of the world we interact with and
as long as the model works we accept it.
Two different facets can have two models which work over the area of
functional need, but contain mutual inconsistencies.
Generally we can live and function quite happily knowing it is wrong in some
way but works.
In fact it can be life threatening to ignore the flawed model.
'Don't go out of the cave at night, the bogey man will get you' is wrong as
there are no bogey men, there are tigers.
I don't actually understand why clerics have a problem with the Darwin
Model, it really does not clash with the God Model.
Other than it might question the updates to the God Model which includes
'Clerics in the hierarchy model.
Buddenbrooks
"Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:Sji0iWTB...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>
>>
> Surely the answer to someone who claims that there are no missing links is
> to tell them to look in a mirror!
>
OK that shows perfection, but not how it got there.
Oz
>
>
>The human mind seems to be quite capable of believing two quite exclusive
>truths.
Indeed, more for some people than others.
>Most of us model the behavior of the parts of the world we interact with and as
>long as the model works we accept it.
>Two different facets can have two models which work over the area of functional
>need, but contain mutual inconsistencies.
Absolutely. Regrettably not everyone, I have a problem with such
systems, they niggle away at me.
>Generally we can live and function quite happily knowing it is wrong in some way
>but works.
>In fact it can be life threatening to ignore the flawed model.
Indeed, believing a model does not involve understanding anything.
>'Don't go out of the cave at night, the bogey man will get you' is wrong as
>there are no bogey men, there are tigers.
Quite. One merely needs to say 'unidentified but real dangers'.
Particularly if occasionally bolstered by a dead tribal members body who
ignored said advice. Bogeyman not required but humans tend to
personalise inanimate objects which are often 'out to get them'!
>I don't actually understand why clerics have a problem with the Darwin Model,
>it really does not clash with the God Model.
Well, it does if you believe all of the bible is the word of god. Why
anyone does (even jews don't on the whole) is beyond me. Apart from a
few things said to be handed down by god (eg 10 commandments and a few
others reported by prophets) its the historical tome of a small tribe of
arabic nomads. It doesn't even claim to be the word of god at all. This
is fortunate because islam has to carry the koran as the immutable
actual word of god like a weight shackled to its wrists and feet.
>Other than it might question the updates to the God Model which includes
>'Clerics in the hierarchy model.
Clerics not much mentioned as needed (other than priests of the high
temple) anywhere in the bible.
Problem is that if god doesn't grant favours or miracles, just some
unproven promise of immortal life, maybe she doesn't exist?
Which is why more grown up religions tend towards 'faith' as the big
virtue, which works quite well for many.
--
Oz
Steve B
> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
> >In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> >oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> >> Oz wrote:
> >> > Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
> >> >> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >> >>
> >> >> whom would you most believe?
> >> >>
> >> >> a) scientist
> >> >>
> >> >> b) politician
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> >> >
> >> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
> >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
> >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
> >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
> >> and probably ignorance also.
> >
> >to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
> >electorate to keep them in office.
>
> No, but sadly they often need large grants to keep their department in
> wages. This can cause them to 'exaggerate the value of their research',
> to put it politely. This is particularly true of anything which has a
> public exposure. BSE was a glaring example of many.
t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant funding.
Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on
academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for
their institution.
> >OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if
> >politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
>
> Indeed, nor perhaps clerics although it depends how radicalised religion
> becomes. There once was a very good reason as islam tends to show rather
> well right now.
I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays. I am not sure they were
ever a good form of government anyway, but don't know enough background to
make sensible comment.
>
> >> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
> >> over almost any politician. :-)
> >
> >Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
> >intelligent thought. Politicians are more practised at representing
> >themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
> >A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
>
> That's true. Mind you one reason is that an awful lot of radial
> evangelical clerics actually tell lies about darwin and the evidence to
> support it. Common glaring lies are:
>
> "Nobody ever saw evolution in action".
>
> and
>
> "Nobody had ever seen any missing links"
>
> although that's rather a truism when expressed like that when they
> really mean
>
> "Nobody has seen intermediate stages in evolution"
>
> which is totally wrong.
>
If Darwin had been born in the USA, his ideas might have been more accepted
there. There again, he might have been tarred and feathered and never heard
of again. In which case, we'd have the same controversy regarding Wallace :)
>
Old Codger
> In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>> Oz wrote:
>>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
>>>>
>>>> whom would you most believe?
>>>>
>>>> a) scientist
>>>>
>>>> b) politician
>>>>
>>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>>>
>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
>> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
>> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
>> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
>> and probably ignorance also.
>
> to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
> electorate to keep them in office.
Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to
lie so blatantly or so often.
> OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick
those who will produce the "right" result.
>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
>> over almost any politician. :-)
>>
>
> Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
> intelligent thought.
Why thank you kind sir.
> Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the
hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the
verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short
as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of
evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God
hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
Steve B
oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> Steve B wrote:
> > In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> > oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> >> Oz wrote:
> >>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
> >>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
> >>>>
> >>>> whom would you most believe?
> >>>>
> >>>> a) scientist
> >>>>
> >>>> b) politician
> >>>>
> >>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
> >>>
> >> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
> >> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
> >> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
> >> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
> >> and probably ignorance also.
> >
> > to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
> > electorate to keep them in office.
>
> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to
> lie so blatantly or so often.
I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards
have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
>
> > OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
>
> or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick
> those who will produce the "right" result.
>
> >> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
> >> over almost any politician. :-)
> >>
> >
> > Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
> > intelligent thought.
>
> Why thank you kind sir.
>
> > Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
>
> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>
hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
caught out by a con man (or woman).
> > A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
>
> If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the
> hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the
> verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short
> as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of
> evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God
> hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
>
I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
fairly recently.
>
Oz
>
>t'would seem that almost all research nowadays requires significant funding.
>Indeed, I have the impression that professorships are awarded, not only on
>academic merit but more so on an individuals ability to generate income for
>their institution.
That's pretty close to the truth.
>I think theocracies are certainly outmoded nowadays.
Er, iran, al quaeda, pakistan under zia, parts of saudi, etc etc.
>I am not sure they were
>ever a good form of government anyway,
They are positively dreadful. The very worst type of dictatorship with
rights to do absolutely anything 'in the name of god'.
>but don't know enough background to make
>sensible comment.
Not been following the news these last 30 years then?
>If Darwin had been born in the USA, his ideas might have been more accepted
>there. There again, he might have been tarred and feathered and never heard of
>again.
Considering he left it for several decades (apart from a few in the
know) in the UK for fear of retribution I imagine he wouldn't have
lasted long in the US.
>In which case, we'd have the same controversy regarding Wallace :)
No. See tarred and feathered above ...
--
Oz
Oz
>> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to
>> lie so blatantly or so often.
>
>I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards
>have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
Its gone from an unpaid job you did for public service to a career job
offering increasingly lucrative status and income. This is not good.
>> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
>> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
>> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>>
>
>hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
>but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
>Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
>caught out by a con man (or woman).
Even less being a con man of course.
A few jail sentences would have been salutary IMHO.
>I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
>fairly recently.
You do take a long view. The concept was instigated and sorted a little
after gallileo. They set up a branch to study science and report back,
the jesuits (amazing or what!). As a consequence they had the theology
pretty well worked out even before darwin. After all either science is
right or its not. Science says the material world is predictable and
knowable without the hand of a deity, so remove the hand of the deity
for all times since the creation event (the big bang will do nicely).
One can then argue about minutia like the odd miracle or the life of
jesus without too much bothering with science.
A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are
religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of
course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of
god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
--
Oz
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote:
> In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
> > Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
> > men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
> > intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> >
>
> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
> but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
> Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
> caught out by a con man (or woman).
I don't think it's politicians per se that are the problem, it's career
politicians.
We used to have a majority of politicians who had already lived a slice of
real life before attaining office; now there are too many who studied politics
in university (some in school even), took first jobs as political aides or
researchers and so on until, with time duly served to the party machine, they
were allowed to become first no-chance candidates and eventually safe-seat
candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party)
politics - and nothing else.
> > > A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
> >
> > If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the
> > hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the
> > verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short
> > as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of
> > evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God
> > hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
> >
>
> I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
> fairly recently.
There has never been any problem with evolution. The classic anti-Darwinist
cleverly shifts the discussion to evolution and so bogs the argument in the
wrong area. It's trivial to demonstrate evolution to any theologician by
asking them which branch of which religion they espouse and then tracing it
out from the original roots - eg. start with Abraham and work forward to
Whirling Dervishes or whichever sect applies.
Darwin's theory had nothing to do with the process of evolution which he took
as a given. His theory relates to the mechanism driving evolution, his is
the theory of Evolution by NATURAL SELECTION (my caps) - hence the 'Does God
play dice' discussion path.
Darwin's revelation was that, as his studies in geology demonstrated, the
earth is -old-: old enough for minute differences in gene survival to
have a dramatic effect. The 'survival of the fittest' line (not Darwin's
actual words) really should be taken as the survival of the -bloodline- of
the -fittest-to-breed-; so a marathon runner might not have as many
offspring as an attractive couch potato. His finch examples and many
others merely demonstrated the evolution of small differences which he then
extrapolated through deep time finding there was enough to account for, um,
I can't remember his example so here's mine, time enough for cherry trees
and gerbils to evolve from a common, very distant, ancestor.
What worries the religious orthodox is that humans no longer have a place as
the peak of creation in the like of (deity of choice) but instead have equal
evolutionary status with periwinkles, ribwort plantains and Escherichia coli.
If a zealot of one of the Old Testament faiths quibbles the time since
creation just ask: 'How long is one of God's days?' God hadn't even a
day-length measure until after creating the sun and the earth and there's no
reason to assume (s)he felt constrained to conform to the period of a minor
fragment of that creation...
Cheerio,
--
Old Codger
> In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>> Steve B wrote:
>>> In article <4af4817a$0$2527$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>>> oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>>>> Oz wrote:
>>>>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>>>>>> regarding a recent item in the news,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> whom would you most believe?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a) scientist
>>>>>>
>>>>>> b) politician
>>>>>>
>>>>> prefix with 'honest' or 'untruthful' or 'ignorant' and I will answer!!!
>>>>>
>>>> Indeed, but with no prefixes one can predict that the normal scientist
>>>> is interested in facts, or the truth in so far as he has evidence, and
>>>> therefore could be considered honest. Politicians on the other hand
>>>> have shown recently that their norm is likely to be untruth, dishonesty
>>>> and probably ignorance also.
>>> to be fair, scientists don't have the disadvantage of having to persuade the
>>> electorate to keep them in office.
>> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to
>> lie so blatantly or so often.
>
> I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards
> have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
Oh dear, the requirements resulting would push up costs even more, and
think of the associated expenses.
>>> OTOH, I don't think it a good thing if politicians have too much say in the appointment of scientists.
>> or the membership of enquiry panels. There is a strong tendency to pick
>> those who will produce the "right" result.
>>
>>>> In regard to the "recent item in the news" I would believe the scientist
>>>> over almost any politician. :-)
>>>>
>>> Agreed, but (forgive the assumption) you are an educated man and capable of
>>> intelligent thought.
>> Why thank you kind sir.
>>
>>> Politicians are more practised at representing themselves to the 'common' man than scientists in the general sense.
>> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
>> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
>> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>>
>
> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
> but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
> Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
> caught out by a con man (or woman).
Indeed, young Tone managed to fool most of the people most of the time
and at least some of them must have been both educated and intelligent.
>>> A lot of people don't accept what Darwin said, even after 150 or so years.
>> If one takes the bible literally I can see the problem. However, the
>> hymn "O God our help in ages past" surely solves that puzzle with the
>> verse: "A thousand ages in Thy sight Are like an evening gone; Short
>> as the watch that ends the night Before the rising sun." allows all of
>> evolution to fit into those seven days and perhaps indicates that God
>> hasn't yet finished creating the world (and the universe).
>>
>
> I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
> fairly recently.
Define 'fairly recently'
I think it was quite a long time ago.
Old Codger
> In article <MPG.256165b95...@news.freedom2surf.net>, Steve B
> <URL:mailto:st...@wayback.org.uk> wrote:
>> In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
>> oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>
>>> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
>>> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
>>> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
>>>
>> hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
>> but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
>> Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
>> caught out by a con man (or woman).
>
> I don't think it's politicians per se that are the problem, it's career
> politicians.
>
> We used to have a majority of politicians who had already lived a slice of
> real life before attaining office; now there are too many who studied politics
> in university (some in school even), took first jobs as political aides or
> researchers and so on until, with time duly served to the party machine, they
> were allowed to become first no-chance candidates and eventually safe-seat
> candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party)
> politics - and nothing else.
And quickly become party leader and potentially our next Prime Minister.
That is the main reason I am more depressed than I ever was in the 60s
and 70s. The light at the end of the tunnel these days is just about
extinguished.
A prime requirement for every parliamentary candidate should be to have
already carved out a career in the outside world, even if only as a
ship's steward.
My thoughts on the current expenses/pay scandal is:
Tie MPs salary to an appropriate forces rank whose current salary is at,
or below, �65K and do similar for ministers and the PM but make that
figure the total of their their remuneration, i.e. the new salary
includes their MPs salary.
Change their pension to defined contribution, with the taxpayer
contributing no more than the member and with a sensible top limit to
the taxpayer's contribution.
Redundancy pay set at the statutory levels.
Expenses should be replaced with fixed allowances set at a level that
would allow someone on near the minimum wage to be an MP. They could
then employ who they liked and would probably be de-selected if they did
not do a satisfactory job. I would set up a committee of business men,
chaired by someone like Arnold Weinstock, to investigate the reasonable
needs of MPs, secretarial, research, etc., and travel and accommodation.
There should be no commuting allowance and an equivalent sum should be
deducted from the travel and accommodation allowance for those living
too far away to commute.
The committee would be instructed to set the various allowances at the
lowest level they would consider appropriate for their junior
management. These allowances would be linked to CPI with a ten year
review to see if the indexing has kept them aligned with actual costs
and appropriate adjustments made, up or down.
Of course, if enough suitable MPs could not be attracted we might have
to increase salaries but I don't see any sign of a shortage of potential
MPs.
Steve B
> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
> >In article <4af727bc$0$2532$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>,
> >oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
>
> >> Agreed, but if politicians really were honourable they would not have to
> >> lie so blatantly or so often.
> >
> >I don't think I can argue against that one, fair enough to say that standards
> >have gone way down in recent years. Perhaps they should be Ofsted inspected?
>
> Its gone from an unpaid job you did for public service to a career job
> offering increasingly lucrative status and income. This is not good.
>
> >> Politicians assume the common man is stupid, he is not. Most common
> >> men, and women, (to keep the sex police happy) are capable of
> >> intelligent thought, even if not always as educated as they might be.
> >>
> >
> >hmm. I think it probable that most people don't entirely trust politicians,
> >but tolerate them as a necessary evil, being phlegmatic as such.
> >Also, intelligence and education are not necessarily proof against being
> >caught out by a con man (or woman).
>
> Even less being a con man of course.
>
> A few jail sentences would have been salutary IMHO.
well deserved in some cases.
> >I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
> >fairly recently.
>
> You do take a long view. The concept was instigated and sorted a little
> after gallileo. They set up a branch to study science and report back,
> the jesuits (amazing or what!).
> As a consequence they had the theology
> pretty well worked out even before darwin. After all either science is
> right or its not. Science says the material world is predictable and
> knowable without the hand of a deity, so remove the hand of the deity
> for all times since the creation event (the big bang will do nicely).
>
ok, scientists do hardware and theologians software?
> One can then argue about minutia like the odd miracle or the life of
> jesus without too much bothering with science.
>
> A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are
> religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of
> course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of
> god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
hm, have to think about this, but not being able to see the wood for the
trees comes to mind re the Bible belt.
>
>
Oz
>In article <WvE6j6As...@OzHome.com>, O...@mailcatch.com says...
>> A very simple solution really, which works brilliantly (if you are
>> religious), but sadly seems to have passed by much of the bible belt. Of
>> course it has to as they consider the bible as the immutable word of
>> god, which is verging on blasphemy really.
>
>hm, have to think about this, but not being able to see the wood for the
>trees comes to mind re the Bible belt.
A total lack of theological input and a lack of brain cells helps too.
--
Oz
Derek Moody
<URL:mailto:oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
> Derek Moody wrote:
> > candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party)
> > politics - and nothing else.
>
> And quickly become party leader and potentially our next Prime Minister.
Well DC -did- squeeze in a few years in media... Hmmm.
> That is the main reason I am more depressed than I ever was in the 60s
> and 70s. The light at the end of the tunnel these days is just about
> extinguished.
>
> A prime requirement for every parliamentary candidate should be to have
> already carved out a career in the outside world, even if only as a
> ship's steward.
Slightly tricky. Whilst I agree in priciple, there is a danger that no
young people will ever be represented. How about: Every parliamentary
candidate should have spent at least half of their working life (before
election) outside politics?
Buddenbrooks
"Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
news:4af88b6c$0$2533$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
.
>
> Redundancy pay set at the statutory levels.
>
Its a defined period contract. If it has reached a natural end redundancy
does not apply.
I think every candidate should present his remuneration demand as part of
the election campaign.
This should include all salary, expenses etc.
This number should be divided by the number of voters in the constituency.
This then would be charged to each voter after tax and benefits so that each
'feels' it.
The voter can then compare cost and policies and make a value for money
judgment.
There should be an option to change constituencies, so 'better' MPs could
have more voters to spread the cost.
Buddenbrooks
"Derek Moody" <de...@farm-direct.co.uk> wrote in message
news:ant10090...@strongarm.half-baked-idea.co.uk...
> Whilst I agree in priciple, there is a danger that no
> young people will ever be represented.
At least all MPs have 'youth experience' and some well into middle age
continue to do so.
Buddenbrooks
>
> Indeed, young Tone managed to fool most of the people most of the time and
> at least some of them must have been both educated and intelligent.
>
Presentation seems to be key feature of the political and civil service.
I notice in yesterdays paper than and IT director of a department dealing
with the London Olympics caught sexually harassing staff was quietly asked
to leave his ￜ100000 a year job then went to work for the Bob I. The
paper's description of his cv would suggest he was not worth a quarter of
that, but had the right connections and very arrogant.
Old Codger
> In article <4af88b6c$0$2533$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk>, Old Codger
> <URL:mailto:oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote:
>> Derek Moody wrote:
>
>>> candidates thus entering office with a detailed knowledge of (party)
>>> politics - and nothing else.
>> And quickly become party leader and potentially our next Prime Minister.
>
> Well DC -did- squeeze in a few years in media... Hmmm.
Hmmm indeed. University, political advisor, PR Director of a media
company, MP, Con leader. Not a very inspiring CV and how the hell do
you become a company director with no relevant "in the ranks"
experience, without starting your own company.
>> That is the main reason I am more depressed than I ever was in the 60s
>> and 70s. The light at the end of the tunnel these days is just about
>> extinguished.
>>
>> A prime requirement for every parliamentary candidate should be to have
>> already carved out a career in the outside world, even if only as a
>> ship's steward.
>
> Slightly tricky. Whilst I agree in priciple, there is a danger that no
> young people will ever be represented. How about: Every parliamentary
> candidate should have spent at least half of their working life (before
> election) outside politics?
Six months doing a paper round six months political advisor and then MP?
OK, probably better than some of our existing MPs but ...
Old Codger
>
>
> "Old Codger" <oldc...@anyoldwhere.net> wrote in message
> news:4af88b6c$0$2533$da0f...@news.zen.co.uk...
> .
>>
>> Redundancy pay set at the statutory levels.
>>
>
> Its a defined period contract. If it has reached a natural end
> redundancy does not apply.
Good point.
> I think every candidate should present his remuneration demand as part
> of the election campaign.
> This should include all salary, expenses etc.
>
> This number should be divided by the number of voters in the
> constituency. This then would be charged to each voter after tax and
> benefits so that each 'feels' it.
>
> The voter can then compare cost and policies and make a value for money
> judgment.
Good point
> There should be an option to change constituencies, so 'better' MPs
> could have more voters to spread the cost.
But that would be unfair to the voters who took a risk with that MP. :-)
Steve B
oldc...@anyoldwhere.net says...
universe).
> >>
> >
> > I seem to recall that the Vatican has come around to accepting evolution
> > fairly recently.
>
> Define 'fairly recently'
>
> I think it was quite a long time ago.
>
so I gather. But since it was all in Latin, it passed me by at the time.
Steve B
I think dormant brain cells is probably more descriptive.
Oz
One should not confuse ignorance with stupidity.
Until one or the other is demonstrable.
Which usually isn't hard.
<cough>
--
Oz
Oz
Steve Firth
I had the experience of discussing matters with a jesuit Philosopher at
a conference last year. The subject was the Human Genome and I was
astonished by the twisty curviness of his mind. During the lecture he
laid down absolutes for ethics and the limits on research suggesting
that the Vatican and God himself had declared some topics forever
off-limits. I challenged him on some of these over lunch and he had me
convinced that he'd made no definite statements at all and that the
Church takes no hard-line view on any of these issues by the end of
lunch.
I only wish I could remember how he did it. It was like being
hypnotised. Each step seeming innocuous and liberal the whole building
to an unbreakable cage.
grey...@mail.com
> Oz <O...@mailcatch.com> wrote:
>
>> Steve B <st...@wayback.org.uk> writes
>
> I only wish I could remember how he did it. It was like being
> hypnotised. Each step seeming innocuous and liberal the whole building
> to an unbreakable cage.
fairly common reaction to talking to a Jesuit. Generally a better
sort than the more fundamentalist orders, but, like civil servants,
will not admit in public that their bosses are asses. Its a waste of
time arguing with them.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Steve B
well people have often remarked that I look a lot younger than I actually am.
>
>
> diabolo!
>
nah! probably the elixir.
Steve B
says...
are for what followed in Russia is difficult to determine as there seem to be
so many conspiracy theories abounding, that seperating truth from fiction
becomes almost impossible.
grey...@mail.com
> In article <slrnhfr1s4.4...@maushome.org>, grey...@mail.com
> says...
>> time arguing with them.
>>
>>
> I've read that Joseph Stalin was trained by the Jesuits. How accountable they
> are for what followed in Russia is difficult to determine as there seem to be
> so many conspiracy theories abounding, that seperating truth from fiction
> becomes almost impossible.
Unlikely. Joseph was a Georgian, not completely aligned with the
Catholic Church. Anyway, he was a very blunt instrument, any problem,
shoot them all.
--
Greymaus....
\/\
\?
Michelle Masters
>
> "Malcolm" <Mal...@indaal.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:Sji0iWTB...@indaal.demon.co.uk...
>>
> >>
>> Surely the answer to someone who claims that there are no missing
>> links is to tell them to look in a mirror!
>>
> OK that shows perfection, but not how it got there.
:-) Excellent!
Peter Duncanson
wrote:
Hello, there! Michelle.
--
Peter Duncanson, UK
(in uk.business.agriculture)