Why do we put up with lying crooked thieving idiotic politicians?

Tingkai · May 21, 2003, 10:36

Living in Hong Kong, I have to put up with an idiot of a leader. I don't have a vote here. But then I think even if I did have a vote it wouldn't make a difference.

In Canada we elected a Liberal Prime Minister who claims Canada won't support the American invasion of Iraq and then allows Canadian troops to take part in the invasion. He's got half a dozen scandals surrounding him. The last time we elected a Conservative PM, we ended up with a lying crook.

In the US, they've got Bush, who wasn't really elected and is corrupt with all the deals he's handing out to his friends. The Republicans claim to be in favour of small government but they're spending money left right and centre while creating laws to tell people what to think, say and do. Clinton was no better. Christ, he was a Republican in Democratic clothing with all most of his policies and he let his rich friends get away with crimes just like Bush Sr.

In Britain, they've got Blair lies about being a leftist when he's a conservative.

Why the hell do we do this to ourselves. Why can't we elect honest politicians? Why can't the American conservatives elect a politician who will cut government rather than spending $15 billion on weapons that the military doesn't really want? Why can's the liberal Canadians and labour Brits elect a liberal/labour government that is actually liberal/labour?

What gives?

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 10:40

Well you sort of have a point althought I think Blair is of the left just not as left as the lentil munchers would like

Seeker · May 21, 2003, 10:50

My old politics prof thought it was lack of Proportional Representation.

Look at Ireland and New Zealand, they seem to be doing all right....

(but please don't look at Italy....Berlusconism...)

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 10:54

I think it has to do with the type of person who becomes a politician and runs for high office.

The people who desire power are the last people to whom it should be granted. But what's the alternative? Leadership by lottery, and compulsion if the "winner" doesn't want to lead? That can't work.

-Arrian

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 10:54

Irelands politicians are as corrupt as evryone elses. Alot of them are implicated in the scandals invlovong the covering up of priests having sex with children.

And Sinn Fein are linked to the IRA who are turning into the mafia

Clear Skies · May 21, 2003, 10:55

In Britain lying politicians are generally automatic, because the British people want better public services and lower taxes...incompatible aims make for 'truth-bending' politicians.
And politics attracts that sort of person. So many compromises, backstabs, points scored, etc. are essential to get to the top - and it's not the cream that floats to the top, it's the scum.

And TheStinger...Blair's not on the left.

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 10:56

No Blair is of the left he is not a socialist though.

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 10:57

Quote:

because the British people want better public services and lower taxes

Everyone wants that. So the pols promise everyone everything and then cannot possibly keep their promises once elected.

Blair strikes me as akin to a Southern Democrat in the US. Conservative on certain issues, religious (for a Brit), but leading a party that is generally on the left.

-Arrian

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 10:59

Blair has increased spending, redistrubuted wealth, regulated evrything, renationlised railtrack, raised taxes,
embarked on grand projects. of course he's of the left

Clear Skies · May 21, 2003, 11:06

He renationalised Railtrack because he had no choice, rasied stealth taxes rather than direct taxes (which are more progressive) and could hardly NOT redistribute wealth after Thatcher, who basically reversed everything done through the 80s.

On the other side, he's ****-tough on law and order, and has followed Tory policies and spending plans for ages.

He's only left when a) he's forced to be or b) it suits him.

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 11:08

Being tough on law order does not make you right wing.
Sometimes it does but not always.

Clear Skies · May 21, 2003, 11:11

Fine, pick one point and argue that...
And when you're tough on it by taking away the right to trial by jury, increasing sentencing and generally ignoring the rehabilitational effects of teh justice system, then yeah, that's pretty right wing.

*End Is Forever* · May 21, 2003, 11:11

Quote:

He's only left when a) he's forced to be or b) it suits him.

Actually if you re-read your post it sounds like you're arguing he had no choice but to move rightwards (which is true, no chance in hell of a proper set of social democrats getting into power these days...)

TheStinger · May 21, 2003, 11:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Clear Skies
Fine, pick one point and argue that...
And when you're tough on it by taking away the right to trial by jury, increasing sentencing and generally ignoring the rehabilitational effects of teh justice system, then yeah, that's pretty right wing.

Ill pick teh reat aprt latter I got a go soo.

tony Balir is not as left wing as previous Labour leaders that does not mean he is right wing. He does not believe in the right wing philosiphy of indviduals palying a major role and the sate only intervening when absolutley neccessary.

Clear Skies · May 21, 2003, 11:14

No-one forced him to follow Tory spending plans.
And I'm saying that since he shifted to the right in order to gain ground in upper-middle class England whilst ignoring his grass roots support; the left-wing things he does happen only when he's forced to do them. Blair's a Thatcherite in disguise and without the elocution lessons.

Clear Skies · May 21, 2003, 11:16

Quote:

Originally posted by TheStinger
tony Balir is not as left wing as previous Labour leaders that does not mean he is right wing. He does not believe in the right wing philosiphy of indviduals palying a major role and the sate only intervening when absolutley neccessary.

So why give the Bank of England monetary autonomy? Why drastically reduce the power of the unions? Why the continuous emphasis on enterprise and investment? He's hardly a Keynesian economist.

DinoDoc · May 21, 2003, 11:17

Quote:

Originally posted by Clear Skies
On the other side, he's ****-tough on law and order,

How is that a right wing issue?

loinburger · May 21, 2003, 11:20

I think that we put up with devious crooks because they're a helluva lot less scary-dangerous than idealistic morons. At least you can count on the crooks behaving fairly rationally -- who knows what an idealist is going to do...

*End Is Forever* · May 21, 2003, 11:21

Quote:

No-one forced him to follow Tory spending plans.

I think you'll find the electorate did...

Sava · May 21, 2003, 11:22

Quote:

Why do we put up with lying crooked thieving idiotic politicians?

In the US, at least, we don't have a choice. The parties put up two candidates from a small list of primary candidates. It's not democracy. Sure, the people vote for the candidates, but it's not too different from Saddam getting elected in Iraq. We don't have a choice. The system must be changed.

*End Is Forever* · May 21, 2003, 11:25

Well, if y'all voted for someone else...

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 11:26

Quote:

but it's not too different from Saddam getting elected in Iraq

WARNING, STUPID EXAGGERATION ALERT!

-Arrian

Japher · May 21, 2003, 11:28

End is Forever: Heck, we can't even count the votes! Its amazing that we are able to even run an election, nonetheless get everyone to agree on someone who has not be shoved down our throats.

Politician = Liar

The only reason we have liars in the offices is because the Brits do

Loinburger

Sava · May 21, 2003, 11:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Arrian

WARNING, STUPID EXAGGERATION ALERT!

-Arrian

No, not really. Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system. The party selected him as the candidate. The difference is there was one party in Iraq and two in America.

Spiffor · May 21, 2003, 11:30

In France, Whirac got elected with 82% even though everybody knows he is immensely corrupt and had the constitutionalists say he cannot be judged as long as he is president (yes, we are not talking about some African country here).
Besides, everybody knows that Chirac is a liar and cheat and never respects his promises.

His main rival, Lionel Jospin, was honest and serious (his two main qualities) but didn't make the cut because he lackked charisma terribly. Had Jospin been at the runoff, the struggle between he and Chirac would have been close, but it is still possible that Chirac would have won.

Arrian · May 21, 2003, 11:40

Sava,

No, there are much more significant differences and you know it.

1) 2 parties allows competition/opposition. Not so with 1.

2) There are more than 2 parties in the US. The top 2 are entrenched and have entirely too much power, I agree, but if they ever really ****ed up, there are other parties out there that stand to gain. Again, not so with a 1 party system.

3) Sure, the parties select their candidates. But that process is democratic. People vote on it. Most of the time, it's people registered as members of the party, but in some states, independent voters & voters registered for the other party are allowed to vote.

4) People without party affiliation can run. Sure, they have to be really rich, and that's a problem that needs fixing, but it can be done, and it can have an effect.

-Arrian

Q Classic · May 21, 2003, 11:54

We put up with them because they're charismatic.

If we actually as a whole bothered to use our gigantic intellects to analyze the situation, the research and draw up our own conclusions about the candidates, we'd probably either be duped into running ourselves under the notion we could do things better, or b, elect people who are much more convincing and better liars.

Imran Siddiqui · May 21, 2003, 14:14

Quote:

Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system.

This is why no one listens to Sava

.

Sava · May 21, 2003, 15:10

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

Sure, Saddam is an evil f*cker. But the method in which he is "elected" is not too different from America's system.

This is why no one listens to Sava

.

I can't speak for everyone... but some decide to not listen to me because I suspect they know I'm more correct than they would like to admit. I'll be looking forward to voting for one of two rich white men that will be on the ballot for president.

You guys can go off-topic and nit-pick if you want, but the point still stands. Sure, we have one of the better systems... but there's room for improvement. The Saddam comparison is lame, but there are similarities.

Imran Siddiqui · May 21, 2003, 15:13

Quote:

some decide to not listen to me because I suspect they know I'm more correct than they would like to admit.

Good one!

Quote:

The Saddam comparison is lame,

Yep.

Quote:

but there are similarities.

As in both are leaders of countries?