That's complete nonsense. It is quite clearly disproved by the collection of Old Etonians currently in government. All of them gave up making more money in the private sector - from their own efforts rather than Daddy's money or nepotism - in order to enter politics. One can't say that of the contemporary Labour party. 2 of Corbyn's 3 sons were employed by their father, one also working for McDonnell, political advisor daughter of a leading trade unionist; many Labour MPs are beneficiaries of a family history or nepotism in the Labour Party - Hilary Benn, a FOURTH generation MP; Milibands, Kinnocks, Vaz, Thornberry, Falconer, Elliott, Cunningham, Straw, Hoyle, Prescott etc etc. The BBC is no better either.
Boris Johnson is a Charlatan. Discuss
- Thread starter Ade8mm
- Start date
Mr Starmer was head of the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) when the decision not to prosecute Savile was made on the grounds of “insufficient evidence”. The allegations against Savile were dealt with by local police and a reviewing lawyer for the CPS.
Keir Starmer led the CPS when it did not charge Jimmy Savile, but he wasn’t the reviewing lawyer - Full Fact
I initially thought that, but he signed up to serve as a shadow-minister for Corbyn's disgraceful racist, extremist project. That is real and disqualifies him from being suitable to hold office.
And how many of them sent their own children to private or selective schools...? There's a long list of senior Labour figures who educate their own children privately while spending their days railing against Tory Toffs in the House of Commons at the Tax-payers expense. Either there is nothing wrong with private education, or there is something deeply wrong at the heart of the labour movement. Or maybe both.
Corbyn himself came from a privileged background and attended private school from 7 til 11 and then went to grammar school. And then spent the rest of his career (does he still have a career - does anyone know?) trying to deny other people the advantages he enjoyed.
Last edited:
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
I never really understand this Left Wing / Right Wing, as when they get to the extreme versions there is not a lot of difference between a right totalitarian dictatorship, and left wing totalitarian dictatorship.
Basically if you are at the top your life expectancy is quite short, but pretty lucrative until somebody wants your toys, and if you are amongst the masses it’s basically pretty ****.
The single common factor is that they want control everything from the centre.
A liberal centre wants a pretty light touch with fundamentally freedom for citizens to go about their daily business and beliefs, but with a clear understanding that you need to respect your neighbours.
Basically if you are at the top your life expectancy is quite short, but pretty lucrative until somebody wants your toys, and if you are amongst the masses it’s basically pretty ****.
The single common factor is that they want control everything from the centre.
A liberal centre wants a pretty light touch with fundamentally freedom for citizens to go about their daily business and beliefs, but with a clear understanding that you need to respect your neighbours.
There is no liberal centre left in the UK. For that matter, there is no right wing of any significance in the UK either, nor has there been for at least 25 years. It's the far-left's version of McCarthyism.
BTW, if you had neighbours like some of mine, you wouldn't respect them either, even if you're a saint.
Where is this party in UK politics?
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
Sadly no where. Our first past the post system allows a minority extreme view to generally be in power.
Even the current Tory government, with biggest majority for a long long time only secured 43.6% of the popular vote. By definition and design our system is one of minority running the majority.
Heym SR20
Well-Known Member
And there in lies the fundamental problem in the UK - its very much a memememe society with no consideration for others. I am trying to concentrate on writing on SD and doing some work. Yet I am having to listen to appalling X rated language being used by scaffolders on a neighbours property 100 yards away. Colleagues are hearing it via Zoom even though windows are shut.
A proportional representation system exacerbates that problem, with fringe parties holding the balance of power. Any system with more than two parties, or with non-compulsory voting, is most likely to be one of minority running the majority.
Worth also pointing out that our Liberal Democrats are not at all liberal (except with respect to the misdemeanours of their echelons.) There is no party making the case for anything approaching liberalism.
I'd swap gladly. At least your scaffolders are working. Far better than the collection of cretinous, ethno-skanks arsing around in the street, who ruin everyone's sleep most nights, and are usually engaged in some sort of illegal activity.
Woodsmoke
Well-Known Member
Pellet Pinger
Well-Known Member
Quite, the difference being, the far left are described as “activists” and the far right are described as “extremists”.
kennyc
Well-Known Member
seriously? how many politicians (of any stripe) leave without a nice little parachute in the form of directorships, consultancies et al ?
That's not the point. The issue being debated here is the claim that the Old Etonians are going into politics to increase their wealth, being unable to make a decent living from their own efforts. This is evidently and obviously incorrect because all of the individuals in question were making much more money before politics than they do now. Their distasteful cosy directorships or consultancies, in this case, are highly unlikely ever to cancel out the pay cuts they took to be in politics.
kennyc
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, but I really dont follow your logic? or maths for that matter? you seem to think that these people are all doing this for the public good? there is very little evidence of that, if they are making less money now than before I suspect that is because they expect a quid pro quo down the line.
if we can't see the benefit it probably means we arent looking in the right place !
Or it means that your premise is fundamentally wrong.
Your logic is that these shysters, all of whom were earning many times their current earnings, decided to take a massive pay cut for many years, so that after their self-inflicted drought, they would reap so much money from the typical, has-been-politician-non-jobs that they might, probably, but not certainly be offered some other jobs. The problem is that nobody has ever been offered such a job with anything like the pay that would be necessary to break even.
Your comment rests on the suspicion of a quid pro quo. Yet a quid pro quo means a situation exists whereby A does X on the understanding that B will do Y afterwards. You see A doing X, you don't know who B is or what Y is. And you find that somehow more convincing than the obvious explanation, purely because you reject the possibility that someone who went to a particular school could do something for the public good. It's not my logic that's dodgy.
And may I venture both the NZ and Aussie rugby teams demonstrate such by example c/o getting their arse in gear and re-booking flights to the UK this Autumn.
K
kennyc
Well-Known Member
I dont base my view on which school they went to, I base my view on their actions to date, something you seem prepared to overlook if it doesnt conform to your personal view ?
but thank you for analysing my thoughts and motivation for me, its always good to be told where one has gone wrong
Similar threads
