A rational process would be open, honest, and transparent.
A rational process would involve long consultations with the people who are going to be impacted by the decisions made: not behind closed doors, not with focus groups, not with people who are trying to do political point scoring, but between people who actually are informed, who are provided with the data that is required to make decisions, who can offer honest opinion from a wide range of backgrounds, and who can do structured, open planning.
This would be all about participation and not point scoring. This could be a situation where a people’s parliament could be of use.
So, his solution is to ask the people how much tax they should pay … having chosen which people should be asked.
I suspect that everyone else would share my opinion.
I!!!!!! should pay nothing!!!
It must be tough – soul-destroying, even – to sit there in Ely, a politburo of one, having all the solutions, issuing them as consultation documents, and having them roundly ignored. Every time.
Apparently he wants a People’s Parliament. Didn’t we just vote one in last year? Must be the wrong people. I guess he’s thinking of getting people who will all agree, like Fruit & Nut.
Isn’t that what we vote for in a general election?
No, I think this wold be some sort of focus group. Oh!
But he specifies “people who actually are informed” – which excludes Murphy who ignores all information that does not fit in with his pre-conceived opinions (approx 99.9% of it)
A rational process would be to get rid of tax and spend beyond the army and few other bits and let people spend the money themselves. Let’s start from there. Sadly there would be no room for experts in Ely but he could pivot in to bird videos
As an island nation it’s the Navy, not Army, but yes. Fund the RN, get the court system, rule of law, up and running again and leave be….
Well yeah.If you’re only interested in protecting your trade routes & the UK’s beaches. But to keep threats at distance, you need to be able to occupy ground.
No, you need an air force.
not with people who are trying to do political point scoring, but between people who actually are informed
He’s the Roderick Spode of contemporary politics – I don’t think I’ve ever seen anyone less informed about economics than him.
But perhaps it could be an opportunity for:
Anyone else seeing a pattern here? Does he have some kind of clandestine activity that requires a lot of money? Huge debts from some ponzi scheme?
IT really is remarkable how many hobby horses he attempts to ride.
We’ve got a people’s parliament, it sits at Westminster.
And focus groups *are* consulting with people affected by policies, that’s their entire function. You wouldn’t focus-group a policy that has no impact on the focus-groupicles.
You wouldn’t focus-group a policy that has no impact on the focus-groupicles.
Unless, of course, you want support for your preconceived notions. “Yes minister, we ran the idea by a focus group (of spuds), and they strongly supported our idea.
It’s worse than that. He wants a “People’s Parliament” that will be “provided with the data that is required to make decisions”
In other words, before they make their decision, Murphy gets to fill them with propaganda and statistics that support the result he wants.
It’s not just about picking who sits in this ‘Parliament’, it’s then influencing them to make the ‘correct’ decisions.
O/T but was listening to the Jeremy Vine show on Radio Two at lunch, and Labour MP for Redcar, Anna Turley, was on trying to defend Rachel Reeves’ budget. She was utterly out of her depth and Vine monstered her so badly even I felt sorry for her.
More evidence of the utter lack of talent in Parliament.
‘Utterly out of her depth’, but they’d picked her to go on air, presumably because she was the best they had available.
A contemporary of mine remarked that the entire Labour front bench was so shallow in terms of talent that not one of them would get a first round interview in the City.
That’s for a job in Pret a Manger – not an Investment Bank
Tim
I know you nail it normally but if you read the full post it is saying just that. For those unwilling to endure the Elyan stables cleansing (and he has posted about 7 posts today already) those where the left are pulling him apart and he sets out dozens of questions they ‘have to answer’ to compete with his sagacity are genuinely hilarious. I think he honestly thinks that everyone hangs on his every word.
I love these ‘People’s Parliament’ arguments, wouldn’t it be great if we had an assembly that contains the types of people I like and they were allowed to see only the sort of evidence I like, and we stopped all the people I don’t like, and we made sure no inconvenient questions could be asked, and we banned any evidence that might contradict the evidence I like? It would be totally brilliant!
As was said on Yes Prime Minister yesterday: We can’t the The People making decisions, they’ll make the WRONG ONES!
As they did with Brexit jgh…..They won’t let us have another referendum. Ever.
I’m remembering the Oz referendum to give the First People a separate Voice in government.
Labor had won the election, but the constitution required a referendum. The People said no!!
In case you’re wondering, I didn’t even know this was on the agenda. But I of course voted no for all the items on the ballot paper.
You can’t fit them in a room.
Rest is word salad.
GC
More like a Word Chinese all you can eat buffet. I couldn’t even be troubled to fisk it the post was so long!! Needs to get the AI to cut it down
To me, the frightening thing is if any of our (obviously, incompetent and unintelligent) ‘leaders’ actually took any notice of the Ely potato.
This nasty, limited and extremely-socialist (& limited, possibly never qualified) accountant is a danger to economic stability.
Potateconomics are just plain wrong!
Not just wrong. EVIL.
That is quite an ingenious suggestion, and not that far-fetched. The UK already has two chambers of parliament. The members of one are appointed. The members of the other are elected. It’s rather difficult to get appointed. You usually have to achieve something, or have chosen your parents well. The election route isn’t straightforward either. Many are called but few are chosen.
If you are a parliamentary hopeful, but both avenues appear to be blocked, owing to unpopularity or lack of achievement, there may be a third road to stardom. Lobby for a third chamber of parliament, the members to be appointed specifically for mediocrity.