Another side to scrounging.

[Lord Braykewynde]

Going from benefits and scroungers to the other end of the spectrum, those who expect the tax payer to subsidise their high paid jobs.

After the furore of late regarding benefits and the work shy they have been told to get on their bikes and look for work and be prepared to move home.

It has come to light that a senior civil servant, Phillippa Williamson, who is CE of the Serious Fraud Office in London actually lives in Cumbria.

Not for her to move home, oh no. She stays in London and travels home for the weekend.

Nothing wrong with that if it didn't concern the taxpayer. We actually pay her travel AND her accommodation. This comes to £26k per annum which is on top of her £120k salary and £10k bonus she was paid this year.

The icing on the cake is that there is also another 8 people who have the same working arrangement at the SFO.

A SFO spokesperson said "There's nothing improper about it. I imagine there are other government departments with the same arrangement.

 

I bet there is >:-(

 

What planet do these people live on if they cannot see anything improper *-)

[Dave225]

I read today, in a newspaper so it must be true, that each day nearly 500 non British people get jobs in the UK, while every day a similar number of Brits lose theirs. I agree with one commentator who stated that many fast food chains and coffee houses seem to be full of non Brits while our own young are unable to get into these jobs. Is it because they are too lazy or that the jobs market is monopolised by agencies bringing in cheap labour. Now maybe the young should fight back and use their Twitter and Facebooks to name the outlets where there are less than 50% Brits and recommend a boy cot. That would soon get these Companies to start hiring the locals quick enough. Sitting on their a....s is never going to work. While working a coffee shop,is not the most illustrious of careers it is a start and they may be able to move on with the experience behind them. It is certainly better than watching day time TV.

 

As for the Hoi |Polloy eating their cake, while we have none is nothing new. The airlines and trains (1st Class) would go bust if they only had normal people using them.

[Basil]

Sorry LB, there is nothing wrong with this and is common practice in business where people are head hunted. The company I was employed by, a private company by the way, used to have the same arrangement for me. I am afraid that it all depends on who it is believed to be the best person for the job and to what extent the employer is prepared to make the appointment worth while to the encombant.

 

Bas

[Lord Braykewynde]

Basil - 2012-02-15 8:08 PM

 

Sorry LB, there is nothing wrong with this and is common practice in business where people are head hunted.

 

Ah I see, so there's nobody better for the job between Westminster and Cumbria ;-)

What is wrong with having to live within a certain distance of Westminster being put into the job description.

You stated that it happened with the private company who you worked for. What was the cost to the tax payers of this country? Nothing I suppose but these nine people are costing approx. £100k per year and that's just ONE government department.

Sorry Basil but it's immoral when those in Westminster tell the peasants to get on their bike to seek work and be prepared to move to another part of the country, leaving family etc. when people like these over paid civil servants bleed the country dry along with the bankers, politicians and greedy lawyers.

[Dave Newell]

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-15 7:40 PM

 

Going from benefits and scroungers to the other end of the spectrum, those who expect the tax payer to subsidise their high paid jobs.

After the furore of late regarding benefits and the work shy they have been told to get on their bikes and look for work and be prepared to move home.

It has come to light that a senior civil servant, Phillippa Williamson, who is CE of the Serious Fraud Office in London actually lives in Cumbria.

Not for her to move home, oh no. She stays in London and travels home for the weekend.

Nothing wrong with that if it didn't concern the taxpayer. We actually pay her travel AND her accommodation. This comes to £26k per annum which is on top of her £120k salary and £10k bonus she was paid this year.

The icing on the cake is that there is also another 8 people who have the same working arrangement at the SFO.

A SFO spokesperson said "There's nothing improper about it. I imagine there are other government departments with the same arrangement.

 

I bet there is >:-(

 

What planet do these people live on if they cannot see anything improper *-)

 

Would you be happier if someone in such an important position was being paid national minimum wage?

 

D.

[Basil]

The cost to tax payers is a 'Red Herring', the fact is that whether people like it or not we as tax payers have to pay the wages of those that work in the industry of government or the work would not get done and as I have said it is common practise in the 'Private Sector' to get the person they want. Clearly whoever appoints an individual choses them for the reason that they do, whether there was someone who applied for the job who lives closer is irrelevent if the right person was chosen, not any old person because of where they live.

Maybe you were unaware of the practise and of how common it is but I can assure you it is just that , normal practise.

To be honest I, as a higher rate tax payer, am quite fed up with people whinging on about taxation, it is something that has to be paid to run the country and to reward those that work within the Public sector and might I add to pay for those that have worked and earned a well deserved pension

 

 

Bas.

 

[Robinhood]

Lord Braykewynde - 2012-02-15 7:40 PM

 

snip

 

It has come to light that a senior civil servant, Phillippa Williamson, who is CE of the Serious Fraud Office in London actually lives in Cumbria.

Not for her to move home, oh no. She stays in London and travels home for the weekend.

Nothing wrong with that if it didn't concern the taxpayer. We actually pay her travel AND her accommodation. This comes to £26k per annum which is on top of her £120k salary and £10k bonus she was paid this year.

The icing on the cake is that there is also another 8 people who have the same working arrangement at the SFO.

A SFO spokesperson said "There's nothing improper about it. I imagine there are other government departments with the same arrangement.

 

I bet there is >:-(

 

What planet do these people live on if they cannot see anything improper *-)

 

...perhaps you should ask her to investigate herself ;-)

[Brian Kirby]

His Lordships roof, and his estate wall, are in a very poor state of repair, claret has gone through the roof, his gamekeeper wants a pay rise, and he is finding these demands on his purse highly inconvenient. As a national treasure, he must be excused his intemperate outbursts and should be extended much greater understanding. Do you know, at present, he hardly has the price of a copy of the Daily Mail to his name? :-D

[Guest pelmetman]

(Reuters) - Britain launched an unexpected investigation into its Serious Fraud Office on Wednesday, reviving questions over the future of an agency criticised for dropping several high-profile cases.

 

The review will focus on how Britain's main agency for hunting down major financial crimes and corruption goes about selecting and pursuing cases, a spokeswoman for the government's legal advisor said.

 

The spokeswoman for the office of the Attorney General said the inspection was "not in any way, shape or form" about whether the agency should be broken up.

 

But Britain has been looking into ways to shake up its financial regulatory system in the wake of the credit crisis and British media reported last year that a plan to break up the Serious Fraud Office was shelved at the last minute.

 

Some staff feared the investigation by the Crown Prosecution Service would discredit the agency and fold its lawyers and investigators into separate state bodies.

 

"People inside the organisation are not happy about it," said one employee, adding that the investigation undermined assurances that the agency's position was secure.

 

The SFO made no official comment.

 

The inspection of an agency once dubbed "The Seriously Flawed Office" by detractors, comes after it dropped a number of high-profile probes into credit crisis collapses, including U.S. fraudster Bernard Madoff's UK operations, hedge fund Weavering Capital and fund manager Dynamic Decisions.

 

In December, it was forced to concede that there were errors in a search warrant obtained against property tycoon Vincent Tchenguiz.

 

It is currently investigating a cover-up of investment losses at Japanese camera and medical equipment firm Olympus (7733.T).

 

Adding to speculation over the agency's future is the coalition government's decision to scrap the Financial Services Authority industry regulator next year as part of its post credit-crisis shake-up.

 

Dividing lines between different agencies are not always clear and cases are sometimes passed between bodies.

 

The spokeswoman for the Attorney General's office said the review of the Serious Fraud Office had not been prompted by specific cases or the criticism of the agency, adding that it had been under discussion for a while.

 

She said the agency's director, Richard Alderman, had agreed that it made sense two months before he hands over to lawyer David Green. Green said in December "the SFO is here to stay".

 

The inspectors were due to visit the SFO on Wednesday.

 

Since 2008-2009 the SFO's annual budget has been cut by 34 percent to 34 million pounds, although Alderman has said the agency is nevertheless doing more now than it was a few years ago.

 

There was surprise in London legal circles in September after the SFO dropped a two-and-a-half year probe into failed hedge fund Weavering Capital just days after a Cayman Islands civil court awarded damages of $111 million against two fund directors and said the manager had committed "fraud".

 

(Editing by Matthew Tostevin)

 

Maybe they haven't found the best person for the job ;-)

[Lord Braykewynde]

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-15 10:06 PM

 

His Lordships roof, and his estate wall, are in a very poor state of repair, claret has gone through the roof, his gamekeeper wants a pay rise, and he is finding these demands on his purse highly inconvenient. As a national treasure, he must be excused his intemperate outbursts and should be extended much greater understanding. Do you know, at present, he hardly has the price of a copy of the Daily Mail to his name? :-D

 

You might be right about most of your post but I will have to correct you on your last statement. It's the Express if you care to Google it :-)

[Lord Braykewynde]

pelmetman - 2012-02-15 10:14 PM

 

(Reuters) - Britain launched an unexpected investigation into its Serious Fraud Office on Wednesday, reviving questions over the future of an agency criticised for dropping several high-profile cases.

 

 

The inspection of an agency once dubbed "The Seriously Flawed Office" by detractors, comes after it dropped a number of high-profile probes into credit crisis collapses, including U.S. fraudster Bernard Madoff's UK operations, hedge fund Weavering Capital and fund manager Dynamic Decisions.

 

Since 2008-2009 the SFO's annual budget has been cut by 34 percent to 34 million pounds, although Alderman has said the agency is nevertheless doing more now than it was a few years ago.

 

 

Maybe they haven't found the best person for the job ;-)

 

 

 

Well she must be worth it Dave because some forum members said so, just look at the posts above (lol)

Regarding cutting their budget it's obvious they haven't cut enough.

This woman worked for the Inland Revenue before the SFO dealing with tax credits and was on the same travel arrangement so, like a lot of other civil servants, she's had her snout in the trough for a long time.

Despite Cameron promising to halve the quango's by scrapping 262 of them we are still waiting.

Apart from that I can't believe that some think it's right that a person on £18k per annum pays tax for her £27k travel arrangements because she prefers to live in the Lake District *-)

Is it any wonder the country is in a mess and those at the bottom see the injustice?

Sounds a bit like Marie Antoinettes "let them eat cake" Come the revolution comrade it will be the crows that will be feasting. On the trough guzzlers eyeballs (lol)

I'm far from a left wing socialist but as someone said in another thread on another matter, I will always keep to the moral high ground and the above is immoral ;-)

[Guest peter]

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-15 10:06 PM

 

His Lordships roof, and his estate wall, are in a very poor state of repair, claret has gone through the roof, his gamekeeper wants a pay rise, and he is finding these demands on his purse highly inconvenient. As a national treasure, he must be excused his intemperate outbursts and should be extended much greater understanding. Do you know, at present, he hardly has the price of a copy of the Daily Mail to his name? :-D

That could be truer than you think Brian. The apparently wealthy are well known for not paying their bills on time, if ever. It's always working class folks that pay on time. Ask any self employed builder who the welchers are.

[RogerC]

I'm with His Lordship' on this one....why should anyone in public office have accomodation and travel expenses paid to go to work?

 

My last employers head office (which I had to visit once a month) was a 250 mile round trip for me.  Did I get travel expenses?  No.  Did I get overnight accommodation?  Did I get any expenses paid at all? No..... No I paid out of my wages....out of my pocket.  I knew the score when I accepted the post and my salary was nowhere near £120k.  These people are sucking the financial blood from the ordinary working 'Joe'.  They are all part of a not so little 'club' which ensures they all get to stick their noses in the public purse 'trough' with no moral conscience......it's all 'me me me'.  

 

Come the revolution comrades......

 

[Barryd999]

She must be roughing it a bit to survive on £26K per year expenses in London. I commuted to London from the North Yorkshire Dales for four years in the late 90's before going on my own in 2001 and my expenses were more than double that. Ok it was private sector as others have said its not uncommon in both public and private sectors and £26K is cheap. I wouldnt do it for that. Its only £500 a week and train fair is about £250 for standard class!

 

 

[Guest pelmetman]

Despite being incompetent it looks like even losing your cushy public sector job can be a nice earner at the top *-)

 

Quango bosses double their pay

Britain's highest-paid quango bosses are almost doubling their salaries with six-figure bonuses, special allowances and pension windfalls, an investigation by The Daily Telegraph has found.

 

Quango bosses earning as much as £700,000 a year despite the Coalition’s promise to have a “bonfire of the quangos” and freeze public sector pay

 

By Heidi Blake, and Raf Sanchez10:08PM BST 29 Aug 2011631 Comments

 

They are earning as much as £700,000 a year despite the Coalition’s promise to have a “bonfire of the quangos” and freeze public sector pay.

The true scale of the pay packets received by top-earning public officials is far higher than those previously disclosed because official figures omit hundreds of thousands of pounds in additional payments.

James Wharton, a Conservative member of the Commons public accounts committee, described the sums as “staggering” and called on the Government to “bring this ridiculous situation under control”.

“Ordinary people will be outraged that bonuses are being paid at all in the public sector when the Government has so little money to spend on front-line services,” he said.

“Some of these pay packets are absolutely shocking and equal in one year what a normal person earns in a lifetime. This can’t continue.”

 

The Cabinet Office’s official list details the salaries of 291 bureaucrats who are paid more than £150,000 as part of a drive for transparency in government.

Francis Maude, the Cabinet Office minister, claimed that the number of top earners was down from 345 last year, but the real figure is thought to be far higher when bonuses and pensions are included.

According to the Cabinet Office list, Tony Fountain, the chief executive of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority, is the country’s highest-paid quango boss with a pay package of more than £520,000, comprising a basic salary of £365,000, a second home allowance of £85,937 and pension payments of £70,810.

But the quango’s annual accounts disclose that the former BP executive also received a performance bonus of £146,000 and additional payments of almost £9,000, bringing his total pay to more than £675,000.

Details of his earnings emerged after he announced the closure of part of the Sellafield nuclear reprocessing plant in Cumbria earlier this month, with the loss of about 600 jobs.

The Nuclear Decommissioning Authority said the chief executive’s salary package was necessary to attract candidates with “sufficient experience and expertise”.

Sir David Higgins, the former chief executive of the Olympic Delivery Authority (ODA) and the new boss of Network Rail, received a total of £705,000 from both jobs last year.

The Australian businessman, 56, did not appear on the Cabinet Office list because he left the ODA before it was published, despite having received £544,000 from the role last year. His payments included his £325,000 salary plus a performance bonus of £179,000 and pension payments of £40,000.

The ODA said Sir David deserved his high salary and bonus because he did an “inspirational job” as chief executive.

He also earned £161,000 in his new job as chief executive of Network Rail, a private company that receives £4 billion of taxpayers’ money each year to maintain the railways.

Sir David, who took on his new role in February, is on an annual salary of £560,000 and is in line to receive a bonus of up to £336,000 next year, which would bring his total pay to £896,000, excluding pension.

A spokesman for Network Rail said he would receive the bonus only if he met a series of “extremely tough” targets and that its bonuses were designed to “get the best” out of people.

Peter Henderson, 56, the rail company’s director of asset management, took home £672,000 last year, including a cash bonus of £91,000, benefits worth £15,000 and pension payments of £126,000.

The pay packages of executives at Network Rail were not disclosed by the Cabinet Office because it is technically a private company, despite receiving 65 per cent of its funding from the taxpayer.

Denis Hone, the new chief executive of the ODA, which is in charge of building the Olympic park, received £401,000 last year, including a bonus payment of £79,000 that was not included in the figures published by the Cabinet Office.

Howard Shiplee, the director of construction, took home £320,000, including pension contributions of £33,000 that were omitted from the official figures.

The total wage bill for the executive management board of the ODA was £2,537,000 last year. Ten staff at the quango earn more than £150,000 — meaning they are paid more than the Prime Minister, who receives £132,923.

Cynthia Bower, the chief executive of the Care Quality Commission, saw her pension pot swell by £240,000 last year as well as receiving a salary of £200,000.

She has faced severe criticism over the watchdog’s failure to detect the abuse of vulnerable adults at care homes following a series of scandals.

The commission said Ms Bower was part of the NHS final salary pension scheme, which is calculated using length of service and final salary on leaving.

It emerged yesterday that, despite the Government’s promise of a “bonfire of the quangos”, only a quarter of the 192 in line to be scrapped had been abolished.

Figures released earlier this month showed that, despite the austerity drive in government, at least 4,500 public officials had been taken on since the general election in May last year.

 

A spokesman for the Cabinet Office said last night: “The Government addressed the unacceptable waste and inefficiency in quangos. There is still more to do, but increased transparency in public bodies and the removal of waste are top priorities.”

[Brian Kirby]

But, are we shooting at the right target? All this is about salaries and bonuses, whereas I think the greater waste is coming form the number of Quangos, and in what they do. However that may be, the rogues are successive governments, and the politicians who have contributed to their actions, who have appointed the Quangos.

 

It has become very popular, for obvious reasons, for governments to create Quangos. It distances ministers from the decisions, and they hope the criticism, when things go wrong. It also confuses the public about where the true responsibility lies. There is some justification for the need to bring in experts from industry and commerce, because ministers and civil servants will lack relevant expertise in any number of technically complex areas.

 

The "bonus culture" has become rather farcical, in both public and private sectors, with bonuses being awarded for merely doing one's job, rather than for exceptional performance. In some cases, it seems bonuses even get paid for quite mediocre performance. Cash bonuses were, I thought, broadly debunked as an incentive to performance some years back, by a study showing that to incentivise they had to be frequent, because the warm afterglow of an annual bonus was soon forgotten, but then they lost impact, because they became seen as a right, rather than a reward, and because they tended in certain cases to incentivise inappropriate behaviour. That, from memory, was shortly before the bonus culture really took off!

 

But, as with much of the hype-led moaning that goes on, one should surely concentrate on how we got where we are, and who was responsible. We seem to be criticising the individuals who have attended interviews, and accepted jobs where pay "packages" are a mix of salary, expenses, and bonus, rather than criticising those who came up with these packages in the first place. In the public sector, the package is often an attempt to boost total remuneration without breaching established public sector pay scales, in order not to provoke outcry from those doing similar jobs for less pay. The argument is that if one is to attract people in from the private sector one must pay the "going rate". Seldom revealed is that the going rate then requires an additional premium, because moving into the public sector is seen as marking the end of a private sector career, however successful, because it attracts public opprobrium, because they know they will be subjected to political interference, and because they know they will be someone else's "kicking boy" when the politicians want a scapegoat (think Stephen Hester!). Oh yes, and you'll never get the real top dogs to come over, because they can make far more than government could ever justifying paying.

 

So, we all want our public services to be well, and dynamically, run: most folk seem convinced public servants are incapable of that, and that private sector expertise is required - but to get that expertise we have rely on the "B" list candidates, who still have to be bribed to come over - but then we don't like the cost! Rational lot, aren't we?

 

The real solution, I think, is to recognise public service for what it is, and to learn to respect and value it as a frequently difficult job. If public service were more widely seen as a valuable contribution to society, and its top managers were more widely respected, their profile would improve, and it we might be able to recruit from nearer the top of the tree, at lower cost, than is the case at present. Instead, we resent paying, and endlessly carp about and criticise the incumbents, often on the basis of incomplete and politically mischievous reporting, when they make duff decisions, with the implication that all decisions made within the public sector are duff. How many talented people will really volunteer to work in an environment that involves being hit over the head in public on a daily basis? If the whole field is truly deficient, I think it is in part because we have made it so.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-18 1:25 PM

we might be able to recruit from nearer the top of the tree, at lower cost, than is the case at present.

 

Is there a lack of applicants Brian?...................Or is being a member the higher echelons of the public sector a bit like being an England manager...................No one expects miracles...........your just paid a lot to carry the can ;-)

 

Which makes you think that all of our public services are frankly unsortable...... as they or the government has made their work so complicated that they can no longer function correctly *-)

[Brian Kirby]

pelmetman - 2012-02-18 1:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-18 1:25 PM

we might be able to recruit from nearer the top of the tree, at lower cost, than is the case at present.

 

Is there a lack of applicants Brian?...................

No idea Dave, but it seems there must be a lack of suitable applicants, because so few people seem satisfied with the results.

 

Or is being a member the higher echelons of the public sector a bit like being an England manager...................No one expects miracles...........your just paid a lot to carry the can ;-)

I think that is how it tends to be seen, and to some extent, when the political wind changes (Hester again!), it is how it is.

 

Which makes you think that all of our public services are frankly unsortable...... as they or the government has made their work so complicated that they can no longer function correctly *-)

I don't agree with that. They are all sortable, but IMO there are two provisos for sorting them. First, in most areas, we need a proper national agreement on what they are required to do, and that requires the political parties to stop grandstanding over trivial differences, and reach that agreement. Second, we then need to stop reorganising them wholesale, and start refining them bit by bit, so that they improve how they perform.

 

I think our biggest problem is the party politics, and the desire of politicians to appear to be doing something, while avoiding the more obvious truth that most of our institutions are pretty good most of the time, and just need detailed adjustment to improve. Politicians, of course, hate the detail, because it sounds boring and trips them up, while loving the broad brush, because it is all rhetoric and no fact, so they can get by endlessly shouting slogans at each other. Never let a fact get in the way of a politically attractive slogan! :-)

 

I know it is an unpopular view, but I think we need more political parties, with more electoral support, so that any government will either govern as a minority, or as a coalition. The two main parties (Tory/Conservative vs Whig/Liberal/Labour) have had it their own way, in turns, since the mid seventeenth century. I think their time has now passed, and we need greater diversity of thought, and subtlety of policy, to cope with the world as it now is, than can be provided by these endless "if it isn't black it must be white" arguments.

 

Even the art of intelligent opposition is now dead (if it ever lived! :-)), with all opposition politicians intent on debating what they would do if in power (waste of time - they aren't: and by the time they are circumstances will have changed beyond recognition), instead of criticising flawed parts of government policy. I don't want an opposition that tells me what it thinks it would do if............................I want an opposition that tells me what is wrong with what the government is doing now. That is what they (in fact all MPs) are there for: to hold government to account.

[Guest pelmetman]

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-18 3:18 PM

 

pelmetman - 2012-02-18 1:49 PM

 

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-18 1:25 PM

we might be able to recruit from nearer the top of the tree, at lower cost, than is the case at present.

 

Is there a lack of applicants Brian?...................

No idea Dave, but it seems there must be a lack of suitable applicants, because so few people seem satisfied with the results.

 

Or is being a member the higher echelons of the public sector a bit like being an England manager...................No one expects miracles...........your just paid a lot to carry the can ;-)

I think that is how it tends to be seen, and to some extent, when the political wind changes (Hester again!), it is how it is.

 

Which makes you think that all of our public services are frankly unsortable...... as they or the government has made their work so complicated that they can no longer function correctly *-)

I don't agree with that. They are all sortable, but IMO there are two provisos for sorting them. First, in most areas, we need a proper national agreement on what they are required to do, and that requires the political parties to stop grandstanding over trivial differences, and reach that agreement. Second, we then need to stop reorganising them wholesale, and start refining them bit by bit, so that they improve how they perform.

 

I think our biggest problem is the party politics, and the desire of politicians to appear to be doing something, while avoiding the more obvious truth that most of our institutions are pretty good most of the time, and just need detailed adjustment to improve. Politicians, of course, hate the detail, because it sounds boring and trips them up, while loving the broad brush, because it is all rhetoric and no fact, so they can get by endlessly shouting slogans at each other. Never let a fact get in the way of a politically attractive slogan! :-)

 

I know it is an unpopular view, but I think we need more political parties, with more electoral support, so that any government will either govern as a minority, or as a coalition. The two main parties (Tory/Conservative vs Whig/Liberal/Labour) have had it their own way, in turns, since the mid seventeenth century. I think their time has now passed, and we need greater diversity of thought, and subtlety of policy, to cope with the world as it now is, than can be provided by these endless "if it isn't black it must be white" arguments.

 

Even the art of intelligent opposition is now dead (if it ever lived! :-)), with all opposition politicians intent on debating what they would do if in power (waste of time - they aren't: and by the time they are circumstances will have changed beyond recognition), instead of criticising flawed parts of government policy. I don't want an opposition that tells me what it thinks it would do if............................I want an opposition that tells me what is wrong with what the government is doing now. That is what they (in fact all MPs) are there for: to hold government to account.

 

Agreed our version of democracy is not working....................seems little more than a Punch & Judy show at times *-)............................The only trouble is unless we vote for the alternatives...........ie any party except the usual suspects nothing will change :-|.............and Mr & Mrs average don't seem to have much vision :D

[francisgraham]

pelmetman - 2012-02-18 3:43 PM  Agreed our version of democracy is not working....................seems little more than a Punch & Judy show at times *-)............................The only trouble is unless we vote for the alternatives...........ie any party except the usual suspects nothing will change :-|.............and Mr & Mrs average don't seem to have much vision :D

Well, Chatterbox seems to be dying the death as more and more members shun the trivia of the small number of people responsible for its decline, so I thought I'd do my duty and add some thoughts of my own.  

As you all seem to be far more capable of running the country than the current incumbents, perhaps you can explain how our democracy isn't working?

If the Coalition fails and we don't approve of their policies, we can vote in a Labour government, which will take a different attitude to many aspects of life and implement many different policies.

Perhaps you mean that we should let the people make policy in a series of referenda? That would be terrific, letting major decisions on economics, foreign policy, health etc. be taken by people who can't even run their own lives.

We have a representative democracy in which we vest power in people who are well informed and well advised and the result of that has been a huge (and still improving) rise in longevity for us all. We have far greater wealth than our grandparents, long holidays with sick pay, employment protection, clean rivers and clean air and, all in all, a much higher standard of living than most of the other countries in the world.

So how isn't our democracy working? And which countries in the world enjoy a better form of government than ours and which of those countries is a better place in which to live?

Perhaps it's better in Spain, or Portugal or Italy? I know, Greece is having a good time isn't it? Let's all go there shall we? India, China, Russia maybe?

What about the USA, richest country in the world, unless you're on welfare of course?

The main thing wrong with the U.K. is the pessimism, selfishness and utter apathy of the kind of people who wake up every morning thinking that the whole world is out to get them. People who give up on life and work thirty years before their parents did and spend all their new free time whining and whinging.

Britain is still one of the best places in the world to live, and not just for economic reasons but for freedom; freedom from the state, freedom from the police and a legal system that separates us from any possible abuses of government power.

And if you don't believe me, try arguing with a copper in Greece, or France or Spain! 

Just for once, try to look on the positive side. We all have equal opportunities. We all get one life and we should do with it as best we can. Spend half the time on improving your business as you do on this forum and you could be richer and happier. And please, if you really don't want to work and earn money then stop this endless, endless moaning about all those who are better off than you. It really is getting tiresome.

[nightrider]

What about Australia as a place to live? their border control people seem to be on the ball regarding drug dealers, people trying to hide their criminal records etc, illegal immigrants.

[Brian Kirby]

So the UK is "just perfick", then Francis? Can't be improved? :-)

[francisgraham]

Brian Kirby - 2012-02-18 5:09 PMSo the UK is "just perfick", then Francis? Can't be improved? :-)

I don't believe I said anything about it being perfect and incapable of improvement. Of course things can be improved but running a country isn't like running a small business, as you out of all this lot will be aware.

Politicians are subject to external forces over which they have no control and which often ties their hands to some extent, but I just get sick to the back teeth with the constant whining and silly generalisations.

Every politician is bent, every politician fiddled his expenses, they're only in it for the money blah, blah and blah!

Most of them could be a lot richer by concentrating on their main professions than by being an MP on the derisory salary that they're paid.

Dennis Skinner, William Hague, just to name one on each side. Both men who are committed politicians because they want to change things and there are hundreds more people like them in government, local and national, and I know some of them.

Yes, things can be improved, they always can but, just for once, I wish that people would recognise the massive improvements in our lives that have already taken place.

[francisgraham]

knight of the road - 2012-02-18 5:06 PMWhat about Australia as a place to live? their border control people seem to be on the ball regarding drug dealers, people trying to hide their criminal records etc, illegal immigrants.

It is a good place to live but they still have many immigrants despite being tough on illegal ones.

I have to say though, that what Britain needs is more people like you. Whilst I deplore some of your views on the charities and Third World aid etc. I do have a huge admiration for a man who continues to work hard well past retirement.  And here you are with cancer and still looking forward to getting on with your gardens when Spring comes.

Well done, and I really do wish that your work ethic was shared by others. Britain would be a better and wealthier place for everyone if they had your positive attitude.

[Guest pelmetman]

Seem's to me Francis, people like you................... are are still running the Asylum (lol) (lol) (lol) (lol)

 

Gaaaaawd elp'us :D