Our politicians stink! Agree or disagree?

Yes anno, that final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth was very touching, and showed the tragedy of that war in a way that did not disrespect the people who fought and died in it. Your comments about Wilfred Owen and Sasson gave me the shivers.

I simply don't see how Mr Gove can say that a series like Blackadder is disrespectful to those who fought and died. He seems to want to drag the country back into a jingoistic view of military action and might. As with the holocaust and the 2nd war, we should always remember the sacrifices of so many young men in the first ww.

I wonder what Mr Gove's family influences have been? Both my grandfather's served, one was a prisoner for 12 months and challenged my criticism of "the Germans" when I was about 12. He said of his captors, "They were just lads like us, your generation wouldn't and shouldn't do it. We knew no better, those banners saying 'your country needs to' and off we all went". He said the Guards shared the Red Cross Parcels with the prisoners, as well as boiling rats, and eating grass because there was often no food as the war drew to an end. His chest was damaged by gas, he had trench feet and stomach problems for the rest of his life. My other grandfather's job was to follow the fighting, and attempt to identify the dead. These young men were 18 years old, had never left England until they went to war. It makes me so angry that Gove takes the view he does, as though the rest of us are so stupid we can't see the humour and pathos in that brilliant series of Blackadder.

The "Lions Led by Donkeys", is interesting as Gove seems to have forgotten that one of the best known exponents of this view was that well-known left wing historian Alan Clark
I think that there is nothing in Blackadder or Oh What A Lovely War that dishonours the courage or the sacrifice of the soldiers of World War 1.
The spectacle of smarmy politicians making cheap political points does though.

The final episode of Blackadder Goes Forth was touching and tragic. It was by no means disrespectful to the many soldiers whose lives were sacrificed on the battlefields of the Somme. Read Wilfred Owen; read Sigfried Sassoon; read or reread Pat Barker's Regeneration Trilogy. Owen lost his life, Sassoon too was injured and mentally damaged in the course of his service. They knew what they were writing about.

"My subject is War, and the pity of War. The Poetry is in the pity."
(Wilfred Owen)

I thought he was just objecting to the Black Adder kind of jokes that are made these days about that war. I think for many, WW1 is a forgotten war.

I think Gove is having a go at the "lions led by donkeys" view of WW1. His view seems to be at odds with that of most historians. I wonder what his view of Wilfred Owen is.

I haven't forgotten the expenses scandal absent.
I think most politicians seek power to feather their own nest, to make a name for themselves, to make contacts to gain lucrative second incomes and not forgetting the gold plated pension at the end.
Perhaps it was always so although I'd like to think otherwise.

papaoscar I agree with your initial posting. I do not agree that there are politicians who want to do what's good for the Country (they may start out with that in mind) but I believe they do what's best for their party political affilliations and themselves, which is not necessarily in the nations interests. There are of course notable exceptions but they are so few and far between and generally independent of party politics so as to not be in a position to make a difference.
Discounting an alternative is short sighted in my view and probably based on the view that any other system must be bad and not in citizens interests. I don't believe it has to be bad. There are merits in all systems of governance but it is interesting to note that democracies generally have a lifespan of a couple of hundred years at most then revert to something resembling a dictatorship until it becomes corrupted then back to democracies. That in itself should indicate the level of political integrity we enjoy and I accept it is a generalisation but we are generalising and not examining the individual merits or otherwise of our politicians.

Gove is looking for more respect for people like your grandad Broomsticks. And all the others involved in that dreadful war.

I agree that Owen Paterson does come across as an ignorant ba sod though.

Progs - trouble with revolutions is that they drag you back to where you started, over and over again!

Jinglbell I think the minister for the environment should have a background in environmental biology, personally. So that he actually knows about what he's in charge of.

I think Michael Gove was suggesting that the usual view of WW1 is unpatriotic. I'm biased as my granddad was an army doctor helping to put kids faces back together after they'd been blown apart in the trenches.

Not a fan of Mr Gove. Sorry.

Papaoscar

Who would have thought you were a Republican.

The answer to the OP is BOTH.

We can all mention things such as 'Cash for Honours'. 'Expenses scandal' but it is true to say these issues do not belong to any one party, no matter how much some people have a selected memory

I watch a lot of BBC Parliament and sometimes words fail me. PM.Q's is a very bad and childish look at the behaviour of 'some' not all MP's. If you see some of the debates you will see partisan, idiotic children shouting abuse and laughing like they are on crack cocaine. Then, you watch the debate that shows intellect, a genuine concern for the debate and it is quite refreshing and reminds you that the system is probably one of the best in the world.

My politics is centre/right. I know however those on the government benches I consider fools as I see those on the opposition benches I consider decent . Surely only a non thinking individual would agree with every decision their party comes up with? Maybe I am wrong but I would like to think we are not irreversibly brain washed to not consider points raised and make an informed opinion for ourselves.

I am sorry that an awful lot of people 'Tar and Feather' all politicians in the same light. I think a lot of people think they work 9 - 5 and parliament shuts down at 5p.m. when they all go home. That is not true and some work tirelessly, other's should be ashamed of their work ethic. A bit like the work environment we are used to, some shine, some stink.

What I will say though the alternative to being able to vote a government out is not for me. I have no desire to live under communism nor dictatorship thank you very much.If you think our MP"s are bad I can think of far worse alternatives.

I also have a pet hate. I hate with a vengeance class snobbery and it's reverse. If a persons perceived class was a determinate of their good deeds and desire to do the right thing then where would that have left us as a nation if the likes of Nightingale, Churchill and oh so many wonderful people in our history who perhaps opened hospitals, shaped democracy and gave life to so many institutions we cherish today were mocked or abused simply because they had wealth or went to Oxford, Eaton or Cambridge. Before anybody asks, I am working class, if you believe in pigeon holing that is.

Granny 23 and Mishap - You certainly raise some very interesting points, especially about the evolution of the modern-day professional politician who has no particular experience of, let alone genuine interest in, our world. Couple that with the dominance of the manipulative, sensation-seeking technically brilliant media and the hugely powerful international commercial corporations, and the role of politics, both domestic and international, has diminished to a low level of relevance.

The big decisions seem to have been increasingly taken away from proper democratic influence and the real interests of the people. Maybe this has always been so (perhaps even to a greater extent in the past) but I think it sad and bad that very powerful minority groups continue to exercise far more power than they should, aided by the virus-like proliferation of spin-doctors and PR merchants.

I have also felt for a long time that the UK parliament should be cleansed of much of the ermine, knickerbockery, pomp, circumstance and needless tradition that impedes its efficiency and serves mainly to protect the status quo. All the flunkery and foppery might please the tourists but they don't have to live with the consequences.

The old country needs a nice, new, clear constitution in place of the ramshackle ragbag of laws, precedents, and frippery with which history has bequeathed it. And whilst I'm about it I would clear the government and parliamentary corridors of all lobbyists and other carpet-baggers. Yes, I'd have some real fun, and I haven't got round to the Monarchy yet!

Absolute agreement with Granny 23's post. What can be done to change it, and have politicians who are more representative of the electorate.

Some of my best friends are Elected Members but I would not describe them as Politicians. They are simply people from a wide range of backgrounds, who have either - been very involved in their local community or interest group (e.g. disability) and becoming aware of where the power lies have successfully put themselves forward for election in order to represent 'their' communities view - or - people devoted to an ideology (e.g. Socialism, Independence, Pacifism, Feminism) who have sought election in furtherance of their cause.

I believe the current paucity of excellence in our elected representatives, owes much to the emergence of a 'political class', each with an Oxbridge degree in Politics, History etc. who go straight in to an internship as the first rung on the ladder, then contest an unwinnable seat and next election are rewarded with a safe one. They have no experience of real life outside the political bubble and as long as they keep their nose clean and appear to follow their leader's line, they rise steadily through the ranks, or if they choose, remain on the back benches, doing as little as possible and picking up their salary + expenses until they retire to the Lords or some lucrative directorships. Self advancement and self preservation are their core values which they serve very well.

I am in tune with Anno's opinion rather than that of Jings.

SCUM (like cream) also rises to the top.

I start from the premise: who would want to be a politician? Is this something that the average person aspires to? What makes people what to do this?

Some want power; some like the sound of their own voice; some have truly altruistic aims to help those around them. But they all share the tendency to be corrupted by power and to find any principles they may have had eroded by the system.

I think that the Borgen series is a fascinating insight into how principles bend to the system; and there was a radio play earlier in the year about a new young Welsh MP, all bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, as she comes to terms with the realities of how politics work: the wheeler-dealing, the compromises, the spin etc.

Democracy is a good thing, but it carries with it dangers. In order to remain in office you have to appeal to the voters in some way, which demands a certain cynicism of approach - look at Cameron promising support to pensioners - could this be because there is a general election round the corner and there are a lot of us? - and we are the most likely to actually vote.

This is why we get "knee-jerk" policies as they are trying to pander to the electorate - so many recent policies have been ill thought through and were just an attempt to tick a box and be seen to be doing something.

I remember the "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" from Bill Clinton - how chilling to was to know that the most powerful leader in the world had no integrity.

My main concern at the moment is that so many of the politicians we have seem to be so dim! - and the whole system of ministers hopping from one department to the other and flogging their pet theories in each one is tedious to say the least.

Jeremy Hunt (health Minister so close to the top) and his Chinese lessons paid for by the tax payer, for example jinglbell?

You're always going to get bad apples, some badder than others. But I think the ones at the very top do the best they can.

Have you all forgotten the expenses scandal?

Nary a one of them, I fear, is particularly altruistic, no matter what his or her role. But who voted them in? Curent or past (to clarify that I refer to them all)

Well I agree ..... And sort of disagree! What me sit on the fence - never!

Agree. Wholeheartedly. Unscrupulous lot of windbags don't get me started!

I like the idea of someone with an interest in the nation's history being in charge of protecting the environment.

Isn't Michael Gove saying it was a necessary war?

this is what he said

I'm stunned by them at present. Michael Gove says WW1 was a good thing. What?!!!
The guy in charge of the environment has a history degree and no science background.
How do they appoint ministers anyway? Stick a pin in?

Sorry, rant over