Could KB members govern...

[mashman]

the Country ... some believe not. I reckon they'd do a much better job than the soft cock PC pandering vote bribing legislating troughers that are there at the moment...

There a plenty of good ideas on KB that have been discussed over the years, 99% of which won't see the light of day (kinda proves how out of touch and timid TPTB are). Whilst there are plenty of cocks on here, me included, there are just as many, if not more in the hive of the bees. I doubt there's anyone here that would waste their time legislating against "issues", where legislation isn't going to make an iota of difference, like speeding, smacking, the voting system, previous crimes not being taken into consideration etc... or indeed setting "limits" for the sake of the PC soft cocks like pathetic educational testing thresholds, ACC risk assessments, wet bus ticket sentencing etc... There's a slew of stupid, useless rules and regulations that mean fuck all to anyone other than the accused and the judge... a system that has "worked" since forever, even before the latest raft PC rules and regs came in to being... common sense ruled the day. I have a feeling that KB'ers see through that sort of shit and may even have an idea or 2 on how to make the "systems" more effective in terms of financial efficiency and societal "norms"...

Look at it this way, it's only the govt that changes, a comparitively small number of people. There are still 10's of thousands of public workers that will do the job however they are directed to, they just need a "real" direction. You could leave the lights on quick comfortably and start focussing on issues that actually make a difference to the quality of life, and not JUST the $ value equivalent ...

So I'm a yay, KB'ers would do a shitload of a better job than the so called "professionals".

As for the nays... Why not?

[Banditbandit]

Yeah .. why not? We only need 61 people to get elected and form a Govenment ... I'm sure there are people here who could do that and make a better jobof it than any of the current bunch ...

However, could we find 61 members of KB who actually agree enough ..and secondly, are they electable ?

I doubt we could find 61 who agree (and the rest of us would probably disagree with those 61) .. and secondly I seriously doubt that 61 would be electable ... (we're bikers after all .. major point against us with the electorate.)

[Spearfish]

..... the soft, cock PC pandering, vote bribing, legislating troughers that are there at the moment...


As for the nays... Why not?

Good line that one.

[Virago]

Yeah .. why not? We only need 61 people to get elected and form a Govenment...

...And a couple of million people to vote for them. That's the tricky bit...

[wysper]

Good ideas are all good.

Now get that good idea through a committee.


Is it still good?
Is it the same idea?
What did you have to compromise?
What did you have to give up?
What did you have to trade off?

welcome to politics.

[Banditbandit]

...And a couple of million people to vote for them. That's the tricky bit...

Oh .. I dunno .. get a few bikes to run around the country, with women on the back showing tits -- or women riding asnd guys on the back, bare chested for the ladies .. promise everyone free sex and cannabis ... Might do the trick ..

[ellipsis]

...for sure...how hard is it to find a group of money hungry, lieing, cheating, thieving,mysoginistic, homo pricks and semi femmes, that like to travel, eat well and hide when the big questions are asked...should be able to come up with that group by just asking them to step up to the mark...dont even have to be pretty to behold...most people on here would rather be out riding , wouldn't they...

[puddytat]

Could the People govern?
If we can have a lotto system that allows everyone to gamble, would it be that hard to allow them to walk into the local Diary and cast a vote on issues by Referendum?
We'd only have ourselves to blame if we get it wrong & it would empower people massively & encourage them to take way more interest in policy that would affect them, rather than blaming the Politicians who they elected all the time.

Mind you, knowing the species like I do....

[Genestho]

Wysper's got it bang on.

From what I see being in Parliament is about negotiation, bureaucratic tape and so forth, at some point your original beliefs would take a side step or some beliefs would change according to other policy which can often reflect across a few policies, or alternatively you'd do a 'Hone Harawira'.

Yes it seems at times that the public know better, but when you get to the big house, I'd doubt many would know fark all..

Good ideas are just that, it's the processes that turn them into bad or misunderstood ideas (IMO)

[Banditbandit]

...for sure...how hard is it to find a group of money hungry, lieing, cheating, thieving,mysoginistic, homo pricks and semi femmes, that like to travel, eat well and hide when the big questions are asked...should be able to come up with that group by just asking them to step up to the mark...dont even have to be pretty to behold...most people on here would rather be out riding , wouldn't they...

So you're recommending Honda Riders then ?

[mashman]

Yeah .. why not? We only need 61 people to get elected and form a Govenment ... I'm sure there are people here who could do that and make a better jobof it than any of the current bunch ...

However, could we find 61 members of KB who actually agree enough ..and secondly, are they electable ?

I doubt we could find 61 who agree (and the rest of us would probably disagree with those 61) .. and secondly I seriously doubt that 61 would be electable ... (we're bikers after all .. major point against us with the electorate.)

Ok, so 61 could be tricky , although I reckon getting the 61 would be the hard bit...

The idea is that we're not meant to agree. I realise that sounds counter intuitive, but let's face it, the current crop "agree" based on promises and "bargain" their vote/support on other issues , literally throwing a vote away because the vote holder probably doesn't really give a shit about a given issue as it's career neutral... I doubt it's because it's the right thing to do.

Anyhoo, I would think KB'ers more likely to finally "agree" on policy/issues, given that they'd reach a point where both sides would be "happy" to proceed because it'd be better for the people and the country than what's currently in place, they may not be happy with the outcome, but I doubt they'd stop something positive from being implemented just because they didn't like the final idea. I don't see politicians giving policy/issues that sort of care and attention, especially those who don't want to be on the losing side, because you can only stop legislation ... isn't the whole idea? Stopping what's damaging and putting through what's positive? or at least a saner version that appeases the financial and social brigades.

The differences in perspective will make all of the difference imho.

[StoneY]

There has never been an argument in Parliament to match the voracity as would be seen if Katman, Myself, and Mom were running this country

Ill be overe there somewhere watchin the thred >>>>>>>>>>>>

[Bald Eagle]

Now there's a scarey thought , putting the inmates in charge of the asylum.

[Genestho]

Ok, so 61 could be tricky , although I reckon getting the 61 would be the hard bit...

The idea is that we're not meant to agree. I realise that sounds counter intuitive, but let's face it, the current crop "agree" based on promises and "bargain" their vote/support on other issues , literally throwing a vote away because the vote holder probably doesn't really give a shit about a given issue as it's career neutral... I doubt it's because it's the right thing to do.

Anyhoo, I would think KB'ers more likely to finally "agree" on policy/issues, given that they'd reach a point where both sides would be "happy" to proceed because it'd be better for the people and the country than what's currently in place, they may not be happy with the outcome, but I doubt they'd stop something positive from being implemented just because they didn't like the final idea. I don't see politicians giving policy/issues that sort of care and attention, especially those who don't want to be on the losing side, because you can only stop legislation ... isn't the whole idea? Stopping what's damaging and putting through what's positive? or at least a saner version that appeases the financial and social brigades.

The differences in perspective will make all of the difference imho.

But there's that already, there is opposition always waiting to pull pants down, and select committee and stakeholders, consultations with differing opinions, lobby and interest groups, what's so new and different about what you propose?

[george formby]

Spend a few months in local politics to see how democracy demands compromise & the wealth difference of the haves & have not's, polarises what is at the top & bottom of the agenda.

I have huge respect for most MP's regardless of media portrayal. They are mainly self made & have a long term commitment to trying to make a positive difference, as they see it, to this country & their electorate. The faces we pillory today have been working for years unseen before they climbed high enough in the ranks to warrant a journalists time.

I have no doubt in the ability of KB members to form policy & govern but do they have the stamina?