Politicians from all sides are frustrated that regular politics has effectively been put on hold while certain MPs are forced to justify the fact they used public money to install mock Tudor beams or to remove moles from their land.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8043008.stm
And "regular politics" being on hold is a bad thing? I think that it's rather good that the members of the exclusive Westminster Village echo chamber are discovering that they have to pay attention to the people who pay for them, and not "do as I say, not as I do". (For example, special casing ContactPoint to exclude their own children.) Maybe the agenda should include what the public wants, not just what Westminster, Whitehall and the orbiting media thinks it should be. "Regular politics" has been turning people off for years.
I hate the electorate (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Most people just don't care as long as there is cheap food, beer and footy on TV... It is a disgrace what MPs have got up to with our money, however I totally agree that it's shocking their utter lack of backbone they have when it comes to doing the right thing on just about every other issue possible.
-- "It's not magic, it's work..."
Re: (Score:2)
I think it has a lot to do with ease of comprehension of the problem, and relevance to day-to-day issues. For example, in the US, in 2004, 19 percent of voters described terrorism as their most important issue ... only 9 percent of voters described terrorism as the most important issue in 2008 [fivethirtyeight.com], and opinions on global warming vary as a function of personal relevance. [fivethirtyeight.com]
Waging of aggressive war, deliberate attacks on civilians, support for brutally murderous regimes, and torture are things that happen far away,