http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/general_politics/july_2011/new_high_46_think_most_in_congress_are_corrupt

Voters are more convinced than ever that most congressmen are crooks.

A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 46% of Likely U.S. Voters now view most members of Congress as corrupt.

Similarly, a whopping 85% of voters think most members of Congress are more interested in helping their own careers than in helping other people.

While some believe that people hate Congress in general but love their own representative, just 31% believe their own representative is the best person for the job.

-----------------

As they say, admitting you have a problem is the first step. Finally, the people are coming around that even their own representatives are probably crooks.

So what is the public perception of parliament in your country? (UK,Aus, NZ, Thailand, SUI, wherever)

ONLY 46%? Wow, I wouldn't have thought we Americans were so optimistic.

ONLY 46%? Wow, I wouldn't have thought we Americans were so optimistic.

I'm cheered by their natural optimism!

Politicians and journalists are right at the bottom of the pile as far as public popularity/respect is concerned in the UK - which is not quite the same thing as the perception of Parliament. Parliament is a good thing - it's the chancers who work there that are the problem.

I don't think they are crooks. It might work better if they had their noses in the trough or their work instead of everybody's business.

That's why the two-party system that seems to be the case in many countries is failing.

The politicians are herded through the lobbies to vote 'for' or 'against' whatever proposal is on the floor, without having a chance to express an opinion (unless it favours their party's agenda). Much better to have locally elected representatives that put forward their locally promoted agenda. No party affiliations, just that they stand up on a podium (or street corner) and give their view on issues - then stand for election. If the locals like their proposals, they get elected, if not - back to selling fruit off a market-stall.

And elect one-fifth of the Parliament every year. That way there is always an adjustment to meet changing needs. Without parties ('Government' and 'Opposition') there should be a forum of consensus rather than a name-calling, mud-slinging kindergarten.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Many of the best out there don't think going through an election campaign with all the vicious public attacks on the candidate AND their family is worth it.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Many of the best out there don't think going through an election campaign with all the vicious public attacks on the candidate AND their family is worth it.

Get rid of Murdoch and his media empire, then, as a first line of business in a new world order.

That's why the two-party system that seems to be the case in many countries is failing.

The politicians are herded through the lobbies to vote 'for' or 'against' whatever proposal is on the floor, without having a chance to express an opinion (unless it favours their party's agenda). Much better to have locally elected representatives that put forward their locally promoted agenda. No party affiliations, just that they stand up on a podium (or street corner) and give their view on issues - then stand for election. If the locals like their proposals, they get elected, if not - back to selling fruit off a market-stall.

And elect one-fifth of the Parliament every year. That way there is always an adjustment to meet changing needs. Without parties ('Government' and 'Opposition') there should be a forum of consensus rather than a name-calling, mud-slinging kindergarten.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Lovely, HB.... but nothing would ever get done. Each representative would be so eager to promote his own agenda that you would never get enough people to agree on any single platform to actually do anything.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Many of the best out there don't think going through an election campaign with all the vicious public attacks on the candidate AND their family is worth it.

Get rid of Murdoch and his media empire, then, as a first line of business in a new world order.

I know you aren't so horribly naive to think that it is only one side of the political spectrum doing these political hit jobs.

That's why the two-party system that seems to be the case in many countries is failing.

The politicians are herded through the lobbies to vote 'for' or 'against' whatever proposal is on the floor, without having a chance to express an opinion (unless it favours their party's agenda). Much better to have locally elected representatives that put forward their locally promoted agenda. No party affiliations, just that they stand up on a podium (or street corner) and give their view on issues - then stand for election. If the locals like their proposals, they get elected, if not - back to selling fruit off a market-stall.

And elect one-fifth of the Parliament every year. That way there is always an adjustment to meet changing needs. Without parties ('Government' and 'Opposition') there should be a forum of consensus rather than a name-calling, mud-slinging kindergarten.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Lovely, HB.... but nothing would ever get done. Each representative would be so eager to promote his own agenda that you would never get enough people to agree on any single platform to actually do anything.

I suggest that the answer could lie in ensuring that every person who wants to run for election qualifies. Not just the standard citizenship etc, but also intelligence, temperament and proof of character.

That's why the two-party system that seems to be the case in many countries is failing.

The politicians are herded through the lobbies to vote 'for' or 'against' whatever proposal is on the floor, without having a chance to express an opinion (unless it favours their party's agenda). Much better to have locally elected representatives that put forward their locally promoted agenda. No party affiliations, just that they stand up on a podium (or street corner) and give their view on issues - then stand for election. If the locals like their proposals, they get elected, if not - back to selling fruit off a market-stall.

And elect one-fifth of the Parliament every year. That way there is always an adjustment to meet changing needs. Without parties ('Government' and 'Opposition') there should be a forum of consensus rather than a name-calling, mud-slinging kindergarten.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Lovely, HB.... but nothing would ever get done. Each representative would be so eager to promote his own agenda that you would never get enough people to agree on any single platform to actually do anything.

I suggest that the answer could lie in ensuring that every person who wants to run for election qualifies. Not just the standard citizenship etc, but also intelligence, temperament and proof of character.

All three? You're hopeful.

I can only think of one MP of integrity at the moment - Frank Field.

But only if honest, dedicated men are prepared to do their duty by their community.

Many of the best out there don't think going through an election campaign with all the vicious public attacks on the candidate AND their family is worth it.

Get rid of Murdoch and his media empire, then, as a first line of business in a new world order.

I know you aren't so horribly naive to think that it is only one side of the political spectrum doing these political hit jobs.

Correct. The use of Murdoch's name was not to say the political right is the problem, but that the guy possessing so many media distribution outlets and using them in unacceptable ways should be made to separate his holdings into different (independently edited) holdings. Even then, he would be the owner, appointing these editors. So it's a big problem.

He can use the size of his media empire to be able to reduce costs - one set of reporters could cover an item for a dozen outlets, rephrasing things slightly for each - filming, still pix, reporting all by one or two people with a bit of local help.

Doesn't seem right to me. But how does one ensure a free and independent press? Make them all charities, with some sort of outside inspectorate? Even then people with a political agenda would seek to control and 'spin' the information.

The Daily Telegraph (in UK) investigated the abuse of expenses payments by MPs when Labour were in power - would they have done the same now? (Yes, I know that they 'named-and-shamed' MPs of all parties, but the emphasis was on Labour).