Gordon Brown signs his death warrant

[Adrian II]

That's it. No matter what else Brown, his goverment or his party can come up with in the next months or years, the exposure of this scheme proves that they are indeed out of touch. I can't imagine that our friends across the North Sea would ever accept to collectively have their road movements tracked by black boxes.

Or would they?

Ah well, since some towns already accept that you have to fill in your personal details on a form before ordering a drink in a pub...

A colleague of mine who is a correspondent in London just wrote a book in which he claims that the Brits have no philosophical tradition bar skepticism, and that this leaves them totally helpless in the face of onslaughts on their personal freedom such as this one. True? Untrue?


The Telegraph can disclose that the Government is pushing ahead with plans for a national road-pricing scheme, including testing "spy in the sky" technology.

Eight areas of the country have been selected by ministers for secret pay-per-mile trials which will begin in 2010 and are expected to pave the way for tolls on motorways.

Initially, in January 2010, one hundred cars in each area will trial the new technology – in many cases entailing placing black boxes to allow their movements to be tracked - but members of the public will be invited to join the pilots in June 2010.

linky (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/fairdealfordrivers/2573876/Spy-in-the-sky-paves-way-for-road-pricing.html)



EDI'T
Would a mod please correct the title's spelling? :shame:

[PBI]

Gah, road pricing is a terrible idea on just about every level. Hugely expensive and bound to overrun still further, vastly invasive of privacy and wide open to abuse, counterproductive in reducing carbon emissions (my Micra will pay the same as the neighbour's BMW), wildly unpopular and generally much less fair than taxing petrol and assessing road tax by engine size. I had thought the government had realised what a stupid idea it was and put it on the back burner until it could be quietly killed off. I am deeply annoyed to see they seem to be pressing ahead with it.

As you say, this is truly the death warrant for a government that has been sick for a while.

[InsaneApache]

You see this is why I abhor all those 'we know best' politicians who currentley have their snouts in the Westminster trough.

More billions wasted spent by our fascist socialist overlords, probably to no avail. They really havn't got a clue have they?

I'd call Pa McBroon a dickhead but that would be grossly unfair to bona-fide dickheads.

[naut]

When's the next election? Broon the bloody berk needs to be tossed out on his backside.

[InsaneApache]

May 2010. The longest 18 months in history.

[Adrian II]

May 2010. The longest 18 months in history.Wouldn't you agree that, say, the Blitz was more harrowing, even if it took only half as long?

So much for the hyperbole then.

Some members seems to expect a notable improvement if the Tories come to power. Personally I would put my money on the LibDems. But the fundamental question seems to the philosophical point my colleague made, a point that stands regardless of which party is in power. Is he right?

[JR-]

you expect that the libs have a better chance than the tories at the next election, or that a lib Gov't would produce better outcomes?

[Adrian II]

you expect that the libs have a better chance than the tories at the next election, or that a lib Gov't would produce better outcomes?The latter. I like their program in comparison to those of the other, major two parties, and all the more so in comparison to what we've seen from those two others in recent decades. But my personal choice as a non-native isn't very relevant.

[InsaneApache]

That's a toughie. Who is/was more destructive to the UK, the Luftwaffe or Gordy?

After much no deliberation, Gordon is more of a menace. :laugh4:

As for the Lib-Dems, I wouldn't hold your breath Adrian, when Huhne called him 'calamity' Clegg he was right on the button.

Sorry for you liberal lefties but the tories are a shoo in come the general election.

[PBI]

I certainly don't expect much improvement from a Tory party who seem incapable of peddling much more than vague pessimism (Britain is Broken? Speak for yourself) and ideas that Jeremy Clarkson would describe as "funny, but a bit too simplistic" (move everyone in Liverpool to London, etc). Since there is no real prospect of a Lib Dem victory my preferred outcome for the next election would be a hung parliament.

As to your original question, does Britain have an underlying philosophical tradition? I confess I didn't really understand the question. Perhaps that is you answer.



Sorry for you liberal lefties but the tories are a shoo in come the general election.

I fear that is probably true.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Some members seems to expect a notable improvement if the Tories come to power. Personally I would put my money on the LibDems. But the fundamental question seems to the philosophical point my colleague made, a point that stands regardless of which party is in power. Is he right?

There may well be an election much sooner than that if New Labour finds the spine to assassinate Mr Brown. His successor would have no choice (even in Britain, changing leaders twice in a parliament without seeking a mandate would be unthinkable) and might even win, given the resounding relief from the country. I don't see much appetite for the New Cons, just a desperation for anyone but Brown. And if anyone thinks the Cameroons would step back from introducing just as many intrusions into privacy, they are as soft as the man who thinks the Lib Dems have a snowball in hell's chance. :wink:

As to the philosophical point made by your colleague, I think he is harsh. The British are sceptical, but have a much greater depth of practical political philosophy. They just don't reflect on it any more. This is a country that has produced some quite exceptional parliamentarians and progressive policies, born from a historically titanic clash of philosophies - the Whig and the Tory tradition.

Sadly, the UK suffers from the same plague as much of the West - a disconnect from politics, cynicism bordering on apathy about political motives; and a deepening level of wilful ignorance/rejection of responsibility in favour of "circuses and celebrities". Add the ongoing destruction of education which denies much of the citizenry any ability to think or read, and you have grumbling but no solutions.

There is the widespread distrust of intellectual endeavour and reasoned debate, and the belief that complex politics must be addressed in a sound-bite. This is fostered by the pygmies that aim for election, because it is all they can accomplish. Add the unreasoning acceptance of the Anglo-Saxon free market capitalist model because it brings shiny things, all a modern politician has to do is try an ensure sufficient baubles. Apart from being one of the most spectacular political cowards of modern times, this is Gordon Brown's big sin - being on watch as the toys are being taken away, having spent ten years promising the bright-eyed and demanding children it would be Christmas every day.

I'd like to read your friend's book though. Reference? :book2:

[Adrian II]

As for the Lib-Dems, I wouldn't hold your breath Adrian, when Huhne called him 'calamity' Clegg he was right on the button.Oww, one British politician says something nasty about another. I'm impressed.

How about this letter from The Daily Telegraph:


Sir – Arriving at Heathrow this week, I saw signs warning me that a set of doors might open (isn’t that what doors do?) and, at the luggage carousels, that “trolleys operate in this area” (surprise, surprise). It isn’t only at Heathrow. The bus I use in London, for example, now plays an activated message every time someone rings the bell to warn that the bus will be stopping at the next stop and that we should “stand well clear of doors”. Other countries seem to manage perfectly well without people walking into doors or colliding with trolleys. Isn’t it time we reviewed the absurd obsession with “health and safety” that seems to suffocate this country and just let people use their common sense?

Norman Baker, MP (Lib Dem) London SW1

[Adrian II]

And if anyone thinks the Cameroons would step back from introducing just as many intrusions into privacy, they are as soft as the man who thinks the Lib Dems have a snowball in hell's chance. :wink:Their chance depends on the support they get during elections, right? If you only vote for 'winners' you might as well not vote at all.

The gentleman, who happens to be a philosopher by training, is named Patrick IJzendoorn. I don't believe this book Londen denkt ('London thinks') about the status of philosophy in present-day Britain has been translated.

[InsaneApache]

Oww, one British politician says something nasty about another. I'm impressed.

He's his foreign affairs spokesperson IIRC.


Sir – Arriving at Heathrow this week, I saw signs warning me that a set of doors might open (isn’t that what doors do?) and, at the luggage carousels, that “trolleys operate in this area” (surprise, surprise). It isn’t only at Heathrow. The bus I use in London, for example, now plays an activated message every time someone rings the bell to warn that the bus will be stopping at the next stop and that we should “stand well clear of doors”. Other countries seem to manage perfectly well without people walking into doors or colliding with trolleys. Isn’t it time we reviewed the absurd obsession with “health and safety” that seems to suffocate this country and just let people use their common sense?




THOSE BORN 1920-1979

TO ALL THE KIDS WHO SURVIVED the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's and 70's!!

First, we survived being born to mothers who smoked and/or drank while they were pregnant.

They took aspirin, ate blue cheese dressing, tuna from a can, and didn't get tested for diabetes.

Then after that trauma, we were put to sleep on our tummies in baby cribs covered with bright colored lead-based paints.

We had no childproof lids on medicine bottles, doors or cabinets and when we rode our bikes, we had no helmets, not to mention, the risks we took hitchhiking


As infants &children, we would ride in cars with no car seats, booster seats, seat belts or air bags

Riding in the back of a pick up on a warm day was always a special treat.

We drank water from the garden hose and NOT from a bottle.

We shared one soft drink with four friends, from one bottle and NO ONE actually died from this.

We ate cupcakes, white bread and real butter and drank Kool-aid made with sugar, but we weren't overweight because,


WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!


We would leave home in the morning and play all day, as long as we were back when the streetlights came on.

No one was able to reach us all day And we were O.K.

We would spend hours building our go-carts out of scraps and then ride down the hill, only to find out we forgot the brakes After running into the bushes a few times, we learned to solve the problem.


We did not have Playstations, Nintendo's, X-boxes, no video games at all, no 150 channels on cable, no video movies or DVD's, no surround-sound or CD's, no cell phones, no personal computer! s, no Internet or chat rooms.......
WE HAD FRIENDS and we went outside and found them!

We fell out of trees, got cut, broke bones and teeth and there were no lawsuits from these accidents.

We ate worms and mud pies made from dirt, and the worms did not live in us forever.

We were given BB guns for our 10th birthdays, made up games with sticks and tennis balls and, although we were told it would happen, we did not poke out very many eyes.

We rode bikes or walked to a friend's house and knocked on the door or rang the bell, or just walked in and talked to them!



Little League had tryouts and not everyone made the team. Those who didn't had to learn to deal with disappointment. Imagine that!!

The idea of a parent bailing us out if we broke the law was unheard of. They actually sided with the law!

These generations have produced some of the best risk-takers, problem solvers and inventors ever!
The past 50 years have been an explosion of innovation and new ideas.
We had freedom, failure, success and responsibility, and we learned HOW TO DEAL WITH IT ALL!
If YOU are one of them CONGRATULATIONS!

You might want to share this with others who have had the luck to grow up as kids, before the lawyers and the government regulated so much of our lives for our own good .

While you are at it, forward it to your kids so they will know how brave (and lucky) their parents were.
Kind of makes you want to run through the house with scissors, doesn't it?!

[LittleGrizzly]

I honestly don't see the tories being any better in this department, i see the conservatives and labour as soo similar these days, especially since cameron came to power, i think the main difference would be a posh etonian accent announcing the latest round of bad policys rather than a rough scottish one...

Of course Lib Dems would be the ideal choice but they are not going to win (despite for the fact i have voted for them everytime i could have) i suppose a hung parliment is my realistic hope but no realistic result could make me too happy, even if labour hang onto power i won't be happy and the tories are bound to be a less caring version of labour....

[InsaneApache]

You've really fallen for the propaganda big time havn't you?

Here's something to warm the cockles of your heart, Brown suspends elections...


Gordon Brown is set to postpone local elections next year in a bid to avoid a leadership challenge that could be triggered by big Labour losses.

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23538679-details/Brown+will+move+local+elections+to+avoid+double+defeat/article.do

I've changed my mind. Gordon is more destructive than 'Fat Man' being dropped in Stoke Newington. If anybody could tell.

[Banquo's Ghost]

Their chance depends on the support they get during elections, right? If you only vote for 'winners' you might as well not vote at all.

In principle, yes, but don't forget the United Kingdom has a first past the post system.

That means a lot of the people who vote Lib Dem waste their votes and that there has to be a significant swing in both Conservative and New Labour constituencies to the Liberal Democrats - a party that does not have a significant starting base of support (except maybe in the south-west). Thus, not only do they have to break traditional voting patterns established over many years, they also have to have policies that will attract moderate voters from both right and left. Whereas that might occur in by-elections as the voters protest, it rarely happens in a general election. The Lib Dems are a party largely of the left, but socialist Labourites, no matter how disillusioned with the current leadership, hardly ever consider actually voting Liberal. Oddly, disaffected Conservatives do (which is partly why the south-west has a Lib Dem foothold) but not in any numbers. The disillusioned are tending towards the extremes, not the centre, if they vote at all.

The Liberal Democrats would need between three and four election cycles even at "majority" levels of 40% support in the popular vote before they had the constituency presence to become a government. IIRC, since their formation they have never exceeded 25% of the popular vote in a general election (having checked, I lied - they got 25.4% in 1983 :laugh4:: and to illustrate my point, only had 23 seats. In 2001 however, they got only 18.3% yet took 52 seats).

They might yet have a significant role in a hung parliament, but this begs the question - why should a party voted for by a tiny minority have that much influence?


The gentleman, who happens to be a philosopher by training, is named Patrick IJzendoorn. I don't believe this book Londen denkt ('London thinks') about the status of philosophy in present-day Britain has been translated.

Thank you. Pity, it sounds an intriguing premise.

:bow:

Note to self: I keep misspelling the UK as the Untied Kingdom. Dyslexia or premonition?

[Banquo's Ghost]

Here's something to warm the cockles of your heart, Brown suspends elections...

Does anyone realistically think Gordon Brown will still be in post for May? :laugh4:


I've changed my mind. Gordon is more destructive than 'Fat Man' being dropped in Stoke Newington.

Is Cyril Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith) standing again? :wink3:

[Adrian II]

In principle, yes, but don't forget the United Kingdom has a first past the post system. That means a lot of the people who vote Lib Dem waste their votes [..]I fail to understand why this is a wasted vote. The idea behind the vote is that your view gets to be represented more or less decently on the legislative level. And since every seat counts, why shold'nt every party count, even if it is small?
Note to self: I keep misspelling the UK as the Untied Kingdom. Dyslexia or premonition?[/SIZE]I think Untidy Kingdom would cover it best. And that's a compliment. :wink:
Is Cyril Smith (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cyril_Smith) standing again? :wink3:His wiki says 'hobbies include collecting autographs'. He may be harsh, but I still think my colleague has a point...

[PBI]

They might yet have a significant role in a hung parliament, but this begs the question - why should a party voted for by a tiny minority have that much influence?

Well, that's the paradox of British politics isn't it? We almost never have a party elected who recieved the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, speaking of wasted votes, the truth is that anyone who doesn't live in one of the relatively few swing constituencies might as well not bother to vote.

Why don't we have PR again?

[CountArach]

You've really fallen for the propaganda big time havn't you?

Here's something to warm the cockles of your heart, Brown suspends elections...
Wow, that's beyond despicable. Welcome to the world of NewLab, where the Tories are Tories and the Labour Party are... also... Tories.

[InsaneApache]

Why don't we have PR again

Again? :inquisitive:

Blimey I know the left are desperate but postponing elections and buggering about with the electoral process just to avoid a wipeout at the next election is a bit rich.

Like I said in another post, fascism and socialism, two cheeks of the same arse.

[Banquo's Ghost]

I fail to understand why this is a wasted vote. The idea behind the vote is that your view gets to be represented more or less decently on the legislative level. And since every seat counts, why shold'nt every party count, even if it is small?

I'm not talking ideologically, but practically.

For example, the constituency of Henley has elected only Tory MPs since its creation in 1885. (Well, one brief flirtation with Liberalism in 1906). The winning majorities are consistently large. That means anyone who lives there, but does not vote Conservative has no chance of influencing a government, ever. Their vote does not count as no tally of the popular vote is made by anyone save the pundits. That's what I mean by a wasted vote.

Now, one might argue that by keeping at it, eventually New Labour will so devastate the Home Counties that Henley will fall into ruin and chavdom, thus finally allowing the possibility of a vote for said New Labour to count in that corner of England. Until then, a non-conservative vote is effectively wasted.

This does not preclude more direct political action however, as when the formidable ladies of Henley Women's Institute led the vanguard of the rebellion by instigating a slow-hand clap of Tony Blair's speech some years ago. The powerful did tremble mightily that day.

[rory_20_uk]

The lack of accountability politicians, local councillors and indeed police chiefs have in this country compared to say America is astounding. Almost no data on what they get up to is easily available, most positions are decided centrally and not by the populace, and it's probably 10% of seats that usually might change hands, leaving 90% free to do what they always do.

I don't think that PR is the pancea to all problems. What I do think should happen is that one lot of politicians should be used to debate matters of central government, and another lot for local government. The first set would then be elected by PR, the others directly by their area.

I'm not after PR to support the left, as I'm not the most left-leaning of members. But I fear that even the Right are likely to continue with central government, handouts to any group that might be bribed into voting for them and dithering over unpopular measures.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

I've been thinking about what to do about the 'political elites', corrupt self-servers and tribalists, who value party above country.

I have come to a solution. Forget party rivalries and allegiences, just vote for whoever is not the emcumbant. A complete 100% turnover of MPs should very nicely paralyse any government formed. It would take them the best part of a parliamentary session just to sort out the leaders.

Jobs a good 'un. :2thumbsup:

[Kralizec]

As noted, the Lib-Dems almost always capture a fairly large chunk of the vote but never see it rewarded with an amount of seats that does these achievements justice. When they receive more seats it's because they concentrate their campaigning on individual districts.

The USA has a similar problem and in fact have half a party less (two party system instead of 2.5), but it works better in practice. The reason, as it seems to me, is that congressmen are more beholden to their constituents than the GOP or the DNC. In the Netherlands, party discipline is stricter but we have proportional representation wich increases the viability of smaller parties. The UK combines constituency representation with centralized party discipline.

The Labour party has in the past argued for PR along with the Lib-Dems but has abandoned this idea when they seized the majority again. The only hope that I see for it in the UK is in the scenario that neither Labour or the Conservatives gain a majority and require at least tacit support of the Lib-Dems for running the government. I'm not very hopeful about that.

[Louis VI the Fat]

I am not principally opposed to many of these NuLab experiments. CCTV's, ASBO, increased social services powers, experiments with black boxes in cars. They all serve a clear purpose. I appreciate the experimentation with new technical or organisatorial innovations for social policy.

The drawback is, that no government will ever shy away from abusing all and any means at their disposal. New innovative techniques for social policy should therefore be accompanied by an equal increase in new and innovative ways of checking the government. More transparancy, more accountability and a tighter leash.
We have all been the victim of some 'diligent' civil servant at some point of our lives. God forbid they receive more means to execute their sometimes petty, vindictive, personal crusades.

[Adrian II]

The Labour party has in the past argued for PR along with the Lib-Dems but has abandoned this idea when they seized the majority again. The only hope that I see for it in the UK is in the scenario that neither Labour or the Conservatives gain a majority and require at least tacit support of the Lib-Dems for running the government. I'm not very hopeful about that.But it is a distinct possibility. A hung parliament would be the chance for the LibDems to cast their lot with the party that will support proportional representation. In this case they should demand one or more seats in the government as well, in exchnge for their suppport for policies that go flat against their party platform.

Politics is the art of the compromise - something that should come naturally to the British with their common sense, right gentlemen? :sneaky:

[JR-]

Well, that's the paradox of British politics isn't it? We almost never have a party elected who recieved the support of the majority of the electorate. In fact, speaking of wasted votes, the truth is that anyone who doesn't live in one of the relatively few swing constituencies might as well not bother to vote.

Why don't we have PR again?

because we like to give the winning party a mandate for change, which means a majority to push through legislation.

this grown-up form of national politics allows original thinking to be implemented in its intended form, rather than watered down in coalition compromise, and to be given the chance to succeed OR fail with the result firmly pinned to the chest of the party in power in the eyes of the public.

[Adrian II]

because we like to give the winning party a mandate for change, which means a majority to push through legislation.

this grown-up form of national politics allows original thinking to be implemented in its intended form, rather than watered down in coalition compromise, and to be given the chance to succeed OR fail with the result firmly pinned to the chest of the party in power in the eyes of the public.Original thinking, that's a good one.

Anyway, I think the British public would be mature enough to separate parties and issues in a coalition government and know where to put the blame for any failures.

[JR-]

true, but the coalition itself would prevent the idea from being implemented as quickly or as thoroughly.

give people a mandate for change, and hang them if the cock it up, this is the way i like things.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Looking at the state of New Labour and then realising that for all the hype the Tories will be the only alternative, sometimes I wonder if I should support the tartan-nationalists just to get out of this mess.

For all the talk about ZANU-Labour and whatever they are being called, any little infringement they make on human rights that gets Tories wetting themselves is negligible compared to the economic mess and the ridiculous programme of privatisation they are running. And will the Tories change that? I doubt it.

These elections coming up are going to be the first I get to vote for, and I'm not even sure its worth the trip to the ballot box. :no:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

These elections coming up are going to be the first I get to vote for, and I'm not even sure its worth the trip to the ballot box. :no:

Vote UKIP!

[Banquo's Ghost]

... about ZANU-Labour ...

Proclamation ex-tea-towel:

I've picked this one up before: Whatever the faults of this party, they are not in any way comparable to the wicked regime of Mugabe. Use of this term is inflammatory and disrespectful - most especially to those suffering in Zimbabwe.

Mocking political parties is a grand pastime, and much to be encouraged. But I fear this is not in the spirit of the Backroom rules, and I would prefer not to see the jibe repeated.

Thank you kindly.

:bow:

[JR-]

For all the talk about ZANU-Labour and whatever they are being called, any little infringement they make on human rights that gets Tories wetting themselves is negligible compared to the economic mess and the ridiculous programme of privatisation they are running. And will the Tories change that? I doubt it.


that is exactly what they did in the 80's; repair the damage.

[InsaneApache]

The tories have always been the party that sorts out the crap that labour puts the economy in. 1951. 1979. 2010.

I remember reading t'other day about when Blair was a junior shadow minister, in his bambi days, he turned around to his pps and said "I've got it! I understand macro-economics!"

He must have been about 30 at the time. I 'got it' when I was about 16. Still I 'spose thats the difference between a grammar school lad, who got where he is through merit and a public school wonk, who got there 'cos his dad was rich.

Imbeciles the lot of them.

Talking of imbeciles, Mrs. Balls had a typical 'It's the tories, it's the tories' rant in the Gruniad today. Pathetic.

[LittleGrizzly]

He must have been about 30 at the time. I 'got it' when I was about 16. Still I 'spose thats the difference between a grammar school lad, who got where he is through merit and a public school wonk, who got there 'cos his dad was rich.

Imbeciles the lot of them.

Im inclined to agree somewhat (all imbeciles seems a bit harsh) though is etonian cameron really a change here, if anything he's more of the image you hate....

The tories have always been the party that sorts out the crap that labour puts the economy in. 1951. 1979. 2010.

Im pretty sure Labour somewhat sorted out the mess the tory left in '97 although most of the mess had been cleaned admittedly, i would hardly call the modern tory party the party of good economics either...

[InsaneApache]

Im pretty sure Labour somewhat sorted out the mess the tory left in '97 although most of the mess had been cleaned admittedly, i would hardly call the modern tory party the party of good economics either...

When our great leader got the keys to #11 he had a meeting with his senior civil servants. When they relayed the fact that the tories had left the UK economy robust and in fine fettle he replied thus...

"Do you want me to send them a :daisy:' thankyou note?"

Well he could have tried not to bollocks up the economy, couldn't he?

Still, as they say, you can't polish a turd.

[JR-]

agreed.

[English assassin]

Can we knock the Lib dem thing on the head please?

Yes, there was a small group of "orange book" LDs who were really pretty good on civil liberties, and not bad on the economy either.

The bad news is there is a larger group of LDs who are really just a bog standard big state left wing party.

And their real problem is the same as the other two parties: a crippling lack of talent. Given the stupendous mediocrity of their MPs now, and given that, if there was miraculously to be some sort of LD breakthrough that would, inevitably, involve electing people who aren't even good enough to be LD MPs now, can you imagine the tsunami of bland that would engulf the country? It would be like being drowned, slowly, in a wave of warm Angel Delight. Butterscotch flavour


the Brits have no philosophical tradition bar skepticism, and that this leaves them totally helpless in the face of onslaughts on their personal freedom such as this one.

From what little I know its a reasonable charge that the predominant popular philosophy is a pragmatic scepticism, but I don't think the conclusion follows. I assume the argument is either that we assume anyone else would be just as bad, so why bother, or lacking any positive philosophy to advance we inevitably succumb to the virile proponents of authoritarianism. If so, I would say the first point isn't borne out by the facts (1997 and 1979 were good examples of people enthusiastically voting out one lot because the others may be better, 2010 will be another, and just look at Scotland) and as to the second point, although I suppose scepticism is negative, that is not a weakness in my book. (Strictly, it is a weakness, if you buy into the idea that Something Must Be Done. But so long as you have the sense to keep Do Nothing as an option its not.)


The drawback is, that no government will ever shy away from abusing all and any means at their disposal. New innovative techniques for social policy should therefore be accompanied by an equal increase in new and innovative ways of checking the government. More transparancy, more accountability and a tighter leash.
We have all been the victim of some 'diligent' civil servant at some point of our lives. God forbid they receive more means to execute their sometimes petty, vindictive, personal crusades.

Louis is on the money. You can't trust ANY government or ANY civil service dept. What would happen if you left teenagers alone with your car keys and a bottle of whiskey? They couldn't resist and the result would be a disaster. Its the same with politicians and power. And they are quite immune to transparency. You should see the hilarious way they have tried to wriggle out of freedom of information (which, fair play to him, was something good Blair did). I SWEAR there must have been a cabinet meeting after the Act came in where someone said "What, you mean it applies to the government as well? There must be some mistake"

I have a book from the 80s on my shelves entitled "Freedom under Thatcher", (I was a bundle of laughs as a student) which was a searing left wing indictment of Thatch's supposed assault on our ancient liberties. Read today, of course, it seems like a celebration of a more innocent age...

[InsaneApache]

(Strictly, it is a weakness, if you buy into the idea that Something Must Be Done. But so long as you have the sense to keep Do Nothing as an option its not.)


I've been thinking about what to do about the 'political elites', corrupt self-servers and tribalists, who value party above country.

I have come to a solution. Forget party rivalries and allegiences, just vote for whoever is not the emcumbant. A complete 100% turnover of MPs should very nicely paralyse any government formed. It would take them the best part of a parliamentary session just to sort out the leaders.

Jobs a good 'un. :2thumbsup:

Whaddya fink??? :yes:

[Seamus Fermanagh]

...Since there is no real prospect of a Lib Dem victory my preferred outcome for the next election would be a hung parliament. :hanged:


Sheesh....and I thought USA politics was divisive....

:smartass2:

[Craterus]

It would be like being drowned, slowly, in a wave of warm Angel Delight. Butterscotch flavour

Sold! Sold!

[Tribesman]

Its the same with politicians and power. And they are quite immune to transparency. You should see the hilarious way they have tried to wriggle out of freedom of information (which, fair play to him, was something good Blair did). I SWEAR there must have been a cabinet meeting after the Act came in where someone said "What, you mean it applies to the government as well? There must be some mistake"

They should take a leaf out of Irelands book of tricks , once the freedom of information act became applicable to government meetings they began starting meetings with a resolution that the meeting was not a meeting .

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can't read this thread without constantly thinking of other British politics. (https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8130890C9BB23DD)

[Devastatin Dave]

Governmental intrusion makes me horny...

[Incongruous]

Does no one else think Cammy's "broken society" DYI job sound's just as bad?
What do you think it would entail? Sure the govt. might take it's hands out of you're pockets but then put 'em in yer head.

[English assassin]

I think the broken society was just a silly soundbite slogan, coined back in the days when it looked like 2010 might be a contest. I think it means things like parents not keeping an eye on their kids and old folks dying unloved in "care" homes.

If they REALLY were going to do what I think it would take to fix that sort of broken society I'd be quite excited. It would mean, obviously, government sitting down and saying, "you know what, we can't do it all. In fact we can't do much of it.

We said we could keep you healthy with the NHS, but that was a lie. If you want to stay healthy you need to take responsibility yourself, and eat well, exercise, and take up vaccination and screening when its offered. We'll still do our best but really, you are going to have to accept that spending many thousands to extend the lives of cancer patients by two months is not going to happen.

We said we could keep you safe with the police, but that was a lie too. If you want to stay safe you need to keep an eye out in your local communities, but henceforth when you tell us that Kev Scrote is skipping school, or Mrs Scrote says Mr Scrote is about to murder her, we will do something about it, at once. And "something" will involve the attendance of hefty policemen, not arresting you for infringing little Kev's human rights or sending a leaflet on domestic violence to Mrs Scrote.

We said we could improve the schools with testing but that was a lie too. All tests are abolished. No one does anything with the data anyway. Oh, and by the way, public examinations have been a lie for the last 20 years (come on, do you really believe school children have been getting cleverer and cleverer EVERY YEAR since we introduced GCSEs? ) Henceforth they will simply get a mark and a quartile. No grades.

And of course we said you would have a comfortable old age, but that too was a lie, (although not perhaps entirely our fault,) and you had better plan to work to about 70 and save for your own pension. We in turn won't use means testing to make saving pointless.

Obviously all this means we will need far fewer civil servants so we will be sacking about a third of them over the next two years.

In short, you people need to take some responsibility for your own lives. We for our part undertake to do nothing whatsoever to increase the role of the state unless and until it is clearly shown that that would be beneficial to the public at large."

Do you think they will be saying all that? No, they won't. And the public would fill their pants if they did. Instead they will carry on managing the big state, albeit, we have to hope, in a slightly less ieological way than Labour.

By the way, has anyone else noticed how the welfare state inadvertently played into the hands of ultra capitalism? By which I mean, the only reason employers can dump the social costs of demanding that their workforce work long hours, at low wages, move around the country, and generally behave in a way that makes it next to impossible to care for family members or even act as an active citizen, is because the welfare state is supposedly there to pick up the shortfall by caring for granny, paying benefits and the like.

Then again I guess the states are a case where the employers do that anyway so the argument may not hold.

[JR-]

And of course we said you would have a comfortable old age, but that too was a lie, (although not perhaps entirely our fault,) and you had better plan to work to about 70 and save for your own pension. We in turn won't use means testing to make saving pointless.


brown taxing pensions was one of the stupidest things i have ever witnessed.

[rory_20_uk]

I disagree that the welfare state has caused people to work long hours for poor pay. That's been happening for the last 200 years. But children then didn't go to school until 18, so would either help in the house or have a job of their own. Some elderly people lived a long time, but the majority were dead long before they are now as there was no care nor medical treatment.
Then there was no choice: you worked doing what you could where you could - there just wasn't a safety net.

As to the rest of it - right on. But as you point out, the days where the politicians gave the voters tough love are well over. Best just pander to the largest demographics and cling on to power.

~:smoking:

[InsaneApache]

As a follow up to the 'Gordy shies away from elections, shock! horror!'

I came across this little gem.


The DCLG said this would help make voting "convenient and hassle-free".

Two separate campaigns would create "confusion for electors" and "complexities for administrators", its consultation document - put out in May - adds.

Under the 2007 Local Government Act, ministers can change local election dates by issuing an order, rather than having to pass a new act in Parliament.

Labour fared poorly in May's local elections and has also recently lost two parliamentary seats in by-elections, as well as the London mayoralty.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7568617.stm

Go on Gordon, go on, just you try it. :furious3:

[Rhyfelwyr]

Does no one else think Cammy's "broken society" DYI job sound's just as bad?
What do you think it would entail? Sure the govt. might take it's hands out of you're pockets but then put 'em in yer head.

Boris disagrees. And his associates seem to be dropping like flies. Haha London you made a protest vote and look what happened.

Also he had a rant about welfarism in his anti-Broken society statement. Who needs government welfare when you're rich parents pay your way anyway.

That man is just such an idiot he makes a good argument against democracy. I notice he seems to spend much of his time recently cycling and walking about talking to people. I understand politicians don't want to be too removed from the people, but this guy is a moron and he should be spending more time doing his job. Well actually maybe its better if he doesn't. One day he'll hug one too many a hoodie.

[JR-]

"A complete 100% turnover of MPs should very nicely paralyse any government formed. It would take them the best part of a parliamentary session just to sort out the leaders."

terrible idea, i like offering a party a chance to try and succeed with policy, after all we do not exists in a stasis.

[InsaneApache]

I dunno we've been passing laws since the 1200s, you'd have thought that we could give it rest. After all 3000 new criminal laws since 1997 doesn't seem to have improved things in any way.

Also look at the bonuses, those dreadful Wintertons and the Balls's would have to find a proper job. At a stroke all the corrupt time servers would be out on their ear. You never know, they might even begin to govern in the interests of the people, instead of themselves.


I SWEAR there must have been a cabinet meeting after the Act came in where someone said "What, you mean it applies to the government as well? There must be some mistake"

I agree. Labour never seem to think the law applies to them. Hain, Balls, Harperson all caught with their hands in the till and nothing happens.

[CountArach]

I can't read this thread without constantly thinking of other British politics. (https://www.youtube.com/view_play_list?p=B8130890C9BB23DD)
I've been re-watching the show lately. It's great :2thumbsup: :laugh4:

[rory_20_uk]

Boris disagrees. And his associates seem to be dropping like flies. Haha London you made a protest vote and look what happened.

Also he had a rant about welfarism in his anti-Broken society statement. Who needs government welfare when you're rich parents pay your way anyway.

That man is just such an idiot he makes a good argument against democracy. I notice he seems to spend much of his time recently cycling and walking about talking to people. I understand politicians don't want to be too removed from the people, but this guy is a moron and he should be spending more time doing his job. Well actually maybe its better if he doesn't. One day he'll hug one too many a hoodie.

Boris's advisor lied on his CV. This was found, he lost his job; next one was trying to be too much, too soon and was having arguments to the local beurocrats who probably fear anything that might strip away their nice, soft existences. He's been moved to a non-salaried advisor.
Ken had an advisor that handed out money to organisations with no accounting or evidence to say how it was spent, as well as hitting on those the money was given to. Ken defended the guy to the hilt, complaining of "politics" when any comment was made about him.

I know which method I prefer.

~:smoking:

[JR-]

agreed.

[Tribesman]

So lets see if I can understand this .
Its a proposal based on a study that was done long ago by the tories .
It was alarming because it meant that people actually pay for what they do rather than a blanket charge on everyone (which apart from the crazy poll tax is pretty much the epitomy of tory policy)
It couldn't be implimented because there was no really effective method that wouldn't involve stopping traffic moving .
Now there is a method that makes people pay fairly according to their usage without stopping traffic it is unacceptable because it means the government know what people do .

So does this mean that this policy is Camerons wet dream , or does it mean that "new" labour are now the tories ?

[Adrian II]

So does this mean that this policy is Camerons wet dream , or does it mean that "new" labour are now the tories ?Both! :laugh3:

[KukriKhan]

They should take a leaf out of Irelands book of tricks , once the freedom of information act became applicable to government meetings they began starting meetings with a resolution that the meeting was not a meeting .

LOL; they pull that here, at the local level, all the time. Drives me nuts.

[rory_20_uk]

Maybe I'm missing something, but how does it matter that the government computers know where our cars are? If the scheme works, and can be impliented with reasonable cost (my definition of the term reasonable, not the NHS computer set up use of the term) then it seems a good idea. Ideally traffic could in part re-routed through alternate routes to aviod igher charges and help increase the speed of all.

~:smoking:

[Adrian II]

Maybe I'm missing something You're missing a healthy distrust of government bureaucracy.

Take it (and on the chin, I might add) from a Socialist. :yes:

[PBI]

If the scheme works, and can be impliented with reasonable cost (my definition of the term reasonable, not the NHS computer set up use of the term) then it seems a good idea.

To say nothing of the other (in my view more serious) flaws with such a scheme, when has a big government scheme such as this ever been completed at "reasonable cost" and within budget?