Brown’s latest problems?

[Fisherking]

Will the British get a new government or will Brown pull through and lead Labor to a new victory?

What do you want to see?

:laugh4:

[InsaneApache]

Amazing times we live in here in the UK. I've never seen anything like it. I used to think that Brown should go, now I'm not so sure. The election results tonight/tomorrow will decide his fate anyway. Meanwhile the country rides towards disaster.

The problem for the Labour party is electoral wipeout now or utter destruction next year. Browns the man who will lead them to that destruction. He's obviously just not up to the job. He looks a seriously ill man. He's aged twenty years in the last two.

The pressure on him is obvious. He even managed to re-name Omaha beach Obama beach and that went down well, didn't it? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WgUSMrooj8) That was after he invited scorn from the parliamentary lobby when he said that Darling was never going to be moved, even though his black spin machine was briefing against the Chancellor as late as thursday night.

The spineless lot that make up the labour party will stick with him until the next election IMO, after that there may well be no Labour party left to speak of. It's 1922 all over again.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

It may well be time for the Labour party to detonate, thoughout history they have done better as an opposition than a government. The traditional ethos of the Labour party has always been unworkable, and their best role has been as a short break from Conservative fiscalism.

Conversely, Cameron may actually be a real Conservative, socially and fiscally. The Country needs nothing less at the moment. If that traditional ethos can be somehow combined with Thracher's individual drive then it might just stick.

After that we will need a de-regularising Liberal government to massage public services a litte, then more Conservatives... etc.

One thing is for sure, the current incarnation of the Labour part is damaging the country, and the old incarnation is irrelevant.

[Beskar]

I can't believe you are suggesting Thatcher-ism. She is the last thing the country needs.

Unfortunately, we need a real left-wing party in government. One that can restore democracy and bring order to the Chaos. Party that can deal with the loop hole and messes caused by corrupt politics. Unfortunately for British politics, such a feasible party does not exist. Majority of the parties are to the Right of Mussolini. (Oh, New Labour is actually classified as centre-right judging from their policies/etc)

If you want changes, start introducing a direct democracy system into place, for example, countries like Switzerland have in place. Start removing unenforcible or stupid laws. Such as just removing illegalities on many drugs, which are less harmful than Alcohol. Stop spending so much money on a defence budget, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Start doing the country right.

Addressing complaints on Public Service, privatising them makes them worse. You have Canada for example, free health service, best in the World. If the NHS needed some guidelines, then possibly looking to Canada would be the solution instead of looking to America. In America 60% cannot even afford basic healthcare, the healthcare people in Britain take for granted. Even worse, this affects the most vulnerable, such as the elderly. The NHS 6 out of 8 patients are over the age of 65. If you adopt the American system, I can tell you for certain, there will be a drastic drop. Don't need to worry about queues then, you got your grandparents and yourself in the future in agony and pain because you endorsed fiscal conservativism. It is this fiscal conservatism that left the NHS and Education system under-funded for years, causing a mess that needed to be cleaned up. The hospital system is getting better and there have been big improvements, thanks to more funding, fortunately.

We can start removing these draconian laws as well, and restore civil liberties. Stop wild schemes from turning us into Big Brother state, it is amazing how close we are actually in one already, if some one wanted to find you, it wouldn't take them long.

[Crazed Rabbit]

Unfortunately, we need a real left-wing party in government. One that can restore democracy and bring order to the Chaos. Party that can deal with the loop hole and messes caused by corrupt politics.

Based on the philosophy that "If a little is bad, then a whole lot more will be good!"?

:inquisitive:

CR

[Beskar]

Where is this left-wing party you are talking about, producing the "little is bad". The Greens?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Unfortunately, we need a real left-wing party in government. One that can restore democracy and bring order to the Chaos. Party that can deal with the loop hole and messes caused by corrupt politics. Unfortunately for British politics, such a feasible party does not exist.

You need a real left-wing party to...deal with corruption?

:help:


Majority of the parties are to the Right of Mussolini.

So we finally have a left-winger agreeing that fascism is left wing? ~;)


(Oh, New Labour is actually classified as centre-right judging from their policies/etc)

Last I checked they were centrist/centre-left/Third Way. Unless in your mind authoritarian automatically equals right-wing.


If you want changes, start introducing a direct democracy system into place, for example, countries like Switzerland have in place.

I agree with that.


Stop spending so much money on a defence budget, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Start doing the country right.

The bolded part at least would be a very, very bad move.


You have Canada for example, free health service, best in the World. If the NHS needed some guidelines, then possibly looking to Canada would be the solution instead of looking to America.

Obviously you haven't been in Canada recently/listening to public debate on healthcare there. It's better than the NHS to be sure, but I'd rather look somewhere else. And free? Healthcare isn't free, it never is, you just pay with a different method.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I can't believe you are suggesting Thatcher-ism. She is the last thing the country needs.

I'm not keen on Thacharism, but if you look at what I wrote, I was saying that whatever comes out has to be coupled to Thacharite individualism, becuase that's how the national psyche is wired right now. Traditional Conservatism values public service and philanthropy as a duty of the upper class to the lower class. This, however, requires an upper class and Thatcher killed that idea.

Tradional Conservatism won't stick.


Unfortunately, we need a real left-wing party in government. One that can restore democracy and bring order to the Chaos. Party that can deal with the loop hole and messes caused by corrupt politics. Unfortunately for British politics, such a feasible party does not exist. Majority of the parties are to the Right of Mussolini. (Oh, New Labour is actually classified as centre-right judging from their policies/etc)

These are all things currently championed by the Conservatives.


If you want changes, start introducing a direct democracy system into place, for example, countries like Switzerland have in place. Start removing unenforcible or stupid laws. Such as just removing illegalities on many drugs, which are less harmful than Alcohol. Stop spending so much money on a defence budget, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Start doing the country right.

Again, Conservatives. Though the point has recently been made that you would first need to wrest the power from Europe before you could give it back to local assemblies of any kind. Though the Conservatives don't think laws against hard drugs are illegal, they also don't want to kill the armed forces.


Addressing complaints on Public Service, privatising them makes them worse. You have Canada for example, free health service, best in the World. If the NHS needed some guidelines, then possibly looking to Canada would be the solution instead of looking to America. In America 60% cannot even afford basic healthcare, the healthcare people in Britain take for granted. Even worse, this affects the most vulnerable, such as the elderly. The NHS 6 out of 8 patients are over the age of 65. If you adopt the American system, I can tell you for certain, there will be a drastic drop. Don't need to worry about queues then, you got your grandparents and yourself in the future in agony and pain because you endorsed fiscal conservativism. It is this fiscal conservatism that left the NHS and Education system under-funded for years, causing a mess that needed to be cleaned up. The hospital system is getting better and there have been big improvements, thanks to more funding, fortunately.

We can start removing these draconian laws as well, and restore civil liberties. Stop wild schemes from turning us into Big Brother state, it is amazing how close we are actually in one already, if some one wanted to find you, it wouldn't take them long.

Comparison between the American and British systems is pointless, they are not the same. This country will retain a National Health Service. However, it is currently bloated with managers and quangos.

The NHS is one of most expensive public services in the world, it swallows a huge amount of GDP. The funding needs to be cut back, central computer systems, boards and managers need to binned. All targets must be scrapped, as the encourage the idea that there is such a thing as success in medicine.

[seireikhaan]

Gents, how about about instead of getting into the zillionth "what is right and left" debates, we focus instead on actual policy choices that might keep Britain from its apparently imminent implosion?

My idea? Draw up a danged constitution already and outline what the gov't can and can't do.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Gents, how about about instead of getting into the zillionth "what is right and left" debates, we focus instead on actual policy choices that might keep Britain from its apparently imminent implosion?

My idea? Draw up a danged constitution already and outline what the gov't can and can't do.

Did it several timeas already, Magna Carta, Bill of Rights, Act of Settlement.

This government is, I believe, the first to seriously abuse those documents. All that is needed is to identify those documents and pass a law that says other statutes are rendered invalid if they come into conflict with them. It would handily clear the statute books of post of the last ten years' worth of legislation.

[Crazed Rabbit]

It does seem like a constitution that actually was the highest law in the land and thus not able to be shunted aside whenever the ruling party felt like it would be good.

As for Britain, it seems to me like Brown and Labour will go down, which also seems like what is needed. Labour's broken, and can't effectively govern.


Where is this left-wing party you are talking about, producing the "little is bad". The Greens?

Oh hardy har har. Ya, the whole 'New Labour' isn't left from all the dedicated communists and such. Well, here's something for ya; Labour ain't socialist or on the far left end of the political spectrum, but they are not right leaning (even if some of their policies are).


You have Canada for example, free health service, best in the World.

Which must be why some come to America for treatment. :dizzy2:

Anyway, unlike the NHS and Canada, I read a while back that Texas' healthcare reform laws (http://www.hhs.state.tx.us/medicaid/reform.shtml) were producing positive results in terms of lowering costs.

CR

[InsaneApache]

Moving the dabate on....

McRuin is a excellent example of why democracy works.

He never had to face the rigeur of a full blown general election campaign, (Howard Dean anyone?) he's also managed by guile* to avoid a robust leadership contest.

He's not had the opportunity (nerf, nerf) to explain his vision for the UK. Then again vision isn't what our Great Leader is about. It's all about keeping this lying, robbing, cheating, backstabbing, moronic idiot in power, that's Gordons vision.

I rest my case M'lud.

*read black arts spin.

[tibilicus]

These are all things currently championed by the Conservatives.



Again, Conservatives. Though the point has recently been made that you would first need to wrest the power from Europe before you could give it back to local assemblies of any kind. Though the Conservatives don't think laws against hard drugs are illegal, they also don't want to kill the armed forces.


.


He talks about direct democracy and you believe the Conservatives are "champions" of such proposals? :laugh4:


I personally see no way the Conservatives would ever favour proportional representation, direct democracy or any other form of political reform. The Conservatives thrive of the current system, they have no real desire to change it.

[InsaneApache]

The Conservatives thrive of the current system, they have no real desire to change it.

Where have you been these last twelve years? Are you drunk? (like me)

[tibilicus]

Where have you been these last twelve years? Are you drunk? (like me)

I'm talking about on overall picture.

Generally it works in the fashion that the Conservatives know that if they do get knocked out of government (a la New labour) they will return within time. Naturally the Conservatives struggled after Major as they had been in government for such a long period of time, they were bound to fall out of popular public opinion eventually. Add to that a string of incapable leaders and the Blair personality and you can see why they were out of touch for a decade. It all changed in 2005 however.

I'm also referring to the other political institutions as well, remember it was the Lib Dems which really championed electoral reform and the abolition of such ridiculous institutions like the House of lords, I mean come on, how many other countries still have hereditary peers in their second chamber?

Too me at least it seems the Conservatives have only jumped on the band wagon for political reform due to the current row ravishing our political system. Just my opinion any way.


To go back to the original point of the thread I invite you all to watch BBC2 now. New Labours fate is being sealed as we speak..

[InsaneApache]

Labour have always bollocked up the economy. They always have. They always will. It's their flawed ideology. Morons.

[tibilicus]

Labour have always bollocked up the economy. They always have. They always will. It's their flawed ideology. Morons.

You disagree with the ingenious vision that spending more money and creating more debt is the best way to get rid of existing debt? ;)

[Scurvy]

It's not looking too good for him judging by the results so far, but I suspect he will hang around until an election in 6 months or so, if only because the Conservatives would rather face him than a new leader, and Labour have no real alternative.

His failure (and he will surely lose a general election) is due to his (and Labours) bad PR management/ endevours and the economy, neither of which are his fault (directly).

[KukriKhan]

What will the UK people demand: a new head man atop the old regime, or a whole new regime?

Your media play up the anger of the populace at the expenses scandal. Knowing your own mind, and what your friends, family, and associates (that is: real, actual people) say: just how pissed is the UK in your neck of the woods?

Mad enough to chuck it all, and pick an unknown or untried party & leader, starting with a clean slate?

Or just annoyed enough to demand party reform, and heads on pikes for the offenders?

Or something else?

[Pannonian]

I'm not keen on Thacharism, but if you look at what I wrote, I was saying that whatever comes out has to be coupled to Thacharite individualism, becuase that's how the national psyche is wired right now. Traditional Conservatism values public service and philanthropy as a duty of the upper class to the lower class. This, however, requires an upper class and Thatcher killed that idea.

Tradional Conservatism won't stick.

One could argue that it was Thatcher who destroyed the old House of Lords, not Blair's reforms. The old ruling class had at least a reasonable proportion of active peers who were brought up to follow a sense of duty to the country. That tradition doesn't really exist any more, and any attempt to bring the best of society to the Lords will only turn up celebrities and self-servers, plus perhaps some single issues advocates who gained celebrity for their advocacy of their issue.


The NHS is one of most expensive public services in the world, it swallows a huge amount of GDP. The funding needs to be cut back, central computer systems, boards and managers need to binned. All targets must be scrapped, as the encourage the idea that there is such a thing as success in medicine.
What you suggest is counter-logical in their aims. The public won't accept anything other than trying to make a success of the NHS, so money will continue to be pumped in. And to try and determine how to best direct that money, the government needs information. Ironically, Brown knows this most of all, having seen that the service has involved an unbelievable amount of wastage, and thus imposing ever increasing amounts of bureaucracy in order to work out where money is being wasted and where it can be better applied.

Eg. one result of this bureaucracy is that we know that one recent injection of investment resulted in little more than increased salaries for doctors, as few did anything to channel this money into better services for patients, but most just continued to cut costs, and added the government investment to their salaries. Without the red tape imposed by the government, we wouldn't have known about this, and would have wondered where the money went.

[InsaneApache]

What will the UK people demand: a new head man atop the old regime, or a whole new regime?

Your media play up the anger of the populace at the expenses scandal. Knowing your own mind, and what your friends, family, and associates (that is: real, actual people) say: just how pissed is the UK in your neck of the woods?

Mad enough to chuck it all, and pick an unknown or untried party & leader, starting with a clean slate?

Or just annoyed enough to demand party reform, and heads on pikes for the offenders?

Or something else?

To be honest Kukri, I've never in my lifetime seen such a mood amongst the popualtion. They talk about the silent majority but the silent majority just woke up and it scares the **** out of the politicians.

This can only be a good thing.

[Pannonian]

To be honest Kukri, I've never in my lifetime seen such a mood amongst the popualtion. They talk about the silent majority but the silent majority just woke up and it scares the **** out of the politicians.

This can only be a good thing.
1997?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

The BNP just won a seat.

[tibilicus]

The BNP just won a seat.

Was just about to post the same thing.

I'm not sure it will be the last seat of the night they win either..

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

He talks about direct democracy and you believe the Conservatives are "champions" of such proposals? :laugh4:


I personally see no way the Conservatives would ever favour proportional representation, direct democracy or any other form of political reform. The Conservatives thrive of the current system, they have no real desire to change it.

Funny thing, historically it is the Tories who actually enacted electoral reform in 1867.

Proportional representation doesn't work, ever. All it does is makes politicians less directly responsible to the electorate. Why? Because if you have five seats in the constituancy then each party, no matter their share of the vote, will return the candidates they like the best, rather than the ones the voters like the best.

Proportional representation works by parties having lists of candidates to return. So, if the Conservatives get 3/5 of the vote they will return the three they like best, 2/5 the two they like best etc. So long as the Conversative, LibDems, Labour etc. get enough to return one MP there will be one specific man from each party always returned.

So, that system is inherrently unfair, you can't vote your MP out if he's the one the party likes most.

[tibilicus]

Funny thing, historically it is the Tories who actually enacted electoral reform in 1867.

Proportional representation doesn't work, ever. All it does is makes politicians less directly responsible to the electorate. Why? Because if you have five seats in the constituancy then each party, no matter their share of the vote, will return the candidates they like the best, rather than the ones the voters like the best.

Proportional representation works by parties having lists of candidates to return. So, if the Conservatives get 3/5 of the vote they will return the three they like best, 2/5 the two they like best etc. So long as the Conversative, LibDems, Labour etc. get enough to return one MP there will be one specific man from each party always returned.

So, that system is inherrently unfair, you can't vote your MP out if he's the one the party likes most.

And our current system is fair?


FPTP rewards parties for centralised support and produces seemingly bizarre results.

Are you telling me it's not ridiculous that Labour stayed in government and only polled some 3 % more than the Tory's? I find it completely ridiculous that 30 odd % of the vote is worth over 50% of the seats.

Also there's many ways the PR system can be applied, for example the use of an STV or Mixed hybrid system. I'm not even calling for a complete overhaul of the electoral system, all I'm asking for is one which produces fair results.

It's hardly like the MP/Constituency relationship exists any more anyway. All Constituencies are used for is for the career politicians to be parachuted into safe party seats. The fact that party loyalty is now so high on the agenda now also means that MP's rarely act in favour of constituency interests anyway..

[InsaneApache]

Well it's worked for nearly 400 years!

Same old same old, when the governing party starts to look at 'electoral reform' just before they are about to be annihilated beware!

Democracy always trandscends party politics.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And our current system is fair?


FPTP rewards parties for centralised support and produces seemingly bizarre results.

Are you telling me it's not ridiculous that Labour stayed in government and only polled some 3 % more than the Tory's? I find it completely ridiculous that 30 odd % of the vote is worth over 50% of the seats.

Also there's many ways the PR system can be applied, for example the use of an STV or Mixed hybrid system. I'm not even calling for a complete overhaul of the electoral system, all I'm asking for is one which produces fair results.

It's hardly like the MP/Constituency relationship exists any more anyway. All Constituencies are used for is for the career politicians to be parachuted into safe party seats. The fact that party loyalty is now so high on the agenda now also means that MP's rarely act in favour of constituency interests anyway..

That's two seperate problems. Labour has done so well because of the division of constituancies, Labour could poll less than the Tories in England and still win. If all constituancies were the same size and independantly set by the Crown this would not be an issue.

As to MP/Constituancy relationship, I disagree but that is my personal experience of my area.

I don't see that proportional representation will make the system better, PMs will be even more remote than they are now. PR would give MORE power to the Parties, not less, and it would institute the parties themselves into our political system in a march more formal way than they are now.

[KukriKhan]

Well it's worked for nearly 400 years!

Same old same old, when the governing party starts to look at 'electoral reform' just before they are about to be annihilated beware!

Democracy always trandscends party politics.

Hehe. Such a rebel. :)

[JAG]

We will win the next general election.

Heard it here first.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

What party are you again?

Either way, like it or loathe it the Conservatives, sans Act of God, will win.

[CountArach]

What party are you again?
JAG is a card-carrying Labour member IIRC.

[JAG]

I have been a Labour member for er - since I was 18, so 5 and a bit years now.

We will win the next election, it might mean us losing the popular vote but remaining in power with more MP's, but we will do it.

The economy is *starting* to turn around, and alot of the issues which at the moment have people turning away from Labour will go with it. Other issues of the moment will subside and what wewill have is a Labour party which having had our asses handed to us over the last week, will sort it self out. No more policies which completely alienate our base and no more stupid, gimmocky ideas.

What is most significant throughout this whole time, is that people do not want to vote for the Conservatives, indeed the Labour vote is not going to the Tories and the opinion polls show, that this is the case. When we get into the rigours of an election campaign and policies get diuscussed, coupled with the realisation of Labour voters that Labour still is the only party for them, a return of the core vote coupled with an improved economy, outlook and electability will mean a Labour victory. I seriously believe it. Plus UKIP tonight stating they will fight pretty much every seat at the next election will hurt the Tories and help Labour in some marginals.

Anyway, if I am wrong, those of us in the party of the *ahem* left, might be able to wrestle it back.

[Beskar]

Oh hardy har har. Ya, the whole 'New Labour' isn't left from all the dedicated communists and such. Well, here's something for ya; Labour ain't socialist or on the far left end of the political spectrum, but they are not right leaning (even if some of their policies are).

This suggests otherwise.
https://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5791/enparties.gif

I think that clearly states they are right leaning. Though it is true, I am closer to anarchism and Marxism(more so than the green party there). I don't believe in the power of mass centralised institutions at all or really a big fan of representitive democracy either. I prefer direct democracy where the people decide on the issues.

Though, I do recognise the need for political education for the mass majority of the people at a school level. Which will bring about enlightened individuals who will use their vote wisely instead of just voting "BNP" out of protest.

I would like to have RON added to the ballot. (Re-Open Nominations) which is in place in Ireland.

I will say this JAG, I know many lefties which are members and work for the Labour party. Unfortunately, they don't get a say at all. The party is split at the bottom then at the top.

[Beskar]

Are you telling me it's not ridiculous that Labour stayed in government and only polled some 3 % more than the Tory's? I find it completely ridiculous that 30 odd % of the vote is worth over 50% of the seats.

Also there's many ways the PR system can be applied, for example the use of an STV or Mixed hybrid system. I'm not even calling for a complete overhaul of the electoral system, all I'm asking for is one which produces fair results.

It's hardly like the MP/Constituency relationship exists any more anyway. All Constituencies are used for is for the career politicians to be parachuted into safe party seats. The fact that party loyalty is now so high on the agenda now also means that MP's rarely act in favour of constituency interests anyway..


That, that is because of other laws in place. They should actually make it about local politics and electing the right man/MP for the job.

They should change the commons that 30% of the seats doesn't mean 50% of the power. This would result into coalitions and even removal of a lot of party politics and instead, more the politics of the individuals.


The bolded part at least would be a very, very bad move.

Why? We got the missile capability to hit anyone in the world with Nukes. Only an idiot would actually attack us, as they will get a fist full of nukes up their behind. If I remember correctly, we also have the nuclear power to destroy the World twice over. Do we actually need that much?

We should take more of an isolationalist approach to the Military. Allow America, World Police to get all the back-lash.


Unless in your mind authoritarian automatically equals right-wing.

In the traditional sense. Authoritarianism and Neo-liberalism are on the right. Anarchism and Communism (In the Marxist sense of Workers Soviets, etc) are on the Left. As the scale in the earlier post. Labour was classified as Right-Authoritarian, which is traditional Right-wing.

[InsaneApache]

JAG, no party has ever recovered from being as low as 15%. You sound as deluded and mental as your leader. True people arn't turning to the tories in droves but they are deserting Labour in droves.

The next GE will be one of the most interesting spectacles to watch. I wouldn't be surprised to see the Lib-Dems do very well, possibly even becoming HM opposition.

[Fragony]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/06/08/european_election_2009_labour_is_finished

"There is now no argument against an early election - except fear. If Labour MPs put their terror of the electorate above any considerations of patriotism or democracy, they will do irreparable damage, not just to their party's long-term prospects, but to representative democracy. This is your last chance, comrades."

Not that the narcistic personality disorder in the flesh will do so, he would ruin the country rather than admitting he's incompetent.

[Furunculus]

I personally see no way the Conservatives would ever favour proportional representation, direct democracy or any other form of political reform. The Conservatives thrive of the current system, they have no real desire to change it.

PR is the refuge of politicians that fear revolution, and an electorate that fears tyranny, it is implicit recognition of a lack of faith in the social fabric of the country. It is a realm of demagogues and dictators.

If Britain cannot manage politics without ineffectual (read "safe") coalitions, then what message does that send ot the rest of the world? Indeed Brussels would be delighted, for it would herald the dawn of the post sovereign era, and validate their attempt to dismantle the legitimacy of the nation-state.

If this country decides it 'needs' PR then it is not my country anymore, merely another tin-pot democracy staggering drunkly between the extremes of tyranny and revolution, and populated by exactly the excitable hand-wavey types we have for so long disparaged.

[Pannonian]

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/daniel_hannan/blog/2009/06/08/european_election_2009_labour_is_finished

"There is now no argument against an early election - except fear. If Labour MPs put their terror of the electorate above any considerations of patriotism or democracy, they will do irreparable damage, not just to their party's long-term prospects, but to representative democracy. This is your last chance, comrades."

Not that the narcistic personality disorder in the flesh will do so, he would ruin the country rather than admitting he's incompetent.
Just another fallen government eking out as much time in power as allowable, a la John Major's government in 1997, which held the general election in the last month possible. As much as commentators might want to give the idea that this kind of thing is unprecedented, it's not - Blair's regular 4 year terms are the historical exception, not the rule.

[Pannonian]

PR is the refuge of politicians that fear revolution, and an electorate that fears tyranny, it is implicit recognition of a lack of faith in the social fabric of the country. It is a realm of demagogues and dictators.

If Britain cannot manage politics without ineffectual (read "safe") coalitions, then what message does that send ot the rest of the world? Indeed Brussels would be delighted, for it would herald the dawn of the post sovereign era, and validate their attempt to dismantle the legitimacy of the nation-state.

If this country decides it 'needs' PR then it is not my country anymore, merely another tin-pot democracy staggering drunkly between the extremes of tyranny and revolution, and populated by exactly the excitable hand-wavey types we have for so long disparaged.
Minus the overdramatic rhetoric, PR gives the party political machine an easy way to control elections, via the candidate list. When I first heard about how PR works, I couldn't believe my ears, instantly spotting an easy method of institutionalised corruption. At least FPTP gives voters a chance to make their local concerns felt, as even "safe" seats may not be as safe as one might expect. The one MP per constituency system is a lasting link between the individual voter and national government, which PR abandons.

[rory_20_uk]

Rather than "Labour will win" it is "Will labour exist as a party?"

Funding follows success, so funding is drying up fast.
Labour's remit has as good as ended. They did their bit for the Working classes. When that ended so did Labour. Tony tried to rebrand as something else, and sort of succeded and Gordon has managed to go back on that whilst not really going forward. Like a communist state he was OK as long as others would bankroll his bankrupt policies (both the USSR and UK had to sell gold to keep the economy going).

Labour are as corrupt as anyone else
Labour are ironically filling the cabinet with unelected Lords.
Labour have no strategy, no vision. The party only wants to hang on for another years salary before the vastly reduced commons fights out for the scraps of the leadership. Replacing Brown would help a lot, but the leader that replaces Brown will loose the election, will be stigmatised with failure and will probably never last the 5 years in opposition.

Maybe Labour will schism. The Left sulking off to drink with the Communists in the corner, and the others defecting to whoever they can as principles are a poor second to power.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Just another fallen government eking out as much time in power as allowable, a la John Major's government in 1997, which held the general election in the last month possible. As much as commentators might want to give the idea that this kind of thing is unprecedented, it's not - Blair's regular 4 year terms are the historical exception, not the rule.

But labour can no longer speak with one voice, Brown can't herd his flock he has been publicly asked to step down by his own ministers, that can't last very long. I suspect labour will split up pretty soon or just vanish.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I have been a Labour member for er - since I was 18, so 5 and a bit years now.

We will win the next election, it might mean us losing the popular vote but remaining in power with more MP's, but we will do it.

The economy is *starting* to turn around, and alot of the issues which at the moment have people turning away from Labour will go with it. Other issues of the moment will subside and what wewill have is a Labour party which having had our asses handed to us over the last week, will sort it self out. No more policies which completely alienate our base and no more stupid, gimmocky ideas.

What is most significant throughout this whole time, is that people do not want to vote for the Conservatives, indeed the Labour vote is not going to the Tories and the opinion polls show, that this is the case. When we get into the rigours of an election campaign and policies get diuscussed, coupled with the realisation of Labour voters that Labour still is the only party for them, a return of the core vote coupled with an improved economy, outlook and electability will mean a Labour victory. I seriously believe it. Plus UKIP tonight stating they will fight pretty much every seat at the next election will hurt the Tories and help Labour in some marginals.

Anyway, if I am wrong, those of us in the party of the *ahem* left, might be able to wrestle it back.

I suspect UKIP benefits from PR, because there is a broad portion of the electorate fed up with Europe, but unlikely to want to be represented by a minority party in the Commons.

As to Labour sorting itself out, not with the Gordinator in charge. Or any of his cronies, or a Blarite.

So, I think you're sunk.

[InsaneApache]

Just another fallen government eking out as much time in power as allowable, a la John Major's government in 1997, which held the general election in the last month possible. As much as commentators might want to give the idea that this kind of thing is unprecedented, it's not - Blair's regular 4 year terms are the historical exception, not the rule.

Gordons managed to make John Major look like a towering figure. Amazing! At least Major was actually voted into office, not given a coronation. That to me is the problem. Gordon should never have got anywhere near to No 10.

Plus Major stepped up to the plate with that back me or sack me ultimatum. He was a gawd awful premier but he had something that our Great Leader doesn't have. Political courage.

Now remind me again, who wrote a book the subject of which was courage? :0)

[Pannonian]

But labour can no longer speak with one voice, Brown can't herd his flock he has been publicly asked to step down by his own ministers, that can't last very long. I suspect labour will split up pretty soon or just vanish.
Which is usually when governments try to hang on as long as possible. Major was constantly beset by talk of leadership challenges, to the point where he effectively passed a vote of no confidence in himself, called a leadership contest, and challenged all the whisperers to stand up and challenge him. As I've said, none of this current broohaha is unprecedented, and everyone knows how it will end - an electoral wipeout of the governing party, a la 1997.

It's a natural electoral cycle, as the ruling party loses whatever vision it has, it starts concentrating on retaining power at all costs, until the electorate gets fed up with them and votes them out. If they're not replaced by another party in the same political area that succeeds in gaining power, they'll then spend some time out of power, redrawing their vision and repositioning themselves to suit the electorate. When the now governing party falls prey to the same cycle of rot, the voters will once again give the former ruling party a chance at government. It's a stability of sorts.

[Pannonian]

Gordons managed to make John Major look like a towering figure. Amazing! At least Major was actually voted into office, not given a coronation. That to me is the problem. Gordon should never have got anywhere near to No 10.

Plus Major stepped up to the plate with that back me or sack me ultimatum. He was a gawd awful premier but he had something that our Great Leader doesn't have. Political courage.

Now remind me again, who wrote a book the subject of which was courage? :0)
Never mind his disputed ability as a premier, Major was a bloody brilliant politician, who achieved miracles with a Tory party that was scarcely a whole party. Anyone looking to do something with party politics should study John Major.

[Furunculus]

Minus the overdramatic rhetoric, PR gives the party political machine an easy way to control elections, via the candidate list. When I first heard about how PR works, I couldn't believe my ears, instantly spotting an easy method of institutionalised corruption. At least FPTP gives voters a chance to make their local concerns felt, as even "safe" seats may not be as safe as one might expect. The one MP per constituency system is a lasting link between the individual voter and national government, which PR abandons.

as well as the maintainence of a local connection between MP and constituent, FPTP gives parties both the mandate and the power to request and enact change.

i support that whole heartedly even when a party i dislike is making changes i despise, i have faith in british society.

[Beskar]

For those who argue about Gordon Brown "getting into power", the method was very legitimate. He is leader of the Labour party and the leader of the biggest party becomes Prime Minister.

Unless you want a President style system, where the leader is elected differently, then request that style of system.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Well, actually the Monarch chooses the PM and by convention that is the leader of the largest party. However, such a leader is expected to shortly call an election if chosen mid-parliament. Also, by convention, an election is called when the parliament is seen to have lost it's mandate.

Either way we should have an election.

[InsaneApache]

When the election is called it's going to be fascinating to see what people make of the manifestos now that a judge has ruled that it's not worth the paper it's written on.

There is opinion out there that suggests that McRuin is only hanging on for dear life because he wants the EU constitution Lisbon treaty to be ratified before 'call me dave' gets the chance to hold a referendum on it.

After all we can't have people actually have a say now, can we? It's just not done old sport.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

When the election is called it's going to be fascinating to see what people make of the manifestos now that a judge has ruled that it's not worth the paper it's written on.

There is opinion out there that suggests that McRuin is only hanging on for dear life because he wants the EU constitution Lisbon treaty to be ratified before 'call me dave' gets the chance to hold a referendum on it.

After all we can't have people actually have a say now, can we? It's just not done old sport.

Crap, now I really want an election.

[tibilicus]

New Labour is on it's last legs, it really has no place to turn.

It's loosing it's traditional loyal working class voters to far right and socialist parties, and the middle class vote is being taken by the Lib Dems and Conservatives.

All New Labour has left is those who still remind blindly loyal enough to support a party which is eating itself up from the inside. Labour itself doesn't even know what's going on, it's a party in chaos. The Brown/Blairite divide is now even more apparent and on top of that you still have the traditional labour MP's who are extremely unhappy on the back bench.

Do the right thing Gordon, end the humiliation now before you completely destroy New labour.

[Furunculus]

There is opinion out there that suggests that McRuin is only hanging on for dear life because he wants the EU constitution Lisbon treaty to be ratified before 'call me dave' gets the chance to hold a referendum on it.

After all we can't have people actually have a say now, can we? It's just not done old sport.
agreed, which is why i want an election before Irelands second attempt at "getting the right answer".

[Furunculus]

I can't believe you are suggesting Thatcher-ism. She is the last thing the country needs.

Unfortunately, we need a real left-wing party in government. One that can restore democracy and bring order to the Chaos. Party that can deal with the loop hole and messes caused by corrupt politics. Unfortunately for British politics, such a feasible party does not exist. Majority of the parties are to the Right of Mussolini. (Oh, New Labour is actually classified as centre-right judging from their policies/etc)

If you want changes, start introducing a direct democracy system into place, for example, countries like Switzerland have in place. Start removing unenforcible or stupid laws. Such as just removing illegalities on many drugs, which are less harmful than Alcohol. Stop spending so much money on a defence budget, pull the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan. Start doing the country right.

Addressing complaints on Public Service, privatising them makes them worse. You have Canada for example, free health service, best in the World. If the NHS needed some guidelines, then possibly looking to Canada would be the solution instead of looking to America. In America 60% cannot even afford basic healthcare, the healthcare people in Britain take for granted. Even worse, this affects the most vulnerable, such as the elderly. The NHS 6 out of 8 patients are over the age of 65. If you adopt the American system, I can tell you for certain, there will be a drastic drop. Don't need to worry about queues then, you got your grandparents and yourself in the future in agony and pain because you endorsed fiscal conservativism. It is this fiscal conservatism that left the NHS and Education system under-funded for years, causing a mess that needed to be cleaned up. The hospital system is getting better and there have been big improvements, thanks to more funding, fortunately.

We can start removing these draconian laws as well, and restore civil liberties. Stop wild schemes from turning us into Big Brother state, it is amazing how close we are actually in one already, if some one wanted to find you, it wouldn't take them long.

i would like to see a public spending freeze for the duration of the next parliament, with economic growth reducing the deficit, with efficiency drives in all departments to cut unnecessary spending with the surplus diverted into the grossly underfunded defence budget.

a little thatcher style revolution would not go amiss, i want to see it accepted by the general populace that wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is a moral disgrace, with the ideal optimum somewhere below that in the low thirties.

i would also like to see an acceptance of a flat taxation system as just and fair when regressive taxes like VAT are factored in.

[Beskar]

i would like to see a public spending freeze for the duration of the next parliament, with economic growth reducing the deficit, with efficiency drives in all departments to cut unnecessary spending with the surplus diverted into the grossly underfunded defence budget.

a little thatcher style revolution would not go amiss, i want to see it accepted by the general populace that wasting more than 40% of GDP on public spending is a moral disgrace, with the ideal optimum somewhere below that in the low thirties.

i would also like to see an acceptance of a flat taxation system as just and fair when regressive taxes like VAT are factored in.

Public Spending Freeze can probably be done, within reason. However, they need to re-factor where all the money is spent.

As for the defence budget, I am all for dealing with the troops, however, the budget doesn't need to be increased, it is more like sorting out where the money is going. We have the nuclear arsenal to destroy the world twice over. Do we really need that many nuclear weapons? Reducing that to at least 25% will make a major budget saving for our armed forces. We also need to stop going into pointless wars, withdrawal of our forces from other countries, other than embassy duty, should be a priority. As for civil defence, the armed forces should also have training (if they haven't) in civil duties, so they are able to assist in other roles and possibly even made as part-time workers. I support any troops who are on my side, who is willing to defend me with their life and they have my respect for those people. However, the whole army does need a shift many from the top as in government. You have to remember, we are an Island off the coast of Europe, not a Empire spanning a 5th of the World any more, so lets stop thinking we are.

We need to deal with MP expenses once and for all. Being honest, Lib dems claiming for a packet of hobnobs is laughably excusable with a slap on the wrist, but Tony MP's building moats around their homes and 2nd homes for their ducks is just ridiculous.

The money for unemployment benefit should come with community service. It shouldn't be money for nothing. There is always a street to sweep, so at least getting people out to do something productive than nothing at all is a better use of the money.

Flat-tax is fundamentally flawed, it is simply the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, it is fundamentally socially regressive. As for VAT, the rich can afford to pay it. If I get paid 40,000 a week to kick a football around, I wouldn't care at all about paying Tax, I am set for life. I am happy just to get something like 40,000 a year and just paying tax income tax. Flat-tax is basically more people getting a lot more money, making others pay for it who can't and don't have no where near the luxuries. If you can afford to drive a sports car, you can afford to pay the tax. Don't give the burden to people who struggle to even provide for their families.

[rory_20_uk]

I feel that that is a very superficial way of viewing a flat tax.

Often the tax is zero up to a certain point, then either set at a value or on a slow increase. No more buggering around with credits for this and that, taken away for a myriad of other reasons. Over £1 BILLION goes from flaws in the system as it's so complicated no one really knows what is going on. That's just lost. Then there is the army of civil servants overseeing all the various aspects of it who are earning money and salting away final salary pensions but basically are parasites on the economy.

Advantages are:

Massive reduction in civil service staff - hence cost to the country for the tax
Incentive to work for all / incentive to keep jobs in the UK
Clarity in where money is going
Reduction in tax avoidance
Increase in difficulty of tax avoidance

If you want, increase VAT on luxuary goods so buying certain items has a 30% surcharge on them.

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

I feel that that is a very superficial way of viewing a flat tax.

Often the tax is zero up to a certain point, then either set at a value or on a slow increase. No more buggering around with credits for this and that, taken away for a myriad of other reasons. Over £1 BILLION goes from flaws in the system as it's so complicated no one really knows what is going on. That's just lost. Then there is the army of civil servants overseeing all the various aspects of it who are earning money and salting away final salary pensions but basically are parasites on the economy.

Advantages are:

Massive reduction in civil service staff - hence cost to the country for the tax
Incentive to work for all / incentive to keep jobs in the UK
Clarity in where money is going
Reduction in tax avoidance
Increase in difficulty of tax avoidance

If you want, increase VAT on luxuary goods so buying certain items has a 30% surcharge on them.

~:smoking:

But that can be done with income tax. The current system is basically a set percentage, with increments at different levels. In total, you can just punch the numbers into a computer/calculator and it instantly calculates it. This way, you can get rid of tax credit system (copied from Bill Clinton's America) etc.

If you ran it all from a computer, there would be massive reductions in staff numbers due to technological advances.

[Fragony]

The most expensive part about taxes is collecting it, the less rules the better. Flat-tax, good idea. Only taxing consumer goods, the current 19% or so, even better.

[Beskar]

Currently 15% here. It was argued that it was to "encourage spending" but the only profiteers of it was the businesses.

[Fragony]

Currently 15% here. It was argued that it was to "encourage spending" but the only profiteers of it was the businesses.

I like to compare the current situation as a snake gobbing up it's tail. Privatize everything and keep a share to be able to keep pushing buttons when needed, but stop messing with the market nobody can and will innovate as long as they can't compete.

[Pannonian]

Advantages are:

Massive reduction in civil service staff - hence cost to the country for the tax
Incentive to work for all / incentive to keep jobs in the UK
Clarity in where money is going
Reduction in tax avoidance
Increase in difficulty of tax avoidance

If you cut civil service staff, how do you clarify where the government money is going? The last increase in NHS expenditure was a case in point, with a sizeable investment going into funds which were used at doctors' discretion. The idea was to cut out middle management, and to allow frontline doctors to use the money to pay for services and/or hire staff. Thanks to red tape forced on them by an untrusting Brown, we know this didn't happen, and instead of the money being used to improve services, it went into increased doctors' salaries instead. The tax system of credits, rebates and whatnot is massively overcomplicated, but much of the increase in bureaucracy that Brown has put in comes from a justifiable mistrust of how taxpayers' money is being spent.

What I'd like is an administrative genius with huge political backing to go in and look through the existing mechanisms of government, and find some way of doing what's necessary with maximum transparency and minimum fuss. Cuts across the board on ideological grounds doesn't do it, as it compromises government-provided services. Brown has some right ideas, if people would look past the party lines. It's just that he couples that with wrong ideas, combined with political ineptness. He's a decent No.2, but not a competent leader of government.

[Furunculus]

As for the defence budget, I am all for dealing with the troops, however, the budget doesn't need to be increased, it is more like sorting out where the money is going. We have the nuclear arsenal to destroy the world twice over. Do we really need that many nuclear weapons? Reducing that to at least 25% will make a major budget saving for our armed forces. We also need to stop going into pointless wars, withdrawal of our forces from other countries, other than embassy duty, should be a priority. As for civil defence, the armed forces should also have training (if they haven't) in civil duties, so they are able to assist in other roles and possibly even made as part-time workers. I support any troops who are on my side, who is willing to defend me with their life and they have my respect for those people. However, the whole army does need a shift many from the top as in government. You have to remember, we are an Island off the coast of Europe, not a Empire spanning a 5th of the World any more, so lets stop thinking we are.

We need to deal with MP expenses once and for all. Being honest, Lib dems claiming for a packet of hobnobs is laughably excusable with a slap on the wrist, but Tony MP's building moats around their homes and 2nd homes for their ducks is just ridiculous.

The money for unemployment benefit should come with community service. It shouldn't be money for nothing. There is always a street to sweep, so at least getting people out to do something productive than nothing at all is a better use of the money.

Flat-tax is fundamentally flawed, it is simply the rich get richer and the poor gets poorer, it is fundamentally socially regressive. As for VAT, the rich can afford to pay it. If I get paid 40,000 a week to kick a football around, I wouldn't care at all about paying Tax, I am set for life. I am happy just to get something like 40,000 a year and just paying tax income tax. Flat-tax is basically more people getting a lot more money, making others pay for it who can't and don't have no where near the luxuries. If you can afford to drive a sports car, you can afford to pay the tax. Don't give the burden to people who struggle to even provide for their families.

reducing nuclear warheads by 75% would probably save about 5% in costs.

a huge sum is required purely in R&D which is unchanging whether you build one or a thousand, and much of the rest is subject to economies of scale due to the low numbers. it was considered essential to have four submarines in order to maintain a credible deterrent, however advances in materials and maintainence probably mean we could survive with three.

however building three would probably cost 95% the price of building four, and the service contracts to maintain those systems would be astronomical on a per-unit cost.

not too mention we need a fleet of around eleven nuke-subs to maintain the industry, which results in a 22 month launch schedule for new boats.

[Beskar]

reducing nuclear warheads by 75% would probably save about 5% in costs.
.

Maintaining nuclear weapons are very very expensive. It would be far excess of 5%.

If I remember correctly, Trident is around 22 Billion alone. (total cost)

[rory_20_uk]

If you cut civil service staff, how do you clarify where the government money is going? The last increase in NHS expenditure was a case in point, with a sizeable investment going into funds which were used at doctors' discretion. The idea was to cut out middle management, and to allow frontline doctors to use the money to pay for services and/or hire staff. Thanks to red tape forced on them by an untrusting Brown, we know this didn't happen, and instead of the money being used to improve services, it went into increased doctors' salaries instead. The tax system of credits, rebates and whatnot is massively overcomplicated, but much of the increase in bureaucracy that Brown has put in comes from a justifiable mistrust of how taxpayers' money is being spent.

What I'd like is an administrative genius with huge political backing to go in and look through the existing mechanisms of government, and find some way of doing what's necessary with maximum transparency and minimum fuss. Cuts across the board on ideological grounds doesn't do it, as it compromises government-provided services. Brown has some right ideas, if people would look past the party lines. It's just that he couples that with wrong ideas, combined with political ineptness. He's a decent No.2, but not a competent leader of government.

One increase in doctor's salaries for juniors meant that they were finally earning more than the porters at weekend. I know of no other professionals that were doing over 80 hour weeks and on such poor pay. The fact the juniors were close to striking forced their hand.
The GP contract the government wrongly assumed that GPs would be as efficient as the Civil Service and were amazed when GPs hit most of the targets. The legions of drones didn't spot this.
GPs had targets and it is not really relevant how they hit the targets with the resources they are given; getting in Civil servants to oversee something they barely understand is merely quantifying something that didn't need quantifying and wasting a vast fortune into the bargain.

~:smoking:

[Furunculus]

Maintaining nuclear weapons are very very expensive. It would be far excess of 5%.

If I remember correctly, Trident is around 22 Billion alone. (total cost)

trident is many things, of which the purchase cost is just one.

trident includes the rocket body which is maintained in america year on year under a service contract and would not greatly change if we had 50 or 200.

the warhead is maintained in the UK under year on year continuous inspection and the cost of which comes from maintaining the program, not the individual service.

you would save peanuts.

[rory_20_uk]

But we have a weapon we can't maintain, and can't fire without american say so; we can pay a fortune for upkeep and inspection thought! :2thumbsup:
"This protects us from agressors as..." :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

[Beskar]

Exactly.

You never know, the invader could be the American Empire wanting a 51st state.

[Vladimir]

Exactly.

You never know, the invader could be the American Empire wanting a 51st state.

MUHAHAHAhahaaa! Much of Britain thinks you already are. Besides, we'd take Germany first. We already occupy the country.

[rory_20_uk]

In which case we can't even fire the damn missiles...
I am all for a conventional armed forces, strong on naval and air with a small ground force which again is mostly geared towards special ops. Go for Gold and deploy missile batteries on the coast if you really are that worried about invasion. But those missiles aren't much good when the most likely threats have thousands of the things and one controls how they work.

~:smoking:

[Fragony]

Exactly.

You never know, the invader could be the American Empire wanting a 51st state.

151. why don't they.

[Furunculus]

Exactly.

You never know, the invader could be the American Empire wanting a 51st state.

you are now arguing for no missiles, which is a different argument.

[KukriKhan]

MUHAHAHAhahaaa! Much of Britain thinks you already are. Besides, we'd take Germany first. We already occupy the country.

Agreed. I've been saying for decades: "Why the jungles and deserts? Let's invade someplace nice for a change. Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam... you know, nice weather, good food, beer, pretty girls."

[Beskar]

you are now arguing for no missiles, which is a different argument.

Where?

[Furunculus]

In which case we can't even fire the damn missiles...
I am all for a conventional armed forces, strong on naval and air with a small ground force which again is mostly geared towards special ops. Go for Gold and deploy missile batteries on the coast if you really are that worried about invasion. But those missiles aren't much good when the most likely threats have thousands of the things and one controls how they work.

~:smoking:

there is no way of knowing how much influence the US has over the UK big red button.

many argue that the limit of americas influence lies in two things:
> turn of GPS so the missile in flight has to rely on inertial navigation which reduces accuracy to 300m instead of 30m gice or take.
> refusal to continue missile maintainence in the event of an unpopular strike which would render the deterrent inoperable within 18 months, give or take.

the advantage of nuclear weapons for britain is that we can never again be threatened with industrial war, something we are keen to avoid given recent past with larger 'industrial' neighbours.

[Vladimir]

Agreed. I've been saying for decades: "Why the jungles and deserts? Let's invade someplace nice for a change. Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam... you know, nice weather, good food, beer, pretty girls."

Exactly. This is why I never bought the invading Iraq for oil argument. Hey, wait...Norway has natural gas, pretty girls, and lutefisk without all the political drama of GB. Hmmm.

[Pannonian]

One increase in doctor's salaries for juniors meant that they were finally earning more than the porters at weekend. I know of no other professionals that were doing over 80 hour weeks and on such poor pay. The fact the juniors were close to striking forced their hand.
The GP contract the government wrongly assumed that GPs would be as efficient as the Civil Service and were amazed when GPs hit most of the targets. The legions of drones didn't spot this.
GPs had targets and it is not really relevant how they hit the targets with the resources they are given; getting in Civil servants to oversee something they barely understand is merely quantifying something that didn't need quantifying and wasting a vast fortune into the bargain.

~:smoking:
I was thinking of local GPs actually, whose salaries were already fairly ample before they added the new investment to it. But given that they did indeed hit their targets with such ease, is it not a pointer that the government can scale back the spending in that area, and still expect them to perform?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Why? We got the missile capability to hit anyone in the world with Nukes. Only an idiot would actually attack us, as they will get a fist full of nukes up their behind. If I remember correctly, we also have the nuclear power to destroy the World twice over. Do we actually need that much?

Who Killed The Canadian Military, J.L. Granatstein <- must read.



In the traditional sense. Authoritarianism and Neo-liberalism are on the right. Anarchism and Communism (In the Marxist sense of Workers Soviets, etc) are on the Left. As the scale in the earlier post. Labour was classified as Right-Authoritarian, which is traditional Right-wing.

Authoritarianism? Traditionally right-wing? No offence, but you're talking out of your ____ with that statement. Liberalism is a little more complicated, but authoritarianism? Sorry, no. You say anarchism is on the left, I say libertarianism is on the right. You have proven nothing (and you can't).


This suggests otherwise.
https://img266.imageshack.us/img266/5791/enparties.gif

I think that clearly states they are right leaning.

I'm obviously going to let CR respond to this fully, but:

1) The chart itself (authoritarian vs. libertarian and leftist economics vs. right-wing economics) is fine, but the method that the particular group uses to determine which modern political parties fit where is flawed.

2) There is more than one scale of a political party.

3) Labour is Third Way at best, which is not a right-wing policy.

[InsaneApache]

As a right wing libertarian I must be authoritarian then! 8)

[Kralizec]

PR is the refuge of politicians that fear revolution, and an electorate that fears tyranny, it is implicit recognition of a lack of faith in the social fabric of the country. It is a realm of demagogues and dictators.

If Britain cannot manage politics without ineffectual (read "safe") coalitions, then what message does that send ot the rest of the world? Indeed Brussels would be delighted, for it would herald the dawn of the post sovereign era, and validate their attempt to dismantle the legitimacy of the nation-state.

If this country decides it 'needs' PR then it is not my country anymore, merely another tin-pot democracy staggering drunkly between the extremes of tyranny and revolution, and populated by exactly the excitable hand-wavey types we have for so long disparaged.

Uh, my country has PR. For your information it bears very little resemblance to the Weimar republic.

It's not my business how you chose your politicians, but I think that Britain would be better off with PR. Right now it's worse off than the USA. In the USA congressmen at least get to say what's best for their own constituency instead of toeing the party line for 98.5 % of the time. Electoral districts do have a few advantages but in the UK it's little more than a scheme to marginalize newcomers and win seats based on relative "majorities" :juggle2:

I heard that some Labour bloke expressed his interest in PR the other day - again. Labour was also for proportional representation in the days of Thatcher and Major, along with the liberals and democrats. They abandoned the idea as soon as they got a majority in the commons again and it's been over a decade since. Filthy opportunists, the lot of them :whip:

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

MUHAHAHAhahaaa! Much of Britain thinks you already are. Besides, we'd take Germany first. We already occupy the country.

Go for it. It'd be nice to have a bit of freedom for a change.

[LittleGrizzly]

Exactly. This is why I never bought the invading Iraq for oil argument. Hey, wait...Norway has natural gas, pretty girls, and lutefisk without all the political drama of GB. Hmmm.

Well even for the Bush admin an AQ Norway link would be just too silly...

I don't see Labour dying, no more so than the cons did in '97

I have never voted Labour but i may do so this election, my labour MP is fairly safe anyway so i will probably go with my usual Lib Dem vote..

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I have never voted Labour but i may do so this election, my labour MP is fairly safe anyway so i will probably go with my usual Lib Dem vote..

But why?

[LittleGrizzly]

But why?

Well through other years Labour were coasting to victory and so basically my vote wasn't needed. Even though it still won't make a difference just an extra vote for labour, a little bit of a higher share of the vote. Just a kind of thank you i guess for the good things they did.... a mix of that and here's a vote for being reasonably close to power whilst not being the conservatives...

Although policy wise they don't appear hugely different, Cameron seems like a more fake version of blair... and i wasn't a big fan of blair...

[CountArach]

I read an interesting article (http://www.tallyroom.com.au/1545) about the apparent rise in the BNP vote.

First of all, let’s look at the facts regarding the BNP’s performance in the UK yesterday. It’s true that turnout was very depressed across the UK and the European Union, with 43% turnout continent-wide and much lower in the UK. Indeed, in both North-West England and Yorkshire and the Humber, the BNP won more raw votes in 2004 than in 2009, but lower turnout resulting in a smaller number of votes producing a winning result. It appears that, rather than the expenses scandal and general disillusionment driving Labour voters into the hands of the BNP, they mostly stayed home giving the BNP more bang for their buck.
Rather comforting I think. The BNP are not the entire problem - rather they are only part of the equation that becomes particularly bad when combined with voter apathy.

[Furunculus]

Uh, my country has PR. For your information it bears very little resemblance to the Weimar republic.

It's not my business how you chose your politicians, but I think that Britain would be better off with PR. Right now it's worse off than the USA. In the USA congressmen at least get to say what's best for their own constituency instead of toeing the party line for 98.5 % of the time. Electoral districts do have a few advantages but in the UK it's little more than a scheme to marginalize newcomers and win seats based on relative "majorities" :juggle2:

I heard that some Labour bloke expressed his interest in PR the other day - again. Labour was also for proportional representation in the days of Thatcher and Major, along with the liberals and democrats. They abandoned the idea as soon as they got a majority in the commons again and it's been over a decade since. Filthy opportunists, the lot of them :whip:

whatever floats your boat, but i think its a bad solution to a problem we don't have.

that is mainly a problem of over-powerful whips.

this is because england is Conservative, and Labour traditionally relied on labour scotland and wales which are over-represented with MP's to boot.

now they introduced devolution and realised that national sentiment trumps anti-tory'ism they face being obliterated in england wales and scotland............ so PR is popular again.

[InsaneApache]

Sort of says it all really. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQS9m_KRsW8&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fpoldraw%2Ewordpress%2Ecom%2F&feature=player_embedded)

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

If you cut civil service staff, how do you clarify where the government money is going? The last increase in NHS expenditure was a case in point, with a sizeable investment going into funds which were used at doctors' discretion. The idea was to cut out middle management, and to allow frontline doctors to use the money to pay for services and/or hire staff. Thanks to red tape forced on them by an untrusting Brown, we know this didn't happen, and instead of the money being used to improve services, it went into increased doctors' salaries instead. The tax system of credits, rebates and whatnot is massively overcomplicated, but much of the increase in bureaucracy that Brown has put in comes from a justifiable mistrust of how taxpayers' money is being spent.

What I'd like is an administrative genius with huge political backing to go in and look through the existing mechanisms of government, and find some way of doing what's necessary with maximum transparency and minimum fuss. Cuts across the board on ideological grounds doesn't do it, as it compromises government-provided services. Brown has some right ideas, if people would look past the party lines. It's just that he couples that with wrong ideas, combined with political ineptness. He's a decent No.2, but not a competent leader of government.

It's simple, you fire the managers, let the doctors run things and submit accounts to the IR every year. So the hospital has accountants, but not managers. It should be relatively easy to track because you know how much money you gave them to begin with.

Labour substitutes complexity for competancy.

All you need to keep track of hospital spending is a Burser in every hospital, an accountant at the trust, and a bean counting office in the Health Departmant, or the Revenue.

[rory_20_uk]

I was thinking of local GPs actually, whose salaries were already fairly ample before they added the new investment to it. But given that they did indeed hit their targets with such ease, is it not a pointer that the government can scale back the spending in that area, and still expect them to perform?

GPs have finished training and have passed their exit exams. As a rule they are over 30, and hence have done something like 15 years of training.

Non-partner pay (partners are effectively the owners of small businesses) is something like £60-80k. Or to put it another way, less than TV news presenters on the BBC, Ministers and so on and so forth. Prior to increasing the pay fewer and fewer were choosing GP as a career - and this is at a time when the Government wants more care in the community.


It's simple, you fire the managers, let the doctors run things and submit accounts to the IR every year. So the hospital has accountants, but not managers. It should be relatively easy to track because you know how much money you gave them to begin with.

Labour substitutes complexity for competency.

All you need to keep track of hospital spending is a Burser in every hospital, an accountant at the trust, and a bean counting office in the Health Departmant, or the Revenue.

Many hospital managers are not clinical. So they don't really understand what they are managing, nor the ramifications of their decisions. Many were nurses, who basically apply for ward manager jobs and et voila they're managers. No training in leadership, strategic planning. Some are good, some are terrible. But since their aptitude isn't tested, who knows?

The whole way hospitals are paid is a whole essay in itself... :wall:

~:smoking:

[Chimpyang]

Prior to increasing the pay fewer and fewer were choosing GP as a career - and this is at a time when the Government wants more care in the community.

Not to mention all the other things that have gone leeside these days in the NHS. Workforce and PFI financial crisis in the future anyone?

Ideally we need to trim down the beauracracy - especially since there is an effort to imporve everything at once, and which there is only enough money to kickstart some programmes into success. The problem that any government will face is that labour were too ambitious and never got anything done thoroughly instead favouring reinvention instead of improvement. I reckon we need a permanent secretary appointed on a cross party basis for the key social aspects - health, communities, transport etc... they will stay on in the job, instead of each minister on the merry go round having their own stab and abandoning whatever was in place to 'make their own mark' and wasting a lot of money into the process.

Also, people need to get used to the idea that more US style taxes will never bring adequately funded Scandanavian social support systems. You get what you pay for.

[InsaneApache]

Have you ever worked in the public sector?

Ever heard of 'empire building'?

[Chimpyang]

Guess where I'm headed.

What's your point about empire building?

[Pannonian]

So which areas have the greatest potential for costcutting without significantly impacting services? Bear in mind the amount of money saved, the necessity of services that are affected, whether or not services can be maintained while reforms are carried out, feasibility of reform, etc.

Another area of balancing government income with the economy is tax. Namely the ability of large companies to dodge tax with multinational schemes, in a way which small business owners cannot. Is their contribution to the economy significant enough to outweigh the tax-money that they can avoid paying? Is there any way of getting more from them without driving their investment away?

After reducing spending and increasing revenue where possible, is there any other way of furthering efficiency in government?

[Chimpyang]

So which areas have the greatest potential for costcutting without significantly impacting services? Bear in mind the amount of money saved, the necessity of services that are affected, whether or not services can be maintained while reforms are carried out, feasibility of reform, etc.

Another area of balancing government income with the economy is tax. Namely the ability of large companies to dodge tax with multinational schemes, in a way which small business owners cannot. Is their contribution to the economy significant enough to outweigh the tax-money that they can avoid paying? Is there any way of getting more from them without driving their investment away?

After reducing spending and increasing revenue where possible, is there any other way of furthering efficiency in government?

Where possible, you can identify which large companies are reliant upon the UK, and also where areas that smaller firms can look to grow in the UK sector, if the larger firms are pushed away. Start with these and apply gentle pressure - over a period of decades, you'll start seeing a greater amount of tax from these companies as they their move out of a key market in which they only dominate through precedance.

Start by cutting back on some of the more lavish and extravagant services such as spreading care back out into the community, accept that for the present, this large undertaking in shifting workforce dynamics is too costly, even though for patient care it is wonderful from their point of view, it is a wasteful spreading of resources in a time where a little more centralisation is needed to survive - so either freeze or cut and expand the transport services to hospitals. Also cut some of the bill spent of micromanaging things, trust that those within a certain job will still be doing a decent job without being stared at all the time - some quantification of a role is justified, but being anal and linking everything to the quantification as self justification is not a good route. new schemes require a lot of management and adjustment to get right, and across the board the government are trying to juggle too many things, letting a couple such as education slide (surestart centers are underused - redeploy the buildings for different use - social housing anyone?) and attempt the project or similar once another has been gotten running and on its feet. Social equality and rebalancing does not happen overnight and mistakes will always be made to tip the scale too far etc...

No doubt now that Iraqi operations have ceased, the military bill for the MOD will be down, use savings and invest moderately across education, RnD and the other prerequisites that will better equip us to move towards a high tech economy - one where the reality will be that only a significant minority will work as we can no longer compete of manufacuturing levels - except when they are highly specialised innovations - hence the need for more encouragement in Engineering and other Sciences.

Also, limit government funding to carp Quangos which are usually dominated by a similar circle of people and carry on the process of moving the groups more and more out of the westminister circle (a process that has the groups as sepearate rather than the MP's being self interested - slave abolition anyone? )- so they actually have a decent meaning rather than being a mouthpiece for a few priveledged individuals that carry an air of expertise under a fancy name - the one that annoys me the most is taxpayers alliance.

I don't think there would be anything more to do than to strive towards 'efficiency' and trying to increase the public purse.

[InsaneApache]

What's your point about empire building?

Are you serious?

God no wonder the left screw up everytime they get their hands on the levers of power. Clueless.

[Chimpyang]

Past or present tense? If you want to compare to the heyday of the british empire - it's entirely different to the current empire building of the multinational corps.

Or if you're implying that the social system is the empire that is being built - excluding what? The market? No thanks.

[InsaneApache]

nm.

[Chimpyang]

Do you have a counter point? - I can take a hit if you want to discuss what I suggested.

[Furunculus]

No doubt now that Iraqi operations have ceased, the military bill for the MOD will be down, use savings and invest moderately across education, RnD and the other prerequisites that will better equip us to move towards a high tech economy - one where the reality will be that only a significant minority will work as we can no longer compete of manufacuturing levels - except when they are highly specialised innovations - hence the need for more encouragement in Engineering and other Sciences.

Also, limit government funding to carp Quangos which are usually dominated by a similar circle of people and carry on the process of moving the groups more and more out of the westminister circle (a process that has the groups as sepearate rather than the MP's being self interested - slave abolition anyone? )- so they actually have a decent meaning rather than being a mouthpiece for a few priveledged individuals that carry an air of expertise under a fancy name - the one that annoys me the most is taxpayers alliance.

Any money that is saved from the wind-down of iraqi operations should be immediately pumped back into the defence equipment budget to make up for black holes in future acquisition projects and to replace worn-out/destroyed equipment.

i agree about the quangos tho.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Guess where I'm headed.

What's your point about empire building?

Since IA isn't going to indulge you, he's talking about Civil Service Mandarins, I believe.

[KukriKhan]

Any money that is saved from the wind-down of iraqi operations should be immediately pumped back into the defence equipment budget to make up for black holes in future acquisition projects and to replace worn-out/destroyed equipment.

i agree about the quangos tho.

I know this is just crazy-talk from the sidelines, but: should not any tax-savings resulting from an expiring need (e.g. the end of a shooting "war") be returned to the taxpayer in the form of a reduction of taxes, vs. a diversion of that allocation to some other program?

[Pannonian]

I know this is just crazy-talk from the sidelines, but: should not any tax-savings resulting from an expiring need (e.g. the end of a shooting "war") be returned to the taxpayer in the form of a reduction of taxes, vs. a diversion of that allocation to some other program?
I think there's a general consensus that current operations are being run from the reserves that would normally be built and kept. Once the Iraqi needs are no more, the army should repair itself with the funds that have been freed up. There are some arguments over the big techie projects such as aircraft, carriers and the extent of the blue water fleet, but there is a consensus that the army's share cannot be cut without risking breaking it.

[KukriKhan]

I think there's a general consensus that current operations are being run from the reserves that would normally be built and kept. Once the Iraqi needs are no more, the army should repair itself with the funds that have been freed up. There are some arguments over the big techie projects such as aircraft, carriers and the extent of the blue water fleet, but there is a consensus that the army's share cannot be cut without risking breaking it.

I see. Thanks. Army got a bit bruised up the past 7-8 years, so let's heal it first, then think about taxpayer reparation. Yes?

[Pannonian]

I see. Thanks. Army got a bit bruised up the past 7-8 years, so let's heal it first, then think about taxpayer reparation. Yes?
It's a case of returning to normality, then seeing what the situation is then. The army is extremely cost-effective for what it brings versus what it costs, so defence cuts popularly look at other arms first. Other than further amalgamating regiments, there isn't much scope for cutting army spending without seriously affecting our foreign policy.

[Furunculus]

I know this is just crazy-talk from the sidelines, but: should not any tax-savings resulting from an expiring need (e.g. the end of a shooting "war") be returned to the taxpayer in the form of a reduction of taxes, vs. a diversion of that allocation to some other program?

Pannonian is correct.

At the same time as there is a £15 Billion unfunded hole in the defence procurement budget the armed forces have been wearing out current equipment at a rate which is an order of magnitude faster than was planned for under funding allocations in the past twelve years of Defence budgets.

So at a time when we are not putting up the cash to buy tomorrows equipment the forces are being required to trash todays equipment on extended operations.

We have been fighting two wars on a peacetime budget for over six years now, and the effect is beginning to show in men and materiel.

see my sig links

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I see. Thanks. Army got a bit bruised up the past 7-8 years, so let's heal it first, then think about taxpayer reparation. Yes?

There is no reparation to be made, defence spending has alreadly fallen as a percentage of GDP since 2001. All operations have been funded from the peacetime budget, money for recruitment, upkeep and training. Strictly speaking there is no money to spend on operations.

That's the problem.