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

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

[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?

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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 ?