Gordon Brown signs his death warrant

[Adrian II]

May 2010. The longest 18 months in history.

Wouldn't you agree that, say, the Blitz was more harrowing, even if it took only half as long?

So much for the hyperbole then.

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

[JR-]

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

[Adrian II]

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

The latter. I like their program in comparison to those of the other, major two parties, and all the more so in comparison to what we've seen from those two others in recent decades. But my personal choice as a non-native isn't very relevant.

[PBI]

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

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

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

I fear that is probably true.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

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

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

[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.

[Adrian II]

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

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

How about this letter from The Daily Telegraph:

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

Norman Baker, MP (Lib Dem) London SW1

[InsaneApache]

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

He's his foreign affairs spokesperson IIRC.

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

THOSE BORN 1920-1979

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


WE WERE ALWAYS OUTSIDE PLAYING!


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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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



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

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

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

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

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standa...eat/article.do

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

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

Is Cyril Smith standing again?

[CountArach]

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

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

Wow, that's beyond despicable. Welcome to the world of NewLab, where the Tories are Tories and the Labour Party are... also... Tories.

[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?

[Adrian II]

And if anyone thinks the Cameroons would step back from introducing just as many intrusions into privacy, they are as soft as the man who thinks the Lib Dems have a snowball in hell's chance.

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

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

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thank you. Pity, it sounds an intriguing premise.



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

[Adrian II]

In principle, yes, but don't forget the United Kingdom has a first past the post system. That means a lot of the people who vote Lib Dem waste their votes [..]

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

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

I think Untidy Kingdom would cover it best. And that's a compliment.

Is Cyril Smith standing again?

His wiki says 'hobbies include collecting autographs'. He may be harsh, but I still think my colleague has a point...

[Banquo's Ghost]

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

I'm not talking ideologically, but practically.

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

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

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

[PBI]

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

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

Why don't we have PR again?

[InsaneApache]

Why don't we have PR again

Again?

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

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

[rory_20_uk]

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

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

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

[JR-]

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

Why don't we have PR again?

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

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

[Adrian II]

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

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

Original thinking, that's a good one.

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