Gordon Brown signs his death warrant

[JR-]

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

These elections coming up are going to be the first I get to vote for, and I'm not even sure its worth the trip to the ballot box.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

These elections coming up are going to be the first I get to vote for, and I'm not even sure its worth the trip to the ballot box.

Vote UKIP!

[Banquo's Ghost]

... about ZANU-Labour ...

Proclamation ex-tea-towel:

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

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

Thank you kindly.

[JR-]

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

Imbeciles the lot of them.

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

[LittleGrizzly]

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

Imbeciles the lot of them.

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

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

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

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

[JR-]

agreed.

[English assassin]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

Jobs a good 'un.

Whaddya fink???

[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....

[Craterus]

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

Sold! Sold!

[Tribesman]

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

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

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

I can't read this thread without constantly thinking of other British politics.

[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.

[InsaneApache]

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

I came across this little gem.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

[JR-]

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

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

[InsaneApache]

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

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

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

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

[CountArach]

I can't read this thread without constantly thinking of other British politics.

I've been re-watching the show lately. It's great

[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 ?

[Adrian II]

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

Both!

[KukriKhan]

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

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