|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
What leverage does Clegg have though if he's promised LibDem support for a full parliament?
.
I doubt very much that it will have been a "now and forever" agreement. It'll be dependent on a few things going the way Clegg wants them to.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
Isn't it the dreaded Osborne as Chancellor now? Oh dear.
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
...as a place where liberty rules...
Aye, but how does the new Government understand liberty?
Is it just "freedom of capital" and unrestrained market plutocracy?
Or is there some hope of finding a deeper and richer, more humane, more democratic and more civic concept of liberty?
We shall see.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
The beeb are saying they are going to devolve more power to Scotland - implementing the findings of the Calman Commission.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daffy Duck
Shipmate
# 13488
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
It follows that in any system that is designed to dramatically reduce the number of overall majorities, the LibLab Party will be virtually unimpeachable. Far from making each vote more relevant, it would ensure that the makeup of the resulting government is known before any votes are even cast. All the electorate would be able to decide would be the exact shade of orange they'd use as a backdrop.
Don't be so sur, that is what was being argued here in NZ with National(Cons.) and two other parties forming a very strong reight wing. As it eventuated we did have a right wing govt. for a few years after the introduction of MMP, bu the had four terms od a Labour led left coilition, against all the arguments.
The real problem is that we ended upo each time with the tail wagging the dog, the small minorities controlling what the majority do.
--------------------
Arohanui
Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz
mailto:enyaj@xtra.co.nz
Posts: 259 | From: Gore, NZ | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
If you mean Helen Clark's governments, I disagree. The Greens in particular seemed to get nothing in return for their support.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Hmm - looks likes the fixed term parliaments are five years, requiring 55% vote of no confidence to dissolve.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Daffy Duck
Shipmate
# 13488
|
Posted
What the British public have to decide now is whether they want a hung Parliament after every election, or not.
What we have just seen is a superb example of Mr. Clegg manipulating both major parties to get the maximum clout for the liberals: the tail wagging two dogs at once. That is the pattern for any MMP government, it now remains to be seen whether Mr.Cameron is clever enough to eventually toss LibDems the bones they want ion a way that they find are no real use to them
In NZ we currently have a PM who is very adept at this.
--------------------
Arohanui
Jayne( in aroha, hope and Faith ) nz
mailto:enyaj@xtra.co.nz
Posts: 259 | From: Gore, NZ | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
quote:
Originally posted by Nightlamp:
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
If something similar happened in the UK, there would be a delicious irony in the Liberal Democrats being destroyed by the thing that they desired for so long.
I have no doubt that PR would end the Liberals. They would find a home in a soft left labour or a new one nation Tory like party. I think that UKIP might do very well on a PR system since England is generally Euro sceptic but no one thinks UKIP will get in. On a PR system they would do.
It might depend on the type of PR adopted. If single-member AV was used then the LibDems, used to coming second in many seats, could pick up quite a few second preference seats from (to be specific) Labour when the Conservatives come first and Conservatives where Labour come first. It would vary from place to place, and the Conservatives would have taken UKIP second preferences too. The effect of all that may be enough to overtake the candidate that would have won in a FPTP election. Victory would then go the "least unpopular" candidate, and the candidate lying third could well win a close race under AV!
Only just saw this now.
Labour's advocacy of AV is shrewd. While it does ensure that elected candidates are supported by 50% of the votes, it upholds the two-party system. Look at Australia for an example.
It is estimated that if the election had been held under AV, the Lib Dems would have got only 15 more seats. Basically, the Lib Dems finished third in most constituencies, and would have been eliminated before the run-off.
I remember it being said that Labour's majority in 1997 would have been about 220 under AV, with the Tories reduced to a rump of 60. This is because in many southern English seats the Tories won with 40%, Labour second with approx 30% and the Lib Dems third with 20%. The Lib Dems' second preference votes would have been redistributed to the Labour candidate, carrying him or her past the Tory.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
Aye, but how does the new Government understand liberty?
Is it just "freedom of capital" and unrestrained market plutocracy?
Or is there some hope of finding a deeper and richer, more humane, more democratic and more civic concept of liberty?
I'm thinking mostly of shit like ID cards and excessive nanny-state monitoring of everything we do being got rid of. Here's hoping ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daffy Duck:
What the British public have to decide now is whether they want a hung Parliament after every election, or not.
What we have just seen is a superb example of Mr. Clegg manipulating both major parties to get the maximum clout for the liberals: the tail wagging two dogs at once. That is the pattern for any MMP government, it now remains to be seen whether Mr.Cameron is clever enough to eventually toss LibDems the bones they want ion a way that they find are no real use to them
In NZ we currently have a PM who is very adept at this.
Huh? How has he been manipulative precisely?
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
Is it just me or did Cam appear to make a grab for his wife's boobs on the steps of No 10? I know he's probably got a hard-on at the thought of being PM, but really!!
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Matt Black:
Is it just me or did Cam appear to make a grab for his wife's boobs on the steps of No 10? I know he's probably got a hard-on at the thought of being PM, but really!!
To be fair though, however exciting it must be to pull up in the car, it must be absolutely terrifying in one sense to get out and think "shit, I could press the red button". Hezza was on the beeb's live coverage last night, saying that literally the first thing that happens when you get through the door is a security briefing, as the PM is responsible for the independent nuclear deterrent.
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yerevan:
Out of curiousity, does anyone else find the tendency to substitute "progressive" for "left-wing" (as in "the progressive alliance") annoying? Left-wingers I like and understand. Progessives just seem to be people who will supporting anything under the sun provided its new, shiny and fashionable, which was always New Labour's most annoying tendency. Maybe its just me...
There is something awfully 1930s about the word "progressive". Grain elevators and modern architecture and hydro-electric dams and sensible shoes and and eager young intellectuals in open-neck shirts slumming it in the East End (Or in the Tennessee Valley, or the Caucasus, or the back streets of Budapest)
There's nothing wrong with grain elevators and modern architecture and sensible shoes, in fact I quite approve of them. But its all a bit dated. And it doesn't have the blood and fire that Socialism ought to have. Or the nice William Morris stuff
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
This is the beeb list of policies of the coallition known so far. Presumably they will continue to update it.
And here is the cabinet list - again presumably will be kept updated.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
The problem I have with the word "progressive" is that it implies there is only one direction and type of "progress" - it reveals a very whiggish understanding of history as moving ever-forward to bigger and better (I have republican, cyclical, view of history).
However, we seem to lack an alternative term to describe the non-socialist left.
I used to like the term "radical centre" (radical because it believes in the republican values of liberty, equality and fraternity, and is not afraid of fundamental change; centre because it is does not favour either State-dominated autocracy or market-dominated plutocracy, but seeks to balance both of these for the common good). However, to most people "radical centre" sounds like a contradictory mish-mash.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Daffy Duck:
What the British public have to decide now is whether they want a hung Parliament after every election, or not.
As there is no political consensus in the country, why not?
A "hung" Parliament could as well be called a balanced Parliament, or a fair Parliament or a representative Parliament.
If the government cannot rely on driving Bills through with their whips they will be forced to persuade MPs to vote for them. They will be forced to listen to. They will have to discuss, to negotiate, to do deals. That all seems rather good to me.
One of the major problems with the British system is that, unlike the USA, normal politics is suspended between general elections. Governments expect to be able to get away with whatever they want without having to defend themselves or their policies. They love to "consult" but they hate really listening to what anyone else says.
Of course deals are done - they always are in any political system - but they are done in private, inside the system, between big business and party leaders, long before a Bill goes to Parliament - or else increasingly these days by professional lobbyists using the House of Lords to get some leverage. (This is not a partisan point - Tory and Labour have been equally bad at it and the Liberals last five days show they are just as addicted to the behind-the-scenes deal)
Much better to have things out inthe open and have votes in Parliament that actually mean something. Or at least, if the votes are carved beforehand, do the stich-ups separately on each policy rather than a package-deal pocket Parliament for four years.
We've had too much strong government in my lifetime. The two biggest political disasters in Downing Street were Blair (who started well and went downhill fast) and Thatcher (who started shit and didn't get better) In both cases the problem was that they could get away with silly ideas because they didn't need to listen to the opposition, or to Parliament, or even (in the short term) to public opinion.
We've had enough of elected dictatorships. If we had had balanced Parliaments over the last thirty years would we ave had the Poll Tax, ID cards, the Digital Economy Bill? Would we have invaded Iraq?
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Hmm - looks likes the fixed term parliaments are five years, requiring 55% vote of no confidence to dissolve.
I don't like the sound of that. David Cameron no doubt wants to protect himself against the LibDems jumping ship at any moment. But what this also means is that the Tories could dump the LibDems and get to stay in power by making themselves unchallengeable (they have 47% of MPs). They are changing the rules to guarantee themselves 5 years in power despite not having a clear mandate. The effect is to shift power once again from Parliament to the Executive and to shut the voter out even more. It's not a good start.
[ 12. May 2010, 13:23: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
David Cameron no doubt wants to protect himself against the LibDems jumping ship at any moment. But what this also means is that the Tories could dump the LibDems and get to stay in power by making themselves unchallengeable (they have 47% of MPs). They are changing the rules to guarantee themselves 5 years in power despite not having a clear mandate.
Have you missed the fact that fixed-term parliaments are a Liberal Democrat policy that the Conservatives have had to accept as part of forming the coalition?
Or that it's also something Labour proposed - one of their manifesto pledges was a referendum on fixed-term parliament by 2011?
I think you'll find that the Conservatives were the only major party that didn't advocate this idea during the run-up to the election. To accuse them of being the ones who are changing the rules at this stage is disingenuous at best - they're just doing what the other two parties wanted to do anyway! The very picture of consensus politics, one might say...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Yorick
Infinite Jester
# 12169
|
Posted
Aye. And now we're living in con-dem nation.
(I'll get me coat).
--------------------
این نیز بگذرد
Posts: 7574 | From: Natural Sources | Registered: Dec 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Just watched the press conference. Clegg is getting primary responsibility for electoral reform.
We also got to see Cameron cringe when asked if he now regretted saying, when asked his favourite political joke - "Nick Clegg". To be fair, he did give a very good reply.
Interesting the way they managed the questions, Nick Clegg waiting to be asked to respond unless the question was asked to him directly. Cameron asserting himself as the boss and authoritative.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pre-cambrian
Shipmate
# 2055
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Have you missed the fact that fixed-term parliaments are a Liberal Democrat policy that the Conservatives have had to accept as part of forming the coalition? [SNIP]
I think you'll find that the Conservatives were the only major party that didn't advocate this idea during the run-up to the election. To accuse them of being the ones who are changing the rules at this stage is disingenuous at best - they're just doing what the other two parties wanted to do anyway!
No I haven't missed that fixed-term parliaments were in the LibDem manifesto. I also haven't missed that what that manifesto actually said was: quote:
Introduce fixed-term parliaments to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day cannot change the date of an election to suit themselves.
There is nothing there suggesting that from now on 45% should be a parliamentary majority on a confidence issue. The aim of the LibDem policy was to reduce the power of the Prime Minister, not to make him immune from negative votes in Parliament. The sole beneficiaries of this change are the Tories.
[ 12. May 2010, 14:00: Message edited by: Pre-cambrian ]
--------------------
"We cannot leave the appointment of Bishops to the Holy Ghost, because no one is confident that the Holy Ghost would understand what makes a good Church of England bishop."
Posts: 2314 | From: Croydon | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
The sole beneficiaries of this change are the Tories.
The beneficiaries are any party trying to form a minority government when they're just short of the seats needed for an overall majority.
It makes for more stability after elections like this one, while doing nothing to change the fact that in these circumstances minority governments still need the other parties to agree on any policies they want to enact.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Here is the full text of the deal. (Which the civil service are now in the process or turning into a government white paper.)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Here is the full text of the deal. (Which the civil service are now in the process or turning into a government white paper.)
Hmmm - Heathrow runway 3 is gone apparently.
[ 12. May 2010, 15:10: Message edited by: lowlands_boy ]
--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....
Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Yup and the Home Office website says: "Both parties that now form the new government stated in their manifestos that they will cancel Identity Cards and the National Identity Register." It adds though that, until further notice, "identity cards remain valid".
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Angloid
Shipmate
# 159
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Here is the full text of the deal. (Which the civil service are now in the process or turning into a government white paper.)
Hmmm - Heathrow runway 3 is gone apparently.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
--------------------
Brian: You're all individuals!
Crowd: We're all individuals!
Lone voice: I'm not!
Posts: 12927 | From: The Pool of Life | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
I am *very* pleased about ID cards.
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Moth
Shipmate
# 2589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Yup and the Home Office website says: "Both parties that now form the new government stated in their manifestos that they will cancel Identity Cards and the National Identity Register." It adds though that, until further notice, "identity cards remain valid".
It would be more useful if they also got rid of some of the laws that require proof of identity. I signed a passport application last week for a young friend who needs a passport to get a student loan! If we have to keep showing our passports to get bank accounts, mortgages etc, we may as well have an identity card!
--------------------
"There are governments that burn books, and then there are those that sell the libraries and shut the universities to anyone who can't pay for a key." Laurie Penny.
Posts: 3446 | From: England | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
la vie en rouge
Parisienne
# 10688
|
Posted
<frivolous tangent>
Is it just me, or has David Cameron put on weight during the campaign? In all the pictures, he looks distinctly chubby to me. With all the late nights and stress it would make sense (or maybe he's sympathy-eating with his pregnant wife)… time to get back on that bike, Dave ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
On the other hand, unless Gordon Brown was using a lot of hair-dye during his tenure, this election campaign has put years on him.
</frivolous tangent>
--------------------
Rent my holiday home in the South of France
Posts: 3696 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
He wants to amke sure you can tell him apart from Clegg ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
But what this also means is that the Tories could dump the LibDems and get to stay in power by making themselves unchallengeable (they have 47% of MPs).
There is another scenario. If the Conservatives have 47% of seats, it means everyone else combined for about 53%. If the Lib Dems get fed up with the coalition, they only need to convince 10-15 disgruntled Tories to rebel and parliament must be dissolved.
A balanced parliament is not the situation that you need to be worried about. It is when there is a Blairesque 100+ majority, because there would be no overturning that.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
It would be more useful if they also got rid of some of the laws that require proof of identity.
Proof if identity was always only one facet of ID cards. The other side of the coin was the database with biometric and other data which would be stored by the government, and the fact that all this information would suddenly be in one (hacker-enticing) place. I don't think you have that problem with passports as they are currently set up.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
Originally posted by our shiny new government:
quote:
We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Good grief. In the midst of all that lot someone was actually thinking about a bunch of poor foreign kids locked away in Yarls Wood.
File under: Humanity, not all bad after all.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mr. Spouse
Ship's Pedant
# 3353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pre-cambrian:
No I haven't missed that fixed-term parliaments were in the LibDem manifesto. I also haven't missed that what that manifesto actually said was: quote:
Introduce fixed-term parliaments to ensure that the Prime Minister of the day cannot change the date of an election to suit themselves.
There is nothing there suggesting that from now on 45% should be a parliamentary majority on a confidence issue. The aim of the LibDem policy was to reduce the power of the Prime Minister, not to make him immune from negative votes in Parliament. The sole beneficiaries of this change are the Tories.
Increasing the required majority to 55% is hardly immunity. If it's 55% of all MPs, not just those voting, then it will make it harder to displace the standing government. But if the Lib Dems fall out with the Tories, do you really think Labour wouldn't vote to force them out?
--------------------
Try to have a thought of your own, thinking is so important. - Blackadder
Posts: 1814 | From: Here, there & everywhere | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nightlamp
Shipmate
# 266
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by alienfromzog:
it's not our fault, it's the awful economy the Labour government left us that made us do it...
In what way is this not the truth. Labour spent to much for 10 years on things that were good but based on the delusion of the cinderella economy. Then labour had to spend huge amounts of money bailing out the banks which was a disaster for which the Government on retrospect can be seen to have made worse.
Even Alistair Darling said
quote:
Asked by the BBC's Political Editor Nick Robinson to accept the Treasury's own figures suggest deeper, tougher cuts than those implemented by the Thatcher government in the 1980s, Mr Darling replied: "They will be deeper and tougher - where we make the precise comparison, I think, is secondary to the fact that there is an acknowledgement that these reductions will be tough
Do not delude yourself AFZ Labour have helped to wreck the economy. This election was the one to lose.
If I was a Tory MP and wanted to be in power for a long time. I would have prayed for a feeble Lib-Lab pact which would have tried to do something then died later this year ushering probably 20 odd years of conservative Government.
--------------------
I don't know what you are talking about so it couldn't have been that important- Nightlamp
Posts: 8442 | From: Midlands | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ken
Ship's Roundhead
# 2460
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Moth:
If we have to keep showing our passports to get bank accounts, mortgages etc, we may as well have an identity card!
That's why they want to make you show ID for those things. It was all done deliberately.
The security people have wanted ID cards for a long time, but no-one was listening. After 9/11 the Americans started putting pressure on the UK government to introduce them, so they became official policy (even though the majority of Labour MPs didn't want them). After a while it became obvious that they were a stupid idea, but the rachet of party policy didn't let them back down. So the government hads to find a way to justify the policy. So they looked around for a reason to do what they were going to do anyway. They wanted to make people want ID cards, so they invented dozens of needless rules to force peoppe to "identify" themselves so that ID cards would seem easier.
This is a common problem these days. Anyone remember Energy Performance Certificates and Home Information Packs? Same principle - once they had become policy they had to be justified even when the reason for them had gone away.
Since at least the early 1980s (& probably longer) the main parliamentary parties (and the media) have been completely sold on the idea that only Strong and United Parties can win elections. The worst thing you can do is have policy discussions in public. You could call this the Mandelson Doctrine, as he persuded the Labour Party to follow it - though its a lot older than him. Everyone must be seen to be On Message. Changing your mind is seen as a sign of weakness. OPen discussion is seen as a sign of weakness.
So the Mandelson Ratchet applies. Once the Prime Minister has committed to anything, anything at all, then it become Party Policy and all MPs have to unite behind it otherwise the Party will seem Divided and Weak.
--------------------
Ken
L’amor che move il sole e l’altre stelle.
Posts: 39579 | From: London | Registered: Mar 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
kentishmaid
Shipmate
# 4767
|
Posted
PM reported that the Department of Children etc has now been rebranded Department of Education, as it was before. So their pledge to cut waste has already been broken five minutes after taking office.
--------------------
"Who'll be the lady, who'll be the lord, when we are ruled by the love of one another?"
Posts: 2063 | From: Huddersfield | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Here is the full text of the deal. (Which the civil service are now in the process or turning into a government white paper.)
Encouraging stuff, but that's a pretty hefty program of legislation which should keep the Sir Humphreys* and Bernard Woolleys* busy for many a day. Cutting top civil servants obviously isn't going to involve those close to ministers (says a cynical civil servant who isn't within miles of any minister).
*Star characters of Yes Minister and Yes Prime Minister. Career civil servants.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
I think that the education sector ought to be very, very afraid.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wesley J
Silly Shipmate
# 6075
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Yorick:
Aye. And now we're living in con-dem nation.
(I'll get me coat).
Been done. More than 2 days ago. Off with you. ![[Snigger]](graemlins/snigger.gif)
--------------------
Be it as it may: Wesley J will stay. --- Euthanasia, that sounds good. An alpine neutral neighbourhood. Then back to Britain, all dressed in wood. Things were gonna get worse. (John Cooper Clarke)
Posts: 7354 | From: The Isles of Silly | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thurible
Shipmate
# 3206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by kentishmaid:
PM reported that the Department of Children etc has now been rebranded Department of Education, as it was before. So their pledge to cut waste has already been broken five minutes after taking office.
It's good to know what an holistic approach they have and how important children and families are to the Con-Dems.
Thurible
Posts: 8049 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Og: Thread Killer
Ship's token CN Mennonite
# 3200
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gildas:
Originally posted by our shiny new government:
quote:
We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.
Good grief. In the midst of all that lot someone was actually thinking about a bunch of poor foreign kids locked away in Yarls Wood.
File under: Humanity, not all bad after all.
When you get truly co-operative horse trading, this is the sort of thing that may happen, especially when the two parties have not been in power for a while and still might be a bit idealistic.
Wish our government was being run that way...all we get is brinksmanship. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
--------------------
I wish I was seeking justice loving mercy and walking humbly but... "Cease to lament for that thou canst not help, And study help for that which thou lament'st."
Posts: 5025 | From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doublethink.
Ship's Foolwise Unperson
# 1984
|
Posted
Here is some vintage Appleby for your delectation:
Of course in the Rose Garden press conference David C swore blind he would be leaving the door open to allow Nick C access without an appointment ....
--------------------
All political thinking for years past has been vitiated in the same way. People can foresee the future only when it coincides with their own wishes, and the most grossly obvious facts can be ignored when they are unwelcome. George Orwell
Posts: 19219 | From: Erehwon | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
I think that the education sector ought to be very, very afraid.
Why?
I'm in the education sector. I'm not afraid. Jeez, you can't be afraid and be in the education sector. Governments can't leave the education sector alone.
I have to say that I agree with our new boss when he says this:
Education is about "introducing young people to the best that has been thought and written", he has said. "The beauty of poetry and drama. The discoveries of science. They symmetry of mathematics. For me, it is awakening people to the glories to what humankind has been capable of producing over millennia."
Spot on, IMO.
And I'm so glad that I don't have to teach PHSE now and that in a year's time I won't have to teach children how to manage their bank accounts. In short, I hope now that we have a predominantly conservative government, we can leave parental responsibilities to parents and get on with the business of educating.
[ 12. May 2010, 20:20: Message edited by: Sleepwalker ]
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Here is the full text of the deal. (Which the civil service are now in the process or turning into a government white paper.)
I like it.
I do like the civil liberties stuff. Oh, but it feels good to have a government who want to 'roll back' state control.
I quite like the environment stuff as well. Tucked in amongst it all was this:
Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
Fabulous.
Oh, it is just so good to have the Tories back, even if it's with a little partner in tow!
Relief, relief! ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Think˛:
Interesting the way they managed the questions, Nick Clegg waiting to be asked to respond unless the question was asked to him directly. Cameron asserting himself as the boss and authoritative.
That's because Cameron is the boss. The Tories won the most seats and the most votes. Of the three major parties, the LibDems won the fewest of both. First and third together means First gets to be boss.
Yay!!
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
Does anybody have a full copy of the coalition agreement - this seven page document that everyone is talking about. Is it available online anywhere? I need to read it!
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Thurible:
It's not this one?
Thurible
Thanks!
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Printer-friendly view
