h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

I'd say Blair is an example of a politician who really believes he is doing 'the right thing', and this moral angle on things means he naturally projects his own ideology onto others.

I like the idea of a 'bloodless coup', but it's hardly a coup really. I mean you don't get a huge sea change. And sometimes (very rarely, I must admit) I think some societies need a sea change. I'm not praising the violence of the French Revolution, but postulating that perhaps it's necessary to have a revolution to keep your society 'fresh'.

"And even then are we getting what we want ?"

yes!

We're getting what *some* of us want. So someone's happy .

Undoubtable Blair is the worst Prime-Minister this century and arguably ever.

I can't let SoRB's post go by :-

Devolved government in Northern Ireland starts *today*, Ian Paisley laughing and joking with his deputy, Martin McGuinness. That's a sentence that would have been simply inconceivable ten years ago, and its a Blair government achievement. <== Well actually no it isn't, its the end result of John Major's actions in Northern Ireland.

We have devolved government in Wales and Scotland, <== I assume this is being projected as a good thing ? The increase in administration and the break up of 600 years of unified government ? Conflicting laws depending on which side of the border you live ? Absolutely ridiculous, unless you take it all the way and make Scotland and Wales seperate countries - Hell lets go back and make Cornwall and Mercia independant countries too.

low inflation, low interest rates (we're worried it might break six percent. The Tories had it in double figures for ages!) <== Well that would be because they followed on from Callaghan's time in charge. Apart from the stupidity of attempting to align our currency with Europe's - When TB came to power interest rates rates were at 6.25% - which is where they'll be back to by the time he leaves. How has he paid for this ? By decimating the nation's pensions for the foreseeable future, and extending all our working lives.

a minimum wage, <== This is a good thing, but has simply meant that legal employers go under and agency work, where people are paid less than the minimum wage have increased hugely.

low unemployment <== Low 'OFFICIAL' unemployment. This government excells in lying to the voting populace and these figures are another lie. They exclude the disabled - people signing for 'job-seekers allowance (dole as we used to call it) married women who do not claim benefit, single mothers. the list goes on.

Sure, we also have other stuff, <== Like a decimated NHS (24 hours to save the nhs ?) Falling standards in primary schools, the most tested and unhappiest children in the Western world (Education, Education, Education ?)

fundamentally new labour have done alright under Blair. At least, that's what I think. <== A man who lied to Parliament and took the nation to war - Iraq will be his legacy, and rightly so.

"Undoubtable Blair is the worst Prime-Minister this century"

Um... yes. Also the best Prime Minister this century. By virtue of so far being the only PM this century...

"and arguably ever."

Oh come on. You simply cannot seriously argue that Blair is worse than Major.

"its the end result of John Major's actions in Northern Ireland."

There was *specific* agreement yesterday that although Major had started the process, it was inconceivable that we would have reached this point by now if it had not been for Blair and to a large extent Mo Mowlam. If you choose to deny that,

"We have devolved government in Wales and Scotland, <== I assume this is being projected as a good thing ?"

The people who live there seem in general to think so. I could not comment. And neither, I suspect, could you.

"The increase in administration and the break up of 600 years of unified government ?"

Again - do the people living under it think it's better? The evidence suggests they do.

"Conflicting laws depending on which side of the border you live ?"

Um... no change there then. There've always been different laws in Scotland. Are you sure you even know enough to be having this conversation? Do you realise, for instance, that the poll tax was introduced in Scotland a year before it was in England and Wales? Just one example...

"Absolutely ridiculous, unless you take it all the way and make Scotland and Wales seperate countries"

Again - not at all ridiculous, since there have been separate legislatures all along. The fact you've not noticed implies you're not qualified to hold an opinion on this subject.

"Hell lets go back and make Cornwall and Mercia independant countries too."

If enough of their citizens want it that way, yes, why not? However, although regional assemblies for English regions HAS been proposed, in every case the idea has been rejected by the people who matter - those affected. The people of Wales and Scotland WANTED their own assemblies. The people of Cornwall (a few kilted nutters aside) do not. Big difference.

"The Tories had [interest rates] in double figures for ages!) <== Well that would be because they followed on from Callaghan's time in charge."

WHAT?!? You're blaming the interest rate in /1992/ in the actions of a government voted out in /1979/? What are you, Margaret Thatcher's secret rather dim child, or something? How can Callaghan be in any way connected with the interest rate THIRTEEN YEARS after he was voted out? You might just as well blame the war in Iraq on Thatcher!

"Apart from the stupidity of attempting to align our currency with Europe's"

Oh, let's just forget the single most disastrous economic policy of the last fifty years. Skate over it.

"When TB came to power interest rates rates were at 6.25% - which is where they'll be back to by the time he leaves."

I'll take that bet. One hundred of the Queen's English pounds says that on the day Tony Blair announces his resignation, the Bank of England base rate is not 6.25%, not even 6%, but LESS than 6%. Bet?

"How has he paid for this? By decimating the nation's pensions for the foreseeable future, and extending all our working lives."

I'd be interested to see the comparison between life expectancy ten years ago and now. My suspicion is that you'll find that what's actually extended is our post-working lives - which is why we have a pensions crisis. Our health is too good, we're living too long, and our financial instruments are designed for a Tory country where people die almost as soon as they stop working, instead of enjoying a prosperous retirement.

"a minimum wage, <== This is a good thing, but has simply meant that legal employers go under and agency work, where people are paid less than the minimum wage have increased hugely."

Legal employers go under? Of course, all those branches of McDonalds closing down, the enormous holocaust of call centres shutting up shop... oh, hang on, that's nonsense. There are MORE minimum wage jobs about. Also, what agency work where you get paid lower than the minimum? That's illegal...

"low unemployment <== Low 'OFFICIAL' unemployment. This government excells in lying to the voting populace and these figures are another lie."

Yadda yadda. I had a girlfriend a couple of years back who worked in a company that arranged placements for the unemployed. The job centre would send people to them, and they would train them, help them prepare CVs, get them useful qualifications (fork lift driving and the like), and get them placements with local companies. These usually led to long term jobs. It was good, fulfilling work.

The only problem she had was this: there was a shortage of unemployed people. In fact, there was such a shortage of unemployed people that... [IRONY ALERT]... she lost her job. There were literally so few people out of work any more that the placement agency didn't have enough clients to stay in business. You can argue statistics all you like, but when the people who help the unemployed are themselves out of work... I can't think of a more concrete demonstration of the VAST difference in the employment market now from when I was unemployed in the early nineties with a degree in chemical engineering and couldn't get ANY job for almost a year.

"a decimated NHS (24 hours to save the nhs ?)"

All my experiences of the NHS in recent years have been a vast improvement on previously. The most obvious has been waiting time in casualty. I waited eight hours in casualty with a broken wrist in 1992. In 2003 my girlfriend cut herself with a vegetable knife and spent more time in the car on the way to and from the hospital across town than she did waiting in casualty or getting it stitched. Again, my personal experience only, but to me, life has improved. Of course, those working in the NHS complain, but then, I complain about my job. BUT... I complain (sometimes) about things I'm forced to do that improve efficiency. And like all humans, I'm wary of change. But my experience at the pointy end of the NHS is that it IS better than it was.

"Falling standards in primary schools, the most tested and unhappiest children in the Western world (Education, Education, Education ?)"

I can't agree with everything that's been done in the name of education - I for one think no more than 10% of school leavers should go to university, for instance, and that they should all get full grants and not pay fees. But have you BEEN in a primary school recently? Classrooms look like something off the Enterprise (and I mean the Enterprise-D, specifically - Kirk would be jealous!)

"A man who lied to Parliament and took the nation to war - Iraq will be his legacy, and rightly so."

Well, I think it's a shame. I honestly think he could have acted differently. He should have. He should have told it like it was - "George has decided to go to war with Iraq. We can't stop him. We HAVE to back him. If we don't, it'll cost us. You know this. I know this. So that's what we're going to do. There are no WMDs. There is no threat. There is no UN mandate. But the US is going in, and unless we want to be in deep trouble, we have to go in with them." Rock and a hard place, and he did what he thought he had to do.

Iraq most likely will be what he's remembered for. I just think that's a shame.

SoRB

"To give an example of something that could not have happened in a democracy, the Brazilian city of Curitiba underwent a radical overhaul to improve the whole of the urban fabric: transport, housing, environment and the overall happiness of its citizens."

This sort of thing does still happen in Western democracies, though. There's stories in the paper all the time about local developments and local people complaining that it isn't what they want and why-oh-why won't government listen to them. Our "democracies" (which are really republics in fact if not always in law) are based around the idea that government governs with the *consent* of the public, not that the public govern (which is the literal meaning of democracy, often called "direct democracy").

Democracy works because, for all its faults, it doesn't have the weaknesses of dictatorship. There hasn't been a successful, peaceful, prosperous dicatorship since the dark ages. All dictatorships, of various hues and ideals, have decended into stagnation, corruption, cruelty and (often) the wholesale destruction of the country they were supposed to be "protecting" or "developing". The only rational argument for dictatorship is in the short-term (ie as an emergency public-order measure) and should then only take place within the confines of certain laws (ie human rights) and with a strict timetable for a return to democracy.

"I listened to Radio 4's 'From Our Own Correspondent' not long ago. They were talking to an Iraqi university graduate, who said that a common saying among Iraqis at present was: 'be nice to the Americans or they will punish you with democracy.'"

I think that's sarcasm about the way Iraqi democracy functions, though. Democracy can't work without the rule of law and the latter barely exists in many parts of Iraq so, for many Iraqis, their democracy is little more than de jure with real power being in the hands of local rulers. The Iraqis have made it clear in various opinion polls that they want democracy it's just that thanks to the militias, Al-Quaida and various failed "security plans" by the Coalition and the Iraqi government they might as well not have it.

I agree with you about Iraq. That's why the whole ideal of 'Democracy' as the ultimate ideal which must be attained immediately makes me rather uneasy. The thinking seems to be that democracy will naturally lead to law and order, when if anything it's the other way round.

That´s why you get fascism in times of crisis, it manages to bring law and order where democracy wouldn´t.

<<low inflation, low interest rates (we're worried it might break six percent. The Tories had it in double figures for ages!) <== Well that would be because they followed on from Callaghan's time in charge. Apart from the stupidity of attempting to align our currency with Europe's - When TB came to power interest rates rates were at 6.25% - which is where they'll be back to by the time he leaves. How has he paid for this ? By decimating the nation's pensions for the foreseeable future, and extending all our working lives.>>

This is rubbish. Apart from the demographic changes SoRB mentioned, there are two main causes of the pensions crisis. The first is that, under new legislation brought in by Labour, companies must include pension deficits in their accounts, which they didn't have to previously. Many companies had really huge deficits, because they assumed that they could make up the shortfall in future. Having that on the balance sheet only means it's brought right into the open, rather than hidden away, and companies have to do something about it.

The second is that, during the early/mid 90s, many firms (at a time of huge profits for lots of companies) paid more of their profits to their shareholders than they should have. Assuming that the (stock market) boom would continue, they got into *serious* trouble when the stock market went tits up between 1998-2003. I worked for British Airways, who did exactly that. Now they have a huge deficit, and it's one of the reasons there've been so many strikes recently.

"That´s why you get fascism in times of crisis, it manages to bring law and order where democracy wouldn´t."

I think fascism was more about renewing national pride and providing a militant bullwark to socialist and communist revolutionaries (which was the reason many conservatives were pro-fascist). It wasn't that democracy was percieved as weak on law and order so much as it was percieved being, like laissez-faire and liberalism, an ideology that had had its day and couldn't deal with the problems of the modern world (as it was in the '20s and '30s).

"I agree with you about Iraq. That's why the whole ideal of 'Democracy' as the ultimate ideal which must be attained immediately makes me rather uneasy. The thinking seems to be that democracy will naturally lead to law and order, when if anything it's the other way round."

I don't think the problems in Iraq are because of democracy (although many of them are common to long-oppressed societies undergoing a major upheaval - see post-indepenence India and post-Communist Yugoslavia) but because of the failure to enforce law and order. The rule of law is necessary for a democracy to function, and without it it's a democracy in name only.

Democracy needs an environment of Law & Order in order to be possible - agreed. But it also needs a desire by the overwhelming majority of people for it to succeeed. Yes, there are people in Iraq keen on democracy and the coalition are really, really keen to roll them out for the cameras. But it's a mistake to think all those women parading purple thumbs were celebrating democracy as we understand it. They primarily voted along Shia/Sunni faultlines. They view democracy as an extension of religious majority rule.

With chaos comes corruption and I rather think Iraq bears a more than passing resemblance to Vietnam in that the coalition are propping up an unpopular and corrupt government. What use is proclaiming Iraq to be a democracy when, in the eyes of the people, the winning candidates are puppets of a foreign power?

"But it also needs a desire by the overwhelming majority of people for it to succeeed."

It has that. The militias make up around 2-4% of the population and Al-Quaida are largely made up of foreigners. But 20,000+ armed men are more than capable of leaving a the rule of law in tatters in a weak state like Iraq.

"But it's a mistake to think all those women parading purple thumbs were celebrating democracy as we understand it. They primarily voted along Shia/Sunni faultlines. They view democracy as an extension of religious majority rule."

How exactly can you posssibly know what they think? And of course the political parties (well, most of them) in Iraq are based around sectarian divisions. This is a country that hasn't had a free political system in its history and since people vote according to personal-interests it makes sense for parties to form around religious or ethnic groupings. What the Iraqis have said is that they want democracy - ie they want a government based on consent rather than power.

"With chaos comes corruption and I rather think Iraq bears a more than passing resemblance to Vietnam in that the coalition are propping up an unpopular and corrupt government. What use is proclaiming Iraq to be a democracy when, in the eyes of the people, the winning candidates are puppets of a foreign power?"

You've neglected to mention that the "puppet" government was actually voted-for in an election with a turnout of around 65% of the Iraqi electorate. In South Vietnam, the government was an unelected dictatorship and the United States, by all accounts, actively discouraged democracy there. The Coalition certainly are "propping up" the weak Iraqi government but they didn't choose them. There are certainly some similarities with the Vietnamese mess but the nature of the government being supported isn't one of them.

<<Democracy needs an environment of Law & Order in order to be possible - agreed.>>

I think *any* society needs law & order, whether democratic, communist or fascist, just as a function of its size more than anything else. Iraq doesn't have it at the moment and I think that's the root of its problems, rather than its type of government. It's maybe why there haven't been any (successful) anarchist revolutions.

<>

mmm

And as I showed earlier, 6% in this country is enough to vote in a government.

The militias exist because they feed on existing hatreds.

I've lost the link, but I read an incredibly moving story recently. To precis, it was an Iraqi telling the story of his mixed Shia/Sunni neighbourhood. One day, whilst the kids were playing football in the square, a couple of pick-ups drew up and armed men got out. They casually cocked their weapons and slaughtered the kids before getting back in their pick-ups and driving off. Now that's a clear indication that the law & order doesn't exist as was rightly pointed out earlier. But the horrific part came with the reaction of the locals. As the kids lay screaming, the fathers went into their houses for their own guns which they then turned on their neighbours. Shia versus Sunni. The gunfight went on for 2-3 hours until they ran out of ammo. All the time, their own kids lay dying untended in the sun.

Democracy can't cure that kind of hatred in the short term. Northern Ireland was a childish spat in comparison and that took 30 years to sort out.

The civil war is in full flow in Iraq, whilst our media focuses on election turnouts.

I honestly don't think the democratic process is feasible in Iraq yet. It has to come from within, not be imposed from without.

Sorry about the double post.

IMO, there is a possibility for democracy for Iraq, but only if it's allowed to segment along tribal lines ie Kurds, Sunnis and Shia. With each in a defined territory, the friction will be lessened allowing people to look forward to more than just surviving the coming week.

"I've lost the link, but I read an incredibly moving story recently. To precis, it was an Iraqi telling the story of his mixed Shia/Sunni neighbourhood. One day, whilst the kids were playing football in the square, a couple of pick-ups drew up and armed men got out. They casually cocked their weapons and slaughtered the kids before getting back in their pick-ups and driving off. Now that's a clear indication that the law & order doesn't exist as was rightly pointed out earlier. But the horrific part came with the reaction of the locals. As the kids lay screaming, the fathers went into their houses for their own guns which they then turned on their neighbours. Shia versus Sunni. The gunfight went on for 2-3 hours until they ran out of ammo. All the time, their own kids lay dying untended in the sun."

So, in a country where there's no law in many parts of it locals respond to the murder of their kids by grabbing guns and going out for revenge.

Horrible, yes, but hardly something that wouldn't happen in any developed country given the circumstances. Sectarian and ethnic violence can errupt suddenly as post-independence India and Yugoslavia demonstrated (and why it was so stupid of the Americans to assume that it would remain dormant in post-Saddam Iraq) but it's wrong to think that it's inevitable. And we should never assume that the majority, despite their prejudices, want it. Northern Ireland showed us that.

"I honestly don't think the democratic process is feasible in Iraq yet. It has to come from within, not be imposed from without."

This is a classically conservative bit of thinking but I feel it's both wrong and hypocritical. Wrong, because ultimately it means turning a blind eye to atrocities in the name of the non-intervention, hypocritical because I don't recall the right being so keen on "leave well alone" during the cold war...

So it follows that you feel democracy can be imposed from without?

*If* the "right" have become jaded about interventionism, can anyone be surprised? It seems the "left" can mobilise hundreds of thousands to oppose interventionism (Kosovo) and yet simultaneously demand such actions elsewhere (Rwanda). You're right that hypocrisy is afoot.

And you miss the point of the story related above. These people hate each other so deeply that they would rather try to kill each other than help their own kids. I can think of no Western mindset that values their own children so little.

The majority of folk in the West are guilty of projecting western-centric needs & wants upon people who are so fundamentally different in their thinking . We arrogantly assume that because a system of government works for us, it must therefore work for others and to hell with the rather obvious evidence to the contrary. Name one working democracy in the Middle East other than Israel? Why in the wee man's name can we blithely expect it to work in a country arbitrarily thrown together by the British nearly a century ago, comprising of three diametrically opposed peoples?

Someone earlier called democracy a dictatorship of the majority. What do you think the majority Shia are going to do to the minority Sunnis and Kurds if they get power?

Hasn't McKay gone quiet?

In particular, I see no response to this, from my last post:

McKay said: "When TB came to power interest rates rates were at 6.25% - which is where they'll be back to by the time he leaves."

I said: "I'll take that bet. One hundred of the Queen's English pounds says that on the day Tony Blair announces his resignation, the Bank of England base rate is not 6.25%, not even 6%, but LESS than 6%. Bet?"

Shame there was no response, really. On the day TB announces his resignation, interest rates, far from being 6.25%, were RAISED to reach only 5.5%.

You'd think I'd get bored of being right all the time, wouldn't you?

I'll still bet a hundred of your Earth pounds that interest rates are 6% or less by the time TB actually leaves office.

SoRB