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

No but if they are going to make those kind of claims then it should be possible for us to see the plans in detail.
But i was actually thinking more on the lines of when politicians are asked their opinions on certain subjects or questioned as to whether or not they support a certain policy or issue.
On an individual level not a party level ~ i would just like to see politicians giving "yes or no" answers to "yes or no" questions instead of launching into campaign speeches that seem to bear little relevance to the questions

Well, lets suppose that Ruth Kelly had given the truthful answer to the question about Longbridge last night on QT.

A word answer. Yes or No.

Yes - then Liam Fox will demand detailed plans of how her government/party plans to save it. And they don't have any or they'd have done it.

No - Well, I doubt she'd have got out of the studio alive.

You see why it doesn't work?

I said personal opinions not party policies.

It's irrelevant what Ruth Kelly's personal feelings on Longbridge are. It's not her department, so all she can do is state what the party line is.

She could i suppose give a personal opinion about Education, but even that is subject to Party Policy, the Cabinet approving and Treasury funding.

The trouble is that the Government is quite right in not baling out Rover. For starters, it's illegal in EU law, and secondly, the crisis partially arose because the Rover executives who, up to now, had withdrawn millions from a loss-making company, didn't want to put enough of their own money up when it came to making a deal with the Chinese. Of course, stating these bald facts in public would do nothing to help the poor bloody Rover workforce but I really can't see why the Government should be made to feel responsible for this mess. It's pretty clear where the blame lies.

And before anybody takes me to task about these claims, read this: http://www.guardian.co.uk/car/story/0,7369,1457492,00.html

Umm, yeah, but slightly off-topic. I only used her as an example, mate...

maybe i didn't explain it properly
What will happen at longbridge will be decided by party policy.
What i was talking about were questions for example "how do you feel" about a certain subject or "do you personally support"a particular policy.
I realise that complex party policies cannot be boiled down to 2 minute answers ~ but if you ask someone their personal opinion or for imformation on how they feel on a certain topic particularly on the kind of issues that are usually given a free vote in parliament then i want to hear their opinion not a party campaign speech

Off topic it may be, but it's probably less likely to be moderated

Anyway, should the Government be held responsible electorally for what's going on at Rover? Seems like a perfectly valid question in this thread.

I don't actually much care what an MP's personal opinion of a policy is. I want to know what their party is going to do if elected, not that they think it a bad idea or a good idea.

FM - No, but they will be.

The topic of this thread was about whether we can trust partcular politicians and its hard to judge if you can trust someone if they are not prepared to talk candidly about their opinions and beliefs.

No it wasn't: the topic of this thread is 'Is this a single issue election?' I simply pointed out another issue that might become very important.

>its hard to judge if you can trust someone if they are not prepared to talk candidly about their opinions and beliefs.<

Well, at least one member of the cabinet has spoken, if not candidly then at least openly about her beliefs. She was roundly lambasted and accused of being a member of a secret cult by the popular press.

Interestingly, I'd like some more honesty from the parties. The LibDems are on the right track with their local income tax.

Extra tax for those earning over £50k is a net vote winner for the LibDems. People who earn over that who would have voted for them will not be swayed. It may pick up disaffected Labour votes as it is a pretty radical re-distribution policy. And the majority of those who earn over £50,000 are knee jerk Tories in any event.

It kind of reminds me of Dennis Healeys comment about 'squeezing them until their pips squeak'. The people who he was talking about would never have voted Laboutr anyway but the honesty of the remark might just have won him a few extra votes.

Greetings Novo,

The Iraq question I think is more complex than trust in TB. It is evident that intelligence was inadequate, and given the right spin to justify the decision. That Dubya wanted this war is beyond question. Many other things are therefore involved with this are held in the balance before such a decision is made. The impact on relationships with the USA, financial and diplomatic, I think was a far more significant factor in the decision than anything to with intelligence in this country. (This is always a worry for me in debates about the EU, the alternative of being the most distant state of the USA seems to be a much worse alternative.)

Interesting that you reference St.Pauls conversion, as I think he was bit of a cowboy too!

Regards, SGG.

Portillo used to be a darling of the Tory right - I still remember my amusement when he started his transformation.

I remember someone being interviewed who was one of his father's old comrades from the Spanish Civil War, remembering how he held Luis Portillo's newborn baby. "I wish I'd dropped him on his head!"

I think Portillo just started his reinvention a bit earlier than some others.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/536170.stm

To get back to the original question perhaps 'trust' is the single topic. Although I'm inclined to think not - if trust is an issue, by inference the political stances taken by the parties are being judged, since it is whether or not you trust them to do what they promise.

I think the issue of this election, for some people, is more or less 'immigration, immigration, immigration'.

Is immigration an issue ? Or is it asylum seekers ? Or is it terrorists ? Or are we being told they're all the same ?

FM - earlier you said - "The trouble is that the Government is quite right in not baling out Rover. For starters, it's illegal in EU law" and of course it is illegal - however why does this illegality not apply to France and Italy when it comes to bailing out their car producers, and airlines, and telecoms companies ?

It is sad that other countries break EU law but that is no excuse for us to break it.

Isn't the whole point of EU legislation to create the so-called level playing field ~ why are we the only ones that obey all the rules?