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

PS, got a link about closing benefit offices? I've not heard about that anywhere.

Ah - it came up in a PCS hustings and I'm sure I saw a news report somewhere. Here's one example - http://www.pcs.org.uk/en/news_and_events/news_centre/index.cfm/id/253AFF81-E8EF-4588-8713A1B173088B9B

I also talked to a number of quasi-charities and Comm Ed types who told me they've had some savage cuts in the last six months. Several, like the Sexual Abuse and Rape Crisis Centre in SW Scotland have had to close their doors completely.

As to Labour and the Tories targetting different segments - no they won't. They'll target the same sectors because the over-riding principle will be to play to the same swing voters. Both are Centrist parties. Where they differ is in their media support. The Guardian will ignore Labour cuts but trumpet Tory ones whilst the Telegraph will do the reverse.

Cheers for the link - I thought you meant unemployment benefit centres.

As for the Tories/Labour split: I think they will/would handle things differently, because even though they're fighting over median voter, they're coming at it from different angles, Labour from the left, and the Tories from the right.

For example, GB's 'stealth taxes' and the rather labrynthine tax credit scheme are New Labour doing a (far too piddly for me) bit about income inequality. The Tories simply wouldn't have bothered, and the working poor would have been worse off over the last decade. How much is another question, I grant you. While the differences might not be overt, I still think it would be there.

Yeah, it is unemployment benefit offices - http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/mar/16/conservatives-criticise-job-centre-closures

As well as Tax Office closures - http://www.rogerwilliams.org.uk/news/000089/brecon_tax_office_closure_another_blow_for_local_employment__williams.html

It's across the board. I read somewhere that there is a commitment to cut Public Spending by 3% pa for each of the 3 years after the next election. (Might have been a report from the Treasury). Sorry, no link.

Given last year's attack on the sick & disabled, I'm never sure if it's a Tory or Labour rent-a-gob making the announcement.

Gordon Brown was booed at the D Day commemorations today, which must be a first for anyone!
A commentator was just talking on news and said he spoke to someone in the Labour government and and they said they have a quandry. They know Gordon Brown will lose them the election but if they oust him it will likely trigger an election which they will lose anyway.
.
I never thought about ousting Brown meaning an election but they could be right as perhaps the country wouldn't allow yet another unelected PM!

When did we ever elect a PM?????

Oh come on, you know exactly what I mean, mostly, like Blair, the person who becomes PM has been brought through the election process and you know who you are getting. One of the complaints about Brown is he didn't go through the general election process, he sort of got to be PM by default.

Yes we have come more and more to perceive the PM in a presidential way...but our constitution is based on voting for individual MPs not a PM. I think all this sudden focus on an individual ie Brown misses the point that many people want constitutional reform...otherwise this whole circus of bleating about a particular PM will just come around again down the line.

I'm with Beatrice. Can someone explain how, outside of their constituancy where they are directly elected by the people there, the UK elects a Prime Minister?

I'm very confuzzled about all the statements I keep seeing about "I didn't vote for Gordon Brown"

No one directly as such votes for the PM, he is ellected as an MP like any other, however with Tony Blair he was there as PM from the start, he was the Labour party figure head and we knew what we were getting as PM, I voted for him(labour party) all those years ago. However of course the situation is differant with Gordon Brown as he came along after a general election and became PM. Perhaps the PM gets more attention than in other countries, but here people often say I didn't vote for Gordon Brown to be PM and that is a problem with his situation as perhaps doesn't have as much of the public behind him. While the PM isn't the whole party perhaps here he has more prominance than elsewhere.

We have the same thing here, and since we have a coalition government (as was likely from before the polls opened) I would expect to hear an awful lot more "but I didn't vote for Merkel" kind of comments. But I never do.

If people get fixated on their dislike of Gordon Brown, for whatever reason I think there is a risk of losing the bigger picture, surely?

I can't help feeling though that in this case the "I didn't vote for the PM" thing is worse than usual.
I remember at the last election it being very obvious that Blair would be standing down at some point and anyone who claims to be surprised that Brown took over is being dishonest. In fact I remember there were lots of people who only voted Labour because they new Blair wouldn't last as PM very long.

I think the problem is people saying 'I voted for X for PM'. No you didn't, you voted for a candidate standing for a party in your local constituency.

Most certainly that is true, people do vote for an MP locally, however, like it or not, if Brown is still there come election time it will be very much Brown v Cameron, and the idea of me ever voting for Brown is ludicros(sp?).
.
Brown seems to have wanted the job of PM for a long time and suspect he has been working out how to get it just as long. What I don't think he ever thought about was whether he could do it or had the leadership qualities need. He certainly had the personallity to be a chancellor, somewhat dull and plodding.

It seems to me that the Tories are more than happy to have public attention all focussed on Brown...because that distracts people from thinking about the actual mechanism of how a PM comes about and is able to stay in position in our present constitution. They don't want constitutional change in the cosy club...any more than Labour does because that would give more power to the voter and less to MPs.

Personally I'm bored with the whole, 'Brown's an idiot thing'. If people are serious about dealing with the present situation they should be concentrating on the constitutional structure itself.

By all means carry on though SS with just slagging off Brown. The more people who think like you, the more the Tories will be luvving it...because nothing will actually change in terms of too much power residing with MPs. It's the MPs in the present system who end up deciding whether or not there is a general election outside of the 5 year rule thing. The ordinary voter just gets to moan to their friends and neighbours, on phone-in programmes or post complaints on internet message boards.

I'm not convinced that Brown is completely incompetent at presenting an image. Rather, is designed to appeal to people who talk about valuing realism, practicality, substance over style. I suppose that's sort of ironic, or maybe just weird.

Regarding the Lib Dems never being able to get into power: the political system is not completely stable. Big switches have happened before, and no doubt will happen again. Who would have thought a hundred years ago that the Labour party could ever possibly form a government? If the Lib Dems are going to change their fortunes, then the time is soon and they need to be ready to make their move.

I can't see the Lib Dems ever getting anywhere. They appear to me to have sold their souls, despite their talk of wanting PR, for a little itsy bitsy bit of power via FPTP. To me they are just terminal fence sitters. If they had been making much more fierce and strong arguments for constitutional reform I'd have more time for them. They'll never be ready to make a move.

My theory to politics is that it's mostly about "Credible opposition" ...

1992 ... thirteen years of Tory rule, the people wanted a change (house prices were crashing, I believe it was our last recession) but Kinnock leading Labour wasn't credible. They stuck with Major.

1997 ... I've felt that this was probably the strongest period of the 18-year Tory rule (low inflation, low unemployment, house prices just beginning to rise) ... but the country wanted a change and TB and New Labour were credible.

2001 ... William Hague ... thoroughly uncredible ... stick with TB

2005 ... time to get rid of Tony after the Iraq debacle ... where's the credible opposition? There isn't one ... Tories are led by Michael Howard.

2009-10 ... the people are definitely ready for change ... but is the opposition credible? DC makes the right noises but have all his MPs shot themselves in the foot in the expenses row.

They just showed David Milliband doing a quick interview on way to work about the European Election results and he didn't look a happy bunny, and he didn't try to hide it either.
The potential new leader of Labour perhaps realises the party he might lead might be leading it in the wilderness where so many parties have been before.