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

Okay, maybe I exagerate a little. I wrote that just after our Dear Leader had lost a vote at his party conference, whereby the labour party memebers had rejected his proposals for PFI. As an ex-civil servant, I had first hand experience of PFI failures, and can understand why the general public, the people who work in the public sector, and the people who use public services don't like PFI. IMHO, the only people who like PFI are the service providers, who provide worse services, for more money. So what was Tony's response? Sod the wishes of the party, I know best, so we are going to do it anyway. Totalitarian, maybe not, undemocratic, quite possibly!

Undemocratic? I doubt it. It's what Parliment decides that determines what happens. I the majority of the Houses of Parliment are in agreement, then it happens. No other organisation matters.

The Labour Party, The Civil Service, The Unions and Public Sector Workers play no part in Government, as much as they would like to think they do at times, other than through the Ballot Box. The PM has no Democratic,Constitutional or Legal requirment to take a blind bit of notice of what any off them say as a group.

Stuart

PS I never thought I would live to see the day when I defended the actions of a Labour Prime Minster.

PS I am undecided about PFI. I can see the advantages, but I can also see the pitfalls. Thats why we elect MPs; to make these complicated decisions for us.

Blair ignores Parliament and public opinion frequently, not because he is a strong leader but because he is a coward. He is afraid of anything "bigger" than he is, whether it be America, Big Business, the European Union. You name it, he bows his head if it snarls at him.

A PM ignores the will of Parliament at his peril. If he did he wouldn’t be PM for very long. As for public opinion, that is so subjective and volatile as to be only and use as a very rough guide. The only place to test and act on public opinion is at the ballot box.

As for America and Big Business, pragmatisim springs to mind. As for the European Union, its called honouring your treaties, no matter how distasteful it may appear.

Stuart

A PM ignores the will of Parliament at his peril. If he did he wouldn’t be PM for very long. As for public opinion, that is so subjective and volatile as to be only and use as a very rough guide. The only place to test and act on public opinion is at the ballot box.

As for America and Big Business, pragmatisim springs to mind. As for the European Union, its called honouring your treaties, no matter how distasteful it may appear.

Stuart

I agree with the principle that democratic governments have to make unpopular decisions and I agree with the the role of Parliament as arbitrator. My gripe with the current administration is that it avoids dissent by ignoring it. I don't know the constitution of the Labour party and how binding the vote at the conference about PFI was. But what's the point of having a vote if you can just ignore a result you don't like.

I suspect if the vote had gone their way, there would be a nice little press conference about how he has a mandate from the party. And how quickly was Parliament recalled after the death of the Queen Mother compared with how long it has taken to recall Parliament to discuss the impending(?) conflict with Iraq. And finally, the upcoming Communications Bill, where Tony has threatened to "reform" the Lords, if they don't pass it. What's the point in having democratic institutions if you can ignore, bypass, and bully them so you get your way.

RE:- PS Unfortunately, our MP's are not full time MP's. How many of them also have part time jobs with other companies. Although obviously MP's would not allow any paid work to interfere with with their representing the best interests of their constituents in Parliament.

"A PM ignores the will of Parliament at his peril. If he did he wouldn’t be PM for very long." - That's the theory, but I think Tony Blair's record has effectively disproved it.

I largely agree with MoCT, except that the House of Lords is not a democratically elected body.

Some time ago, there was a power-struggle within the British Labour Party between the Executive Committee and the Conference, which the EC won by changing the rules so that it can now over-rule Conference decisions. The result is that the Executive can now do more or less what it wants. Ultimately, the party can elect a new leader, but that may not be as easy as it sounds. I'm not familiar with the rules, but I suspect the EC has the last word here too. If so, as long as the EC supports the PM, there's nothing the party can do to change the PM's decisions. MPs can vote against government motions, which to some extent limits what the PM can do, but most of them seem unwilling to do this except in extremis, (e.g. in response to a large mailbag!), and the PM can always, by a process called de-selection, control who becomes a candidate in the next election. He did this a couple of times before the last election.

The main problem with a democratic system under the first past the post rule is that, in practice, we have to choose between the candidates provided for us by the main parties. A vote for a minor party is effectively wasted. This is aggravated & sustained by the fact that the media are controlled by a handful of individuals who are either big businessmen or, in the case of the BBC, put in place by the government.

I invite anyone who knows better to supply corrections and/or additions to the above, or to give an account of how "democracy" works in the US (or is this in another thread of this medusa?).

D.

"A PM ignores the will of Parliament at his peril. If he did he wouldn’t be PM for very long." - That's the theory, but I think Tony Blair's record has effectively disproved it.

Where and when? The reason that Tony Blair can appear to do as he wishes is that he has such a large majority in Parliament.

Your statement that the BBC was set up by the Government is true. However it should be mentioned that the BBC is one of the most politically independent media in the UK. It has a constitution that guarantees it.

"I invite anyone who knows better to supply corrections and/or additions to the above, or to give an account of how "democracy" works in the US (or is this in another thread of this medusa?)."

There is an article on the US system at A784631. As for democracy, it is not perfect, it is a flawed system amd has its anomalies and problems. But to quote Sir Winston Churchill:

"Democracy is the worst form of Government there is, with the exception of everything else that has been tried before".

Stuart

Stuart (Posting 48) asks "Where and when? The reason that Tony Blair can appear to do as he wishes is that he has such a large majority in Parliament."

The following is from the Morning Star yesterday, 2002 October 19:

"Tony Blair faced a new anti-war challenge from backbench Labour MPs yesterday with the tabling of a Commons motion demanding a vote on his war policy as soon a possible. Signatories include former minister Glenda Jackson and London mayoral hopeful Tony Banks. So far, the government has denied MPs the chance to express a clear opinion on the war."

If the PM is so sure of his majority, why won't he allow a proper discussion followed by a vote?

The government is also ignoring the wishes of the Parliamentary Labour party by procrastinating over the ban on hunting with hounds that has been party policy since the election before last.

There is also an unexplicable delay over the repeal of the notorious "Section 28" that discriminates against gay couples.

With the government's large majority, there cannot be a better time to implement policies such as these that are sure to be opposed by the Conservatives. So why the delay?

Of course, if any party leader considers a vote important, he will normally set a "three line whip" which few of his MPs will ignore.

"..the BBC is one of the most politically independent media in the UK. It has a constitution that guarantees it."

True, it is a great institution, but it is not perfect. (As you say, nothing is.) The BBC is required to be impartial, but who decides where the balance lies? Not only are the Director General and Chairman of the Board of Governors selected by the government but the BBC is also dependent on parliament for its funds. The official BBC policy is to reflect public opinion. A BBC spokesperson stated a few years ago that, if they received equal numbers of letters pointing each way, then they thought they had got it about right. Since public opinion is influenced by the media, largely the tabloids and television, the BBC is thus largely reflecting their own views and those of the media moguls. Those in their audience capable of original thought, since they mostly rely on the aforementioned sources for news, have only a small effect on the overall balance.

Since you will probably ask for some evidence, here is one example (I have more):

The BBC2 program "Correspondent - The Karen", broadcast on 2002 07 28, reported on a group of Americans helping a small population of Christians in Burma who are under attack from the Buddhist Burmese government. The Christians, and their American helpers, were the goodies, the Burmese government the baddies in this report, which is perhaps as it should be. Contrast this, however, with the view we get from our media of the Irishmen found to be helping the FARC in Colombia. Here we also have a small population under attack from a government with poor civil rights record and a small group of foreign nationals helping them. In this case, however, it is invariably the Colombian government that are portrayed as the goodies, the FARC and their helpers being the baddies. Is this impartial reporting? I don't think so. Is there any connection with the fact that the US supports the Colombian government or that the Burmese rebels are Christians? Yes and yes again.

"Democracy is the worst form of Government there is, with the exception of everything else that has been tried before".

May I rephrase that?: "Communist is the worst form of Government there is, with the exception of everything else that has been tried before". It works just as well, doesn't it? (Better, I think.)

Dryopithecus

"Contrast this, however, with the view we get from our media of the Irishmen found to be helping the FARC in Colombia"

You're doing your own bit of propaganda there . Those "Irishmen", as you put it, are, I believe, the IRA. Why "Irishmen" and not "IRA", unless you wanted to quash unpleasant opinions of those helping FARC.

Not too hard to be a propagandist .

Dryopithecus,

re post 48, I didn't see the Correspondent programme you mentioned so had to make do with the summary on the bbc news website. But I can see a huge fundamental difference between the two. The US soldiers in Burma appear to be fighting because they feel this is the good fight. It doesn't appear that they are benifitting in any other way. (one could make an observation about war junkies, but as I said I didn't see the programme and am unable to comment further).

Compare this with the IRA members in Columbia, who were teaching FARC (who are partially financed from Columbia's drug trade, and kidnapping) how to build "barrack busting" mortars in what appears to be an exchange for either money, weapons, or drugs to sustain a terrorist campaign back in Ireland, despite the IRA having signed up to the peace process.

But then again, Freedom fighter or Terrorist, it just depends on your point of view. Just for the record, I condemn both thses examples as terrorists.

I meant post 49

Zagreb (post 50) "You're doing your own bit of propaganda there . Those "Irishmen", as you put it, are, I believe, the IRA. Why "Irishmen" and not "IRA", unless you wanted to quash unpleasant opinions of those helping FARC."

I was being a little mischievous there, I admit. My response is:

i) There no reliable evidence that the Irishmen were training FARC guerrillas in terrorist methods.

ii) The IRA has denied any involvement with the three Irishmen. If they had been members of the IRA (which seems likely) this does not prove they were in Colombia on IRA business. To assume they and the IRA are lying is a typical "give a dog a bad name & hang him" attitude. The record of the IRA (& Al Qa'eda also, incidentally) is one of total honesty. You may call them vicious thugs, if you like, but there is no evidence that they have ever lied.

iii) The FARC may not be lily-white, but they are a pale shade of grey compared with the Colombian government. Even if the IRA were shown to be offering the FARC material help in their internal struggle, I would call this a good cause considering the appalling record of the Colombian government.

iv) The chance to link the IRA to the FARC is a "double whammy" and allows the media to present both the IRA and the FARC in a bad light.

v) We have to rely on the BBC's report for our knowledge of the Karen and of the intentions of the Americans helping them. The impression given by the report was that the US soldiers were there mainly to provide medical aid, but is this the whole story? I'm not accusing the BBC of lying, but we were not given the Burmese government's view of the situation, so we don't have the whole truth. In this respect, I consider the report to have been biassed. I e-mailed them with this accusation soon after transmission, but their only reply was a computer-generated acknowledgment.

Master of Complete Tosh (post 51)
"The US soldiers in Burma appear to be fighting because they feel this is the good fight. It doesn't appear that they are benefitting in any other way." See point v above. One could make the accusation that the Americans were there to help the Karen overthrow a government the US doesn't like. It is well known that the Nicaraguan "contra rebels" were supported and funded by the US, but I have no evidence that this is the case in Burma also.

" .. the IRA members in Columbia .. were teaching FARC .. in what appears to be an exchange for either money, weapons, or drugs to sustain a terrorist campaign back in Ireland, despite the IRA having signed up to the peace process." See point ii above. That may be the impression the BBC wish to convey, (it certainly seems to be the impression they have conveyed), but do you know of any evidence that the IRA received any benefit from this operation?

Dryopithecus

Re. my point iv) "The chance to link the IRA to the FARC is a 'double whammy' and allows the media to present both the IRA and the FARC in a bad light." The real double whammy is that it gives the media a chance to link Sinn Fein with this story & present them in a bad light also.
Dryopithecus

For "The IRA has denied any involvement with the three Irishmen." please read "The IRA has denied any involvement with the activities of these three men in Colombia." Sorry, folks, I thought I'd proof-read it, but obviously not well enough!
D.

Dry,

so you think the BBC is biased and taking the government line in saying the three Irishmen are linked to the IRA. But, you you happy to take a statement from the IRA denying all involvement with the three men at face value. Despite the fact that the IRA has a vested interest in disavowing all knowledge of the men (Post 11/9 the US has suddenly realised that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend and the IRA appear to be helping one of the major parties involved in the supply of drugs).

MoCT: I don't want to be too hard on the BBC - I have already said it is a great institution - but it is not perfect (what is?)

Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea to compare these two stories as there are too many differences between them.

In the case of the report on the Karen, my complaint is that we were not given the Burmese government's view. I can't say whether the US soldiers were helping a just cause or whether this was an operation backed by the US purely to destabilise a government that won't play ball with international big-business interests, since I only have one side of the story. In some cases (e.g. Palestine), a one-sided report can be balanced by other reports but, in this case, since reports of the Burmese government's view are rare or non-existent, Correspondent has left us with a one-sided view.

In the case of the FARC in Colombia, we are frequently reminded that the FARC are involved in the drug trade and in kidnapping but we are rarely reminded that the Colombian government is a fascist regime which abuses human rights, which is the reason for the FARC's existence.

Whether or not the FARC is aided by Irishmen, by ex-IRA members or by the IRA itself is irrelevant. However, what I said is true: The IRA has denied involvement with the activities of the three Irishmen's activities in Colombia and IRA leaders don't lie. This isn't their style: they have always been proud to claim responsibility for their actions. Most "right minded people" won't like hearing this, but there is much evidence to back it up and there is no evidence to the contrary.

If a "right-minded" person is someone who advocates bombing innocent Korean, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Libyan, Serbian, Afghani and Iraqi people (did I miss any?), supporting fascist governments and the destabilision or overthrow of socialist ones, I am glad not to be included in that category. Incidentally, the US is the only government to have used a nuclear weapon in anger and they dropped all sorts of nasties including napalm and chemical weapons (Agent Orange) in Vietnam, as well as burning Vietnamese peasants in their own huts.

When the US president says "If you are not with us, you are against us." he is really saying "If you don't help us, it will be the worse for you."

If we (Britain) support him, then we are guilty, too.

D.

"In the case of the report on the Karen, my complaint is that we were not given the Burmese government's view. I can't say whether the US soldiers were helping a just cause or whether this was an operation backed by the US purely to destabilise a government that won't play ball with international big-business interests, since I only have one side of the story. In some cases (e.g. Palestine), a one-sided report can be balanced by other reports but, in this case, since reports of the Burmese government's view are rare or non-existent, Correspondent has left us with a one-sided view."

As far as I know, Burma and it's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council are the type of hard-right junta the US is usually accused of propping up. As far as I know, they don't refuse to "play ball" with big business (why would they? - their only ideology seems to be power and they have no links to anti-US governments that I know of). Certainly, there has been scant US support for the pro-democracy movement in that country.

"so you think the BBC is biased and taking the government line in saying the three Irishmen are linked to the IRA. But, you you happy to take a statement from the IRA denying all involvement with the three men at face value. Despite the fact that the IRA has a vested interest in disavowing all knowledge of the men (Post 11/9 the US has suddenly realised that my enemy's enemy is not necessarily my friend and the IRA appear to be helping one of the major parties involved in the supply of drugs)."

That and the fact that, with it's ceasefire still in place, the IRA would be loathe to admit to any activities supporting terrorists (what FARC are, whether the Colombian government are nazi's or not) in South America. It would be politically sensible for them to deny any such links.

Zagreb: "Burma and it's ruling State Law and Order Restoration Council are the type of hard-right junta the US is usually accused of propping up."

OK - I'll take your word for it! The fact remains that the BBC did not give us enough data to make our own minds up. (I'd like to know - seriously - where you get your data from.)

"with it's ceasefire still in place, the IRA would be loathe to admit to any activities supporting terrorists..."

I think I have heard enough about the IRA to know they don't lie, despite what the media would like us to believe. As I said, it's not their style.

Those of us with the facility of logical reason should not allow our feelings to block any line of thought that leads to an uncomfortable conclusion.

Before you point out that the IRA may revert to terrorism, if things don't go according to plan, I would like to say that I realise this to be true. If the UK government and the Unionists renege on their promises, the Good Friday agreement will be dead and the situation will naturally revert to its previous state. None of the parties trusts any of the others, so no-one can blame them for feeling the need to have something to fall back on. This is why it is unreasonable and unproductive to ask either side to disband or hand over their arms until & unless every such move is seen to be matched by the other parties. This is the plan according to the Good Friday agreement, which the Unionists and their friends in the UK government have flouted, not only by failing to match the IRA's decommissioning of arms with any comparable decommissioning of the arms of the Protestant paramilitaries, but then by blaming Sinn Féin for the continued violence, most of which can be laid at the doors of Protestant community, Republican dissidents being responsible for the remainder. OK, some IRA members may be blamed for some violent acts, but the IRA is not a unified force to the extent that the British army is, and even British soldiers flout the rules some of the time. Sinn Féin has publicly condemned all violence and has asked the Catholics not to respond to Protestant attacks, which is the best they (Sinn Féin) can do.

Dryopithecus