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

I think their legacy will be the destruction of the political system in this country.

Coming to power on a pledge of transparency they have lied cheated and filled their pockets to such an extent that nobody has any respect left for politicians and the political process. Turnout declines at each election, and total disregard for the wishes of the populace have been taken to a new low. (Referenduum anyone ?)

They have taken the politics of Bill Clinton to its obvious conclusion and made politics into a popularity contest, nowadays policies don't matter, its all about how you appear on television. That Cameron can declare himself "the heir to Blair" with out being drenched in spit and ridicule is beyond my comprhension, but nowadays nobody cares.

We, the public got what we asked for... the same, with what sounded like sugar coating if you did not listen or look too hard.
Just as tasteless. Only fools or those intoxicated by their own importance would take the task on now given, the mess we are in.

In truth,they do not run the UK PLC.

What did happen to the little boy who mentioned that the King was naked?

Well an obvious legacy in the short term will be to deliver a Cameron government.

Don't be deceived by the arse-faced one. If you thought New Labour were bad...you ain't seen nothing yet. Granted Labour have been (largely) Thatcherites - but at very least they've been tempered by a vestige of social conscience. The tragedy is that this is incompatible with Thatcherite economics, so they were always on to a loser. (Thatcher's great legacy? No political party can now base its fiscal policy on increased taxation)

One of New Labour's greatest disappointments has been their sheer incompetence - both on social/economic issues and trivia like Iraq. (as a friend put it: 'This must be the first time a country's gone to war by accident'. My theory is that Blair has engaged in *massive* cognitive dissonance to convince himself that he wanted ar in the first place).

Now...on the competence issue...Cameron seems to have had an easy ride so far. But c'moooon...do they really exude an air of knowing what they're doing?

Christopher:
>>Labour's movement toward better support for mental health issues can be personified by their poster boy for having a breakdown and bouncing back - Alistair Campbell. He has his uses.

I should have sympathy, god knows...but every time he pops up in a Mental Health context, I can't help thinking, 'Aren't you the guy who hounded David Kelly to his death?'

<>

I think that's a *trifle* overstated.

I got this from Christopher, but it's worth sharing here. (WARNING: Contains strong language)

http://www.andybarefoot.com/politics/tucker.php

<>


Now Gordon Brown is contemplating a referendum on the voting system in the UK

Referendums (and I shall kick anyone who insists they're 'referenda') are tricky blighters in a parliamentary democracy in which we elect others to govern on our behalf. Do we wan't a say on *every* issue? That would be a full-time job.

It's argued that they should be used in cases of significant constitutional change - voting systems, EU treaties and the like. I'd add s second criterion: that they are only necessary on issues which are genuinely politically neutral, so that a parliamentary majority group is unable to come to a decision - akin to a constitutionally important free vote.

Of recent years, the Tories have used Labour's ducking of an EU referendum as a stick to beat them with. But do we *really* think they would dissent from the new EU treaty?

We should be really careful of referenda, though. They risk putting us at the mercy of special interest groups. (As do parliamentary lobbyists - but in a different way)

You'll kick yourself in a minute.

<>

<(and I shall kick anyone who insists they're 'referenda')>

It's all about getting ba on seats.

Sorry, McKay, I think those comments are just weird.

"they have lied cheated and filled their pockets to such an extent that nobody has any respect left for politicians and the political process".

What examples are there of this? There's the Expenses scandal, but that's the fault of both main parties. Under the last Tory administration we had 'Cash for Questions' and 'Back to Basics'. I don't think that Labour have even come close in terms of sleaze and hypocrisy. The closest we've come is Peers-for-hire, but it's difficult to see how that can be blamed directly on Blair or Brown.

Turnout has declined, but it's odd to blame that on a single party. If Labour have been so terrible, why haven't people flocked to the alternatives? Although it's generally true that Governments lose elections rather than Oppositions winning them, why not blame the Tories for failing to offer a credible alternative for so long? I suspect that if it looks like a close election, turnout will be up.

Labour's PR obsession did not come out of nowhere, but was a response to losing the 1992 general election. This was at least partly as a result of poor PR, and of the vast overt print media bias in favour of the Tories. Labour didn't invent spin. Thatcher was at it, Major was at it. Labour just realised that they had to be better at it than the Tories. And it's not just the political parties to blame. People complained about Blair being all spin and no substance, and then complain about Brown's lack of style and charisma.

The New Labour legacy in my view will be of important, but limited achievement, blighted by Iraq internationally, a failure to address inequality domestically, and disastrous PFI policies. Overall a massive, massive opportunity missed. But let's not pretend for one moment that the Tories would be any better. Labour's problems are the result of being too much like them....

As long as you do your sa. *ha*

If you can find them, check out the fax exchanges between Campbell and the BBC over Gilligan. They were linked on the BBC News site, but I can't find them now. It was quite a searing read.

>> I don't think that Labour have even come close in terms of sleaze and hypocrisy <<



You surely can't be serious?

RF

Just a quick post:

Ed - "They (referenda) risk putting us at the mercy of special interest groups"

What, like the parties you mean? You do know that there are more people in the Scouting
Movement than all of the parties combined?

And that could also be seen as a legacy of the last 12 years - people are so disgusted by politicians - all of them - that they've switched off. So many people are totally uninterested because there is no connection between them and Westminster. At least referenda would serve to re-engage ordinary people in the political process and demonstrate that voting can actually change things.

I think one reason for the fall in turnouts of late is the lack of difference between the main parties. Nice 'n' nasty versions of the same idea. Who manages stuff best won't inspire anyone to vote.

Bit of leadership might.

>>Ed - "They (referenda) risk putting us at the mercy of special interest groups"

swl:
What, like the parties you mean? You do know that there are more people in the Scouting
Movement than all of the parties combined?

Oh, Parliamentary Democracy has its own risks. But the problem with holding a referendum on an issue about which people don't really care can easily be hijacked by a strident minority.

Now - in reality referendums normally have a high pass criterian (say two thirds) - and they're hardly used at present - I'm simply cautioning against them as a panacea. Rundon't walk to the {eter Cook film, 'Bedazzled'.

>>You do know that there are more people in the Scouting
Movement than all of the parties combined?

And the National Trust tops them all. 'What do we want?' 'More scones!'

The expenses angle is a bit of a red herring, not just because the Tories were just as complicit, in some cases brazenly (duck houses, moats, etc) but because it's only the first time they were caught - shopped to the Telegraph by someone outraged at the lack of adequate equipment for our armed forces (a far greater outrage, but again, nothing new).

It is not particularly reasonable to assume that similar outrages were not part and parcel of parliamentary life and priviledge long before New Labour came to power, we just didn't hear about them.

Iraq and Afghanistan were both backed by the Conservatives. I can quite easily imagine IDS being as lickspittle to Bush as Blair was.

Adrian Mole pretty well sums up my attitude to Labour now.

I do have to say when my husband was made redundant in 2002 a *massive* safety net opened out to save us. So I can forgive Tony and Gord quite a lot for that. If it had happened five years previously we would have lost everything.

But I can't forgive them for lying to us before taking us to war, and (once again building on Thatch's foundations) progressively undermining local government.*

And the expenses scandal is relevant, because Labour MPs were among those who showed that they have *absolutely no concept* of how most people in this country have to live their lives. I cannot *believe* that it happened under a Labour government. Tony and Gord allowed it and that's disgraceful.

And frankly the constant prannying around with education and health has been hugely stressful. I'm voting for the party that says they'll be leaving them alone for a bit.**

I'll give them credit for changing attitudes to sexuality. Other people have expressed that more eloquently than I, though.

Mol

*Hence the potholes. Everything you hate about what local government can't afford to do properly, remember, all the money comes from Gord. What you pay in Council tax probably doesn't even cover the cost of emptying your bin.

** Unless there's a party brave enough to say it will introduce a 35 hour week, 47 weeks of the year contract for teachers.

have we forgotten the joke of the decade

big john 2 jags presscott

the bus driver running the country

punching out the egg thrower

I am serious, and don't call me shirley.