BS: Election Debates UK

Subject: BS: Election Debates UK
From: The Smiler
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 01:36 PM

Well for me Clegg won hands down. I liked his fresh honest approach and guess what I kind of trust him. This will be the first time I have ever voted Lib Dem.

Cameron looked a right smarmy and not sure if I could trust him anymore than Brown.

Brown is just a lying toad. He has had enough time to put things right.

What is making me smile, is how the Scottish & Welsh parties are green with envy. That will teach you to take the English money and provide freebies that we do not get in England.

Discuss, but please do not flame individual mudcatters. Each one of us is entitled to our opinion.

If you think that one party is better than the other, then please explain why and please don't don't come the I vote for this party becuase my Dad or Mom did or becuase it's handed down. Sound reasoning please. Can we also not blame Margaret Thatcher for all the ills of this country sour grapes approach.

As per Joe (I think) BNP subjects are banned. Guest posting is also not allowed.

When the bell goes, come out fighting but keep it clean. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: s&r
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 02:48 PM

The non-event of the century. Anything new? Will it change anything? And why not have a compere with a bit of clout like a Dimbleby or a Paxman.

The rules which forbade audience reaction resulted in a pastiche of silent movies.

I feel mytrusting naivety moving towards jaundiced cynicism.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Peter the Squeezer
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:15 PM

Clegg came over best by far - but he's got nothing to lose.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: The Smiler
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:27 PM

To True, but it is refreshing for once.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 03:27 PM

Worst Kraftwerk gig I've ever seen ....

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:18 PM

Stilted, contrived, and virtually useless to anyone with an analytical turn of mind.

Brown came over as the bumbling idiot, repeating over and over on just about every subject "We're working on that". Wake up Mr Bean! You've had thirteen years to work on it, and if you ain't sorted it by now, another five years won't cut it.

Cameron was, to a Tory like me, a bit disappointing. Strong at the start and finish, but lost it a bit in the middle. He still wiped the floor with Brown, but failed to put Clegg in his place.

Clegg won hands down on style, and deserves credit for that, but on substance he was much less credible. With nothing to lose, because he can't actually win the election, he made a multitude of populist pledges he knows he won't have to keep, which is just as well given that he wouldn't have the money for any of them.

I came to the conclusion that the best result for the nation would be a LibDem official opposition to a Tory government.

Now, before the bricks start flying I'll give my reasons, which are IMO cogent and compelling.

Five years in opposition would give the LibDems the experience of practical government which, at the moment, they lack, and give the voting public the chance to see how they perform. This would mean that at the next election they would have the skills and experience to command the respect of voters who have hitherto regarded them as irrelevant.

The mere thought that the next election would mean trying to overcome a now fully qualified new kid on the block, would militate aginst any possible excesses on the part of the Tories.

New labour are now largely irrelevant, and until they shift a long way back toward their proper, and historical, place on the political spectrum, should remain so.

It will do them considerable good to be sidelined for a while.

OK, I know what to expect, and from whom, so go ahead. Let Fly!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 16 Apr 10 - 07:42 PM

For ages it's been nagging at me as to who it is that David Cameron looks like - then a letter in today's paper reminded me - Iggle Piggle from the TV children's show In the Night Garden

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:36 AM

I should have known a reasoned, on topic, response would not be forthcoming.

But I hadn't expected such an inane from one I always considered one of Mudcat's more erudite and sensible debaters.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: s&r
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:22 AM

I find it bizarre that the government of the country, for a long time governed by a football team approach where you support a club right or wrong, has now become a sixth form debating society.

I would like to see a parliament where party affiliations were banned, and where politicians were paid no more than they had earned in the real world.

Dennis Skinner for president - the mos honest man in British politics.

Stu

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:22 AM

Regrettably I was folking, so missed the debate. The general consensus seems to be that the Lib-Dems did do well, and some of their policies are very attractive. I like the mansion tax, but I don't see how they are going to close tax loopholes much as I would agree with doing so.

The conservatives focus on tax bribes they do not know how to pay for, coupled with the totally extraordinary manifesto focus on the concept that people should do, for nothing, jobs that the government should be doing and paying for out of tax money is simply cloud-cuckoo stuff. Do they would really think it would fix the economy if everyone were to work for nothing (apart from their banker mates)? JK Rowling's feisty piece about them in the Times tells it (for my money) like it is.

However, the reported genuine glowering hatred by Brown of Cameron will I think play well - coupled with the spoof "Step outside, Posh Boy" teeshirt.

The big news however is that the latest polls appear to have the Lib Dems ahead of Labour and the Conservatives within reach. If that holds so that the "wasted vote" argument is defeated, a breakthrough might happen for them. They are already threatening the Licensing Act. If they would commit to the Robin Hood Tax, I think they might do it. I do however have a few other policies I'd like to see: -

Reverse "Tesco Law" and ban Licensed Conveyancers and Will Writers - every time I see a file that one of those cheapskates has been near it contains at least one disaster for the client.

Nationalise Public transport - and restore it so that you can use public transport to go fromwhere you are to where you want to be when you want to go.

Ban the use of Oyster cards for spying on people.

Free (er, that's "free") NHS dentistry, at least for those under 13 and over 60 and all on benefits.

Benefits should reach reasonable subsistence level - and 100% of mortgage payments for houses valued at up to £200,000 (South East prices - it could be linked to Council tax bands to reduce regional bias). Rather than means testing benefits, make them taxable.

Cancel ID cards.

Raise the National Speed limit.

Re-introduce the "rolling age" for classic car car tax exemption.

Rreframe internet "common carrier" exemption - if a "service provider" (the wide EU definition) wnats exemption in respect of otherwise actionable or criminal material he should have to identify the sender.

The power of arrest needs sorting out (again) so that it balances necessary enforcement with the individual liberty that is being lost.

Undo the larger part of the "Woolf reforms" - the primary objective of court proceedings of all kinds should be justice.

Re-think legal aid. Civil legal aid should only be available where a prudent private funder would fund. Contingency fees should be banned. The net benefit of legal aid (civil or criminal) should be taxable. Maybe there should be a national law service, a bit like a national health service, with those who want to go private being able to.

NHS service to holders of private health insurance should be charged to the insurers.


Getting a bit too het-up here, time for my afternoon nap!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Tug the Cox
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 10:30 AM

Now now, Don. Don't let's lose our sense of humour.They're all puppets anyway!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 11:32 AM

Don:

5 years in a different part of opposition would give the LDs no more practical experience of anything than they have now.

The idea that the conservatives (or any other party) would feel constrained by an opposition is so novel as to be incredible - unless they risked losing a vote of confidence.   

The Brown/Darling axis has done incredibly well in the face of an economic crisis caused by the hangover of conservative get-rich-quick policies. Its vulnerability lies in other areas - but on all of which the conservatives are still the party of injustice. Cameron is only a thin-lipped smile on the face of Combat 13-20.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:05 PM

And the gap between poorest and richest has widenened under New Labour more than it ever did under the Tories.

Brown has actually robbed the poor and rewarded the rich, and the policies in place which deregulated the banking industry, plunged the whole country into a mounting debt spiral, and allowed the investment bankers to bring the Western world close to disaster, had nothing whatever to do with the Tories.

It was a Blair/Brown initiative start to finish.

In 1997, under the Tory government of John Major, a working man on my income at the time had trouble getting a bank account, and no hope whatever of a loan, or a credit card.

By 2003, I had at least five letters each day begging me to borrow money, and I had three credit cards.

In 97, Blair took over a treasury loaded with money, an inflation rate of under three percent, and mortgage rates below five percent.

Brown frittered all that away, as well as all the pension money he stole from working people, on futile tinkering around the edges of this country's problems.

In terms of immigration, New Labour couldn't even organise a system which would alert them to the release of foreign criminals, held in our prisons, and due for deportation at end of sentence.

They disappeared, and are still operating freely in the UK.

So how can we trust them to control immigration where they don't actually have the subjects in custody?

In respect of your suggested changes, I would agree with most of them, especially nationalised public transport.

Where we differ is that I am not snorting whatever it is that enables you to believe you'll get any of it from New Labour.

If you want a proper socialist "LABOUR PARTY", Brown and Co will have to be sidelined for the five years it will take to clear out the suits and restore the party it once was.

I never liked it that much but it did, long ago, just what it said on the can.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 08:18 PM

Just one more quite important point to make.

It is futile, and dishonest, to try to blame current difficulties on David Cameron and the current Tory Party.

For thirteen years, New Labour has enjoyed a majority which enabled it to do exactly what it chose, and the end results are entirely of its own manufacture.

Brown is the one who has been at, or near, the top of that party since day one, and Brown, the so-called fiscally responsible, is directly and solely to blame for the current mess.

It is doubly infuriating to hear him in the debate, responding to questions on a number of issues with "We are working on that".

He's had thirteen years to work on it, sort it, and move on. What kind of gullible half brain still thinks that he can be trusted to do so in another five years?...............<>OR FIFTY!

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Lox
Date: 17 Apr 10 - 09:43 PM

The reason to vote lib dem is that they will be pushing for electoral reform.

As things stand, they could beat both the tories and labour by a single percent each, and yet have less than 20% of the seats.

They could win the election and yet come a distant third.

I will not be held hostage by that type of blackmail any more.

To be forced to choose between two undesirables on the basis that they have stitched up power between them is not a choice I am prepared to make any more.

Under PR, we would have a coouple of greens - a few socialists - we would also have UKIP and maybe a BNP or two, but at least peoples views would be reflected in paarliament.

I will be voting Lib Dem!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 03:54 AM

Richard,

fairly petty points in the grand scheme of things, but

"Raise the National Speed limit"

"Re-introduce the "rolling age" for classic car car tax exemption"

Could you explain why?

Pete.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:47 AM

Yes, Pete.

The national speed limit is dangerous on two fronts. First it is the predominant cause of the deadly bunching you see perhaps more on the M25 than anywhere else, with a phalanx of cars across 3 lanes all doing 80 mph separated by sometimes less than one car length. Second since almost everyone breaks it unless they fear a speed camera it inculcates disrespect for the law in general - which leeches over into disrespect for sensible laws too.

Cars over 2 years old are few in number and mostly low annual mileage vehicles. The damage they do to the environment through emissions is trivial, and indeed offset by the reduction in damage through manufacture of new cars (which manufacture largely sends money out of this country to countries producing massive pollution). They do represent an innocent historical pleasure - that is why they are classic cars and represented by classic car clubs. Some (like my Volvos) actually have hugely low emissions too. The British built classics can represent a small step towards representing pride in this country and its traditions (without being a gift to you-know-who).

Don, your aguments that Blair/Brown policies were freely chosen cannot be taken seriously. "New Labour", in order to be electable, in the culture of greed actively promoted under Thatcherwasm, had to make and did make a range of promises about for example taxation, and I am sure you would support politicians keeping promises. Slowly but slowly the cultore of greed was being reduced, and although you criticise the increased rich/poor gap that was partly caused by the influx of those who stole state assets from the disintegrating Soviet Union. If you read JK Rowling's piece in the Times you will recollect that there had been a reduction in child poverty and benefits poverty, with "through the net" failures being largely caused by other hangovers from conservatives vieews and the necessity to keep the blue-rinse Daily Mail brigade under control. Darling, if you consider his history (and strive to ignore the fact that he went to Loretto, the only other pupils at which that I know have been wholly and studiedly offensive) has a good track record on reversing conservative doctrinaire evil.

Pending the possibility that the Lib-Dems actually have achieved critical mass at last, the choice is between a party the roots of which are in the protection of the poor and one whose roots are in the protection of the rich.   It should be a no-brainer and I remain baffled why with your intelligence in some things you cannot see it. Shame about the Medway Labour candidate though!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:13 AM

"Cars over 2 years old are few in number"

WTF? What planet do you live on, Richard.
Might be true in Surrey Stockbroker Country, but it's patently, demonstrably untrue in the rest of the UK.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:49 AM

I've often thought that, in this country, we tend to over-estimate the importance of the national and under-estimate the importance of the local. Hence fewer people vote in local elections than vote in national ones - and (I'm convinced) partly as a result of that successive national governments have been able to emasculate local governments.

But local issues affect our day-to-day lives as much as national ones and, in some cases, more so.

We have a Lib Dem MP where I live and he is more in touch with, and has worked harder for, this community than any MP we have ever had. This is the main reason why I will be voting Lib Dem.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:34 AM

We can all point to individuals who are exceptionally good at their jobs, and they are not restricted to any one party.

Your LibDem MP is a case in point, and I'm sure he does his absolute best for his constituents.

A recent poll, carried out in the Maidstone constituency, showed that Tory Anne Widdecombe was well respected, and considered a good constituency representative, even by the labour voters in that area.

I'm sure that Labour's Bob Marshall-Andrews was just as well thought of in his constituency. I know I rated him as one of the few honest politicians.

But all of them share one constraint, when it comes to operating in the House of Commons. They are under the cosh of the party whip system, when voting on measures.

So, while your MP may be great when conducting a meeting in the village hall of Little Dither in the Wold, in Westminster he either toes the party line on two and three line whips, or he becomes your next independent candidate, devoid of influence even if he is still elected.

And it is the party apparat which formulates policy, not the grunts who are ordered to endorse it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 09:13 AM

"""New Labour", in order to be electable, in the culture of greed actively promoted under Thatcherwasm, had to make and did make a range of promises about for example taxation, and I am sure you would support politicians keeping promises.""

What are you on today Richard?....It must be damn good stuff, but I'm not sure I want to get into something which destroys both memory, and critical faculties.

Within two years New Labour introduced some several dozen new stealth taxes.

Even Thatcher never managed to put the whole population into personal debt, and the treasury into bankruptcy. You are a lawyer, and you should be well aware that a company which had suffered this level of mismanagement would be in administration, or bankrupt.

"NEW LABOUR" was cynically remodelled by Blair/Brown, to bring it close enough to Tory ideology to capture Tory voters.

They affected a more moderate centreist position, while in reality they threw out every last principle of labour socialism. It was bad under Wilson/Callaghan, and infinitely worse under Blair/Brown.

In light of that, how can you possibly believe that they would have cared about keeping promises (in fact they never kept any).

They reduced unemployment by cooking the books.

There are no more unemployed. They are "Jobseekers", "In Retraining", "Gaining Work Experience", etc. etc.

Brown, just a few weeks ago, was making much of the fact that there were 33,000 fewer registered unemployed over a three month period.

He stopped mentioning that one, when it was pointed out that there were 54,000 fewer people in employment in the same three month period.

They tinkered with everything (at enormous expense) and solved nothing.

Five more years of totally inept, and unprincipled, New Labour under Brown is exactly what is needed to finish the job of bringing this country down to the financial level of Greece, Eire, or Iceland.

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

""It should be a no-brainer and I remain baffled why with your intelligence in some things you cannot see it. Shame about the Medway Labour candidate though!""

I guess we have different ideas about what constitutes intelligence, and for me, it isn't blindly continuing to hand your wallet to the conman who has emptied it three times in thirteen years.

Your mileage may differ.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 12:10 PM

Richard,

I have some sympathy with your views, but I don't really see why classic car owners (and I'm assuming you mean 25 year old cars rather than 2!) should be treated differently to any other car owners really. I was surprised when Ken Clarke introduced the policy originally, even though I benefited from it at the time.

I'm also not convinced by the "everyone ignores it anyway" excuse for speeding either. There's probably room for increasing some speed limits (and reducing others), but ignoring limits just because you think it's OK is a bad idea IMHO.

Anyway, like I said earlier, fairly trivial points in the grand scheme of things...

Pete

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:13 PM

Yes, 25 years.

The 70 (or, where national is 60, 60) speed limit is one of laws that is universally broken: first that shows that the law is out of touch with reality, second, it creates, as I said, disrespect for many laws.

Don, you know as well as I do that the taxes that rose were not those that had been promised not to rise.

What Thatcher did was intentionally get the nation hooked on the greed is good game. That was the progenitor of bank deregulation, and the acceptance of unwise debt flowed from both the greed and the deregulation.

That greed was what captured the stage that BLiar walked upon. Slowly Labour was edging away from that. There is no way that there will be anything other than a return to it if the conservatives return to more direct power.

I suppose if you want to get back to forelock tugging and the poor giving to the rich you can vote for it. Makes no sense (much like Cameron's budgetary plans) to me.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Crow Sister (off with the fairies)
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 01:32 PM

As a non-driver I'd like to see less emphasis on car-culture altogether. I live in a village where there are horses, cyclists, ramblers, joggers and dog walkers (not to mention the kids walking home from school without pavements) and speeding big posh motors zooming through the middle of it all on their rush to cut through from A to B (with us in the middle being neither A nor B). Otherwise I agree with RB, the focus on new cars is not anywhere as helpful to the environment as it is claimed to be, or indeed the British economy. Plus I'd rather have the dusty MG's rumbling through the village than electric blue Subaru's startling the bunny rabbits ;-)

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:05 PM

Not universally broken Richard, quite a few of us stick to the limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Acorn4
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 02:35 PM

I hope they get Anne Robinson to do the questions next time!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 04:43 PM

...a phalanx of cars across 3 lanes all doing 80 mph separated by sometimes less than one car length.

Fine the bastards for speeding, ban them for for dangerous driving, and make it much safer for the rest of us.

Nothing unrealistic about driving at a sensible and safe speed, and taking people who refuse to do that off the road.

.......................

To get back to the "debates". They aren't really about politics, they're about image. The political talk is part of the image being presented, and the purpose is to encourage viewers (and non-viewers reading the media verdict on who won) to buy the image. That's why my post about David Cameron as Iggle Piggle wasn't wholly frivolous. It refers to aspects of the image he presented to me at any rate - bland, smooth and somehow appearing out of touch - which help explain why he did so badly compared with Nick Clegg.

Anyway the effect of the beauty parade appears to be that it is now more likely the outcome of the election will be a hung parliament. This could mean the possibility of a government which had been backed by over sixty per cent of voters (unlike the more traditional pattern where maybe just over one in three of voters voted for the government that comes to power), under which people will be given the option of a referendum on whether they want a reformed voting system which will make possible a far more representative line of of political options in the future.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Tootler
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 05:03 PM

The 70 (or, where national is 60, 60) speed limit is one of laws that is universally broken: first that shows that the law is out of touch with reality, second, it creates, as I said, disrespect for many laws.

The reason the law is universally broken is that it is not enforced. When they did try to enforce it, the howls of "how dare they enforce the law on speeding" from the Daily Rant and their like caused the politicians to behave like cowardly pratts and back down, so the law is no longer enforced. The Daily Rant also has a campaign against average speed cameras because they work and motorists tend to stick to the speed limit where they are fitted. For some reason the Daily Rant seems to think that speed limits should not be enforced.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Apr 10 - 08:14 PM

When the law is universally (or largely so) objected to, enforcement is not productive. Remember Ireland, the former English colony? Tootler, are you listening?

Burton Coggles - obviously you have never driven on the M25. Or if you ahve you ahve done so with your eyes closed.

Red flags are not (in the motoring sense) needed.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Mavis Enderby
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 11:48 AM

Sigh... yes I have driven on the M25, eyes wide open, obeyed the (variable) speed limit and lived to tell the tale. Most other drivers seemed to be doing the same.

My last words on this, except to say: National speed limit introduced by Barbara Castle - Labour, Tax exemption for 25+ year old cars introduced by Kenneth Clarke - Conservative

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Gervase
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 12:22 PM

I won't hold my breath for a seismic shift in the political landscape. Opinion polls tend to do just that; canvass opinions. They rarely tie in opinions with actual voting intentions. Plenty of people, if asked, "if there was a general election tomorow, who would get your vote?" do plump for the Lib Dems. But the poll analysis shows that a lot of those who now profess to support the Lib Dems are the under 30s and women; and neither of these groups has a great record for actually voting.
Add to that the fact that Clegg has two more television debates (and he's already played his joker insofaras he can't make another remarkable debut for the non-political public) before polling day and that the party's policies are now coming in for serious criticism and scrutiny, and I think we'll see a depressingly familiar political landscape after May 6th.

Quite what stinky old cars (like my ancient Land Rover) have to do with the election debate is beyond me, however.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 02:29 PM

Why not start a thread about speed limits and such, Richard?

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: DMcG
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 03:45 PM

Nice comment from Mandelson that the current polls with all parties having very similar shares of the vote and giving the libdems only about a sixth of the vote would give them "disproportionate" power.
One of us needs to by a dictionary. Unless he means disportionately few seats. Of course

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Apr 10 - 04:06 PM

The Lord Mandelson moves in mysterious ways.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Backwoodsman
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:22 AM

Never been that near to him. Nor would I want to be (**shudder**). :-) :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Gervase
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:22 AM

To get back to the election debate and the curious incident of the dog in the night-time, I found it interesting that Cameron failed to bang on about the central plank of his own party's manifesto; the idea of 'Big Society'.

Perhaps his reticence is undertandable when one actually looks at the policy. For all its fine words, you have to remember that it comes from a party which did more than any other to centralise government and emasculate local decision-making by removing power from parish and district councils and centralising everything on Westminster.

And the premise would seem to me to be one of abrogating responsibility. As I see it, the Conservatives want to break up public services and hand them over to individuals, charities and private enterprise. Does anyone honestly imagine that a poorly-performing school in an impoverished area is going to be galvanised by parent power or by a local charity or a private company?
Encouraging people to take on the delivery of local services is fine in an area where you have an involved middle class and people with entrepreneurial experience, but what about those areas where arguably such things are most needed? As such, the 'big society' plan would merely reinforce difference and inequality.

What's more, to set up a host of small organisations, each responsible for a small patch, would surely massively increase bureaucracy and hugely duplicate an enormous number of administrative areas away from the 'sharp end'.

You would also have the problem of accountability. Who will ensure that all these little satrapies and fiefdoms are run honestly and fairly? The scope for corruption is pretty huge, to be honest.
The overall impression is one of a Thatcherite philosophy rigged out in new clothes – but with the old notion of ordinary people left to sink or swim depending on where they have the good fortune to live. The same old ideology persists – that state intervention is intrinsically bad.

Perhaps that's why Cameron has rather reined back on the 'Big Society' notion and didn't mention it in the television debate. It's not a new political philosophy; it's an old one that was tried and found sorely wanting in the 1980s.

To try to distance themselves from the policies which led to more than three million unemployed and which really did threaten a 'broken society', the Tories have come up with some wonderful waffle. This is from the Conservative manifesto. Read it, and then try to imagine it actually working. It really is from cloud-cuckoo land:

Our ambition is for every adult in the country to be a member of an active neighbourhood group. We will stimulate the creation and
development of neighbourhood groups, which can take action to improve their local area. We will use Cabinet Office budgets to fund the training of independent community organisers to help people establish and run neighbourhood groups, and provide neighbourhood grants to the UK's poorest areas to ensure they play a leading role in the rebuilding of civic society.
To stimulate social action further, we will:
• transform the civil service into a 'civic service' by making sure that participation in social action is recognised in civil servants' appraisals;
• launch an annual Big Society Day to celebrate the work of neighbourhood groups and encourage more people to take part in social action;
• provide funding from the Big Society Bank to intermediary bodies with a track record of supporting and growing social enterprises; and,
• develop a measure of well-being that encapsulates the social value of state action.
It's little wonder the Cameron is reluctant to submit such nonsense to public debate.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 07:33 AM

Well Gervase, I think it's worse than that - it's the state copping out of its responsibilities.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: GUEST,Shimrod
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:25 AM

I suppose these 'neighbourhood group' members will still have to work for a living, bring up their children, do their shopping, maintain their houses, gardens and vehicles etc., etc.?

Perhaps the Tories should also be bringing in 36 hour days!

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Gervase
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:39 AM

When unemployment goes beyond three million again, I'm sure the Tories will have plenty of people with time on their hands.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:43 AM

Naturally. And of course the money saved by the free work will go in tax cuts for the rich.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 09:53 AM

""Don, you know as well as I do that the taxes that rose were not those that had been promised not to rise.""

Tell that fairy tale to the pensioners who thought Tony B Liar was a GOD, when he gave them a £5 per week increase, only to realise three months down the line that he had taken £4.50 of it back in hidden taxes.

It matters little to those on a fixed income which tax went up. They still had to pay it.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 10:09 AM

""That greed was what captured the stage that BLiar walked upon. Slowly Labour was edging away from that. There is no way that there will be anything other than a return to it if the conservatives return to more direct power.

I suppose if you want to get back to forelock tugging and the poor giving to the rich you can vote for it. Makes no sense (much like Cameron's budgetary plans) to me""

Far from edging away from it, New Labour jumped in at the deep end, spent all the dosh, and wound up out of their depth. Their heads are still under water, but they don't realise it because they've got 'em stuck up their a***s.

Incidentally, forelock tugging went out some time (about 150 years) ago, but since you pay no attention to what is happening outside of your preferred party, you obviously wouldn't be aware of that.

My local Conservative candidate is a very pleasant, hard working, young woman, who is a damn sight easier to deal with than the incumbent New Labourite, who seems to feel that it is an imposition to be contacted by constituents.

Strange isn't it? He's posh and ill mannered, and it takes ages for him to respond (a fortnight to answer an E-Mail), only to say he can't help.

The young lady is down to earth, state school educated, and an E-Mail gets a response within 24 hours, and the response is polite and helpful. If she is unable to help, she usually knows a man/woman who can, and puts you in touch.

If you walk around with blinkers and dark glasses, you miss a lot of what's happening all around you.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Arnie
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 11:25 AM

My local Labour MP has managed to end up with three homes, two of them in London. He did explain how he ended up with three homes on public expenses some time ago, but I've forgotten the details now. Not bad for someone who started out working on the ferries. The Tory candidate hasn't bothered putting in an appearance so far, perhaps he's thrown in the towel already as this is/was a safe Labour seat. So that leaves an equally anonymous Lib Dem candidate who may well get my vote simply because he isn't one of the other pair. I'm fed up with the whole shower of politicians and their hangers-on, especially the spin doctors and press secretaries. What sort of despicable lowlife could think that 9/11 was a good day on which to release bad news? She was Byers' press secretary I recall, and look what he's been up to recently. I still believe in voting, but despair at the shower that end up on the green benches. I despair just as much at the shower who end up on the red benches - especially as their Lordships have all escaped prosecution despite fiddling their expenses for decades. Somewhere online you can view the mansion that Baroness Uddin has built in Bangladesh on taxpayers money, and meanwhile living in Housing Association accommodation in London meant for families on low incomes. You have really got to wonder how these people can live with their consciences. Are politicians a breed apart from ordinary people, or do they start out ok but become subverted by the taxpayer-funded gravy-train they've managed to get on-board?

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 12:53 PM

Most MPs are in it for what they can get. A few I am sure make less than if they were full time at their other professions - Bob Marshall Andrews QC could I am sure have made a lot lot more if he pushed his profession as barrister to the limit.

I don't see sufficient evidence to conclude that Labour MPs on the whole are more venal than conservative. I bought a house once from the then Labour Gravesham MP and it was quite modest and not at all flash.

But those things are not the central thrust. The central thrust is who is for what. The conservatives are for free market capitalism and the rich. Labour has been hijacked by what economic theory terms neo-liberals (free-market capitalists) but the it is on a basis of alleged necessity not enthusiasm, and the core belief is still that the rich should help the poor not the other way round. Even the
willowy Mandelbaum is merely "intensely relaxed" about people (including him) getting rich.

Don: Brown did not promise no overall tax rise. He got trapped in promising no income tax rise, and that's what he delivered. Even his biggest income tax cockup (and I don't think the figures on it are as bad as you say they were) was the withdrawal of a tax reduction previously introduced by Labour in 1999.


I would consider voting Lib-Dem now that we have locally lost Bob Marshall-Andrews, if I thought that that would not merely divide the opposition to the conservatives. But the most important thing for the country (apart from the Gestapo re-enactment society) is to be sure that never, never, again do we let capitalists make war on the rest of society.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 01:13 PM

I composed another long and thoughtful post - but fucking Opera crashed again and ate it. I've had enough. I'm going to find out how to export bookmarks and go back to the dark side.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 03:37 PM

Only way to get electoral reform is if neither Tories nor Labour have a majority. Then we can have a proper election.

The present system means that it is possible that the party coming third in number of votes will get the largest number of MPs, and the party comimg first in number of votes will get the smallest number of MPs.

Very much in keeping with St Matthew's Gospel - "So the last shall be first, and the first last", but I think it's not really a healthy way to run a democracy.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:46 PM

""Very much in keeping with St Matthew's Gospel - "So the last shall be first, and the first last", but I think it's not really a healthy way to run a democracy.""


Nor is it a particularly brilliant way to run a democracy, if you continue to vote for a bunch of proven corrupt failures, simply because the alternative choice was once led by somebody you hated, twenty years ago.

Even though all the labour voters here know that their party is neither socialist nor "Labour", they are hard wired to believe that nothing has changed, or can ever change, in the Conservative Party.

They hold this view, in spite of the fact that New Labour is actually challenging the current Tory Party for the most right wing position.

If New Labour could move from near Communism to where it is today, it is illogical to believe that Conservatism cannot move half that distance, especially as it is self evident that it has already done so.

Who was it, on the day that the expenses scandal came to light, who said that any member of his party who did not make restitution would not stand as a candidate again, and made it so.

A CLUE! It wasn't Gordon Brown, nor was it Nick Clegg.

Who was it, after several days of deliberation, who sacked a couple of his culpable MPs, who were not exactly his best friends, while allowing others, equally culpable but more loyal, not only to retain their positions, but to appeal against paying back money.

Don T.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 05:58 PM

Don, look at what the backwoodsmen say about travelling second class.
Look at what the front benchers say about any non blue rinse lifestyle.
Look at the plainly innumerate plans to save money from "efficiency".
Look at the untruthfulness in one day saying Labour was not cutting deeply or taxing enough and the next day objecting to National Insurance rises.

Anyone who believes that the core of the conservative party has changed would believe in the tooth fairy.

I know my enemy, and it beggars belief that you do not know yours.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:32 PM

The Conservative Party is committed to retaining a voting system under which it is possible to win an election by losing the vote and lose it by winning the vote. The other two parties are committed to giving the electorate a chance to change that system.

That's reason enough to hope for a Tory defeat.

Subject: RE: BS: Election Debates UK
From: Don(Wyziwyg)T
Date: 20 Apr 10 - 06:55 PM

""I know my enemy, and it beggars belief that you do not know yours.""

Your enemies are a sad old woman on her last legs, and a rabid hatred for anything to the right of Stalin.

Bottom line T'ain't worth arguing with you.

It seems that we will have five more years of Mr Bean, who has amply deonstrated his lack of qualifications for the job, along with the whizz kid hanging off his coat tails, so by the next general election I should be nicely placed to serve your words up for lunch.

Bon Appetit.

I'm outa here.

Don T.