The Blair Goverment [Archive]

Chris

05-07-2003, 00:07

Originally posted by paulyoung666
i dont think you are far wrong , it boils my blood when i think ivoted them in , i reckon we should have a coaltion govt next time , although ireckon that wont happen somehow , how about the lib dems in next , they cant do a worse job can they :eek: :eek: :eek:

They darn well could, they are quite open about their plans to sell us up the river and sign us up for the United States of Europe at the first available opportunity. And give us the Euro whether we want it or not.

You will never meet a more nannyish, mother-knows-best, smug politician than a Lib Dem. The only reason anyone trusts them is that they have never been enough of a force in British politics to be exposed for the bunch of left-leaning, tax-and-spend quizlings that they are.

Sipowicz

05-07-2003, 00:13

....and don't get me started on education ...or health care..

Nor me! Governor at local school, been struggling every year to get a budget that we can work with. Still no sign of the extra money they promised us!

"Education, Education, Education" - My *rse!!

Martin

05-07-2003, 00:37

Political parties all seem to be the same to me! All promise the earth and give nothing:( Labours in now but who is the competition? The Tories? I don't think so!! So its got to be Lib Dem but a vote for them might bring the Tories back into power. Problems Problems.

Xaccers

05-07-2003, 08:16

As a wise man once said "it doesn't matter who you vote for, the goverment always gets in"

Gogogo

05-07-2003, 09:35

Originally posted by Martin
Political parties all seem to be the same to me! All promise the earth and give nothing:( Labours in now but who is the competition? The Tories? I don't think so!! So its got to be Lib Dem but a vote for them might bring the Tories back into power. Problems Problems.

I think this is very sad really. Political parties are really failing to stimulate interest in our free and democratic society and unfortunately the fault lies in a failing of quality leadership at the highest levels. Never forget that it took a long time and suffering to achieve the right to vote.

I'm not sure that anyone goes as far as promising the earth but I do think the the government has not helped the NHS by throwing money at it and building huge hospitals, indeed it seems now to have become normal to throw money at anything that's not performing well.

In the end people themselves should take more interest in state affairs and get involved in the political process.

:wavey:

timewarrior2001

05-07-2003, 10:06

Its going to be interesting when the gov have finally finnished victimising smokers.
I mean the next step is not smoking in public, then they are going to get to a point when they will be banned. Wheres the extra funds going to come from once the gov axes its tobacco tax huh?

As far as I am concerned even as an ex smoker, I couldnt give a rats ass about someone smoking next to me. Yes people have a right not to have it done but also smokers have a right to freedom too.

Tony Blair should resign, if he doesnt he should be sacked by the labour party.

timewarrior2001

05-07-2003, 10:09

Originally posted by Ramrod
Fool!:D I was prophesying this before they got in. No one listened:cry: I said: 'They are labour, they are going to f*ck things up, they always do"
I always vote tory(my family was almost killed by communists)......but they f*ck things up as well. The lesson to learn from this, boys and girls, is not to trust polititians.
"When the master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved'
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised."

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

I thought it was the old SDP that had communist links.
OMG little commies in my country argghhhhhhhhhhh. Thankgod I aint american.......well yet anyway. Wont be long before we pledge our alliegance to the star spangled union jack.

Martin

05-07-2003, 14:42

Originally posted by Gogogo
In the end people themselves should take more interest in state affairs and get involved in the political process.

:wavey:

Its hard to get interested when as you point out the political parties don't seem interesting. I agree there is too much money wasted by this throwing money at it scenario. We need people to really take an interest in how things work. Why the NHS is failing, for instance some Nurses I have spoke to are really fed up with the way things are. The people that can tell people how it is aren't listened too.:(

Everyone should register a vote rather than not turning up! When I say promise the earth I mean to say they promised a better health service and its not happening, there has been a bit of progress here and there but we still have huge waiting list and nurses that are unhappy in there work.

I'll get back off my soap box now;)

paulyoung666

05-07-2003, 14:55

how about the monster raving loony party , cant be any worse off can we , hang they might be in , but changed there name :spin: :spin: :spin:

Stuart

05-07-2003, 16:28

I like the way the government are saying they want more people in higher education, while they are cutting money spent on higher education...

Ikelos

05-07-2003, 17:10

the remark about taking an interest, who will listen? blair has never listened to anyone other than the spin doctors...if he spent has much time trying to sort this country out as he does poking his nose into every other countries affairs, there might be light at the end of the tunnel.... no, the quicker this lot are got rid of the better, only for the fact that no one could do worse.....

Dave Stones

05-07-2003, 18:40

Originally posted by timewarrior2001
I thought it was the old SDP that had communist links.
OMG little commies in my country argghhhhhhhhhhh. Thankgod I aint american.......well yet anyway. Wont be long before we pledge our alliegance to the star spangled union jack.

better'n the star spangled europe flag... :erm: *ahem*

how about the monster raving loony party , cant be any worse off can we , hang they might be in , but changed there name

nah their leaders a cat aint it... dont think tony blair has that cat-like tenacity though he does enjoy digging his claws into IDS... even though it is all of course scripted horseplay and they are the best of friends in the locker room or bar or whatever they have at the houses of parliament...

:rolleyes: :( :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

ntluser

08-07-2003, 09:39

Originally posted by Gogogo
I think this is very sad really. Political parties are really failing to stimulate interest in our free and democratic society and unfortunately the fault lies in a failing of quality leadership at the highest levels. Never forget that it took a long time and suffering to achieve the right to vote.

I'm not sure that anyone goes as far as promising the earth but I do think the the government has not helped the NHS by throwing money at it and building huge hospitals, indeed it seems now to have become normal to throw money at anything that's not performing well.

In the end people themselves should take more interest in state affairs and get involved in the political process.

:wavey:

When the Blair Government came to power the people expected that there would be a massive improvement following the sleaze of the previous Tory government.

In reality, 'New Labour' talked a good manifesto but failed to deliver on so many issues.

Worse than that they introduced 'spin', which was brought in as a damage limitation strategy to cover up their mistakes or put them in an unrealistic positive light. The aim of spin was to keep the truth from the people and so retain popularity and power.

The recent conflict with the BBC and the way the Iraq crisis was investigated show worrying signs of the government's intention to use image management strategies by controlling the media and by subverting Parliament.

The Iraq investigation hasn't had access to all witnesses and yet they can pronounce that the Government is free of blame. That's got to be a fix. It's completely unrealistic. There should have been a totally independent public enquiry, but Blair would find it harder to control that.

I'm glad the BBC stuck to its guns because Blair has no personal integrity. He is a crook leading a cabinet of crooks. All they want is the big salary and pension, the good life and to keep power.

It's ironic that Labour voters have been sold down the river by a government that preached 'equal rights' but turned itself into an 'elite'. New Labour are the 'fat cats' of Parliament taking big salaries and pensions for 'failing'.

It's a shame that the voting papers don't have a box which allows voters to use to demonstrate the fact that there is no party worthy of their vote. It's a shame too that there is no procedure available to Parliament and the people to 'impeach' a Prime Minister and his government.

We do need a government that has wise policies and is capable of delivering on its promises but we also need a government which has integrity, honesty and openness. It's not a profile which matches the Blair Government.

timewarrior2001

08-07-2003, 09:45

Originally posted by ntluser
We do need a government that has wise policies and is capable of delivering on its promises but we also need a government which has integrity, honesty and openness. It's not a profile which matches the Blair Government.

Integrity, honesty and openness do not go hand in hand with anything to do with politics.
Cheating, lying and backstabbing however do, and that pretty much sums up "Nu Labour".

Ramrod

08-07-2003, 09:58

The Tories appeared to be corrupt financially. Labour are morally corrupt- a bunch of socialists and communists living in expensive houses and driving/being driven in big cars, strange kind of socialism. Definitely shades of 'Animal Farm'

Chris

08-07-2003, 11:12

Originally posted by Ramrod
The Tories appeared to be corrupt financially. Labour are morally corrupt- a bunch of socialists and communists living in expensive houses and driving/being driven in big cars, strange kind of socialism. Definitely shades of 'Animal Farm'

It's called 'champagne socialism' and it stinks.

iadom

08-07-2003, 12:14

Download Failed (1)

No comment:D

Chris

08-07-2003, 12:18

Originally posted by iadom
Download Failed (1)

No comment:D

Sums it up nicely. :rofl:

Martin

08-07-2003, 13:08

Originally posted by iadom
No comment:D

Brilliant:D A picture can speak a thousand words sometimes.:eek:

Ramrod

08-07-2003, 13:13

Originally posted by iadom
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/graphics/2003/07/07/ntory07big.jpeg

They are Labour, what did you all think they would do? It's in their ideology.

Chris

08-07-2003, 14:38

Originally posted by Ramrod
They are Labour, what did you all think they would do? It's in their ideology.

There's some truth in the old adage that the opposition never gets voted in, it's the government that gets voted out.

People voted against the Conservatives in 1997 and at the last election they voted against them again ... after being the Government for 18 years the memory of them was still very fresh. I don't think much of Middle Britain has ever enthusiastically embraced Labour, 'new' or otherwise. Sadly I think we're paying the price now for people not voting with their heads.

darkangel

08-07-2003, 16:03

where the **** do people think the money for services is going to come from?
what are other options for government, the conservatives spent 18 years crippling this countries heavy industry destroying workers rights and bludgeoning common working class people into the dirt under the conservative the rich got much richer and the poor got poorer at least labour have helped staunch off the critical damage the Tories did to the UK does anybody believe the present bunch of lemmings they have at the moment could do a better job.
the lib's are a joke they have neither the policy's or people to govern this country god help us if they ever get in.
it is not possibly without serious parliamentary reform the create a coalition government so it seems labour are the only choice, labour throughout it's history has changed it's form to suite the public undercurrent of the time what TB has done now is nothing spectacularly new

Ramrod

08-07-2003, 16:12

Originally posted by Ramrod
I always vote tory(my family was almost killed by communists)......but they f*ck things up as well. The lesson to learn from this, boys and girls, is not to trust polititians.
"When the master governs, the people are hardly aware that he exists.
Next best is a leader who is loved'
Next, one who is feared.
The worst is one who is despised."

Lao Tzu, Tao Te Ching

Chris

08-07-2003, 16:31

Originally posted by darkangel
where the **** do people think the money for services is going to come from?

We could start by spending what we already have more wisely. Unreformed public services are a serious risk to this country's future prosperity - as were over-staffed, inefficient, nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s and 1980s.

Tory Blair at least recognises this. Sadly most of his party have not changed to 'suit the undercurrent of the times' as you put it, and want to bolster hopelessly inefficient working practices with ever increasing amounts of our hard-earned cash. Hence constant battles between 'new' and 'old' Labour.

what are other options for government, the conservatives spent 18 years crippling this countries heavy industry destroying workers rights and bludgeoning common working class people into the dirt under the conservative the rich got much richer and the poor got poorer at least labour have helped staunch off the critical damage the Tories did to the UK

If the Tories 18 years in office was so universally bad:

1. Why did they win three general elections, two of them (1983 and 1992) at times of great economic distress in the UK? And don't say it was The Sun wot won it, that's hopelessly simplistic.

2. Why did the incoming Labour government in 1997 stick to Tory economic policy for almost two years after taking office? (I'll tell you the answer to that one - it's 'cos Tory policy was fundamentally sound and Labout knew the economy was in good shape).

Do you really believe this country would be in better shape today if were still stuck with the National Coal Board, British Steel and the trade unions that suffocated them, and nationalised utilities including British Telecom? Would we even be using this forum if the 'communications revolution' had been left to that dinosaur?

does anybody believe the present bunch of lemmings they have at the moment could do a better job.

Based on this present government's current record, come the next election I intend to do my bit to try to find out.

the lib's are a joke they have neither the policy's or people to govern this country god help us if they ever get in.

Now there I agree with you completely. They're a bunch of Euro-sychophants who would sell us down the river to a Brussels-based Superstae quicker than you can say 'common economic policy'.

it is not possibly without serious parliamentary reform the create a coalition government so it seems labour are the only choice,

What, coalitions like the ones that have 'ruled' Italy for the last 50 years? Berlusconi is the first man to have run that country for more than about 18 months. Coalitions don't work. They just put disproportionate power into the hands of minority groups - like the Lib Dems.

labour throughout it's history has changed it's form to suite the public undercurrent of the time what TB has done now is nothing spectacularly new

Rubbish. Labour gave itself a fresh coat of paint but after 6 years it's flaking off. Tony is trying to hold it together by the force of his personality but it can't last much longer.

ntluser

08-07-2003, 16:50

Originally posted by darkangel
where the **** do people think the money for services is going to come from?
what are other options for government, the conservatives spent 18 years crippling this countries heavy industry destroying workers rights and bludgeoning common working class people into the dirt under the conservative the rich got much richer and the poor got poorer at least labour have helped staunch off the critical damage the Tories did to the UK does anybody believe the present bunch of lemmings they have at the moment could do a better job.
the lib's are a joke they have neither the policy's or people to govern this country god help us if they ever get in.
it is not possibly without serious parliamentary reform the create a coalition government so it seems labour are the only choice, labour throughout it's history has changed it's form to suite the public undercurrent of the time what TB has done now is nothing spectacularly new

The money for services will come from the taxpayers and council tax payers.

Neither the Labour party or the Conservative party have anything to be proud of given their record in government. Both these parties and their followers derided the Lib-Dems and both parties, in their arrogance, made a great mess of running the country.

The Lib-Dems, at least, have a good record at local government level and deserve a chance in government. After all, John Major and Tony Blair were allowed into power on the assumption that they could run the country efficiently. It was only after they got in that they were found wanting. Charles Kennedy is being written off without being given the chance to show what he and his party can do.

A coalition is not on the cards as it is unlikely that the parties will find enough that they can agree on.

One possibility is a 'hung' parliament where no party has a clear majority. Perhaps then parties might work together in the interests of the people, but it's unlikely.

It's also worth bearing in mind that MPs are now on such good salaries and pensions that they now belong to the much derided 'middle class' and live a life far removed from the 'working class' people they purport to represent.

They've forgotten the communities of people destroyed by the collapse of the iron & steel industries, the shipbuilding industry, textiles, engineering, fishing and farming. They could have done so much to restore these communities but so much money has been wasted and our National borrowing is at its highest level.

New Labour have become 'champagne socialists' living the 'Tory' good life at the expense of their constituents. They've clearly forgotten what it's like to be a poor 'working class' person.

Chris

08-07-2003, 17:21

Originally posted by ntluser
The Lib-Dems, at least, have a good record at local government level and deserve a chance in government. After all, John Major and Tony Blair were allowed into power on the assumption that they could run the country efficiently. It was only after they got in that they were found wanting. Charles Kennedy is being written off without being given the chance to show what he and his party can do.

I'll tell you what Charles Kennedy and his party can do:

1. Set up 'proportional representation' for UK General Elections, effectively placing power permanently in the hands of minority parties, single interest pressure groups and extremists.

2. Raise taxes in a ridiculous, outdated attempt to spend their way to a better Britain without any consideration of how that money should be spent more efficiently.

3. Scale down UK defence when the world is more dangerous than at any time in the last 20 years.

4. Sign us up for the Euro, whether we want it or not (and every poll ever conducted on the subject says we don't want it).

5. Agree with any and all future moves by federalist members of the European union to place tax, defence and foreign policy matters in the hands of Brussels...

6. ... Thereby ensuring there is no Nation called the UK left to govern....

7. ...and relegating the Houses of Parliament to the status of a very grandiose town hall.

But then running town halls, as you point out, is something the Lib Dems are reasonably good at, so I s'pose you can't blame them for sticking to what they know.

darkangel

08-07-2003, 17:22

ntluser

08-07-2003, 18:32

Originally posted by towny
I'll tell you what Charles Kennedy and his party can do:

1. Set up 'proportional representation' for UK General Elections, effectively placing power permanently in the hands of minority parties, single interest pressure groups and extremists.

2. Raise taxes in a ridiculous, outdated attempt to spend their way to a better Britain without any consideration of how that money should be spent more efficiently.

3. Scale down UK defence when the world is more dangerous than at any time in the last 20 years.

4. Sign us up for the Euro, whether we want it or not (and every poll ever conducted on the subject says we don't want it).

5. Agree with any and all future moves by federalist members of the European union to place tax, defence and foreign policy matters in the hands of Brussels...

6. ... Thereby ensuring there is no Nation called the UK left to govern....

7. ...and relegating the Houses of Parliament to the status of a very grandiose town hall.

But then running town halls, as you point out, is something the Lib Dems are reasonably good at, so I s'pose you can't blame them for sticking to what they know.

Most of this applies to New Labour now!!

Stuart

08-07-2003, 19:17

Originally posted by towny
We could start by spending what we already have more wisely. Unreformed public services are a serious risk to this country's future prosperity - as were over-staffed, inefficient, nationalised heavy industries in the 1970s and 1980s.

Tory Blair at least recognises this. Sadly most of his party have not changed to 'suit the undercurrent of the times' as you put it, and want to bolster hopelessly inefficient working practices with ever increasing amounts of our hard-earned cash. Hence constant battles between 'new' and 'old' Labour.

If the Tories 18 years in office was so universally bad:

1. Why did they win three general elections, two of them (1983 and 1992) at times of great economic distress in the UK? And don't say it was The Sun wot won it, that's hopelessly simplistic.

I remember reading at the time of the recession in the late 80s and early 90s that the government knew that what they were doing (mainly allowing banks to provide mortgages) would cause massive economic problems. They carried on regardless, and we had a recession. I read this about 1987.

2. Why did the incoming Labour government in 1997 stick to Tory economic policy for almost two years after taking office? (I'll tell you the answer to that one - it's 'cos Tory policy was fundamentally sound and Labout knew the economy was in good shape).

Not because Tony Blair is a closet Tory then?

Do you really believe this country would be in better shape today if were still stuck with the National Coal Board, British Steel and the trade unions that suffocated them, and nationalised utilities including British Telecom? Would we even be using this forum if the 'communications revolution' had been left to that dinosaur?

No, we wouldn't generally be in better shape. There was a lot of wastage in the public sector.

However, we would have a more reliable, and less expensive (both in fares and subsidies) rail system. And I doubt the NHS would be the state it is now.

Based on this present government's current record, come the next election I intend to do my bit to try to find out.

Good for you!

Now there I agree with you completely. They're a bunch of Euro-sychophants who would sell us down the river to a Brussels-based Superstae quicker than you can say 'common economic policy'.

Unfortunately, the only things we know about the plans for europe are what the the government of the day (be they Tory or Labour) wanted us to know. Does anyone here understand the TRUE ramifications of the Maastricht treaty that was signed by the Government under John Major? I can't find a copy of the agreement to verify this, but one of the costs for what the government wanted was that the EU would have the right to veto any of our laws. I would take that to mean they can effectively overrule the government.

What, coalitions like the ones that have 'ruled' Italy for the last 50 years? Berlusconi is the first man to have run that country for more than about 18 months. Coalitions don't work. They just put disproportionate power into the hands of minority groups - like the Lib Dems.

True, coalitions don't work. What we need is an honest government that cares about it's voters. Sadly, none of our current political parties offer that.

Rubbish. Labour gave itself a fresh coat of paint but after 6 years it's flaking off. Tony is trying to hold it together by the force of his personality but it can't last much longer.
Labour copied the tories. Labour made the same or similar mistakes.

Chris

08-07-2003, 19:57

Originally posted by scastle
However, we would have a more reliable, and less expensive (both in fares and subsidies) rail system.

Labour admitted recently that systematic under-investment over the last 40-50 years is to blame for the woeful state of our railways. That implicates both Labour and Tory governments of the past.

The infamous Dr Richard Beeching began to weild his axe over the network under a Tory government in 1963 but much of the damage was done following a Labour election victory in 1964. Despite sacking Beeching the Government did nothing to stop his branch line closure plan. Thanks to this even if the network were in good shape, it would have no answer to many of the kinds of journeys you just can't do efficiently by rail in the UK today.

Ikelos

08-07-2003, 20:19

the arrogance of this goverment knows no bounds. it is a shame we have to wait another two years before we can finally rid ourselves of them....

Stuart

08-07-2003, 20:55

Originally posted by towny
Labour admitted recently that systematic under-investment over the last 40-50 years is to blame for the woeful state of our railways. That implicates both Labour and Tory governments of the past.

The infamous Dr Richard Beeching began to weild his axe over the network under a Tory government in 1963 but much of the damage was done following a Labour election victory in 1964. Despite sacking Beeching the Government did nothing to stop his branch line closure plan. Thanks to this even if the network were in good shape, it would have no answer to many of the kinds of journeys you just can't do efficiently by rail in the UK today.

Actually, it was unfair of me to place the blame for the quality of the railway on the previous government. It is true, most of the damage was done by Beeching.

However, service levels have deteriorated noticably (compared to the final year of nationalisation), and subsidies are now higher.

Having said all that, the current government have done nothing, despite all their promises to improve public transport..

Chris

08-07-2003, 22:54

Originally posted by scastle
Actually, it was unfair of me to place the blame for the quality of the railway on the previous government. It is true, most of the damage was done by Beeching.

However, service levels have deteriorated noticably (compared to the final year of nationalisation), and subsidies are now higher.

Having said all that, the current government have done nothing, despite all their promises to improve public transport..

Railways are a complex issue. For example, privatisation actually reversed the decline in railway usage. Unfortunately it also destroyed a culture of best safety practice, and more or less killed off any hope of an integrated approach to running the network.

A heavily-regulated network operator and a small number of private service operators might have been more effective.

Xaccers

08-07-2003, 23:09

The sleaze/spin points are interesting.

With the tories you had sleaze; sleeping around, dodgy dealings, that sort of thing.
With labour you've got spin; Comical Ali really. We're in trouble but they tell us everything is fine etc, basically the gov lying to the people.

I think people are waking up to the spin, and realising that although sleaze was bad, it didn't mean the gov was lying to you about important things, like how much money they are taking from your salary.
A MP sleeping with his secretary is just gossip to most people, but the gov lying to them is becoming unacceptable

Ramrod

08-07-2003, 23:38

Originally posted by Xaccers
The sleaze/spin points are interesting.

With the tories you had sleaze; sleeping around, dodgy dealings, that sort of thing.
With labour you've got spin; Comical Ali really. We're in trouble but they tell us everything is fine etc, basically the gov lying to the people.

I think people are waking up to the spin, and realising that although sleaze was bad, it didn't mean the gov was lying to you about important things, like how much money they are taking from your salary.
A MP sleeping with his secretary is just gossip to most people, but the gov lying to them is becoming unacceptable
I agree

Chris

08-07-2003, 23:58

Originally posted by Ramrod
I agree

Funny how what seemed the worst scandal ever at the time can suddenly seem trivial and silly. Which is worse - David Mellor getting frisky in a Chelsea strip or a press officer chairing a committee of spies? :disturbd:

Stuart

09-07-2003, 10:11

Originally posted by towny
Funny how what seemed the worst scandal ever at the time can suddenly seem trivial and silly. Which is worse - David Mellor getting frisky in a Chelsea strip or a press officer chairing a committee of spies? :disturbd:

Interesting you should say that, because a couple of years ago, I listened to Max Clifford (who leaked the story and acted as Antonia de Sanchez's agent), who said that he was hired by the then goverment to leak the story because they were up to something that they didn't want the press to find out about.

Having said that, Max Clifford is just about the biggest Liar I have ever seen, so I don't know if that is actually true.

timewarrior2001

09-07-2003, 10:31

I think its about time Mr Blair introduced the regional assemblies we so desperately need in the North East.
If theres money coming into this region form central government they wanna sign post where its getting spent at, cos there simply is no sign of it anywhere.

Chris

09-07-2003, 11:27

Originally posted by timewarrior2001
I think its about time Mr Blair introduced the regional assemblies we so desperately need in the North East.
If theres money coming into this region form central government they wanna sign post where its getting spent at, cos there simply is no sign of it anywhere.

I think you should be concerned that if Blair does introduce a regional assembly for the North East, a lot of the money going into your area will be spent on running the assembly. Just think of all those expense accounts ... are you sure you will get value for money out of yet another tier of local government?

ntluser

09-07-2003, 12:31

Originally posted by towny
I think you should be concerned that if Blair does introduce a regional assembly for the North East, a lot of the money going into your area will be spent on running the assembly. Just think of all those expense accounts ... are you sure you will get value for money out of yet another tier of local government?

At the moment there are too many tiers of government which are costing the country a fortune.

What we need is better local representation with the people and the MPs which are affected by changes having a greater say in what goes on.

Bill

09-07-2003, 17:55

The regional assembly idea is just a diversion, an attempt to shift the accountability for some ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Â¦ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…â€œdifficultÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€š Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ €šÃ‚Â topics away from central government.

The people elected to these bodies would have no real power and we would have to pay their salaries.

If we get them, or not, it wonÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡Ãƒâ€šÃ ‚Â¬ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¢ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¾Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â¢t make any difference.

This government, like the one before it has now been in power too long. They have forgotten that they serve the people of the country. Tony Blair thinks it is the other way around, time he went.

It is not like supporting a football team, once they stop doing what we want, fail do what they promised, boot them out at the next election. The same goes for the next administration, when they find themselves out of a job every 4 years or so they will soon start to do what they are supposed to do, that is, look after the interests of the people of this country. Makes little difference which party, just as long as the electorate calls the shots.

Soapbox mode off.

timewarrior2001

09-07-2003, 19:04

Originally posted by Drudge
You already have a NE regional assembly, just like we have a NW regional assembly over this side of the country.

They decide how billions of pounds are spent but are not accountable to any electorate only to Tony and his cronies.

I doubt if it will be any different even if we do elect them. Where I live we vote for 3 councillors in our ward. They ony have to turn up to TWO council meetings a year to rubber-stamp the decisions made by a cabinet of 8 (executive councillors) who decide everything. The "executive types" are selected by the "party committees. Democracy???

If there is a NE assembly I have never heard of it, never seen it and dont know of anythign it does.
I must admit that I dont think we do have one, we have local government, we have a lot of local councils. But as far as I have seen/heard and experienced No regional assembly. We are currently campaigning for one, so I expect that also means there isnt one already.

nogger

09-07-2003, 20:40

Originally posted by timewarrior2001
If there is a NE assembly I have never heard of it, never seen it and dont know of anythign it does.

What I think you'll have, which we have here, is a Regional Development Council (I think that's what they're called) which is unelected (a Quango) but has a large say in how money is invested in the region. I think that's what's meant by a NE assembly.

I tend to agree that a local, elected, assembly is just a way of shifting responsibility from central government. An elected assembly, however, may be better than an unelected one. The problem I have is the area they'll cover.

The proposed one for the NW will cover, as far as I know, an area that runs from the Scottish border all the way down to at least Manchester and possibly beyond. How's that local?

As for national government, can anyone tell me what the Conservative's policies on anything actually are? And how they differ from those of the current Labour government?

Chris

09-07-2003, 23:08

Originally posted by nogger
What I think you'll have, which we have here, is a Regional Development Council (I think that's what they're called) which is unelected (a Quango) but has a large say in how money is invested in the region. I think that's what's meant by a NE assembly.

Yes, that's how it works at the moment. It's democratic only to the extent that councillors from each district within the RDC's patch sit on the council. The assemblies have a limited remit and do little that grabs headlines so they generally go unnoticed.

The proposed one for the NW will cover, as far as I know, an area that runs from the Scottish border all the way down to at least Manchester and possibly beyond. How's that local?

I agree. When I lived in the Wirral our complaint was always that a council largely dominated by the Labour-voting east Wirral (Birkenhead and Wallasey) had little interest in generally Tory-voting west Wirral (Heswall, West Kirby and Hoylake). There was even a campaign, at on stage, to split the borough in two. So how transferring some of Wirral council's powers to Manchester is supposed to improve things, I have no idea.

As for national government, can anyone tell me what the Conservative's policies on anything actually are? And how they differ from those of the current Labour government?

The Tories have deliberately refused to be rushed into policy announcements since the last election but some of the ones they have made and that come to mind are:

Scrapping University tuition fees
Making greater use of private hospital beds by paying towards the bills of people who choose to go private and get off an NHS waiting list
Overhaul of the tests-and-targets culture in schools

There are others but it's late and I'm tired... sure their website might say more, although I've not looked myself: www.conservatives.com

EDIT - I am not 'a Tory', but I consider myself to be politically open-minded. If one lot don't deliver, try the other lot. Except don't touch the traitorous Lib Dems with a barge-pole.;)

ntluser

18-07-2003, 13:18

Originally posted by towny
EDIT - I am not 'a Tory', but I consider myself to be politically open-minded. If one lot don't deliver, try the other lot. Except don't touch the traitorous Lib Dems with a barge-pole.;) [/B]

Why do you describe the Lib Dems as traitorous?

They are the only party so far that haven't contributed to the parlous state in which we find ourselves.

Chris

18-07-2003, 14:14

Originally posted by ntluser
Why do you describe the Lib Dems as traitorous?

They are the only party so far that haven't contributed to the parlous state in which we find ourselves.

I was referring back to a post I made earlier in the thread:

Originally posted by towny
I'll tell you what Charles Kennedy and his party can do:

1. Set up 'proportional representation' for UK General Elections, effectively placing power permanently in the hands of minority parties, single interest pressure groups and extremists.

2. Raise taxes in a ridiculous, outdated attempt to spend their way to a better Britain without any consideration of how that money should be spent more efficiently.

3. Scale down UK defence when the world is more dangerous than at any time in the last 20 years.

4. Sign us up for the Euro, whether we want it or not (and every poll ever conducted on the subject says we don't want it).

5. Agree with any and all future moves by federalist members of the European union to place tax, defence and foreign policy matters in the hands of Brussels...

6. ... Thereby ensuring there is no Nation called the UK left to govern....

7. ...and relegating the Houses of Parliament to the status of a very grandiose town hall.

But then running town halls, as you point out, is something the Lib Dems are reasonably good at, so I s'pose you can't blame them for sticking to what they know.

Granted they have not contributed to the modern United Kingdom; my fear is that there will be no recognisable United Kingdom if they are given half a chance.

Stuart

19-07-2003, 19:40

Originally posted by towny

Scrapping University tuition fees
Making greater use of private hospital beds by paying towards the bills of people who choose to go private and get off an NHS waiting list
Overhaul of the tests-and-targets culture in schools

One major problem within the NHS is the amount of management now present (it costs a lot, and diverts money from patient care). Who is responsible for that? In my experience, it was caused by the introduction of the current Trusts system. Who introduced that?

I remain unconvinced as to using NHS money to fund private operations. The companies that own the hospitals are in it to make money, and that profit has to come from somewhere..

The current problems with University funding can be traced back to the abolition of one thing. The student grant. Who abolished that?

Who introduced the tests and targets culture in schools?

As far as I am aware, all three of these problems were either directly or indirectly caused by the previous Tory administration. The current Labour government has either made them worse, or done nothing.

iadom

20-07-2003, 08:43

One more gem from yesterdays news. The cost of a ten year passport is to go up to ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£42, it was ÃƒÆ’Ã†â€™ÃƒÂ¢Ã¢â€šÂ¬Ã…Â¡ÃƒÆ’Ã¢â‚¬Å¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚Â£18 when Labour came to power in 1997 :( Another stealth tax.

ntluser

20-07-2003, 09:11

Originally posted by scastle
One major problem within the NHS is the amount of management now present (it costs a lot, and diverts money from patient care). Who is responsible for that? In my experience, it was caused by the introduction of the current Trusts system. Who introduced that?

I remain unconvinced as to using NHS money to fund private operations. The companies that own the hospitals are in it to make money, and that profit has to come from somewhere..

The current problems with University funding can be traced back to the abolition of one thing. The student grant. Who abolished that?

Who introduced the tests and targets culture in schools?

As far as I am aware, all three of these problems were either directly or indirectly caused by the previous Tory administration. The current Labour government has either made them worse, or done nothing.

Another problem is that the government always has these issues on the back burner until it becomes a public crisis and then it runs round like a headless chicken trying to solve the crisis. Unfortunately, by then it's too late.

We need the government to be proactive i.e. anticipating possible problems and stepping in to deal with them before they arise e.g. anticipating that there will be a backlash to the passport issue mentioned in the post above and coming up with a solution before it all gets out of hand.