More Gw2 Revelations...
I'm begining to feel really sorry for myself now! I suppose, for me, it could just be a case of "De gustibus Non est disputandum"
No it isnt........ he got off his a*se and told us LIES then to save his a*se he lied again and again and again.
No it isnt........ he got off his a*se and told us LIES then to save his a*se he lied again and again and again.
Stupid boy,
At just before quarter to five, in August in fact, King Charles declared war on Parliament thus beginning the first part of the Civil war. He didn’t count on Cromwell and his ability to raise a professional Army (the New Model Army) and just before ten to seven he rather lost his head! (teach him to surrender to the Scottish). The monarchy was abolished soon after.
At just before quarter to five, in August in fact, King Charles declared war on Parliament thus beginning the first part of the Civil war. He didn’t count on Cromwell and his ability to raise a professional Army (the New Model Army) and just before ten to seven he rather lost his head! (teach him to surrender to the Scottish). The monarchy was abolished soon after.
JessTheDog,
I think we do have a crisis in our democracy but I don’t think it has a damn thing to so with the numbers of people who voted for the victorious party.
Our system since its very beginning has always been an adversarial first past the post majority system, thus by its very nature you will have more people NOT voting for the party that is returned to power than actually did vote for the winners.
Blair and the Labour party are not unique here by any means. Take a look at Thatcher’s victory in 1979 for example, seventeen and a half million people voted for parties other than the Tories as compared to thirteen and a half million who voted Tory, thus, just as you say in your post about Blair, most people voted for someone other than Thatcher.
If you look at virtually any other election you will see a similar outcome, it is the nature of our system.
I think our crisis is a combination of the public lacking any trust or confidence in politicians, of ANY hue, and a general lack of interest in politics per se.
Now I have a real problem with the general thrust of your mail and the thread as a whole, I thought the war was wrong at the time and I still do, I thought the reasons presented for going to war were weak and woolly and I believe that I, along with the rest of the population, was hoodwinked.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.
The Iraq war is also not the ground breaking example of political dishonesty it is presented as, take Suez in 1956 as a for instance. Very similar circumstances, we colluded with another major power, this time the French, to present a set of totally false circumstances to justify our attack on Egypt, we had a similar problem with Nasser as the US had with Saddam, international lawyers all agreed that Nassers nationalisation of the Canal was legal, we too wanted to have regime change. Eden claimed that Nassers had violated the UK-Egyptian treaty and when the US point blank refused to become involved or support an attack we turned to Israel and supported an Israeli attack on Egypt by claiming that we were “intervening to keep the peace” when we knew of the Israeli plans all along.
There’s nothing new under the sun…………………………………..
I think we do have a crisis in our democracy but I don’t think it has a damn thing to so with the numbers of people who voted for the victorious party.
Our system since its very beginning has always been an adversarial first past the post majority system, thus by its very nature you will have more people NOT voting for the party that is returned to power than actually did vote for the winners.
Blair and the Labour party are not unique here by any means. Take a look at Thatcher’s victory in 1979 for example, seventeen and a half million people voted for parties other than the Tories as compared to thirteen and a half million who voted Tory, thus, just as you say in your post about Blair, most people voted for someone other than Thatcher.
If you look at virtually any other election you will see a similar outcome, it is the nature of our system.
I think our crisis is a combination of the public lacking any trust or confidence in politicians, of ANY hue, and a general lack of interest in politics per se.
Now I have a real problem with the general thrust of your mail and the thread as a whole, I thought the war was wrong at the time and I still do, I thought the reasons presented for going to war were weak and woolly and I believe that I, along with the rest of the population, was hoodwinked.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.
The Iraq war is also not the ground breaking example of political dishonesty it is presented as, take Suez in 1956 as a for instance. Very similar circumstances, we colluded with another major power, this time the French, to present a set of totally false circumstances to justify our attack on Egypt, we had a similar problem with Nasser as the US had with Saddam, international lawyers all agreed that Nassers nationalisation of the Canal was legal, we too wanted to have regime change. Eden claimed that Nassers had violated the UK-Egyptian treaty and when the US point blank refused to become involved or support an attack we turned to Israel and supported an Israeli attack on Egypt by claiming that we were “intervening to keep the peace” when we knew of the Israeli plans all along.
There’s nothing new under the sun…………………………………..
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Now I have a real problem with the general thrust of your mail and the thread as a whole, I thought the war was wrong at the time and I still do, I thought the reasons presented for going to war were weak and woolly and I believe that I, along with the rest of the population, was hoodwinked.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.
I cannot though accept that this marks Blair out from any other Prime Minister though, if Howard had been in power in March 2003 I think he would have also taken us to war.
The Iraq war is also not the ground breaking example of political dishonesty it is presented as, take Suez in 1956
JessThe Dog,
Valid points, and I share the concern over centralisation of power with the PM, though it has to be said that this all started with Thatcher, who was the first to really dilute the collective decision making of Cabinet and introduce "special advisors" with almost ministerial powers.
The "elected" House of Lord is one of my biggest dissapointments, I voted for that and am still angry that it has not come to pass.
Yes, a lot has changed since 1956 but not it appears in the sincerity and integrity of our political class.
Valid points, and I share the concern over centralisation of power with the PM, though it has to be said that this all started with Thatcher, who was the first to really dilute the collective decision making of Cabinet and introduce "special advisors" with almost ministerial powers.
The "elected" House of Lord is one of my biggest dissapointments, I voted for that and am still angry that it has not come to pass.
Yes, a lot has changed since 1956 but not it appears in the sincerity and integrity of our political class.
Thread Starter
I'm not sure which is worse - an unelected Upper House with inbred old duffer hereditary peers, or one populated by Tony's cronies.
The latter, at a pinch, I would hazard.....
(Edited due to having had a senior moment when posting earlier!)
The latter, at a pinch, I would hazard.....
(Edited due to having had a senior moment when posting earlier!)
Last edited by BEagle; 14th Jun 2005 at 17:36.
Beag's your pulling our legs surely.
I agree with your inbred hereditary peers bit but; has that system which has run for years truly done us a disservice. It is not perfect I agree but surely you can see its better than the latter.
I agree with your inbred hereditary peers bit but; has that system which has run for years truly done us a disservice. It is not perfect I agree but surely you can see its better than the latter.
Thread Starter
You're right - I meant the LATTER! Bug.ger!! Have now edited my post.
Hereditary peers have certainly served us better than Trust-me-Tone's cronies could ever hope to.
Hereditary peers have certainly served us better than Trust-me-Tone's cronies could ever hope to.
An elected upper house would be even better, a mix of all current parties and independents with NO party line or whip allowed whatsoever.
You might even call it democratic!
You might even call it democratic!
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
prOONe
We need a legislating chamber and a revising chamber. What would be the point of two elected legislating chambers? With equal "legitimacy" they would fight like ferrets in a sack, drunk or sober. And the Commons are usually drunk as Lords.
The upper (revising) chamber needs experience and expertise. Why not give all the academic, professional, ecclesiastical, military, commercial, industrial "institutions" the power to nominate representatives more or less in proportion their membership. The Speaker of the H of C could supervise the process. At least we would not have so many C of E bishops cluttering up the Palace of Westminster!
We need a legislating chamber and a revising chamber. What would be the point of two elected legislating chambers? With equal "legitimacy" they would fight like ferrets in a sack, drunk or sober. And the Commons are usually drunk as Lords.
The upper (revising) chamber needs experience and expertise. Why not give all the academic, professional, ecclesiastical, military, commercial, industrial "institutions" the power to nominate representatives more or less in proportion their membership. The Speaker of the H of C could supervise the process. At least we would not have so many C of E bishops cluttering up the Palace of Westminster!
Use an American concept of government? We used to appoint Senators....who represented the State governments....now we elect them as we do Representatives.....and you seel how that turned out!
Best thing you could do....as we should is enact term limits....no more career politicians....no pensions...no retirement payments...only that which they can steal while in office.
Best thing you could do....as we should is enact term limits....no more career politicians....no pensions...no retirement payments...only that which they can steal while in office.
I've just spent ten minutes trying to type the same thing Flatus. Yours came out much better than mine and it gets my vote.
In trying to continue this theme I want to know why the older politicians that retire, that made absolutely no sense when in the H of C can now make more sense. I use Hattersley and Benn as examples, 10 years ago I would have turned them off the minute the opened their mouths.
In trying to continue this theme I want to know why the older politicians that retire, that made absolutely no sense when in the H of C can now make more sense. I use Hattersley and Benn as examples, 10 years ago I would have turned them off the minute the opened their mouths.
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Suggestions to improve the democratic process!
1. An elected upper chamber with revising powers. Elected for 10 years by proportional representation/STV.
2. Fixed term parliaments of 5 years.
3. No more prerogative appointments to an upper chamber or offices. Election is a prerequisite for office!
4. No more lobby briefings. All government business briefings on the record. Party political briefings can still go on but there must be a clear line between governance and politics.
5. Closed secret ballot in all parliamentary votes, so MPs represent their constituents free from whip pressure.
6. Funding for political parties on a vote-share basis with strict limits on how the funding can be spent. Private funding allowed on a similarly proportionate basis.
7. Establishment of a proper standards committee linked to the Press Complaints Commission and National Audit Office. Standards committee reports only to parliament (perhaps to a different house for each case) and certainly not to the PM. Standards committee rules on complaints about misleading information from government and from the press. Government misrepresentation or misleading punishable by sacking - no "second chance". Press compelled to take out front-page article for misleading the public. Civil servants/party officials get the boot!
8. All elections synchronised, so the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly elections take place at the same time as Westminster.
1. An elected upper chamber with revising powers. Elected for 10 years by proportional representation/STV.
2. Fixed term parliaments of 5 years.
3. No more prerogative appointments to an upper chamber or offices. Election is a prerequisite for office!
4. No more lobby briefings. All government business briefings on the record. Party political briefings can still go on but there must be a clear line between governance and politics.
5. Closed secret ballot in all parliamentary votes, so MPs represent their constituents free from whip pressure.
6. Funding for political parties on a vote-share basis with strict limits on how the funding can be spent. Private funding allowed on a similarly proportionate basis.
7. Establishment of a proper standards committee linked to the Press Complaints Commission and National Audit Office. Standards committee reports only to parliament (perhaps to a different house for each case) and certainly not to the PM. Standards committee rules on complaints about misleading information from government and from the press. Government misrepresentation or misleading punishable by sacking - no "second chance". Press compelled to take out front-page article for misleading the public. Civil servants/party officials get the boot!
8. All elections synchronised, so the Scottish parliament and Welsh assembly elections take place at the same time as Westminster.
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Glorious Devon
Posts: 721
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MOSTAFA
The idea of a "Senate" appointed by the learned and profesional bodies is not original; but I have never heard a convincing argument against it. The key question is the powers that should be invested in it to delay or strike down legislation. We can all think of laws passed in a hurry in response to some popular outrage stirred up by the media and which turn out to be a waste of paper. Dangerous Dogs Act? Ban on handguns? ( I will not mention "Hunting with Dogs".)
Concerning Benn and Hattersley, I wonder if you are confusing style (which is more restrained and less robust in the Lords than in the Commons) with content. For me, both gentlemen still talk utter rubbish - although with more refined manners.
The idea of a "Senate" appointed by the learned and profesional bodies is not original; but I have never heard a convincing argument against it. The key question is the powers that should be invested in it to delay or strike down legislation. We can all think of laws passed in a hurry in response to some popular outrage stirred up by the media and which turn out to be a waste of paper. Dangerous Dogs Act? Ban on handguns? ( I will not mention "Hunting with Dogs".)
Concerning Benn and Hattersley, I wonder if you are confusing style (which is more restrained and less robust in the Lords than in the Commons) with content. For me, both gentlemen still talk utter rubbish - although with more refined manners.
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: France 46
Age: 77
Posts: 1,743
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I remember flying the House of Lords Defence Commitee to Benbecula some years ago so that they could watch a missile firing.
As the Loadmaster served their meal he asked each Lord what they would like to drink. One peer replied that he would like a bottle of red wine with his meal and this was duly provided. Nothing unusual, many people will drink red wine (even an entire bottle) with their meal; but I have never seen anyone do so with a Continental Breakfast before!!
As the Loadmaster served their meal he asked each Lord what they would like to drink. One peer replied that he would like a bottle of red wine with his meal and this was duly provided. Nothing unusual, many people will drink red wine (even an entire bottle) with their meal; but I have never seen anyone do so with a Continental Breakfast before!!
(a bear of little brain)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: 51 10 03.70N 2 58 37.15W
Age: 75
Posts: 273
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How about a 2 chamber system, law making in lower, revision in upper. Constituency elections as now, winner in constituency gets elected to lower chamber, second placed gets elected to upper chamber.
And I tend agree about synchronising national elections but that would cause controversy since the Prime Minister would end up calling elections for areas for which he has no mandate.
And I tend agree about synchronising national elections but that would cause controversy since the Prime Minister would end up calling elections for areas for which he has no mandate.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hants
Age: 80
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Jess the Dog
I see you have extensive experience of how industry and commerce works - not. You would never get a decision if you used your blueprint. Most undertakings are personality led and the really successful ones are usually benign autocracy than democracy.
Jong
I see you have extensive experience of how industry and commerce works - not. You would never get a decision if you used your blueprint. Most undertakings are personality led and the really successful ones are usually benign autocracy than democracy.
Jong
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I see you have extensive experience of how industry and commerce works - not. You would never get a decision if you used your blueprint. Most undertakings are personality led and the really successful ones are usually benign autocracy than democracy.
To use your example best, perhaps the voters perhaps should be considered as shareholders. Shareholders get consulted annually at the AGM. The poor old voters get consulted every 4 years or so!
We have had too many "decisions" rather than policies endorsed by the electorate and carried forward by an impartial civil service.
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Hants
Age: 80
Posts: 370
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
JTD
Shareholders attend AGM's but few would agree that they get consulted. They get told. Very occassionally they revolt and sometimes they get something changed. Depite your clever management speak the truism is that most successful enterprises are not run by very democratic methods!
The British system is that we elect MP's who represent us - we are not consulted or whatever until the next election when we can make our displeasure known as happened to the Tories when Labour came to power (can't remember the date it seems so long ago)
Jong
Shareholders attend AGM's but few would agree that they get consulted. They get told. Very occassionally they revolt and sometimes they get something changed. Depite your clever management speak the truism is that most successful enterprises are not run by very democratic methods!
The British system is that we elect MP's who represent us - we are not consulted or whatever until the next election when we can make our displeasure known as happened to the Tories when Labour came to power (can't remember the date it seems so long ago)
Jong
Join Date: May 2004
Location: Up North
Posts: 801
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shareholders attend AGM's but few would agree that they get consulted. They get told. Very occassionally they revolt and sometimes they get something changed. Depite your clever management speak the truism is that most successful enterprises are not run by very democratic methods!
This country is not a successful enterprise either! Most of the big decisions made by government have failed and involvement in the minutae of "delivery" is proving disastrous.
The biggest Bliar decision was participating in a war which has cost £4bn for no discernible gain.
The best decision made in the last 8 years was to hand monetary policy to the Bank of England and this is a clear example of reining in autocratic government control.
I would like to see a return to the Athenian model of democracy in which politicians were exiled or executed if they failed!
