Off Topic Political Debate

I think they have to by law leo....

 

I understood this point as programmes aren't simply ditched for left-right reasons...

and of course there is our establishment which underpins and outlives any one govt... which is in the main conservative ( small c) and protective of the status quo..... which influences institutions like the BBC

 

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...-delay-unlawful-judge-rules-iain-duncan-smith

I posted something I cut and paste from a tabloid about deaths linked to benefit cuts and delays and I was scorned..... well here we have the govt actually breaking the law on it.....

Are any of my fellow posters going now to rush to their defence?

 

Yorkie, I will not rush to their defence, it's totally unacceptable that such vulnerable people have had to face such delays in payment of their benefits. But the headline and it's intent does not really match the truth - the delay was caused by the large increases in claims as more people became qualified for this benefit as means testing was removed and the contractors involved could not cope, it was not deliberate Tory policy to not pay these benefits. Root cause was a poorly implemented change in policy.

But still waiting of for the proof of the PM's corruption....

 

As we see more cuts in Government we will see more delays of this sort as some offices simply cannot cope. I have a feeling that in some cases departments may be making cuts in certain crucial areas just to prove a point.

 

So the unions and Labour were formed for good and valid reasons - not many will argue against that. How does demonisation of workers follow on from that? It is also easy for some people to demonise the rich..... and your point is? That those with a political point to shove will not shy from base tactics sometimes?
Even worse you then imply our democracy is at fault for ......... what exactly? Left - right has been the major dividing line for centuries I would imagine - and if politics and democracy reflects that then it is natural. Some would equally argue that PR enables the smallest party with few votes but the balance of power to dictate to the masses - how great is that?

 

Excuse me... I can be a bit literal

But I am not out to prove the PM's corruption don't know how I have been linked with that..... filthy rumours

 

Guess you mean me then Yorkie. I will not rush to the defence of incompetence, however I will again say that posting random articles on points that fit your politics does not interest me. Anyone can trawl the internet and find some article to hit their political opponents. You do know the Grauniad like the Mirror (another favourite of yours it seems) is politically left wing so will keep finding and printing examples of bad Tory actions. Another amazing fact eh? I suspect the right wing press do the same under Labour governments but these do not interest me either.

You could ask another question - had Labour not fouled up the economy so badly up until 2010 would anyone have needed the extent of the austerity programme to fix the economy. In truth the people are suffering from Labour's incompetence as much as the Tories or government departments.

You position yourself either centrally on the political spectrum Yorkie - or in another dimension not on the left - right continuum yet every post you make and every article you publish has a left wing edge. I am waiting to see a few dozen posts of yours to indicate you really do have a balanced position. If not - then accept you are left of centre - it is not a crime. You know what they say "if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck then it must be ........"

 

OK - ta- was the law changed then I do not think it used to be the case

 

This seems to have been more of incompetence whilst changing to a new system rather than cuts per se

 

1) I am saying unions are demonised by some.... you yourself seem keen to critique their influence.... I am simply saying they started with honourable intent and quite rightly a political party formed out of the workers standing together. We now have certain sections of the media, govt and the population out to demonise any political action or the link between unions and party.
2) That we have so called democracy, freedom of choice etc.... but our current system continues to be polarising, unrepresentative etc..... so how good is our democracy?
3) have left right been a dividing line for centuries? I thought it was those that had having power over those that didn't. We did have a brief cromwellian interlude but that was about power. I continue myself not to see it as left- right....sorry but it is divisive and in the 21st century we need to move forward and maximise inclusion

 

Ah fair enough. Yes the old "Civil Service can't cope with new technology" story. I cannot for the life of me understand why this happens time and again. I can only speak of my own experiences but it seems symptomatic of a lack of joined up approach and implementing lessons learned across the board.

Apologies to all for the Whitehall speak

 

1 - no - you talked of demonisation of workers not unions. Some unions are OK but some are just political machines that do not care about their workers.
2 I value our democracy - with all its flaws - and am not convinced that alternative systems would not have greater flaws than does our form
3 I am probably wrong there to use left and right - but did so as an alternative for rich and poor which I think has been the dividing line

Someone who only criticises one wing and appears blind to the faults of the other is not well placed to distance them-self from the left right divide. What does maximise inclusion even mean? I am in favour of a society that creates wealth and allows people to benefit where their contribution warrants it but that has a progressive -but not penal -tax system and affords social benefits to the needy. I do not admire the arguments of people who at every turn impune the motives and honour of people who do not fit their narrow view of society. I could hardly be thought of as an admirer of Foot, Benn or Brown but at least I accept they tried to do what they believed was right. The same can be said of Cameron or Thatcher - you may disagree with their view of society but you do not have to then go on to fling unfounded assertions of corruption at them.

 

I think we all agree there is a real problem with the funding of the political parties in the UK. Although Labour are hugely financially helped by the cash from the unions the public and increasingly the Labour politicians know it cannot continue as the general view is that the party is controlled by unrepresentative union barons.

The Conservatives equally have funding from an unacceptable source, large businesses especially from the financial sector. Maybe the answer to both of these examples is to limit the funding to a relative small donation which is declared for all to see.

I would like the Conservative Party to make a real effort to lose the impression, of some, of being the party of the rich only. Certainly it does not help with the two main guys being pals from Eton, however effective they are. I'm sure they are both very competent at their respective jobs but I would like the image to change to promote opportunities for all. It is the entrepreneurs of this country that will hopefully drive the improvement in the country's finances and balance of payment situation.

Finally, I wonder if the country would have been any different if David Davis had won the Tory leadership election?.

 

In fairness SH the Eton thing is just what happens sometimes. I am sure others will correct me but wasn't Tony Blair the first public school educated PM since Alex Douglas Home? Therefore there is opportunity for others to get those positions.

I do agree with pretty much everything else in that post though.

 

I agree with most of what you say... but for about the fourth time I have never flung (unfounded or otherwise) assertions of corruption at them... you and superorns keep banging on about it...If you check you will see it was BB who said it.... I think....

 

I know it was BB and without naming him it was his argument not yours that I was referring to in that part of my answer. Apologies for not making that clear

 

While bending over a weedy patch this afternoon I wondered why if the Tories look after the top 10% only, why they had spent more years in power than the Labour Party since WWII. If the 10% thing that gets mentioned so often were true, it is unlikely they would appeal to the population so often.
I had also noticed that the turnout at the election has started to increase again since the second Blair government all time low. Does this show that people are starting to engage again? Also there was a record number of lost deposits at this election, which I guess shows that more people wanted to get their point of view out even if they knew they had no chance of election.
Finally I suspect BB has not given a reference to the Cameron item because it doesn't actually exist, simply if it did it would be a matter of libel.

 

agreed, I mistook yorkie for BB, apologies.

I think BB is keeping his head down!

 

BB is an overseas member... how could you mix us up