Why is it such a disaster for Gordon Brown? Apart from the fact that he is the leader of the party that didn't win, surely it is the member of the party that was against the conservatives IN Crewe, not really Gordon Brown...
Also, as a tangent, surely it is funny pinning the food prices and oil prices on him where has little to no control over.
the Conservatives have never won Crewe before
(i think)
That still doesn't really pin the blame on the PM.
:z
uh
sure it does.
he's the most visible figurehead of the labour party.
Surely people are voting for their local MP/Counciller/Candidate
rather than looking at the guy who knows almost nothing about their area?
Or are people too fucking stupid to realise that they are not voting for the PM but the Party and the local candidate?
in theory they vote for the local candidate
i don't think it makes someone stupid to vote for a party overall.
It's more
a fault of the British system so to speak. Many people vote for the party/individual that they want to have overall power within the country rather than the person that they think'll do the best job for their constituency.
For example, at the last election someone who believed in free higher education for all and disagreed with going into Iraq may well have voted for a Lib Dem candidate who didn't understand the local area over a Labour one who did.
it's a fair point
half the electorate would rather have an honest-to-goodness presidential election, i'm sure
It is also the fault of the media
giving the American system such air time - I am sure our Party candidate elections don't get prime time news over there.
no, people vote for the leader generally.
and to be honest, it isn't stupid. because of things like the party whip, it makes most sense to vote based upon party leadership.
*since WWII
er
by that reckoning, if Labour lose the next general election, its not Gordon Browns fault, its the fault of the individual candidates only?
i think the blame lays with the party in general. Specifical for their playground based campaign strategy.
This would be true
if everyone voted for local issues at by-elections. But they don't, as a rule.
^ This is my worry.
And you might be right.
my view on oil and food is
that i watched news round when i was a wee nipper, and they told me that oil was going to run out in a few years. move forward a few years, and lo and behold, oil is running out, and what have we done about it? jack! Now i'm sure that there is the technology out there for non oil reliant thingymabobs, and the companies are milking oil for as much as they can, but still, the government hasn't done anything to help the situation.
CREWE
Hmmm.
Every thing uses it. Nothing can instantly replace it. There are no alternatives. Even if we can get Hydrogen fuel running in cars and planes how do we make the plastics that dominant our lives? Even if all our cars are set to run on biofuels where do we get all the trees?
There is no answer and the reason why we have not found one is for two reasons.
- There isn't an answer that works to everyones satisfaction and to an efficeincy that makes it worth while.
- Reluctance to change; once Oil runs out we will change but until then companies are not going to buy massive machines that run on Hydrogen or whatever fuel comes out for the reason that they might back the wrong horse. Think of it like a massive multi-trillion pount Blu-ray HD-DVD battle.
Government can't really do anything to the oil prices. OPEC set the supply and the Demand keeps going up. Surely OPEC can increase the supply? Well, it is not like they can switch it on and suddenly there is more - it costs £1billion to build a new oil platform and no company is going to invest that amount of money to DECREASE the value of the product that they are making are they?
There is a problem, and I don't have an answer for it. Maybe I should, working in the industry and the supplies probably won't last me to my retirement.
Well over half the cost
of petrol is tax.
Sounds like the govt could do something.
No they can't. And I know that.
Think about how much money the country would loose if the fuel duty was cut? Thinkn about how much we depend on it? In fact, if the proposed feul shortage last month happened because of the refinery strike Britain would have lost £500million in revenue a day. That is quite a big drop...
The govt can do something about it
but choose not to.
Do you see the difference?
As oil prices rise, so does the ammount of money the govt takes on petrol.
This dramatic rise was probably not predicted, so the extra income will not have been budgeted, therefore the govt could probably drop taxes by 2-3p easily.
Only if
all other things are equal. At the same time their other income streams are drying up.
I'm just saying it's morea case of
won't cut fuel duty rather than can't.
I dunno
the budget deficit is increasing as the economy continues to take a downturn. There's little room for maneouvre without breaking one of Labour's "Golden Rules" now. Any cut in fuel tax would most likely need to be paid for by an increase elsewhere.
Of course
they could just break one of these rules if they wanted to, but that would go against every reason they gave for having those rules in the first place.
if we
cut fuel duty other people in the supply chain would price it up.
by taxing it, money goes to the treasury rather than the saudi arabian government or shell.
this is incorrect.
petrol is taxed per litre, not as a percentage of cost. so actually, petrol tax revenue is more likely to drop, as people use less because of the high costs.
The government also get VAT
or some form of other tax at certain stages of the production line that's based on value rather than volume. I can't remember whether it's just VAT at the pump or whether there's other tax applied as well.
It is called fuel duty and it is added at the pump.
Yes this.
there is a duty per litre and a tax on the actual cost.
I don't understand how Labour could get themselves into this kind of position.
I know pretty much nothing about politics, but surely it's just a case of keeping Joe Bloggs happy. As we've said before, most people won't have an indepth knowledge or interest in most of the stuff the MPs get paid very handsomely for sitting on their fat arses and talking about, but surely stuff like the recent tax changes, a planned withdrawal from Iraq, addressing puclic safety, an attractive budget and keeping the oldies happy would pretty much guarantee Labour another term?
Keeping Joe Blogs happy is why it goes wrong
That's why 2.7 billion has just been pissed up the wall when policemen can't have a 40 million pay rise ( to avoid them taking a pay cut in real terms).
Jopr Bloggs is as thick as shit, that is why we have politicians.
but surely it's a massive proportion of the vote...
and one that would be quite east to keep happy?
It depends why you want to be in the job
for the power or to run the country well.
If every decision taken was to please Joe Bloggs, the country would be a dump pretty soon.
*easy
There is no
such person as Joe Bloggs. People want different things from the government and sometimes the same people expect contradictary things from the government. Keeping these people happy is virtually impossible unless you're riding the crest of a wave...
i think if it wasn't inevitable that
the Tories will win the next General Election before, it is now. how much that's to do with David Cameron et al appealing to people, how much that's to do with Labour managing to be blunderingly incompetent and how much of it's just down to government fatigue whereby people are just bored of having a Labour government....well, that all depends on how cynical you are
grass is always greener i think
^ This.
Entirely to do with Labour, i'd say.
No-one could say Camereon comes across as a good, strong, charismatic leader, he's an absolutely dull baffoon. Fortunately for him, Gordon Brown's not got it in him to win an election. Labour wouldn't be in this position if Tony B'Liar was still in charge, even despite Iraq and the slow death that was his last few months in the job.
Oh, I see.
So all the votes we took in the local election, the winning of Crewe and Nantwich and the future winning of the Henley by-election is nothing to do with Cameron transforming the party?
I'm really not a Cameronite at all, but it can't be denied that thanks to him Tory is no longer a dirty word.
i hardly think that if you win the Henley by-election
it will be seen as a massive gain or sign of Cameron's aceness...more of the fact the status quo still applies?
more to do with Brown failing at his job and making key errors, obv.
He's made
The Tories somewhat credible again, no doubt (although arguably much of that work was being done over time anyway - Hague was in no way a particularly bad leader, but had to come from much further behind), and I think the argument that he's got no charisma is very harsh.
I would say the result is more down to Labour's mistakes than the Conservative's work though. IMHO.
I totally disagree with this 'it should be about local issues' idea.
They should be important but if everyone just cared about their local area then we would be in danger of refusing all immigrants and ignoring all world politics, to the detriment of the world as a whole.
You can't just fight on local issues, you have to consider how the party you're electing will handly country-wide issues and international issues.
it isnt funny pinning food and oil prices
on him 'solely'
because he behaved no differently from what i suspect the tories or liberals would have.........however it is appalling that he did not predict this or announce tht it would be happening.........he is either
a) incompetant for not being able to predict this
or
b) deliberately keeping this from people
However it is true the Tories would not have been more candid.
the other point you make is correct though
democracy is crappy applied in this country and the US because no provision is made for seperating the performance of the government that has been in power from the other world wide factors or older chickens coming home to roost.
This will lead to the ultimate failure of democracies to prevent economic turmoil and strife and collapse.
All the poeple who defend crap democracy (I have nothing against the idea of making democracy strong and better) against any criticism seem to be unaware of democracy only being as good as the level ogf understanding and involvement and accuracy and truth of information presented to the public.
I am allowed to blame brown for not at least warning of the economic crisis way ahead of when it was undisguisable
The majority arnt because theyre like fucking headless chickens following accepted percieved wisdom (dumbness) always checking the papers of what you are allowed to say or think or what might not make them look like a tit.....
I am being arrogant but only because most others really seem to buy into the 'the emporors new clothes'
You all seem to treat politics as a religeon......with 'democracy' as your symbolic god of why you are right.
Democracy is only what you make it....it doesnt make a country right. It only makes it right if its taken seriously and inhabits the electorate....instead the people of this country have followed a tribal partizan approach to democracy.
Now that might be human nature and thats fair enough.
But that is wht I am saying when I have criticised democracy and the party system.....it doesnt work because human natre interferes wit hthe learnt philosophical correctness of the principal of democracy.....
iF HUMANS ARE FRIGHTENED OR GREEDY OR STUPID OR UNSURE THEN THEY FOLLOW baser instincts NOT higher ideals....
Therefore the only way for democracy to get better is NOT to have an advesorial parliament but to have a concensual parliament where agreement between elected members is sought......It doesnt matter if blah blah blah its worked for many glorious years....britain and the economy could expand then.......now the world economy cannot expand as in the past
so it will no longer do.
Government in this countrey (and others) is in a totally unfit state with which to handle the crisis that is upon us, and I feel powerless to even convince people of this ........................so through my tears of frustration and fear for the future please allow me to go HAR HAR
told you so.
PS I almost held out some hope for brown
because he initialy tried to get a tory and liberal working for government .........i was ashamed that the lib dem leader said he thought this was 'outrageous......what a twat he was to say this.
Coalition is the only way at the moment.....in fighting needs to stop, people need to see and think clearly in a crisis, we dont need extra added layers of obfuscation
:( no replies
Im an embarrisment i suppose
Ahh I'll reply creaky
yes you are right
<kisses on forehead>
^
I agree with you about coalition government.
All governments are crap
Elected politicians don't run the country. The quangogracy and the civil service run the country.
Gordon Brown's problem is that, having been in power essentially for 11 years, that things have caught up with him. The regulatory system for the banking industry is the most obvious example. Had labour been booted out in 2005, he would be a very popular leader of the opposition because a) earlier mistakes would have to dealt with by the tories and b) the inevitable economic downturn would have occurred on their watch.
who is the
'quangogracy'?
people
that run strategic health authorities, chief exec of network rail etc.
i'm being over the top, obvs.
they are very lucky people who know the right people and
say the things that will prove popular enough, in the right circles, to get themselves appointed to another quango
yes this is true
and because the majority electorate are unable to percieve this, hence Democracy is not 'the will of the people' but a series of events and coincidences sometimes coinciding to choose something different when times go bad, it is not actually thinking or shrewdly determining our future leaders and fate
I like youre first reply about 4 posts up
we agree on that :)
I thought they were just cross about the 10p tax thing