Discussion in 'U.K.' started by J0hn, May 18, 2007.
How would this new form of democracy work?
I'm confused by the 2007-2017 thing. Surely no-one thinks Labour will last out another term? Cameron's got the same kind of feelgood razzle dazzle that Blair had, he'll pick up the votes of people who don't care about politics and just vote based on whether they want to change government or keep the old one, not really caring who's in charge. And that's basically the majority of the electorate.
Can it involve robot suits, please?
Very well indeed by all accounts
Not quite sure where you're going with the chess analogy. It started off interesting, and then became incoherent. Could you flesh out your argument a bit?
Not very far with "horses" I imagine.
I think he means the relative value of each political philosophy.
Maybe how important each one is regarding there merits and flaws.
As is always said ''they are all the same'' - maybe the benefits attributable to each particular party can push the country forward.
Labour have done their bit - time for a change of political positioning as far as the ''chess board'' of politics goes.
I might also be talking trash :H
I was going to say! Ahh well, perhaps he's trying to say horses for courses. Or should that be knights....
Anyone's in particular?
I'd like to believe that with Brown taking over as prime minister it maybe more positive and left leaning, politically. Then I do live in a dream world most of the time. The fact is since Thatcher and her destruction to working class communities we all believe that owning our home, paying privately for medical attention and education is a more dynamic way forward making the centre ground something which may have been regarded in the 60's as extreme right-wing thinking. We are becoming less and less forgiving as time goes on.
The fact that this country is attracting the super rich says it all. How many billionaires live here now? About 66 isn't it? May not sound a lot but considering the wealth they have stolen and the majority of us struggle on with just enough to call it a living, well I ask you.
It's all just minor tinkering with the a post-Thatcherite consensus. Brown may well be marginally to the left of Blair, but I don't think we should expect any leftist revolution. Neither should we expect tax or public spending hikes. Remember that in the first 2 years of Labour government, Brown stuck to Conservative spending plans. Also, public spending during the Thatcher years remained high, around 38%. Under Labour it has increased to just over 40%, but as I said, minor tinkering....
I don't know if it's even that conscious. People are just easily led, I think. If you ask them if they want free health care, they'll say yes, but if you just force them to put up with shitty health care, and don't even give them the option to pay more for it, then that's a problem.
I don't see how a desire for homeownership is such a huge problem though. I don't think many people would choose to stay in rented/council housing if they had the money and the option to buy.
The apathy of modern day political awareness. Maybe we are all, as a nation, comfortable to a level where we don't need to think about the subtle disappearance of our rights as British citizens or the institutions that benefit(ed) us all. You could be right.
The idea of home ownership is not in itself a problem. People with the resources would of course choose to get on the property ladder. The trouble is, with the current state of the housing market, this is becoming increasingly difficult even for many lower-middle class families, not to mention those in the lowest income brackets. The sale of council houses becomes a problem where the government stops building new council houses to fill the gap left by those removed from public ownership. You'll always need a safety net below which no member of society should be able to fall. If not you end up with significantly more problems than you started out with. A responsible policy, therefore, would be to continue social housing schemes to accomodate for needs. This is something that the Thatcher governments failed to do.
As for public complicity, I'd disagree with regards to the NHS. Despite all the privatisations presided over by the Thatcher and Major governments, and despite the utter destruction of the post-war consensus, the one institution they could not touch was the NHS. In fact public spending increased during the Conservative governments. That's not because they had an ideological commitment to maintaining free health care. The neo-liberal model would necessitate opening health care up to market forces as in America. Rather they stayed clear of the NHS because it was such a popular public institution. People can be bent so far. But there will be a breaking point. Poll Tax is another example. With Poll Tax the electorate finally felt that Thatcher had gone too far. The extent to which this was true can be seen where even those who benefitted from poll tax opposed the policy....
People like the idea of the NHS, yes. They just won't pay for it to not be shit.
I'm told Middle England is a myth, but I don't know.
I'd disagree. I'd say people accept a basic level of taxation, and they accept the notion that it should be a progressive rate of taxation where those earning higher salaries contribute more. People only start to become agitated when tax is pushed too high, or where tax seems to be unfairly targetted. Council tax and poll tax, as well as high fuel duties being prime examples. People are also concerned with the quality of service they receive in light of taxation. People will complain when tax is high, and services are poor. When services are of a high quality, people are often more willing to accept moderate tax increases....
No, we exist :tongue:
P-P, shouldn't you be revising?
(then again, I should be marking ...)
Maybe it's just because I worked the phones in local government in a shitty Tory heartland, but it's been my experience that most people think they pay too much tax already and get crummy services whatever, if they even associate their taxes with the services they receive. I don't know if a lot of people even do.
Separate names with a comma.