UK Governement..
(Click here to view the original thread with full colors/images)Posted by: Rat Faced
Labour's decline and fall
William Rees-Mogg
The latest Blunkett revelations are a symptom of a Government rotting from within
THERE ARE five great offices of state which, between them, dominate Westminster and Whitehall. They are Downing Street, the Treasury, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, the Home Office and Defence.
At present, five months before a general election, the structure is a shambles. This makes it difficult to be governed; it will also make it difficult for the Labour Party to win the general election, however far ahead it may be in the opinion polls. Yet no one can see how the structure can be mended.
The trouble starts at the top. The relationship between the Prime Minister and the Chancellor of the Exchequer can best be described as one of political enmity though Tony Blair and Gordon Brown co-operate out of mutual interest. In effect, there are two governments; one, which controls foreign affairs, defence and patronage, is run from Downing Street; the other, which controls public expenditure and social policy, is run from the Treasury.
This division of powers is similar to that between the monarch and the Prime Minister in the 18th century. George II and Robert Walpole, or George III and Lord North, shared authority in a similar way. One difference is that no 18th-century monarch would have put up with the gloomy insubordination that Tony Blair has had to tolerate for the past seven years. Another difference is that no 18th-century prime minister wanted to make himself king. On the whole, the division of powers worked better in the 18th century than it does in the 21st.
It used to be said that control of expenditure and revenue made the House of Commons the sovereign element in the British constitution. That control has now passed to the Treasury: it belongs to the Commons only in a notional sense; it belongs to the Prime Minister only if he is able, if necessary, to dismiss his Chancellor. At present, and until the election, it belongs effectively to Gordon Brown; he is the sovereign power.
The conflict between these two governments is a serious handicap to the administration. Ministers cannot adopt policies that Mr Brown will not pay for. Every important policy has to be financed and therefore becomes a negotiation between the two governments. Mr Brown sincerely thinks that he ought to be prime minister and is inclined to behave as though he were. The closer one gets to the heart of the Government machine, the louder is the grinding of these gears.
Since the election of 2001 this ultimately intolerable strain has been mediated by the other three major ministers: Jack Straw, the Foreign Secretary, David Blunkett, the Home Secretary, and Geoff Hoon, the Secretary for Defence. Now two of these three are in disarray.
Mr Straw is the exception. A sound lawyer-politician, a master of his many briefs, who knows when to keep his head down, he is the only one of the big five who still enjoys a normal level of confidence and respect.
Mr Hoon survives in office, but his prevaricating evidence to the Hutton inquiry did him much harm. He sounded untrustworthy and over-promoted; presumably he was retained because Mr Blair thought it would do the Government more damage to dismiss him than to keep him. He adds no weight to the Cabinet.
This was the Government’s situation before the Blunkett story broke. I’m not sure that David Blunkett is a particularly good Home Secretary; he seems to have a positive mania for legislation, as was shown by the absurd over-indulgence in Home Office Bills in the Queen’s Speech. Much of the time he is governed by soundbites. But he is, or was, a superb ministerial politician.
He has a combination of intelligence and forcefulness which gives him the weight that many of his colleagues lack. In his personal troubles, his obsessive quality has been only too apparent. Yet obsessiveness can be a political virtue. He charges like a bull in the ring, or a Dreadnought at sea. For seven years he may have been the only minister who was not the tiniest bit afraid of Gordon Brown.
I’m not sure that he can survive; his second affair seems particularly disturbing. There tends to be an abuse of power when the boss has an affair with an attractive junior, and breaks up her current relationship. The whole Blunkett story is becoming excessive; each twist raises new questions.
If Mr Blunkett does survive, his reputation will not be restored to what it was. He has not behaved in the impeccable way that Mr Blair promised for his administration. He has not shown judgment; he has involved civil servants in his private life. At best he would be a damaged minister, a weight on Mr Blair’s authority rather than a support. He is certainly not a future prime minister, yet a minister who does not have a marshal’s baton in his knapsack lacks one of the tools of power.
The Labour Party itself still has a lot of support. Recent opinion polls show Labour ahead by between two and eight points, enough for another large majority. Yet at a general election Labour will have to convert opinion poll preferences into votes, and that Labour has been failing to do. In the past six months there have been parliamentary by-elections, local government by-elections and local government and European elections, four different tests of actual voting. In none of them has Labour reached the equivalent of 30 per cent, the level probably required for another majority.
Mr Blair cannot offer his present top team to the country, as they are. The questions come thick and fast, like the arrows at Hastings or Agincourt. When will Mr Blair retire? Will he reappoint Gordon Brown as Chancellor? Will Mr Brown go to the back benches? Who will replace Geoff Hoon? Will David Blunkett have left office already? When will he go?
This Labour Government is now like a rotten tree. It is loosely bolted together by the iron ring of Straw, Hoon and Blunkett. Now the iron ring itself is breaking up.
One can only hope... On other hand, i'd rather these were in than the Tories...
Hope LibDems come up trumps
Posted by: Barbarossa
It'd be a complete disaster if the Tories got back in.. OK, there has been some less than savoury behaviour from some of the labour government ministers, but quite frankly these don't even come close to the antics of the last lot.
I'd like the Lib Dems to do well, at least become the major force in opposition anyway, but I don't think they're quite ready yet to be in charge. At least you can count on them to be an effective opposition though, which the Tories aren't.
The public have very short memories when it comes to politics, and they are easily swayed by tabloid press.. That's the only trouble with democracies, you have to give nearly everybody a say... ;)
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
Just a question about Labour, trying to remember where I read this, but aren't they trying to pass into law something against being able to say anything against any religous group? If so, what does that say about freedom of speech?
BTW: Ratface can you please find something else to use as a signature, your current one is offensive.
Posted by: Rat Faced
I will, if you can explain why the sig is offensive... Its not anti-US
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
I will, if you can explain why the sig is offensive... Its not anti-US
Talk all you want about how it is a maritime symbol for help, an inverted flag has been used several times as an offensive statement. also the line "Bush does not constitute reason or truth; think for yourself." to me implies to Americans are incapable of thinking for themselves.
As an example of the upside down flag thing, a while back Canadians were up in arms when their flag was dislayed upside down by accident at a baseball game.
Posted by: Barbarossa
Just a question about Labour, trying to remember where I read this, but aren't they trying to pass into law something against being able to say anything against any religous group? If so, what does that say about freedom of speech?
BTW: Ratface can you please find something else to use as a signature, your current one is offensive.
So..... in your first paragraph, you are stating you are against infringements to freedom of speech, and in your second paragraph you are attacking RF's right to freedom of speech in his sig, claiming it causes offence.....
Paradox? :wacko:
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
So..... in your first paragraph, you are stating you are against infringements to freedom of speech, and in your second paragraph you are attacking RF's right to freedom of speech in his sig, claiming it causes offence.....
Paradox? :wacko:
Seriously barbarossa, the two are not related whatsoever. I simply was asking for clarification on a Labour related subject and wanted to learn more.
I never attacked Rat Faced in any form, I asked politely, and he sayed to tell him why I found it offensive, so I did. There was no hostility involved whatsoever.
Posted by: manker
I will, if you can explain why the sig is offensive... Its not anti-USThe onus is on you to explain. Both as the antagonist and a moderator.
You may see it as a symbol that the US is in trouble but others may not only disagree but also might resent seeing a flag they hold dear in this state.
If you had a Welsh flag upside down I believe I would ask you to remove it. Hence the reason for this post.
Posted by: vidcc
Talk all you want about how it is a maritime symbol for help, an inverted flag has been used several times as an offensive statement. also the line "Bush does not constitute reason or truth; think for yourself." to me implies to Americans are incapable of thinking for themselves.
As an example of the upside down flag thing, a while back Canadians were up in arms when their flag was dislayed upside down by accident at a baseball game. I suspect it's aimed at someone in particular...an somehow i think he finds it amusing....it's not aimed at all americans... bit arrogant to assume it's aimed at you :lol:
As to the flag, it's just a bit of cloth, there are real things to get offended by in life
@ the thread.
I'm way out of date with the antics of british politicians, i know whoever is in power will be complained about.... If it gives any comfort, there are a lot worse in many other countries :(
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
... bit arrogant to assume it's aimed at you :lol:
Please show me where I stated it was aimed specifically at me.
Posted by: vidcc
Please show me where I stated it was aimed specifically at me.
are you american ? if so and you don't think it included you why bring it up?
Posted by: manker
are you american ? if so and you don't think it included you why bring it up?What are you talking about, vid.
If an American is offended by their flag being depicted as such then it's neither arrogant nor sanctimonious. It isn't very fashionable for an American to be patriotic but you wouldn't want deny him that right, would you.
As I say, if it was the Welsh flag inverted I would be more than a little bit put out. Whether it was aimed at me personally or not.
Posted by: Busyman
I suspect it's aimed at someone in particular...an somehow i think he finds it amusing....it's not aimed at all americans... bit arrogant to assume it's aimed at you :lol:
As to the flag, it's just a bit of cloth, there are real things to get offended by in life
@ the thread.
I'm way out of date with the antics of british politicians, i know whoever is in power will be complained about.... If it gives any comfort, there are a lot worse in many other countries :(
So..... in your first paragraph, you are stating you are against infringements to freedom of speech, and in your second paragraph you are attacking RF's right to freedom of speech in his sig, claiming it causes offence.....
Paradox? :wacko:
You are both asses....those are just words, there are real things to get offended by in life.
Get it? :huh:
I also took offence to the sig...initially but then it's Rat so I didn't stay offended as I didn't think he was jabbing and being anti-U.S.
I don't think Comic Peddler was out of line though for I was on the verge on posting something similar but then didn't.
Regarding the statement in his sig....I agree. Think for yourself. There are folks in every country that do not.
Posted by: vidcc
those are just words, there are real things to get offended by in life.
Get it? :huh:
.
yes i get it... because that's what i said. :whistling
Posted by: Busyman
You are both asses....those are just words, there are real things to get offended by in life.
Get it? :huh:
yes i get it... because that's what i said. :whistling
Then we agree.
Posted by: vidcc
Then we agree.
so i'm an ass because you agree with what i said? :unsure::lol:
anyway i'll leave it at that because this isn't the spam room
Posted by: Rat Faced
As to the flag:
Its an international symbol to fly an inverted flag, as stated before.
It does not insult the nation of the flag, it is a request for help or a warning to others and is not only used in the Naval Services. It is in many respects similar to a flag being flown at half mast but not as obvious.
If it was a flag being burnt or otherwise destroyed, i'd totally agree with your sumation, it would be an insult, as would an effigy of Bush being burnt. Its not when upside down....
If you cant see that your nation is not only divided from the rest of the world, but between each other, then i surely pity you. You are a nation at war, not only abroad but at home.. the flag being damaged symbolises this.
If I could find an upside down union flag, i'd be flying that as well.. as I dont think its just the USA that is in trouble.
As to the Statement:
The statement says to think for yourself. If i did not believe you were capable of such, it would be a bit pointless to make the statement.
Its exactly the same statement as in J2K4's sig, with one word changed.
I would have thought that was a complement to J2K4, rather than an attack on Americans... they say that impersonation is the greatest form of complement after all.
I did, prior to this, have the same flag as J2K4 has in his too... this was removed. I assume someone must have been insulted by that one too and it was removed for that reason.
The Flag, by the way, is from an American site, and is quite common at the moment i believe. So, are you saying you also feel offended by the many Democrats with this picture on their sites since the election?
As to the Law that you asked about..
I havent heard about any such as this (although that does not mean that its not so, its hard to keep track of stuff they try and sneak through ;) ), however Religious Discrimination is illegal in this country anyway, and such statements could be interpreted by a heavy handed police officer to commit a few offences already under Laws we already have. I believe that Holland and France have such Laws in the pipeline however.
Posted by: Busyman
so i'm an ass because you agree with what i said? :unsure::lol:
anyway i'll leave it at that because this isn't the spam room
I'm not sure what you refer to but in any event you got it so we'll leave at that.
This ain't the spam room.
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
Well, Rat Faced, I never once stated that the U.S. was not divided, so please hold off on your pity.
Also, while I am a Democrat myself, I will not blindly associate myself with what every Democrat thinks. If they want to display it one their sites, that is their decision as it is their site.
You also must understand changing a single word can change the meaning of a statement profoundly. As a rather simplistic example: "I hate cats", changing a single word, "I hate blacks"
While I understand that you may not have meant for it to be insulting, you must realize that it is not always what you mean to say, but how it is recieved.
About my question: I found the answer to my question, it is actually the Australian Labour party that is pushing for the anti-derogatory against religious groups law.
Posted by: Rat Faced
Im glad you realise no insult was intended :D
I'll look for something else when i get a chance re: The flag.. as this is obviously being taken the wrong way, not only by yourself but by others too :(
But the statement... I honestly cant see anything wrong with it at all, and dont see how you can take it the wrong way :unsure: ...
It may not go with my new sig when i find it anyway though :lol:
Posted by: scroff
ROFL!!!!!!!! Oh this was too good! :lol:
Some people get "upset" and offended at the stupidist shit...
Thanks RF
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
Thank you Rat Faced, I appreciate your accomadation.
Posted by: Comic_Peddler
@scroff:
I appreciate your input on the subject. But please notice that I had an issue with Rat Faced's signature, I stated this, explained why, and Rat Faced was gracious enough to take it in too consideration. No where in this did he or I feel the need to use profanities or critize what any one found offensive. Please learn from this.
Posted by: Barbarossa
As to the Law that you asked about..
I havent heard about any such as this (although that does not mean that its not so, its hard to keep track of stuff they try and sneak through ;) ), however Religious Discrimination is illegal in this country anyway, and such statements could be interpreted by a heavy handed police officer to commit a few offences already under Laws we already have. I believe that Holland and France have such Laws in the pipeline however.
This might be what he was referring to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4073997.stm
Posted by: scroff
@scroff:
I appreciate your input on the subject. But please notice that I had an issue with Rat Faced's signature, I stated this, explained why, and Rat Faced was gracious enough to take it in too consideration. No where in this did he or I feel the need to use profanities or critize what any one found offensive. Please learn from this.
Uh, yea, ok
Posted by: Rat Faced
This might be what he was referring to:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4073997.stm
Like i said... sneaking the bloody things in.
What has this got to do with the Department thats being set up? Its not in their re-mit even..
Just sneaking Laws in on the back of reorganisation... Like i said, the USA isnt the only country in Trouble by these wannabe Despots :dry:
Posted by: Smurfette
I like the name... SOCA - are we feeling hot, hot, hot, lol?
The problem I have with this is not knowing the full text of the bill - well, not every word, but certainly not knowing how 'offensive incitement' is actually to be determined... which puts me pretty much on Rowan Atkinson's side of the fence.
Posted by: vidcc
I am Scottish and would be deeply offended if anyone were to fly The Saltire the wrong way up.
I feel that is a reasonable position to take.
Is it possible to tell?
Posted by: Rat Faced
Is it possible to tell?
Only when included in the Union Flag or Union Jack..
:unsure:
Posted by: vidcc
Only when included in the Union Flag or Union Jack..
:unsure:
well that bit i know about, but alone.....i appreciate the joke made, however it has made me think if there is a subtle way to "get it right"
Posted by: Smurfette
"THIS WAY UP" descretely woven into the top seam?
Posted by: Samurai
:)
Or perhaps Made In England on our northern brothers' flags :lol:
Posted by: Rat Faced
That depends upon whether the flagpole is on the left :rolleyes:
Posted by: Barbarossa
US Flag Laws and Regulations (http://www.wi.net/flag.html)
There's ALOT to take in here...
I especially found the following very interesting:
Sec. 4.
That no disrespect should be shown to the flag of the United States of America -- the flag should not be dipped to any person or thing. Regimental colors, State flags, and organization or institutional flags are to be dipped as a mark of honor.
1. The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
2. The flag should never touch anything beneath it, such as the ground, the floor, water, or merchandise.
3. The flag should never be carried flat or horizontally, but always aloft and free.
4. The flag should never be used as wearing apparel, bedding, or drapery. It should never be festooned, drawn back, nor up, in folds, but always allowed to fall free. Bunting of blue, white and red, always arranged with the blue above, the white in the middle, and the red below, should be used for covering a speaker's desk, draping the front of the platform, and for decoration in general.
5. The flag should never be fastened, displayed, used, or stored in such a manner as to permit it to be easily torn, soiled, or damaged in any way.
6. The flag should never be used as a covering for a ceiling.
7. The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.
8. The flag should never be used as a receptacle for receiving, holding, carrying, or delivering anything.
9. The flag should never be used for advertising purposes in any manner whatsoever. It should not be embroidered on such articles as cushions or handkerchiefs and the like, printed or otherwise impressed on paper napkins or boxes or anything that is designed for temporary use and discard. Advertising signs should not be fastened to a staff or halyard from which the flag is flown.
10. No part of the flag should ever be used as a costume or athletic uniform. However, a flag patch may be affixed to the uniform of military personnel, firemen, policemen, and members of patriotic organizations. The flag represents a living country and is itself considered a living thing. Therefore, the lapel flag pin being a replica, should be worn on the left lapel near the heart.
11. The flag, when it is in such condition that it is no longer a fitting emblem for display, should be destroyed in a dignified way, preferably by burning.
Posted by: Rat Faced
1. The flag should never be displayed with the union down, except as a signal of dire distress in instances of extreme danger to life or property.
I rest my case M'Lord
Posted by: Busyman
I rest my case M'Lord
Your sig flag was torn though.
Run and hides :ph34r:
Posted by: Rat Faced
Where does it say it cant be Ripped?
It says that it can't be stored in a manner to make it easilly ripped... nothing about it being ripped.
Mine was flying on a Flagpole :P
Posted by: vidcc
The quality has dropped since flagmaking was outsourced to indonesia :lol:
Posted by: Busyman
Where does it say it cant be Ripped?
It says that it can't be stored in a manner to make it easilly ripped... nothing about it being ripped.
Mine was flying on a Flagpole :P
Why not throw some mud on it to for good measure, eh?
Posted by: Barbarossa
If it's ripped then by rule 11 you are allowed to burn it... :devil:
Posted by: Rat Faced
Tony Blair's autocratic style of government was savaged yesterday by Lord Butler, the former cabinet secretary.
Lord Butler, who led the inquiry into intelligence failures on the Iraq war that largely exonerated the Prime Minister, said the Blair Government was guilty of "too much emphasis on selling" its own policies, "too much central control" and too little cabinet discussion.
He accused the Prime Minister of presiding over "bad government in this country" with too many "bad Bills", and a "huge amount of regulation".
Lord Butler's assault went further than his attack on the sofa-style of the Government in his report in July, and opened Mr Blair to criticism.
Michael Howard, the Leader of the Opposition, said: "Lord Butler has blown open the reasons why this Government does not deliver on the things that really matter to people. He was an insider at the very heart of the Blair Government. It's certainly the most damaging testimony I can remember from someone in such an eminent position."
The Independent learnt last night that a Labour-led Commons select committee was also planning to deliver a wounding attack on the Blair Government in the new year for the way it has handled the "whitewash'' public inquiries by Lords Butler and Hutton on the Iraq war and its aftermath.
Tony Wright, the Labour chairman of the Commons select committee on public administration, which took evidence from Lord Butler and Lord Hutton, said his report will be "pretty strong in that area".
He also revealed that he had written to the Prime Minister to demand more details about the action by Downing Street to implement the Butler report on the need for more formal note-taking of minutes of meetings.
In his report, Lord Butler painted a picture familiar to viewers of the American television drama The West Wing, with decisions taken informally. Downing Street has failed to spell out how it has changed, said Mr Wright.
"I don't think the Cabinet has been a formal decision-making body for a long time on many things. But on key issues it ought to have been. Butler's point was that on the war, it ought to have been, and it wasn't. At a crucial moment, it should matter greatly," he added.
Lord Butler's latest assault on the Government came in an interview with Boris Johnson in The Spectator which Mr Johnson, a Tory MP, edits. He said Mr Blair should restore open debate in government at all levels up to the Cabinet. "The Cabinet now - and I don't think there is any secret about this - doesn't make decisions," said Lord Butler.
Margaret Thatcher was much more formal, he said. "She certainly wanted to get her own way and she was very dominant but she certainly took the view as Harold Wilson did that important decisions should be taken by cabinet."
Downing Street insisted yesterday that more note-taking had been introduced since the Butler report, while conceding that many decisions were taken in cabinet committees instead of the full Cabinet. Yesterday's Cabinet met for one hour and 15 minutes.
Source (http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politics/story.jsp?story=591675)
:01: :01: :01: :01:
Posted by: lynx
The up and coming question appears to be how did David Kelly die?
The Butler inquiy covered events leading to his death, on the assumption that the coroner's verdict of suicide was correct. Serious questions now appear to be being raised about the soundness of that verdict.