Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 42

Thread: UK Governement..

  1. #1
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    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 Governmentís situation before the Blunkett story broke. Iím 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 Queenís 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.

    Iím 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 Blairís authority rather than a support. He is certainly not a future prime minister, yet a minister who does not have a marshalís 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

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  2. The Drawing Room   -   #2
    Barbarossa's Avatar mostly harmless
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    19,631
    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...

  3. The Drawing Room   -   #3
    Comic_Peddler's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    256
    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.

  4. The Drawing Room   -   #4
    Rat Faced's Avatar Broken
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Newcasil
    Age
    52
    Posts
    9,076
    I will, if you can explain why the sig is offensive... Its not anti-US

    An It Harm None, Do What You Will

  5. The Drawing Room   -   #5
    Comic_Peddler's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Faced
    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.

  6. The Drawing Room   -   #6
    Barbarossa's Avatar mostly harmless
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Over here!
    Posts
    19,631
    Quote Originally 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.
    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?

  7. The Drawing Room   -   #7
    Comic_Peddler's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by barbarossa
    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?
    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.
    Last edited by Barbarossa; 04-03-2007 at 11:49 AM.

  8. The Drawing Room   -   #8
    manker's Avatar effendi
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    I wear an Even Steven wit
    Posts
    44,031
    Quote Originally Posted by Rat Faced
    I will, if you can explain why the sig is offensive... Its not anti-US
    The 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.
    I plan on beating him to death with his kids. I'll use them as a bludgeon on his face. -

    --Good for them if they survive.

  9. The Drawing Room   -   #9
    vidcc's Avatar there is no god
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    5,630
    Quote Originally Posted by Comic_Peddler
    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

    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
    Last edited by vidcc; 12-07-2004 at 03:16 PM.

    itís an election with no Democrats, in one of the whitest states in the union, where rich candidates pay $35 for your votes. Or, as Republicans call it, their vision for the future.

  10. The Drawing Room   -   #10
    Comic_Peddler's Avatar Poster
    Join Date
    Sep 2003
    Location
    Austin, Tx
    Posts
    256
    Quote Originally Posted by vidcc
    ... bit arrogant to assume it's aimed at you
    Please show me where I stated it was aimed specifically at me.

Page 1 of 5 1234 ... LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •