Skip to content | Skip to navigation
Apr 28, 2006 20:09 # 42690
Hello gents and ladies. Long time no see.
The past week has really made this topic quite the splinter in my mind. Basically I think what it comes down to is the question of just how much can a government piss off its electorate before they're kicked out of power?
In this posters opinion, since Labour came to power in the UK around ten/twelve years ago, modern Britain has taken a good turn for the worse (For "good" there, read "horrific" and for "worse" read "diabolical").
Just a few issues off the top of my head are the restricting creep of absurd legislation under the guise of "health and safety", assuming people arent smart enough to take care of themselves so the government will for you. University fees, which have risen from approximately £1100 to £3000, a fact I'm particularly not happy about since I'm less than comfortably off. The Iraq conflict, which even though had upwards of one million people protesting on the streets of London, the government denied public opinion and committed to a now popularly infamous war.
There are others, the apparent war and systematic but sure stripping of civil liberties in the name of fighting terrorism, but the ones in the news for this particular week:
Approximately 1020 foreign convicts were released without being considered for deportation. Of those, around 80 were for serious crimes, 13 for murder, manslaughter, rape or child molesting.
The guy in charge of the Home Office, and hence, the guy whom the buck stops at, Home Secretary Charles Clarke, is urged to resign, but staunchly refuses to, pulling the old matyr card out saying that he couldnt resign without first fixing this issue.
Issue two. The Health Secretary, Patricia Hewitt, saying repeatedly that the NHS "has had its best year ever". This is despite projected job losses to the tune of around 13000, and a financial defecit of some £600 million. Repeating the same claim, and indeed, the same speech to a national nurses' union conference was not the smartest move, not least because she got her arse handed to her by the nurses, who recognise this crock for what it is.
Number three. Just a minor matter of the deputy prime minister admitting an affair with one of his secretaries.
Number four. In another triumph for Charles Clarke, drugs-related offences are up 21%, and robberies by 6%.
In a way of damage limitation, Blair has made a somewhat characteristic attempt at pulling the wool over our eyes, that of saying that in the local elections in the not-too-distant future, to ignore Westminster dealings and concentrate on the locality.
So my question, in a way, is this. How does government that has such flawed key figures stay in power? I know of not one person that has voted for labour in the past eight years. But these fools continue to make what is, at least, to the man on the street, some of the most retarded, and, it seems to me, gimmick policies that are better than anything Kafka ever dreamed of.
But I digress, somewhat.
In the light of this stupidity, the more extreme ends of the political spectrum are gaining credence with the increasing numbers of alienated and disgruntled people. Im sure you know who i mean. Far right, ostensibly for "our kind of people". People that I know who normally would not ascribe to that point of view are telling me they support that party's policies, but not ideologies. Regardless, something has to be very very wrong when people start flocking to the banner of thinly disguised racists.
Well. Enough from me for now. Whats your opinion on this subject?
Sir Deimos, Beater of Ass.
Hello Deimos. Good to see you back. :)
Unfortunately, politics breeds very successful politicians. And by successful, I mean it is good at its purpose of gripping with their talons and not letting go of their positions.
The ones who are in office are the ones who dribble nonsensical gobbledegook, which doesn't necessarily support their views, but those of the party. And those who rally with the party are given support by the party. And at that point, politicians can just have their lackeys do all the work, while they go fishing or doing some PR event to support their work in the Parliament.
Not to mention that every so often, they feel they deserve a raise, and so they will cast an oral ballot with "Aye" or "Nay." This way, each politician can claim "Oh, I voted Nay! But I was outvoted..."
And then on campaign days, they brag about the rare instances in which they spoke for an issue the people want to have addressed for PR value. So that at that point, the people think he's being Mr. Idealogist, the party supports him because he only votes the way the party wants him to, and the large sum of money earned can be used for campaign money to stay in office. It's like a huge machine, in which the focus is to stay in power just a little more.
It is a horrible system. At least, Britain can't say they made their government that way. Americans actually established our government in such a flawed way.
I'm sure this wasn't an issue during the first days of Congress. They had fair more respect for the country than the idiots we elect now. I feel like a grown-up intercepting a baby trying to steal candy here. I am truly dumbfounded that things have remained this way for so long.
So here is my solution to the problem: There is an inherit conflict of interest here. Senators can help themselves in many ways, including by keeping themselves in office or increasing their own pay. We have bred people that are best at being a "senator" in all the things which give senators wealth. All you have to do to fix this is to eliminate this conflict of interest.
Senators stay in office for 6 years. After those 6 years, they can never again be elected senators. Senators still get good salaries, but the Senate does not have the power to improve things about congress. Same for the House of Representatives. 1 long term.
At least this is a start.
"If I die of a heart attack eating bacon, I'll be a happy man." -My father
This post was edited by Hawkeye on Apr 29, 2006.