« Out of old sleaze, new socialism | Main | Blair's first blunder »

March 23, 2010

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Kay Tie

I think the Tories have a better economic policy - albeit too weak. I think they have a better approach to civil liberties - although tinged by social authoritarianism. And I am convinced that another term of Labour will result in utter economic ruin and huge social division, possibly resulting in widespread unrest and violence.

patrick

Kay-Tie
What strength's do you feel the Tories have and what makes you think they won't behave exactly as they did last time?

DG

I've come to believe that voting along party lines is pointless. The sheer size of them means that the "diffusion of responsibility" phenomena comes in to play, so ultimately "the party" (any party) will behave as unethically in its own interests as any large corporation.

Some research suggests that certain personality types are more resilient to that kind of social/psychological pressure than others though, so voting for the individual candidate rather than the party might be the best way to go. I'd be wary of any candidate parachuted into a "safe" seat, or anyone seeking re-election with the phrase "Never rebels against their party in this Parliament" on their profile at www.theyworkforyou.com

Kay Tie

"The point is?"

As a voter we should be choosing who to govern - and not to govern. In 1997 I wanted the Tories not to govern and Labour to govern. In 2010 I want Labour not to govern. The Tories are the best choice amongst a set of bad choices.

BobGom

Why do you think that Obama has stood firm "Against the combined force of insurers, lobbyists." He passed a bill which says that everyone has to buy private insurance or face a fine. So for a few concessions insurers are now in a position whereby everybody must buy insurance off them or be fined. This is similar to the scheme in Massachusetts where 1/5 people with insurance can't afford to use it.

Paul Flynn

Thanks Tony. New Socialism is the final thought in my new book. It's a note of optimism. The budget was encouraging. Do you weep for those getting £150,000 a year, live in £1 million flats or do not pay taxes on money from Belize?

Patrick

Kay-Tie
As Ad points out "I don't think you have any real principles. 'Vote for the opposition' seems to be your attitude."

That sums up your mindset exactly.

Your voting strategy ;
- 1997, vote Labour to remove Tory sleaze
- 2010, Vote Tory to remove Labour sleaze
- Next election, Vote loser of last election to remove winner sleaze

This strategy you refer to "My duty as a voter is to get rid of them."

Keep up your high 'principles' and 'do your duty' cause right now Blighty needs you!"

The point is?

Kay Tie

"I don't think you have any real principles. 'Vote for the opposition' seems to be your attitude."

And what am I supposed to do? Vote Labour? Quite frankly, the worst outcome of all would be to allow Labour continued power: they are institutionally corrupt and their vision for Britain is hateful. My duty as a voter is to get rid of them. If you had any principle, you'd be doing your duty too.

Ad

It's not the NHS as we know it, but it's an 'Obama triumph.

Against the combined force of insurers, lobbyists, the shock-jocks and the red-neck loons, Obama has stood firm. A hundred years of right wing prejudice has been defeated. It would have been easy for Obama to trim and retreat. He has shown political courage of the highest order.

There is real hope for the world.'

It isn't a triumph. This just makes health insurance compulsory.

If you can't afford to pay the 20 per cent of working class income for insurance you pay a fine. This is a win win for the health insurance industry. The divide will remain, it is a triumph for the health insurers.

Ad

'It's not a left/right thing. It's a power thing. This lot have been accustomed to power for too long, just like the Tories. They need a spell in opposition, just like the Tories did.'

I don't think you have any real principles. 'Vote for the opposition' seems to be your attitude.

Kay Tie

"Sometimes it seems strange how much it is like night following day that the further right a party moves the greater the level of sleaze that it manages to achieve."

It's not a left/right thing. It's a power thing. This lot have been accustomed to power for too long, just like the Tories. They need a spell in opposition, just like the Tories did.

Remember, governments are like nappies: they need changing regularly, and for the same reason.

Paul Flynn

I am sure you are right Peter. I will be producing the evidence on tonight's blog how I tried to get Blair to stop it in 1997.

Peter

Mr Flynn, I don't know whether sleaze in 1994 was worse than in 2010. What I do know is that this form of 'mouth for hire' has been around for at least 40 years. I say this on the basis of having worked until my retirement in corporate communications for that time: MPs have always made themselves available for hire - not all of them, just the majority.

Tony

Well I think Paul you have your wish to create a new socialism looking at the tax changes in the budget - its seems all about tax increases / allowance reductions rather than reducing spending ..

Blairism - R.I.P.

And we now have clear dividing lines between the parties for the election

Funny though that the research from countries with previous budget deficits showed that cutting spending was more effective than raising taxes in closing deficits - but never let the facts get in the way of Brown / Darling eh?

So I guess that Darling did not really present a sensible budget after all .. well, I suppose it was a forlorn hope

HuwOS

Just reminded me,
when the Catholic priest child sex abuse scandals really started breaking in the Irish Republic, the papers there had many letters suggesting that if only priests were allowed to marry that kind of thing wouldn't have happened.

Mind you, later, when the first scandal about swimming coaches committing child sexual abuse broke, one gentleman wrote to the Irish Times suggesting that if only swimming coaches were allowed to marry...

HuwOS

I don't think that necessarily applies generally Paul.
The Irish Republic has its share of greedy Catholic educated people.
Some of them were even in government.

Again it's hardly surprising as the Catholic church, while there have been exceptions amongst it's members, has generally supported the right wing, Spanish civil war, rich vs poor etc etc.
Privilege after all respects privilege. Ferdinand and Imelda Marcos were Catholics too and KayTie's favourite Stalin had a very extensive Catholic education.

Not to say that there haven't been many Catholics who have been decent honourable people, there have been, but I don't think it is down to them having a Catholic education.

Individual teachers, perhaps.
The ethos at a particular school, perhaps.
Not something that can be generalised about though.

Paul Flynn

An abiding virtuous legacy of Catholic education is to blunt material greed, Huw.

Paul Flynn

I now know who put the Evening Standard right. Thanks. He is a Tory.

Why are my prejudices being constantly challenged?

Paul Flynn

in the first week of the Blair Government in 1997 I put in a written question asking him to record and publish details of all meetings between his ministers and lobbyists. He said he would not.

Yes, KayTie I well remember 1997.

HuwOS

Sometimes it seems strange how much it is like night following day that the further right a party moves the greater the level of sleaze that it manages to achieve.

Not really so strange though.
Not when you remember that the principles, mentality and emotions that underpin the right wing are the same principles, mentality and emotional maturity that belong to the average 2 year old.

Kay Tie

And what happened to the sleazy Tory government at the subsequent election?

The comments to this entry are closed.