On 30 Jul 2010 at 8:50am Kevsy wrote:
So last nights TV showed that Clegg and Cameron are complete liars, especially Clegg who clearly fibbed about Labour's AV pledge, he had also already made up his mind about additional cuts before the election but decided not to tell those likely to vote for him.
What is more the supposedly politically neutral Gus O'Donnell appeared to have schemed the whole thing.
Pretty early in the game to display that:
a) the systems is corrupt
b) our leaders are liars
It can't last
On 30 Jul 2010 at 9:02am 'ere be monsters wrote:
So what parts of a) and b) comes as a shock to you Kevsy?
On 30 Jul 2010 at 9:09am Kevsy wrote:
fair point - it just isnt normally spelt out in quite so black and white terms.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 9:24am Down and Out wrote:
The lovely Michael Gove lied to the House when he stated that 'thousands' of schools wanted to become academies when he knew that only 150 or so had applied, and he forced his bill through Parliament without proper consultation. Lansley, similarly, is rushing through major structural change to the NHS without proper debate.
My greatest difficulty lies in trying to work out which of the bahstards I hate the most.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 10:17am sashimi wrote:
I thought that was a fascinating programme. British politicians and civil servants managed to get a coalition agreement together in five days where it would take 40 in most European countries. They had to get a result before the markets went into meltdown. The result was a clear reflection of what the country had voted for (whether you like that or not). The big surprise was that Balls and Mandleson, three days after the election, went into their first meeting with Clegg without having discussed or considered what sort of deal they might want to come away with. IMO, the only person who behaved disgracefully was Brown who resigned in a huff when he should have stayed on as acting PM until someone else was ready willing and able to take over.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 11:36am Kevsy wrote:
Sashimi - Your ability to read anything into anything is impressive. As is the civils service ability to be unconstitutional when trying to get a Tory into power. Maybe labour didn't have a refined plan because it didn't have its power googles on - do anything at all costs to remain in charge. It actually was doing the right thing and not signing up to something it didn't believe would work.
Maybe Brown was responding to public pressure to 'stop squatting'. And wanted to bring an end to Clegg's silly bargaining games.
Maybe there was no impending financial crisis looming at any moment - and it was cooked up to create the chaos that ensued. Don't get me wrong I know there are big issues - but what specifically would have happened if it took another week to work through (like they do in Europe)
I'm not saying labour behaved as I would have liked - but to pat Cameron et al on the back having watched the program really does take some strong rose tinted spectacles that no amount of discussion on here is likely to shift.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 12:09pm TAFKAPS wrote:
There all lying b_st_rds on the make for themselves! I'm totally disenfranchised with politics at all levels, what is the point of voting for someone when they all do what they want anyway??!!
On 30 Jul 2010 at 12:34pm Clifford wrote:
sashimi wrote: 'The result was a clear reflection of what the country had voted for (whether you like that or not).'
The electorate didn't vote for a coalition. If anything they voted for a minority government as they showed themselves unwilling to give complete trust to either of the main parties. In addition, the electorate did not vote for the third party to decide whether the Tories or Labour should form a government. Do you know anyone who said, 'I'm voting so that the Lib Dems can choose the government for me'?
On 30 Jul 2010 at 12:52pm kevsy wrote:
or worse still a third party called the Civil Service
On 30 Jul 2010 at 1:02pm sashimi wrote:
Clifford, all the pre-election polls suggested there would be a hung parliament and there was some research (can't remember where) that suggested that 70% of voters thought there should be a hung parliament. Does that mean voters didn't trust any of the parties enough to give them a majority? Does it mean voters wanted a mix of the programmes? Were they just confused? I don't know. What is clear is that the arithmetic for a strong government was there only for Lib-Con or possibly a national government: Lab-Con or even Lib-Lab-Con - all of them led by Cameron as the leader with the largest party. Despite the financial crisis no one floated the idea of a national government. I am still astonished that, given all the signs were there in the polls, no one in the top team at Labour was prepared for a coalition negotiation. The other two parties were clearly well prepared for it. I don't really approve of civil servants, but I think they behaved impeccably. They were well prepared and they provided all the facilities for a swift and smooth transfer of power - not because they were prejudiced in favour of the Tories, but because that was what the election result required.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 1:52pm Old Cynic wrote:
IMO the civil service can't be blamed for any of this - the poor sods have to impliment the crazy ideas their ministers come up with - whether they like it or not. I have two mates who are civil servants, both hate the new government and what they are doing - one described his minister as a 'right wing lunatic' and his ideas as an 'ill thought through pile of half baked s#it'
On 30 Jul 2010 at 2:11pm kevsy wrote:
Don't get me wrong I've nothing against 99.9 percent of the civil servants who have to continually adapt. But I for one felt that O'Donnell was overstepping the mark from the evidence suggested on the telly.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 2:34pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Do not forget that this was TV programme and is open to bias, especially from clever editing.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 2:41pm Clifford wrote:
What would you say the bias was in this programme Mystic - pro-Tory, pro-Labour, pro-Lib Dem, pro-civil service? If you're going to talk about bias you have to say what way you think the bias went. I watched it and thought it was about as objective as it could be - in that no-one came out of it particularly well.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 3:15pm Mystic Mog wrote:
Clifford I do not know if were biased. Just that what could be presented as unbiased may well be biased. If the truth did not come out about that documentary that inferred that the Queen had a strop we would not been the wiser. Just as some are cynical about politicians I am cynical about journalists.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 3:41pm Clifford wrote:
We all know that Mystic - we make allowances for bias when we watch or read things.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 3:46pm Mystic Mog wrote:
I am sure that you do. However some do not
On 30 Jul 2010 at 4:01pm Clifford wrote:
I doubt if any of the people who post here are silly enough not to.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 4:18pm jrsussex wrote:
Clifford _ you are of course quite right about most people. I am generally biased towards the big blue yonder. However I do like to think (and hope) I balance it out as best I can due to my formative years being spent as an extreme left-winger. Used to read the Daily Worker (or was it the Daily Star?) every day in my 20's. Thought I could change the world, Oh the innocence of youth!!!
On 30 Jul 2010 at 4:28pm Clifford wrote:
JR - My father used to get the Daily Worker (later the Morning Star) every day, as well as the Daily Telegraph, so I feel I had quite a politically balanced childhood. Threw all the balance away as soon as i grew up, of course.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 5:17pm drone wrote:
Some us still get the Morning Star & still prefer the Torygraph to Murdoch's dumbed down Times
On 30 Jul 2010 at 6:37pm jrsussex wrote:
That's one of the great things about this forum, the sheer diversity of those that use it. Mind you, we're all gving our ages away :-)
On 30 Jul 2010 at 7:38pm sashimi wrote:
The truth is jrsussex that, as this thread shows, most of us are bonkers.
On 30 Jul 2010 at 8:01pm Clifford wrote:
I'll second that sashimi.
On 3 Aug 2010 at 11:13am Hoodie hugger wrote:
"IMO, the only person who behaved disgracefully was Brown who resigned in a huff when he should have stayed on as acting PM until someone else was ready willing and able to take over."
Agreed. IMO, the program showed how incredibly deluded Balls & co are. He obviously thought that the LibDems would still kow-tow to them, entirely missing the point that they lost the election. The Lib-Dems could NEVER have gone with Labour - the maths simply didn't add up. The fact that senior Labourites couldn't see this is proof in itself that we are well shot of 'em; they're clearly living on a different planet from the rest of us.
On 3 Aug 2010 at 11:54am Pedant wrote:
Hoodie - over here we spell it 'programme', not 'program'. You don't think that those 'senior Labourites' knew very well the maths didn't add up and were pleased it was going to be the Tories/Lib Dems who were going to have to make the cuts?