'Cannot under any circumstances be criticised' are you seriously saying that? I tend more towards Bournemouth's position than yours, and there is no evidence that Bournemouth takes that position. I also accept that taxpayers want to know what is happening with the money, very few people would accept a governmental position that says 'give us the money, and don't ask any questions'.
'Cannot under any circumstances be criticised' are you seriously saying that? I tend more towards Bournemouth's position than yours, and there is no evidence that Bournemouth takes that position. I also accept that taxpayers want to know what is happening with the money, very few people would accept a governmental position that says 'give us the money, and don't ask any questions'.
No matter what comment I make, whether it be moaning about 1 binman or the government wasting money, the response I get is entirely predictable 'you're biased, you're not allowed to criticise the public sector, therefore your argument is invalid'. If it helps I think there are significant portions of the public sector that does an incredible job or outperforms the private sector for balance, but people don't generally moan about things when they're going well. Enter 'My PS4' into Google and the predictive search text will populate with things like 'won't turn on' or 'keeps freezing', not 'is working perfectly fine' or 'hands out free puppies and blowies'. The point is from the blinkered perspective of a public sector keyboard warrior, I might looked biased but as a taxpayer I am entitled to have an opinion on how my money is spent. Maybe for balance I'll occasionally post about something amazing that happened from my taxes. I had a pretty good blood test the other day at an NHS clinic.
Maybe it would be helpful to ask why have a public sector at all. I would imagine that 99.999% of people would agree that there has to be some kind of public sector somewhere. The problem seems to be that people don't want to pay for it, or want it for an unrealistic price. Someone once said if motorways cost £10million a mile to build, then for £5million you get half a mile.
My problem isn't with the public sector though, it's with the politicians who sign off completely shit policies or spending and then kick the can down the road and expect the taxpayers to pick up the bill. It's completely unaccountable and in this day and age where someone with no qualifications whatsoever finds themselves in a position to sign off the spending of billions of pounds of public money, they ought to be personally accountable even once they left office. If criminal charges or civil suits could be brought against a politician for gross incompetence like they can against people in the private sector (and even there the laws are laughably poor) then I imagine that would at least force them to have a think about the long-term consequences of their decisions.
To use the private sector comparison again, if someone is doing a terrible job, you don't need to wait 5 years for 60,000 people in a completely different part of the country to not vote that person in again.
Fixed term Parliaments were brought in because Gordon Brown was threatening to call an election every other fortnight before getting cold feet and it was becoming a national embarrassment, although extra parameters introduced in the legislation were intended to keep the Coalition going for as long as possible (for example the 5 year rule which is completely indefensible, it should be 4 years max, and the unjustifiably high threshold for a vote of no confidence).
Recall legislation is being considered to call a by-election if an MP falls out of favour but only with his or her own constituents and even if the legislation is made law, it would probably never be used for cock-ups in Government and more likely if the MP conducted themselves in a way that was unbecoming of an MP (assault, sexual assault, bribery etc.).
Most polling companies are predicting a broadly even level of seats for Labour and the Conservatives. Personally I think that the Conservatives will be ahead.
However at present neither one of the big two parties look as if they will be able to form a two party coalition the like of which we have just seen. The predicted numbers don't add up. I can't see a three or even four way coalition from either end of the spectrum.
To get a majority the Conservatives would have to deal with UKIP and the DUP and rope in the Lib Dems and I can't see this happening.
On the other end Labour won't agree formal coalition with the SNP and either just the Liberals and SDLP would be short of a majority. ( personally I think that they should rule out even an informal agreement with this party which is fundamentally opposed to the Governmemt it may try to influence,)
This points to a minority government supported informally.
This could be a poison chalice for whichever party ends up forming the Government; if it was Labour the Conservatives would have a new and much more popular leader quicker than you could say "London Mayor". Imagine a year into a minority a Labour government ( always an unpopular time for any administration) with PM Milliband knowing that the two thirds majority to call a vote if no - confidence was ever present.
Imagine what will happen if it were the other way round - Labour would ditch Milliband faster than they could say " you've been a big disappointment mate" and do the same ( although the choice of replacement is far less obvious).
Of course there are occasions when a minority government has called and election and gained strength - Personally I can't see this happening this time.
Can't see this going another five years and whoever forms a minority government may later regret it.
Fixed term Parliaments were brought in because Gordon Brown was threatening to call an election every other fortnight before getting cold feet and it was becoming a national embarrassment, although extra parameters introduced in the legislation were intended to keep the Coalition going for as long as possible (for example the 5 year rule which is completely indefensible, it should be 4 years max, and the unjustifiably high threshold for a vote of no confidence).
Recall legislation is being considered to call a by-election if an MP falls out of favour but only with his or her own constituents and even if the legislation is made law, it would probably never be used for cock-ups in Government and more likely if the MP conducted themselves in a way that was unbecoming of an MP (assault, sexual assault, bribery etc.).
I don't remember Gordon Brown suggesting that, maybe I have missed the evidence. My memory was more that it was Nick Clegg who was behind the fixed term thing.
My problem isn't with the public sector though, it's with the politicians who sign off completely shit policies or spending and then kick the can down the road and expect the taxpayers to pick up the bill. It's completely unaccountable and in this day and age where someone with no qualifications whatsoever finds themselves in a position to sign off the spending of billions of pounds of public money, they ought to be personally accountable even once they left office. If criminal charges or civil suits could be brought against a politician for gross incompetence like they can against people in the private sector (and even there the laws are laughably poor) then I imagine that would at least force them to have a think about the long-term consequences of their decisions.
This is a fine concept from the Labour Party. It's being championed by Mr Balls - it seeems he wants to make (some) people accountable for their actions. Labour are saying they will lay out a serious of measures such as introducing legislation that will allow government to retrospectively claim back bankers bonuses from those who have been involved in “inappropriate behaviour” in the last 10 years (currently this stands at 7 years) and introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses – the money would be used to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.
So, it seems he wants bankers punished even more for past cock-ups while fully expecting a free pass back into Govt for himself. I guess Gordon is expecting a nice comfy little bench in the Upper House as his reward too.
'Cannot under any circumstances be criticised' are you seriously saying that? I tend more towards Bournemouth's position than yours, and there is no evidence that Bournemouth takes that position. I also accept that taxpayers want to know what is happening with the money, very few people would accept a governmental position that says 'give us the money, and don't ask any questions'.
Surprised there's been no comment on Cameron's announcement that he would not seek a third term as PM.
Arrogant assumption he'd win a second or honest answer to a question.
Personally, I think it a huge tactical mistake. It won't change anyone's votes directly but opens up a new line of questioning every time a Tory is interviewed. After Obsorne's carefully crafted budget aimed at shooting Labour's foxes, he and Crosby must be really pissed off.
OTOH, Cameron apparently wiped the floor with Miliband at PMQs today. Osborne refused 5 times yesterday to rule out a VAT increase in the next Parliament. Cameron did so immediately on the first question put to him, completely flummoxing EM. It seems to have been a very clever set up by the Tories and Miliband fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Opinion polls showing no budget effect. Labour and the Tories pretty much neck and neck, Labour maybe slightly ahead on average. Both of them seem to be squeezing UKIP and the Greens who are each down a point or two in the last few weeks. LibDems have moved up from nearly dead to critical.
Surprised there's been no comment on Cameron's announcement that he would not seek a third term as PM.
Arrogant assumption he'd win a second or honest answer to a question.
Personally, I think it a huge tactical mistake. It won't change anyone's votes directly but opens up a new line of questioning every time a Tory is interviewed. After Obsorne's carefully crafted budget aimed at shooting Labour's foxes, he and Crosby must be really pissed off.
OTOH, Cameron apparently wiped the floor with Miliband at PMQs today. Osborne refused 5 times yesterday to rule out a VAT increase in the next Parliament. Cameron did so immediately on the first question put to him, completely flummoxing EM. It seems to have been a very clever set up by the Tories and Miliband fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Opinion polls showing no budget effect. Labour and the Tories pretty much neck and neck, Labour maybe slightly ahead on average. Both of them seem to be squeezing UKIP and the Greens who are each down a point or two in the last few weeks. LibDems have moved up from nearly dead to critical.
If Cameron remains as PM beyond 7 May this year, the speculation will start on 8 May as to who takes over and how long before the next General Election it takes place. The words "lame" and "duck" spring to mind.
I think Cameron made a mistake on the next leader thing. Mind you the Pavlovian salivating from people like Osbourne, May and Gove will be entertaining to watch, as well as watching how internal factions are formed. This would apply to any party by the way, but the Tories are quite (wisdom tooth) remarkable in their particular version of ruthlessness.
I think Cameron made a mistake on the next leader thing. Mind you the Pavlovian salivating from people like Osbourne, May and Give will be entertaining to watch, as well as watching how internal factions are formed. This would apply to any party by the way, but the Tories are quite (wisdom tooth) remarkable in their particular version of ruthlessness.
Compared to who? Surely not the Labour Party, which saw possibly one of the most vicious and bitter leadership contests in modern political history and half the MPs and most of the membership are still pretty pissed off about it?
I think Cameron made a mistake on the next leader thing. Mind you the Pavlovian salivating from people like Osbourne, May and Give will be entertaining to watch, as well as watching how internal factions are formed. This would apply to any party by the way, but the Tories are quite (wisdom tooth) remarkable in their particular version of ruthlessness.
Compared to who? Surely not the Labour Party, which saw possibly one of the most vicious and bitter leadership contests in modern political history and half the MPs and most of the membership are still pretty pissed off about it?
Nothing I have written needs explaining further in this instance. The present interest in the story is because of Cameron's announcement this week, not because another party leader spoke of their succession.
Politician answers a straight question honestly and look at the flak he gets. He didn't say he would win but then again you can't expect him to be expecting to lose. The question is only valid on the assumption, currently hypothetical, that he wins.
And if he does then yes he will at some point become a lame duck, like all US presidents do towards the end of their second term. Perhaps we should have legislation ruling out third terms like they do in the states.
Politician answers a straight question honestly and look at the flak he gets. He didn't say he would win but then again you can't expect him to be expecting to lose. The question is only valid on the assumption, currently hypothetical, that he wins.
And if he does then yes he will at some point become a lame duck, like all US presidents do towards the end of their second term. Perhaps we should have legislation ruling out third terms like they do in the states.
Interesting. Because, in the event that a Government cannot be formed after the 7 May General Election, Cameron's second term would be for a few days or weeks only..!
Recalling the 2010 debacle when Brown did not immediately resign and was accused of being a squatter, I tried to look up what the procedure is. I had a vague idea but wasn't clear.
I was amazed to learn that our constitution does not have any written rules. (There are some civil service guidelines so government functions during and after the election.) The role of Prime Minister is not defined. It is the leader of the party that commands a majority in Parliament and has been invited to form the Sovereign's government (it's her government, we only vote for our representatives). So Nigel Farage could be Prime Minister if Liz thought he could command a majority in Parliament. So those who think they've voted for a Prime Minister are under an illusion.
Party winning election means nothing technically. So the loser can wait until Parliament is convened and carry on until they can't command a majority, which is why a vote of confidence is so a big deal. I always wondered why not being "confident" was such an issue.
Some probably already knew this, but I found it enlightening and likely to crop up in conversation in a few months time.
One of the good things about not having a codified constitution is that when things don't go to plan (hung Parliament, coalition, snap election, vote of no confidence etc.) there's very little that legally needs to be done. Parliament cannot be bound by the laws of previous Parliaments. The idiotic act passed by Cameron stipulating a General Election every 5 years with any early elections requiring a 66% majority can easily be overturned if over half the MPs vote to scrap the Act and to call an election immediately.
Comments
Recall legislation is being considered to call a by-election if an MP falls out of favour but only with his or her own constituents and even if the legislation is made law, it would probably never be used for cock-ups in Government and more likely if the MP conducted themselves in a way that was unbecoming of an MP (assault, sexual assault, bribery etc.).
Most polling companies are predicting a broadly even level of seats for Labour and the Conservatives. Personally I think that the Conservatives will be ahead.
However at present neither one of the big two parties look as if they will be able to form a two party coalition the like of which we have just seen. The predicted numbers don't add up. I can't see a three or even four way coalition from either end of the spectrum.
To get a majority the Conservatives would have to deal with UKIP and the DUP and rope in the Lib Dems and I can't see this happening.
On the other end Labour won't agree formal coalition with the SNP and either just the Liberals and SDLP would be short of a majority. ( personally I think that they should rule out even an informal agreement with this party which is fundamentally opposed to the Governmemt it may try to influence,)
This points to a minority government supported informally.
This could be a poison chalice for whichever party ends up forming the Government; if it was Labour the Conservatives would have a new and much more popular leader quicker than you could say "London Mayor". Imagine a year into a minority a Labour government ( always an unpopular time for any administration) with PM Milliband knowing that the two thirds majority to call a vote if no - confidence was ever present.
Imagine what will happen if it were the other way round - Labour would ditch Milliband faster than they could say " you've been a big disappointment mate" and do the same ( although the choice of replacement is far less obvious).
Of course there are occasions when a minority government has called and election and gained strength - Personally I can't see this happening this time.
Can't see this going another five years and whoever forms a minority government may later regret it.
This is a fine concept from the Labour Party. It's being championed by Mr Balls - it seeems he wants to make (some) people accountable for their actions. Labour are saying they will lay out a serious of measures such as introducing legislation that will allow government to retrospectively claim back bankers bonuses from those who have been involved in “inappropriate behaviour” in the last 10 years (currently this stands at 7 years) and introducing a one-off tax on bankers’ bonuses – the money would be used to help pay for Labour’s Compulsory Jobs Guarantee.
So, it seems he wants bankers punished even more for past cock-ups while fully expecting a free pass back into Govt for himself.
I guess Gordon is expecting a nice comfy little bench in the Upper House as his reward too.
Go figure.
Arrogant assumption he'd win a second or honest answer to a question.
Personally, I think it a huge tactical mistake. It won't change anyone's votes directly but opens up a new line of questioning every time a Tory is interviewed. After Obsorne's carefully crafted budget aimed at shooting Labour's foxes, he and Crosby must be really pissed off.
OTOH, Cameron apparently wiped the floor with Miliband at PMQs today. Osborne refused 5 times yesterday to rule out a VAT increase in the next Parliament. Cameron did so immediately on the first question put to him, completely flummoxing EM. It seems to have been a very clever set up by the Tories and Miliband fell for it hook, line and sinker.
Opinion polls showing no budget effect. Labour and the Tories pretty much neck and neck, Labour maybe slightly ahead on average. Both of them seem to be squeezing UKIP and the Greens who are each down a point or two in the last few weeks. LibDems have moved up from nearly dead to critical.
And people wonder why politicians are never straightforward.
Not like he is a Thatcher/Blair dominant force, he has only been PM in a Coalition government.
Osbourne seems inevitable as his successor anyway - although the press will jump on the Boris bandwagon.
Politician answers a straight question honestly and look at the flak he gets. He didn't say he would win but then again you can't expect him to be expecting to lose. The question is only valid on the assumption, currently hypothetical, that he wins.
And if he does then yes he will at some point become a lame duck, like all US presidents do towards the end of their second term. Perhaps we should have legislation ruling out third terms like they do in the states.