Another problem in British politics is that so many of the big political issues are decided by the EU that our Parliament spends a lot of time dealing in trivialities. They are all talk and no action because in so many areas there is no action they can take. Whitehall civil servants receive orders directly from the European Commission without the involvement of Parliament and politicians from both sides of the house have complained that this "business" is given priority over Parliamentary legislation. They are reduced to scrabbling for votes (and careers) with platitudes and sound-bites. Heavyweight statesmen as a breed are dying out. If full sovereignty was restored overnight most of those on the front benches would be completely out of their depth. A lot of them are treading water now. And when a minister comes along who is genuinely capable they usually get the sack because actually doing things is just too controversial.
Glidd, I have said it before but if you haven't read The Triumph of The Political Class by Peter Oborne you really should. The politicisation of every instutution and aspect of public life in Britain since the 50's has been relentless to the extent that it is now considered the norm. The old order has been swept away and politicians are the new elites. Maybe it was always so; I am currently reading Bring Up the Bodies by Hilary Mantel about the intrigues at the Court of Henry VIII, it is fictional but based upon detailed research and I don't suppose things have fundamentally changed since then (apart from some of the more gruesome practices).
I may well give your reading suggestions a whirl. Definitely the Mantel, as I already have it on my bookshelf to read and read the first one. Will check out the Amazon reviews of the Osborne.
Everybody on all sides declares they are in favour of "reform". Nowadays nobody can ever say they are opposed to "reform". Saying something needs reform has become semantically null. If you want to say something convincing, or even coherent, you have to specify what reforms you are proposing. Change what exactly, in what direction? To whose benefit and whose detriment? At what cost? And for what purpose? This is David Cameron's position - he says he is in favour of EU reform, but gives no clue what he means by that. Perhaps he is clueless.
Of course it was always so. Politics is about setting the rules by which society operates, and who gets to make those rules. That is the same today as it has always been. The difference is that in earlier times, most of the rules were made by the aristocracy, the bishops and the generals. Nowadays they are made by the wealthy, the media, and the multi-national corporations. The Prime Minister and his government have only a limited amount to power to influence events today - just as before.
Would you not accept though that if the Lords cannot agree on the constitutional principles of devolution the matter needs to be clarified before more powers are given to Scotland, or to any other country of the UK?
The British constitution, as we all know, is not a short, explicit document like the constitutions of most other nations. Instead it is a vast muddled mass of legislation, customs, rules, procedures, judgments, treaties, and understandings accumulated down the centuries. Even more confusingly, there is no clear procedure for amending the constitution. Obsolete arrangements are rarely abolished, just allowed to fall into disuse, and new constitutional provisions are rarely labelled as such, just slipped in obliquely after being written on the back of a fag packet. That's the British way. As a result of all this there is infinite scope for different opinions about what constitutional principles apply, especially in novel or recent areas like devolution. If we wait for universal agreement, we'll be waiting a long time.
in this day and age i should be able to ask a prime minister are the national insurance contributions i have payed all my life going to be made available in the event of independence and expect a straight and honest answer. if he/she lies then he/she should be held accountable. resignation just wont do.
Not sure if this is a reference to something that was said, or not, during the run up to the referendum. However, the only thing a PM could honestly say about the NI contributions that you have paid over the years is "they were all well spent on dishing out benefits (especially state pension), mainly to those who deserved them, at the time you paid your NI in". That's the way NI works. There is a "fund" of sorts, but it's only like a buffer zone with a few months' worth of contributions in it. It's true that by paying contributions we qualify for state pension when we are 65 (or older in most cases) depending on how many years we paid for (or were credited for) but it is not all stowed away somewhere - it gets spent. We can forget independence for now, but it will certainly be interesting to see how "Devo Max" deals with NI, benefits and pensions. One possible approach might be to say that NI remains National (at UK level), with standard rates across the whole country, and so do the few benefits that are linked to it (State Pension and Contribution based JSA, perhaps one or two others) - then other taxes and benefits could be devolved to a greater extent (income tax, and perhaps benefits like Housing Benefit, Child Benefit, Tax Credits, etc). This would all have been much more difficult to deal with if there had been a Yes vote.
No you shouldn't. If during a campaign you ask the Prime Minister (or anybody else) a question based on a hypothetical outcome against which he is campaigning, you certainly cannot expect him to accept your hypothesis and allow you to set the agenda. Few politicians would be dim enough to fall for that one.
so a prime minister or one of his ministers isn't required to give correct information? like i said if you want to change the system start there. if a C.E.O. lies to gain an unfair advantage or give a false impression to increase share price. what happens there, maybe a bit simples but it's the same principle.
Have you ever heard of the concept of democracy? It's a system under which disagreements are resolved by a process of debates and campaigns followed by votes. The side which gets the most votes wins, the side with less votes loses. During the debates, each side argues its own corner as persuasively as it can. Each side tries to avoid conceding to their opponents if they can avoid it. It has its flaws, but is the best system yet invented. You might like to look into it.
aw dude, come on, if democracy involves hiding the truth then you can ram it. i think we might be getting somewhere here. people don't like the form of democracy your advocating. you might want to start listening to what people a saying. i also understand the need for secrets, but did the pensioner at my work or the one i seen on t.v. not deserve a straight answer. salmond said yes, what did the coalition say that made that old lady pull her savings?
fins got a lot better at it since all this kicked of. and besides i have mates that do the donky work, i am here to manage not labor.:Finger:
you know, there might just be a bit of tory in me. but i am committed to the snp for the next two elections. they are welcome to my tenner a month, just for giving it a go. it's been worth every penny.
