Lib Dems in Brown's Government?

[Xaccers]

You mean the thinking being better to be paid and ineffective with no real responsibility, than be paid and risk losing your job if you aren't effective in the areas you're responsible for?

Originally Posted by Xaccers

You mean the thinking being better to be paid and ineffective with no real responsibility, than be paid and risk losing your job if you aren't effective in the areas you're responsible for?

Too right, there's nothing quite like a lack of any real accountability if you want to lazily enjoy the trappings of power without there being much danger of repercussions.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Too right, there's nothing quite like a lack of any real accountability if you want to lazily enjoy the trappings of power without there being much danger of repercussions.

Probably the main reason most peace talks fail globally.

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Chris T

Too right, there's nothing quite like a lack of any real accountability if you want to lazily enjoy the trappings of power without there being much danger of repercussions.

I didn't realise we were discussing the house of Lords?

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by danielf

I didn't realise we were discussing the house of Lords?

Nah they're actually effective at standing up for the nations interests, unlike the commons

[danielf]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Nah they're actually effective at standing up for the nations interests, unlike the commons

Still, it kind of defeats the argument

[BBKing]

Probably the main reason most peace talks fail globally.

Peace talks are all very well, but an overwhelming military advantage tends to help. It's often a good start if one side opens the talks with the phrase 'Hands Up!'.

Originally Posted by BBKing

Peace talks are all very well, but an overwhelming military advantage tends to help. It's often a good start if one side opens the talks with the phrase 'Hands Up!'.

[BBKing]

Nah they're actually effective at standing up for the nations interests, unlike the commons

I've been thinking about this in trying to reconcile Tony Blair's pride in various achievements (on-the-record lobby briefings, monthy press conferences etc.) with the evident disdain he shows for Parliament (today's Private Eye reports on how hard it was for the Commons committees to find out what Margaret Beckett and Buff Hoon were planning to do at the European Summit - they either didn't turn up, didn't answer the question or told the committee to get stuffed). I came up with the conclusion that for Blair, democracy ends when the winner is announced, and after that he can do what he likes. Since first-past-the-post has given us elections that depends on 2% of the population in key marginals, this and this alone is what gives Blair his 100% right to rule. The Lords, having no right to rule, are a lot more careful, knowing that anything high-handed has no legitimacy and will be seen as that. Blair can be as high handed as he likes since he 'won an election in 2005'.

The same attitude is used in Iraq of course, which is a failed state, not a democracy, however many purple fingers are raised.

[Tezcatlipoca]

Originally Posted by Chris T

When you see all of these listed together it's quite chilling - it looks like a concerted attack on our basic freedoms.

And if it looks like a duck, walks like a duck, & quacks like a duck...

Originally Posted by BBKing

They're basically the premise for the film Taking Liberties, along with a few more. There are some, like the Inquiries Act, which bans any inquiry with any power from operating independent of the Government and the Civil Contigencies Act, which allows all sorts of things (banning of free movement, repeal of nearly any law, forcible taking of possessions) at the stroke of a pen by a Government Minister (who doesn't even have to prove who he is). Nick Clegg is to be commended for being about the only high-profile politician who's made a list and a fuss about it.

Ah, the Civil Contingencies Act.

Goes quite well with the "Enabling Act", erm, I mean "Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006".

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/6224862.stm

So they were offered some posts, but turned down by the Lib dems. PR move by Brown maybe, but why on earth did they turn him down? They would have actually been, in however small a part, in the government.

Is this get another example of the Lib Dems being happy to attack but avoid making any choices or taking any responsiblitys?

[BBKing]

Would the small part of government they were in mean that they had to drop their principled opposition to huge swathes of Labour policy (ID cards, for one)? If so, it's far too high a price to pay.

There's also a strong movement among younger Lib Dems in the direction of free market small government, moving to the right of the centrist Tories on this. This doesn't sit well with clunking fist Gordon and his high-tax high-public-spending ways. Splitting the LDs might have been in Gordon's calculation, banking on a vocal minority causing trouble for Ming if he'd allowed Paddy to become Norn Iron secretary (which is largely ceremonial, anyway).

Anyway, I voted Lib Dem last election, not Labour, for a reason - I didn't want a Labour MP. I got one, anyway, but I didn't bloody want her.

I did wonder how they would work come election time if the lib dems tried to attack a government they were a part of. Although Brown + Ming may have benefited from a Labour + Lib Dem team.

However it just comes across as bad for the Liberals Democrates to be honest. They could still attack the government on issues unrelated to ID cards and N.Ireland is pretty much safe enough to avoid a conflict with themselves.

Instead it just looks like they passed on a chance to actually do something simply so they could have a swipe at Labour. The Liberal Democrates seem to have a awful talent for reading the public mood as shown by their outing of Charles Kennedy which has really done serious damage to their image and to top it off they replace him with a dud.

[Chrysalis]

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Nah they're actually effective at standing up for the nations interests, unlike the commons

Indeed I have learnt this recently they are better then MPs in my view in terms of debates voting on issues etc.

[Xaccers]

Originally Posted by Chrysalis

Indeed I have learnt this recently they are better then MPs in my view in terms of debates voting on issues etc.

Makes me wonder, if they're doing such a great job, why does Bliar want to get rid of them?
Oh wait, it's because they're doing such a great job isn't it?