Impeach Blair now says limp-wristed do-gooder leftie, er, former SAS General - Page 2

danielf · 10-01-2006, 11:55

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

<snip>

That is the argument that is often brought forward against a PR system.

It's true that is is possible that a minority party could hold the balance of power, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing, nor is it inevitable.

True. Generally, I am in favour of PR, but having said that, in the thirty-odd years that I lived in a PR country, I have never spoken to a politician. In 5 years in the UK, my local MP rang my doorbell twice.

Proportional Representation does imo carry the risk of widening the gulf between politicians and the general public. But then again, so does not having a hope in hell of having your voice heard in parliament.

A mix between the two may well be the best option.

Xaccers · 10-01-2006, 11:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

If we had PR, we wouldn't need the Lords at all...

Ok, now you've scared me!
Recently the lords have appeared more in touch with the people than the goverment or parliment.
They've done their job and kept the goverment in check, hence why Tony Bliar has tried so hard to change them into a house of his cronies so he can get anything he likes through.

As for impeaching him, I'm all for it, if it will get him out of westminster any quicker

danielf · 10-01-2006, 11:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ok, now you've scared me!
Recently the lords have appeared more in touch with the people than the goverment or parliment.
They've done their job and kept the goverment in check, hence why Tony Bliar has tried so hard to change them into a house of his cronies so he can get anything he likes through.

Agreed, I missed that bit earlier. Under any political system, there is a need for an elected chamber that keeps the government in check.

Xaccers · 10-01-2006, 12:04

Quote:

Originally Posted by danielf

Agreed, I missed that bit earlier. Under any political system, there is a need for an elected chamber that keeps the government in check.

Problem with the upper house being elected is that you risk people putting their re-election prospects above their job (like in the commons)

While we're impeaching Bliar, can we do Blears too?

10-01-2006, 12:19

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Ok, now you've scared me!

I never thought you'd be one to be scared so easily. lol.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Recently the lords have appeared more in touch with the people than the goverment or parliment.
They've done their job and kept the goverment in check, hence why Tony Bliar has tried so hard to change them into a house of his cronies so he can get anything he likes through.

And within the present system of government they are essential to ensure that Parliament is kept in check.

But IF we had a PR system, then they'd be no longer required, or indeed desired.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

As for impeaching him, I'm all for it, if it will get him out of westminster any quicker

Government isn't a popularity contest - this is one of those things that makes me despair of politics (and sport too, as it happens) in the UK. At the first sign of any trouble the call goes out for the 'manager' to get the sack.

Blair is not solely responsible - the rest of the government is just as much to blame, as is the apathetic electorate.

Xaccers · 10-01-2006, 12:29

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I never thought you'd be one to be scared so easily. lol.

I'll be sending you the dry cleaning bill!

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

And within the present system of government they are essential to ensure that Parliament is kept in check.
But IF we had a PR system, then they'd be no longer required, or indeed desired.

How would PR prevent the goverment doing something that the people don't want? Israel has PR, and it has done many things that the Israeli people do not support.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Government isn't a popularity contest - this is one of those things that makes me despair of politics (and sport too, as it happens) in the UK. At the first sign of any trouble the call goes out for the 'manager' to get the sack.

Blair is not solely responsible - the rest of the government is just as much to blame, as is the apathetic electorate.

Exactly, get rid of Blears too

Blair is responsible for appointing his cabinet, and ensuring that they are competent enough to appoint compentent people below them etc, that is why the responsibility lies with him.
He's also a slimy toad, but that's a simplified and censored personal opinion of him.

Doesn't make it wrong though

We're also way beyond the first sign of trouble....

10-01-2006, 13:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

I'll be sending you the dry cleaning bill!

I'll park the shredder under the postbox...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

How would PR prevent the goverment doing something that the people don't want? Israel has PR, and it has done many things that the Israeli people do not support.

First of all, if the Israeli government can do things that the majority of Israelis disagree with, then maybe something went wrong during the election.

And it is perfectly normal for governments to do things that most people dislike. Like raising taxes etc.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

Blair is responsible for appointing his cabinet, and ensuring that they are competent enough to appoint compentent people below them etc, that is why the responsibility lies with him.

Then let's have a vote of no confidence in the government in Parliament, because being an incompetent PM is NOT an impeachable offence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

He's also a slimy toad, but that's a simplified and censored personal opinion of him.

Doesn't make it wrong though

I wouldn't dream of suggesting otherwise...

Quote:

Originally Posted by Xaccers

We're also way beyond the first sign of trouble....

We're also way beyond the first call for his head. I think the previous time was........ oh yes. Just before the last General Election...

andygrif · 10-01-2006, 14:49

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

That is how it should be - voting on a single issue is just daft.

I know that often between the parties and the media they try to make it look like a referendum/vote of confidence, but it is up to the electorate to look past the single issue.

Surely, though, if the PM were legally impeachable, no-one in their right minds would vote for him - which would have made the elcetion a single issue one.

And the fact that no-one has taken their words any further would suggest that he is not impeachable - however much we might like him to be, or that there is much conjecture but little in the way of a black and white position.

This is backed up by the fact that Labour was re-elected. People who vote had a difference of opinion and those that didn't couldn't give a hoot whether we go round invading other countries without permission or not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

If we had PR, we wouldn't need the Lords at all...

That sounds like a scary proposition to me. If you cast your mind back to the 97 election where New Labour had a huge majority, PR would have ensured that every vote would have gone their way and that there could be no check and balance for new policy and laws. As it is, Labour used a shaky (at best) draconian bit of statute to force though its opinions on hunting with hounds. Now, I don't support the concept of fox hunting, but it's clear there is a roughly 50/50 split on opinions in this country, and we have a system of making laws that ensures it is ratified by our "elders". This process, which has served us quite well for many centuries was overridden - and that to me is more worrying than laws that offend a lot of people.

We have to have procedures to attempt to keep some sort of normality in this country, no matter how hard the present government might want otherwise.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

Government isn't a popularity contest - this is one of those things that makes me despair of politics (and sport too, as it happens) in the UK.

I'm assuming you mean that government should not be a popularity contest? Because that's exactly what it is right now, that and an exercise in marketing. One thing is for sure, it's not government as we knew it - and when you scratch under the spun surface, what you find starts to scare you.

Xaccers · 10-01-2006, 15:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

I'll park the shredder under the postbox...

I'll also be sending you the winning euro millions jackpot ticket (honest)

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

First of all, if the Israeli government can do things that the majority of Israelis disagree with, then maybe something went wrong during the election.

If there was only the house of commons, there would have been nothing to prevent the goverment bringing in laws which would have been detremental to the nation and not what people wanted. I just can't see how PR would prevent a goverment doing what they want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ScaredWebWarrior

being an incompetent PM is NOT an impeachable offence.

I know, it's such a shame... can we still get rid of Blears though?