Is the recession really Brown's fault?

Sir_Humphrey

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Our democracy is very simple. Once every 5 years we elect a government. If that government retains a majority in parliament there is no way to get an early election unless the Prime Minister wants one. You don't like the government then vote against them - when the election is called.

There is the vote of No-Confidence too. This was last called against Major in 1995-6-ish, but his Eurosceptic critics suddenly lost thier backbone when they realised they could be about to lose their seats. Major therefore won.

The 1979 election was called after Callaghan lost such a vote.

Rochdale_Pioneers

Sir_Humphrey wrote: »

There is the vote of No-Confidence too. This was last called against Major in 1995-6-ish, but his Eurosceptic critics suddenly lost thier backbone when they realised they could be about to lose their seats. Major therefore won.

Yes I know that. I said that a government with a majority. A no confidence motion will always be won by a government with an absolute majority - the whipless wonders in the mid 90s weren't suicidal so didn't vote no thus triggering an early election and their loss of seat.

Its only a minority administration that needs to worry about confidence motions. No chance of Labour turning into one this parliament.

Sir_Humphrey

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

Yes I know that. I said that a government with a majority. A no confidence motion will always be won by a government with an absolute majority - the whipless wonders in the mid 90s weren't suicidal so didn't vote no thus triggering an early election and their loss of seat.

Its only a minority administration that needs to worry about confidence motions. No chance of Labour turning into one this parliament.

Yeah absolutely, I was just being pedantic.

macaque_2

LauraW10

Johnanthan Aitkin told a lie. Following this, a relentless newspaper campaign was mounted against him and attempts were made to prosecute his teenage daughter. In the end he was driven out of office, bancrupted, jailed and disgraced. Was that a proportionate response to a moderately serious but very common crime? A similar story applied to Jeffrey Archer.

In 10 years not a single senior member of the Labour party has been prosecuted for a crime. Yet we know that unsavoury things go on all the time. How are people being appointed to quangos like the FSA? How did Peter Mandelson buy his first house? How did he buy another house in 2006 at 16 times his salary? How did some peers win their seats? How did certain individuals get passports? etc etc

Labour got into power with a smear campaign that destroy lives and reputations. It was the very worst kind of politics imaginable. Unfortunately, it turned out that they were better at smear than government. Our economy is in a shambles and much of our social fabric has been destroyed.

You posted emotive pictures of events during Conservative control. Are you suggesting that there are no unflattering pictures of life under Labour? Don't you think that you are throwing stones in a glass house. Don't you think people are more concerned about the state of the economy than more mindless smear campaigns?

Generali

IIRC Jonathan Aitken tried to sue a newspaper for libel knowing full well the facts were for the most part true and got his teenage daughter to perjure herself on his behalf.

He was imprisoned for perverting the course of justice and perjury.

I wouldn't describe them as crimes which are either moderately serious or common myself. He got what was coming to him and probably got off lightly too.

Cannon_Fodder

One of the things that bugs me about recent resignations is the way its ok, for example, for Crosby to resign for 1 alledged mistake - possibly being pushed to avoid bad publicity...

...but when Labour make mistakes, often multiple, they trot out the "I realise I made a mistake, but as I was here when it was made I am the person best placed to fix the problem now", instead of resigning..

Double-standards and failing to accept the responsibility, whilst accepting the authority, imo.

Only when totally banged to rights in triplicate, do they shuffle off to some quango for a couple of years and then they are back...Mandelson, 3 times now.

I have plenty negative to say about the Bank bosses, but at least most of them have walked. Should not the Chancellor who oversaw them also do so?

macaque_2

Generali wrote: »

IIRC Jonathan Aitken tried to sue a newspaper for libel knowing full well the facts were for the most part true and got his teenage daughter to perjure herself on his behalf.

He was imprisoned for perverting the course of justice and perjury.

I wouldn't describe them as crimes which are either moderately serious or common myself. He got what was coming to him and probably got off lightly too.

I am no apologist for the Conservatives and people will know I am very critical of them. I have also acknowledged that Johnathan Aitken committed a crime. The point I am making is that Labour appear to be doing much worse things than this and getting away with it. I was also alarmed that some elements of the media tried to get at JA by going after his daughter. That is as low as it gets. The hypocrisy of your position (and much of the media) is very depressing.

Generali

macaque wrote: »

I am no apologist for the Conservatives and people will know I am very critical of them. I have also acknowledged that Johnathan Aitken committed a crime. The point I am making is that Labour appear to be doing much worse things than this and getting away with it. I was also alarmed that some elements of the media tried to get at JA by going after his daughter. That is as low as it gets. The hypocrisy of your position (and much of the media) is very depressing.

I voted Tory several times and have been called a Tory apologist several times on here (just ask Sir Humphrey what he thinks of my politics for example).

What Aitken did was very wrong by any standard. In a country where you have the rule of law, perverting the course of justice and perjury are very serious crimes and rightly so. His daughter should have been investigated because she also committed a serious crime. "He told me to do it" isn't a defence in law nor should it be IMO.

The media did go OTT, I agree with you there but that's British newspapers for you. They're renowned for it.

I don't see what's hypocritical about my position. Bloke commits crime. Bloke gets prosecuted. Bloke goes to prison. It happens all the time. Just because other people get away with stuff doesn't make it right. Those up to no good in the Labour Government will get theirs eventually. Probably when the Tories get in.

Rochdale_Pioneers

macaque wrote: »

You posted emotive pictures of events during Conservative control. Are you suggesting that there are no unflattering pictures of life under Labour? Don't you think that you are throwing stones in a glass house. Don't you think people are more concerned about the state of the economy than more mindless smear campaigns?

As you know I am firmly in the pro-Labour camp, but even I agree with this. The world wasn't all riots and looting under the Tories, nor did it suddenly ecome sweetness and light under Blair - or the other way round if you are an ardent Blue.

As for criminality yes I think most politicians get corrupted by power and the longer you sit in power the more bent you get.

chewmylegoff

Rochdale_Pioneers wrote: »

As for criminality yes I think most politicians get corrupted by power and the longer you sit in power the more bent you get.

yes, they're all as bad as each other. it is amazing how the labour ministers have managed to weather the storm and cling to their jobs though. c.f. the major years when a minister seemed to be resigning every week. it seems now that as long as you say "i didn't do anything wrong" or "i didn't realise i was doing anything wrong, i had no idea, i never look at my bank accounts, really", you can get away with it.

you have any view? i suppose some of the tory stuff was a bit different - if you have a central policy of family values, which your ministers choose not to uphold, you all look a bit silly when they replay your 'back to basics' speech over and over again.