|
On April 20 2010 21:49 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote:
lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice. Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU. The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position  .
There is a Libertarian Party in Britain, but I heard they only have like 1000 members. I would support them, but generally I'm apolitical.
http://lpuk.org/
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
On April 20 2010 21:28 sc4k wrote:
I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting.
Actually, I think that is a radical oversimplification and in fact I there is an important interrelationship between the two.
It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things
Having worked in the mainstream media in the past I can assure you that it is most definitely not full of "very clever people". The majority of national newspaper journalists I came across, for example, were sheeplike and as dumb as a bag of hair.
|
On April 20 2010 21:42 DexterHGTourney wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 21:14 sc4k wrote:
The University accusation is fair, but why are you making it @ Brown? In that situation, it's entirely to do with Labour and in fact is right to attack the party.
Deregulation is not a fair accusation, because the Tories were almost always pressing for more deregulation. Taking money from pension funds (I'm quite hazy on the actual situation but it's something like changing the way dividends work and removing protection from pensions- anyone care to enlighten) is something that is debatably bad. It hurts hoarders and savers but then again they hurt society by not spending. It also hurts rich motherfuckers but that's hardly a bad thing.
If you want to accuse Labour of something, it's that they spent any surplus money the Tories saved on loads of schemes for loads of people. They spent much more on University grants, disability initiatives and IT facilities in state schools etc (and that's a big etc because they are just some examples) than the Tories ever would have.
And don't forget welfare cor blimey. That's a battleground. And very shaky at that. David Freud, the rottweiler businessman from the city, the arch conservative whom my dad actually knows quite well; is in charge of Tory welfare policy. If you could hear him talk about welfare policy you'd realise there's a BIG shakeup to come if the Tories get a majority and Freud keeps his job. Are you fucking kidding me? Go watch Irwin Schiffs 'How an Economy Grows and Why it Doesn't' right now. Hell Classical Economists figured this shit out over 600 years ago. You have to invest to grow an Economy, and the only way to invest is to save. This is called a low time preference. Economics is also not amoral, as I would heartedly recommend some Bastiat. Anyways, if you guys want to implode your whole country through reckless fiscal policy, and emotional tripes, or class envy, be my guest, though I would advise against such actions. Perhaps Britain can look back to their past for the future; ala Bright & Cobden? Anyways, I wish you blokes the best of luck, but don't be surprised when the house of cards fall down, and they will as this is going to get much worse. Cheers.
I know better than to argue with economists. You argue with yourselves enough. So I retract that statement. I'll accept it could look like I was attempting to speak from a position of knowledge but I tried to make it clear that I am a layman in economics. I'm sure there are just as many economists who would argue with you but I have no clue.
Where I am certain, however, is that money economics IS entirely amoral, just like science. It requires social politics to make sure it does not gain too much control. Economically, it's probably viable to basically forget about disabled people. Money economics is about how to make money. You might try to say that economics can also be about utilitarian style economics, where you are literally trying to economise happiness, but I wouldn't say that is the general result the majority of 'economists' are aiming for. They are aiming to maximise profits.
I'd just add this question: does it ever occur to you that people like me get a bit tired of every economist saying I should read or watch something, when so often these things completely contradict each other? I'd prefer a brief explanation of how saving is better than spending and how large private pensions are good for an economy.
|
On April 20 2010 22:02 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 21:28 sc4k wrote:
I wouldn't accuse the media mate, I'd accuse the public. Have you seen the pure shit that streams in whenever the public are allowed to say anything? "COS ITZ LIKE I DONT FINK LABUR IZ GUD CUZ DEY IZ STEELIN ALL DA MUNY COZ DEY IZ BEST BLUDS WIV DA BANKAZ AND DEY ALL CUM FROM WEST LONDON WOT IZ WELL GAY"
If the public didn't suck so much, the media would put more intelligence into reporting. Actually, I think that is a radical oversimplification and in fact I there is an important interrelationship between the two. Show nested quote +It's like, the media is full of very clever people intentionally being very clever about very dumb things Having worked in the mainstream media in the past I can assure you that it is most definitely not full of "very clever people". The majority of national newspaper journalists I came across, for example, were sheeplike and as dumb as a bag of hair.
My example was hyperbole, but the statement 'I wouldn't accuse the media, I'd accuse the public' is imo perfectly fair. The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way. The bbc especially (where most TV politics is) answers to the beck and call of the public, it needs as many ratings and as much interest as possible, so it can't raise the general standard. You need only to look at the danger BBC 4 as well as Radio 3 and 4 are in right now to see that the public doesn't in general respond well to intellectual consciousness-raising.
And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
|
United States42693 Posts
On April 20 2010 19:44 ToT)OjKa( wrote:
I just hope Conservatives don't take it. There's a reason they lost power 13 years ago and it doesn't sound like their ideas have changed since then.
Every big Labour policy in the last 8 years has come out of a Conservative think tank. Blair is the natual successor to Thatcher and Cameron to Blair. What we have seen is a return to consensus politics, Thatcher, like Attlee before her, showing the old establishment that the country had changed and politics must change with it. Tony Benn refused to accept it and almost killed the Labour party in doing so, the only thing keeping it alive as a semblance of a party in 1983 being the polarisation of votes with large groups of votes in small areas so they could win MPs through FPTP. However the Liberal SDP alliance (as it was then known) came very close to replacing them. After 1992 Labour worked it out and the Blair/Brown team rose to the fore.
Politically Blair and Brown belong in the Lib Dems but they realised that they could reform Labour into a modern party while still getting millions of free votes from their old core voters who the Lib Dems could never appeal to. Thus you get New Labour which in the 1997 election commits itself to Conservative spending plans. After 18 years of Conservative Government Labour get in and promise not to spend any money.
Unfortunately Brown couldn't keep it up and with the years of strong economic growth he didn't see the point. Although he promised an end to the boom bust cycle he accused the Conservatives in which they borrowed during recession and repaid during boom he spent from 1999 to the present day borrowing money. The result was that when the economy worsened as was always inevitable Brown was already heavily in debt. And this is absolutely his fault. Under Blair he was one of the most powerful Chancellors in recent history with absolute control of the budget, the borrowing that financed their public spending has to fall at his feet. And since Blair the role of Chancellor has been considerably weaker because it was Brown's job to fill rather than the role of some other figure with their own base of parliamentary support.
Add to that the absurd debts the Government racked up with PPPs (Public Private Partnerships) and PFIs (Private Finance Initiatives) in which he encouraged private money to invest in the public sector in exchange for long term profits. For example the private sector would build a new hospital, rent it to the Government for a dozen years and make their money back and then at the end of the contract the hospital reverts back to the private owners. Financially retarded, it's like leasing a house at several times the cost to mortgage one but politically by the time things go bad someone else is in power to raise the taxes while right now you can offer something for nothing.
Basically the parties are the same politically, the Lib Dems realising consensus politics started in 1983 and Labour in 1992. Since then the elections have been fought on the following big issues. 1997, doing what the Conservatives did, only better. 2001, keeping the pound when Conservatives said they would and Labour said they probably would, 2005, doing what Labour did, only better, 2010, doing what Labour did, only better.
However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
|
On April 20 2010 21:49 HnR)hT wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 21:36 sc4k wrote:
lolwat? I think you've confused the word patriots with the phrase bigoted idiots who don't know shit about anything.
unless you are joking. Which would be nice. Personally, from what I know (which isn't much) I would probably be a UKIP supporter if I lived in Britain. AFAIK they are quasi-libertarian and anti-EU. The BNP of today has several positions that I might agree with, but Griffin apparently does not even have the necessary intellect to plausibly hide some of his more clearly unacceptable views, so he's obviously not fit for any important gov't position .
Firstly you shouldn't mention the BNP and UKIP in the same sentence. UKIP are respectable whereas the BNP are pointless, idiotic thugs.
I'm not surprised an American agrees with UKIP, seeing as they are fairly close to the state of American politics. Some of their policies are interesting, such as the flat 31% tax. I'm not going to call you a bigoted idiot if you support UKIP. You are however pretty ignorant if you think the BNP is anything but destructive, evil politics and should always be marginalised.
|
HnR)hT
United States3468 Posts
|
On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote:
However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long.
Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be:
"I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile"
Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future.
Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't?
|
United States42693 Posts
UKIP represent a significant minority of people who are somewhat delusional about the world and like to place all the evils they see on foreigners because it's easier than addressing problems. Their statistics about the EU are laughably wrong (bureaucracy is way smaller than they claim and economic benefits are way bigger than they claim) and to leave or renogotiate EU membership would be impossible. In theory Parliament could just leave the EU just as Parliament could dismiss the Scottish Parliament or declare war on the moon. In practice though it would be politically impossible and I suspect the more intelligent members of UKIP recognise this.
Basically it's old people who are bigots, generally disgruntled, blame everything on those brown guys who are probably asylum seekers stealing our jobs and benefits and vote in disproportionate numbers.
Although much of their politics is similar to legitimate parties in the United States UKIP have no history, no historical base of support. They are a new party based around a single issue and when it comes to general elections the people know that. They are a protest vote, a way of expressing discontent regarding foreigners invading white Britain and corrupting it's 1950s social values but they are not a vote for Government.
The BNP are just neo-Nazis. No more to say about that.
|
Declare war on the moon lol brilliant.
|
United States42693 Posts
On April 20 2010 22:23 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote:
However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long. Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be: "I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile" Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future. Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't?
Yes they are.
If there are single issues you care about then by all means let that influence your vote. However it's important to realise that Labour has kept very few of their manifesto promises over the years and I don't expect much better from the Conservatives. With that in mind the political driving force is likely to be, as Macmillan said, "events, dear boy, events". When both parties believe the same things and neither can be held to any promise they make now then the question of how they'll react to situations becomes somewhat moot.
For example, if you really like the School Start program (and personally I think that's definitely something Labour did right) then by all means vote Labour because the Conservatives wish to cut it. But on anything bigger than those single issues it just doesn't matter.
|
United Kingdom2674 Posts
The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way.
And one does not have to be a "tin-hat conspiracy" person to maintain that your position that "the media reflects society" is, as I observed in my previous post, a radical oversimplification.
And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
In large institutions such as the mainstream media there will always be a cross-section. However, the point I was making was that from my own personal experience having worked in the newspaper industry you would likely be surprised at the level of the average intellect.
|
(@ Kwark) Well that's very agreeably explained and it just so happens that most of the ex politicians I've talked to had much the same tack.
Personally, I like moderate politics. But that's probably because I'm moderately persuaded. I enjoy deciding on the little differences, rejiggering the spending priorities and deciding how much dole money people get; but ultimately knowing we will still have British politics which I personally prefer the idea of than American politics or European politics. Where do you stand on the issue?
|
United States42693 Posts
On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
|
On April 20 2010 22:31 Arbiter[frolix] wrote:Show nested quote +The media reflects society, no matter how many tin-hat conspiracy people will tell you the other way. And one does not have to be a "tin-hat conspiracy" person to maintain that your position that "the media reflects society" is, as I observed in my previous post, a radical oversimplification. Show nested quote +And I don't know who you've talked to in the media or what you mean by 'the media', but if you're going to tell me that pretty much any of the main political presenters/ columnists/ editors are sheep and stupid then I'm pretty surprised you could come to that conclusion.
In large institutions such as the mainstream media there will always be a cross-section. However, the point I was making was that from my own personal experience having worked in the newspaper industry you would likely be surprised at the level of the average intellect.
Seems you like Space Marines (from your sig?), so good on you. And seeing as you are being agreeable, I'll retract my sound byte because you're most probably right- it is a radial oversimplification.
I'm sure there are morons everywhere in every industry. I was referring to the fact that the majority of editorials I read in the Times, Independent or the Guardian and sometimes even the Mail tend to be well thought-out and interesting. Although at the moment the papers are unbearably biased.
And in terms of the shows we watch, we are hearing the opinion of the main top guys, not the lackey in the back room who's researching x topic or doing makeup. Andrew Marr, Andrew Neill, Jeremy Paxman and David Dimbleby are clever guys...with a lot of knowledge...in my opinion. And they do indeed have to focus on things which are really beside the main points, because they have to focus on easily graspable issues rather than important stuff. I remember recently Michael Portillo and Andrew Neill talking about how they wish they could be telling the country about the benefits of supply side economics rather than something like trying to make analogies about budget deficits all day.
|
On April 20 2010 22:30 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:23 sc4k wrote:On April 20 2010 22:15 KwarK wrote:
However in consensus politics even though the ideas don't change much the change of the ruling party is healthy. It stops politicians getting complacent and encourages new ideas. Labour have been in power for too long. Your post was informative and interesting, even if extremely irritatingly laid out (computer paragraphs plz!). But the core message you have seems to be: "I want the conservatives in power because I like to rotate control of the country after awhile" Now forgive me if I'm wrong but don't you think there is any difference between the parties' social agendas? Even if, as you say, they may get ideas from each other and there may be a lot of similarity? Personally for me it makes quite a bit of difference which party gets elected not only because of the way I would like society to be run but also because it will specifically affect my life in the immediate future. Also, aren't Labour 1 term short of equalling the previous Tory gov't? Yes they are. If there are single issues you care about then by all means let that influence your vote. However it's important to realise that Labour has kept very few of their manifesto promises over the years and I don't expect much better from the Conservatives. With that in mind the political driving force is likely to be, as Macmillan said, "events, dear boy, events". When both parties believe the same things and neither can be held to any promise they make now then the question of how they'll react to situations becomes somewhat moot. For example, if you really like the School Start program (and personally I think that's definitely something Labour did right) then by all means vote Labour because the Conservatives wish to cut it. But on anything bigger than those single issues it just doesn't matter.
Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election?
As you said there are a few policy decisions to separate the parties but in terms of their social agenda the parties are now very close. It's more about how you do things, rather than what you do. With that in mind, all I see from Gordon Brown is him ignoring the question, attempting to mislead the public with figures and just never admitting failure. I almost admire his determination to stay in office; if only it wasn't to the detriment of us all.
But then again Cameron is a bit of a twat and Clegg's not much better either. The choice in the election is hardly inspiring, but as you said before our FPTP system is pretty much as good as it gets in politics.
|
On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote:
On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it.
Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
|
United States42693 Posts
On April 20 2010 22:34 sc4k wrote:
(@ Kwark) Well that's very agreeably explained and it just so happens that most of the ex politicians I've talked to had much the same tack.
Personally, I like moderate politics. But that's probably because I'm moderately persuaded. I enjoy deciding on the little differences, rejiggering the spending priorities and deciding how much dole money people get; but ultimately knowing we will still have British politics which I personally prefer the idea of than American politics or European politics. Where do you stand on the issue?
On the EU? It's undemocratic and wasteful with money and it knows it. And it's slowly addressing the problem. Things like CAP were legacies of WWII which were out of date and only the strength of the French vote kept them alive this long. But as the EU expands the powerbrokers become donators rather than beneficiaries and that is already trimming the budget considerably. France is fine with us paying for their lack of industrialisation but once the Balkans gets involved they're not the shittest country (I jest :p) in the EU anymore and the money goes elsewhere.
Regional development money is generally well spent in my opinion and there isn't all that much of it.
Issues like immigration, environment, power and trade are more sensibly dealt with on a European level because it does effect everyone. When Britain is importing power from French nuclear plants it makes sense to talk to them. The EU certainly has a lot of advantages in that regard, it is the most logical level upon which to make policy that effects all its members.
As for it being undemocratic, the problem is nobody gives a fuck. You have the Council of Europe made up of Government ministers from the individual countries which has control over how much power the rest of the EU has, the Parliament which has such low election turnouts that it shouldn't really be called democratic and the Commission which is appointed. The problem is it's difficult to resolve, giving the Parliament more power doesn't change the fact that the European Parliament elections are a joke and people mainly use them as a protest vote before voting for their true party in the real elections.
There's no point voting Green for example in a general election because they'll never get a single MP, it's a vote wasted. But if you want to suggest to the party you actually support that there are a lot of people who care about green issues then you vote Green in an election that doesn't really matter. And while the electorate use the European Elections as a way of giving poll data about issues they care about to the main parties it is worthless as a democratic institution.
There are two issues. How to make the EU more democratic and whether to make it more democratic. The solution to the first is very difficult, you'd need to simultaneously give the EU Parliament more powers and more legitimacy and it can't have one without having the other first. The second issue is more interesting to me because at the moment the strength of the EU is dependent upon the strength of the politicians pushing it forwards. And at least they have been elected somewhere. The council of Europe is made up on democratically elected national ministers, albeit it is now too big to really decide anything. The Commission may be appointees but they are appointed due to national pressure from national Governments.
|
On April 20 2010 22:46 Klive5ive wrote:
Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election?
When you look at the Labour front bench and see Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Miliband etc.. it hardly inspires confidence.
Alas, this is where my pokemon analogy would come into play  . Regardless, I think the Miliband brothers and Ed Balls seem to be competent enough, I think Jack Straw is fine, Alan Johnson fine, Alastair Darling fine, Geoff Hoon iffy and corrupt, I personally like Shawn Woodward. Also like people like Peter Hain even though he isn't in the cabinet.
@ Kwark lol I was actually referring to the issue of what you think about British politics currently being fairly moderate and the choices between the parties not being as big as in the 70s. But your explanation of the EU is very interesting too. It's something that does not have enough of a profile here to be taken seriously enough, and you're damn right about the protest vote problem. I wonder if all the other countries had that problem.
|
On April 20 2010 22:47 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:36 KwarK wrote:
On a note slightly related to the OP in 1997 Labour and the Lib Dems made a pact to keep out the Conservatives. After 18 years they'd had enough and wanted to manipulate FPTP with strategic voting. Lib Dem voters in areas that the Lib Dems would never win were encouraged to vote Labour and visa versa, all in order to stop the Conservatives squeezing between them by a nose. However when Blair won a landslide he didn't need Lib Dem votes, he had more than enough of his own to do anything he wanted regardless of what anyone else thought (like invading places). The promises made to Paddy Ashdown were broken and the Lib Dems returned to insignificance.
With that in mind, if a coalition is required this election remember that although the Lib Dems are politically slightly closer to Labour and are an offshoot of Labour there is some history to it. Also I think there is one domestic issue of significance, you can tell me whether you agree. The conservatives planning to cut the amount of MPs by 10% carries with it a lot of danger does it not? Then again, didn't Labour do something like rezoning constituencies to get more out of their core votes when they got into power in 1997? Also, the Labour plan to cut the House of Lords by half and to get rid of hereditary peers looks quite big. Whether they can or will deliver on it remains to be seen. I support any party looking to move towards an elected House of Lords. Personally I always liked the idea of it being a council of elders- a proportion being elected from science, journalism, business, arts, philosophy, universities etc by their peers; to counteract the populism of the House of Commons. So any party that moves away from hereditary peers makes sense to me. Even if, currently, some of the hereditary peers do a great job.
I very much like the idea of it containing science and business experts, university professors etc.. but I'm not sure about the plans.
What I'm concerned about is if it becomes a mirror of the house of commons; containing people with political agendas to fulfill to get re-elected. The house of lords is a great buffer for some of the complete rubbish that gets through parliament, like this ridiculous digital rights bill of Mandelson.
In a way I feel "if it aint broke, don't fix it".
On April 20 2010 22:52 sc4k wrote:Show nested quote +On April 20 2010 22:46 Klive5ive wrote:
Well wouldn't you agree that individual competence becomes a large factor in our election?
When you look at the Labour front bench and see Harriet Harman, Ed Balls, Gordon Brown, Miliband etc.. it hardly inspires confidence. Alas, this is where my pokemon analogy would come into play . Regardless, I think the Miliband brothers and Ed Balls seem to be competent enough, I think Jack Straw is fine, Alan Johnson fine, Alastair Darling fine, Geoff Hoon iffy and corrupt, I personally like Shawn Woodward. Also like people like Peter Hain even though he isn't in the cabinet.
If you want to write the post and PM it to me I'll gladly add it to the OP xD
I'm particularly interested in what Pokemon you chose for Mandelson.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
