Labour & Tony Bleurgh

I hate politics, and don’t like any party that’s out there. However, Labour are the worst.
They come into power with all these promises and hardly deliver anything. Still blaming everything on the last government (who were also shít) they refuse to be accountable for anything.

They step up attacks on yob culture, while simultaneously letting out terrorists. So if you stab someone on the street while beered up, they’ll throw the book at you, but if you blow someone up in cold blood, you’ll be let out straight away and sorry to waste your time.

They worry too much about what the public want. They don’t have confidence in their own conviction. They jail Tony Martin for killing that kid burglar, and stand by it, then when they lose loads of popularity, a memo is leaked that shows Tony Blair asking if there’s a way they can help him so as to get back on track with the voters.

They’re scared when vigilante groups start hunting down people who may or may not have been paedophiles (including decimating the lives of people who have the same last name as paedophiles, a paediatrician, people who were not on the list and not linked to it in any way, etc) and don’t even sort them out. They make comments like “We understand why you’re angry, but this might not be the best way to go about it” etc, when they should sort the mess out, and quickly.

They’re a lightweight government, still more interested in talking the Tories down and talking themselves up than actually doing anything good for the country. Their main policy was beefing up the Health Service. There are still long queues for cancer care where time is all-important, and people are still being refused prescription drugs depending on what postcode they live at. They say they haven’t enough money to sort it out straightaway, but they build a stupid bloody dome costing millions (billions?) of pounds and have a massive tax surplus sitting there while people are dying. They still haven’t sorted out the homeless situation, but tell people not to give money to people lying in the streets, dying of hypothermia.

Blair and the government make me sick, and the Tories are no alternative. Once again, I have no-one to vote for, no-one who will make a scrap of difference. Politics sucks.

What the feck? Has your reasoning dropped out of your arse again? Of course they’re lying, deceitful and manipulative - they’re politicians. Taking them to task for that is akin to berating a pig for wallowing in mud.

Anyway, in regard to your actual points:

  1. Yob culture needs to be stamped on, and hard. I’m bored shitless of people who can’t handle their beer and start a fight after four pints, or any of the other symptoms of it. On the spot fines for drunk & obnoxious - great idea. You want to be a mouthy little tosser, showing off in front of your mates? No problem, that’ll be £100. Tell me you think that’s a bad idea.

  2. Letting terrorists out. You know, if South Africa had stuck to the hard line on this, Nelson Mandela would still be in jail. One man’s terrorist is another man’s freedom fighter, so if you want to end the pseudo civil war that’s happening in Northern Ireland, you’re going to have to start releasing the people who are fighting it, and getting them to talk. Tell me you think that’s a bad idea.

  3. Tony Martin. What’s the government meant to do - overturn the jury’s verdict? Other than that though, you’re right. Bleugh’s biggest failing is his lack of belief’s and willingness to go with popular opinion. It seems to be a failing with all the UK’s current politicians.

  4. Absolutely right. Can’t argue with any of it. Modern politics sucks shit. No attempt to improve things, just all marketing and smokescreens.

The only good thing about Labour is that they’re not the conservatives. If Mekon boy or Doris karloff ever get their hands on the reins of power than the UK is royally fucked.

So we shouldn’t criticise murderers for killing people then? It’s what they do.

In and of itself? No, it’s a good idea. Doing it at the same time as releasing murderers of innocent people seems to be a typically two-faced approach from the media-hungry government.

The other man is wrong. Terrorism is wrong. Tell the families of the numerous innocent victims of the IRA (victims who had nothing to do with whether a solution could be provided) that the guy who killed them was a freedom fighter, and that the terrorist has the same case as Nelson Mandela. I’m not sure I’d back you up in the aftermath.

They seem very keen to get involved with the sentences of other cases (ask Myra Hindley). They issue statements about the case, and then when the public are outraged, Tony Blair falls over himself asking what the best thing to do about the case is (with regards to the next election, not the ethics of the situation)

But that’s the way it should be, eh? Let’s not protest about it.

I’d say Labour are doing quite a good job of fucking us up the arse as it is. They just pretend to be nicer than the Tories were. At least the Tories were quite open about how they were shitting on us from a great height.

I’m not a fan of new Labour, but I have to take issue with some of this:

The Labour Party has been in power for less than four years. A lot of our present problems (e.g. the railways, the NHS) are the fault of the previous government.

There is no comparison here. The early release of terrorists is part of a process in Northern Ireland which is designed to lead to a long-term, sustainable peace there. It might be distasteful that a multiple murderer gets let out of jail after five or six years, but it is a constructive move in the long-run.

Tony Martin was convicted by a jury and jailed by a judge. He had committed murder, pure and simple, under a definition which has been used in English law for centuries. It had nothing whatever to do with Tony Blair.

They are not “keen” to get involved in the Hindley case, either but the law provides for the Home Secretary to determine the actual amount of time served in life sentences. They don’t have very much choice about whether to get involved or not.

I agree with this; I think the police should have arrested some of the ringleaders and the NotW should probably have been prosecuted as well. But these are operational matters for the police and the CPS, they are nothing to do with the Government.

Not something you can address in four years. It takes six or seven to train a doctor, so the timescale you’re looking at to sort the NHS out is more like a decade.

That was Michael Heseltine’s idea. The only thing this Government can be criticised for is failing to abandon it when they came to power. But then they’d have been criticised for wasting the substantial investment that had already gone into it.

I don’t know which constituency you live in, but most of them have Lib Dem, Plaid Cymru or SNP candidates as well as a host of fringe parties like Socialist Labour, Lonond Socialist Alliance and the UKIP. There must be somebody whose views are closer to yours than new Labour’s are.

Terrorism and Yob culture are 2 very different things. It is not accurate to compare the 2.

The terrorists are being let out, but can still be reimprisoned if it is proved (or for that matter, thought) that they are involving themselves in sectarianism again, i.e. Johnny “Mad Dog” Adare’s recent re-imprisonment for his role in the UVF-UFF feud.

Life imprisonment means Life. They will always be under the threat of being sent back to continue their sentence for the rest of their lives.

releasing the terrorists is ESSENTIAL to the continuation of the peace process. A lot of them hold sway with the groups they belong to. Keeping them onside is what it takes to have peace in the North.

If you had seen Channel 4’s excellent documentary on the Maze recently, you would see how the roots of the current peace prosess were founded in the Prisoners meetings.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomH *
I’m not a fan of new Labour, but I have to take issue with some of this:

and would have been the fault of this government. Since they’ve been in power, they are no nearer to solving any of it. At what stage does it become the fault of the Labour Party as well as the Tories?

Tell that to the families of the murderer’s victims. They gave up their right to freedom when they killed these people. Talks with the parties involved is a good move, but not with the people who already renounced democracy with their actions. NO MATTER WHAT your grievances are, or how justifiable (and the aims of the Irish who want their country back are completely justifiable) the killing of innocent civilians is unjustifiable, and the fact that they are being let out to carry on their work is unbelievable cowardice (started by the Tories again, but carried on by the Labour Party)

No, but the statements supporting the sentence, and then U-turn upon finding out how opposed the public were to the sentence is another example of weak-minded leadership more concerned with their own popularity than whether they have imposed the correct sentence on someone for the crime they committed.

So why has the EU criticised the Home Secretary’s view that Hindley should never be released?

I agree that the police were primarily culpable, and they released statements that were far too leniant and understanding of people that were plainly in the wrong, but the government let the situation spiral, rather than stamp on the cause before it could get out of control. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the government, but it should have done, and it was more a case of the government having nothing to do with IT rather than the other way round.

Yes, but nurses are still leaving the country to find more competitive salaries. That could have been addressed, but hasn’t been. Do you really think the NHS will be sorted out within another 6 years?

Surely that’s better than wasting many,many more millions. They violently opposed the idea when they were in opposition, then came in and carried it on. More weak-minded government.

Maybe, but in a one-party stronghold, that’s not worth anything. Wasted vote. I may/may not make the effort to vote, but it’s a waste of rainforest…

Better to continue indefinitley with a bitter sectarian conflict than to release a murderer on licence. Is that what you’re saying?

I can see why you find it distasteful, so do I, but I think this is a case for political pragmatism rather than standing on principles.

As Twistof Fate pointed out, they have been released on licence, not discharged from their sentences; something which happens to the majority of murderers in the UK sooner or later

There is a mandatory life sentence for murder. Martin was convicted of murder and he got the only sentence which it was open to the judge to give him. There’s no question of “supporting the sentence” since the sentence could never be in question.

It hasn’t. The Home Secretary is required by law to determine the length of time which somebody sentenced to life inprisonment will serve. He has no choice in the matter and, by suggesting that she would never be released, he was only following the precedents set by his predecessors and (IIRC) the tariff set by the trial judge.

It is this prodcess, which has been a feature of the English judicial system for decades, which the ECHR has criticised. Just like they criticised Howard’s decision on Thompson and Venables.

It would be quite wrong for ministers to give directions to individual police forces in the way you suggest. It is a well established principle that the police have operational independence within a policy framework determined by Ministers and Parliament.

Yes and no. With hindsight, it’s easy to say that we would have been better off without it even at the cost of tens of millions of pounds of nugatory expenditure. If they had abandoned it, I suspect that you would be arguing that they threw away the millions that had already been spent on it to pursue projects of their own.

The Dome is a complete fiasco and this Government (and Peter Mandelson personally) bears a lot of the blame, but a lot of the blame lies with the people who had the idea in the first place.

I’m not trying to defend the Government, and I agree that they’ve failed to deliver a lot of what was promised, but I think you’re criticising them for things which no reasonable government would have done differently.

But what about Red Ken?

Personally ,I think Red Ken is a Good Thing but I suspect he’ll have a lot of trouble achieving what he wants to because the Government is out to get him for standing in (and winning) the election. The latest spat about access to information on the Tube sell-off is a good example. It’s ridiculous to set up a directly elected Mayor and Assembly for London then insist on running the Underground from Whitehall. No doubt if it had been Dobbo, he’d have been falling over himself to say what a good idea the PPP was and all would have been well.

Blair’s plan was to set up devolved institutions in areas where Labour was fairly sure to win–hence no English regional assemblies, the obvious answer to the West Lothian Question–and retain power at the centre through the party machine. He has found out, first in Wales and then in London, that it can’t necessarily be done that way and he obviously doesn’t like it.

Sorry, TomH, I’m a bit behind on UK news; only very occasionally have time to read The Guardian online. No need to fill me in you’ve no time.

But if you do, is that to say they’re still planning to privatize the tube? When I was last in England (last year this time) there was talk of it but much negative comment. It looked to be a no-go.
It sounds to me like a dreadful idea, especially given what happened to British Rail.

*“Blair’s plan was to set up devolved institutions in areas where Labour was fairly sure to win–hence no English regional assemblies, the obvious answer to the West Lothian Question–and retain power at the centre through the party machine. He has found out, first in Wales and then in London, that it can’t necessarily be done that way and he obviously doesn’t like it.” *

Again, this is a bit too detailed for me to follow though I’ve followed the devolution path in a very general way. My somewhat ignorant and possibly US-centric sense of Blair is that he’s following the lead set by Clinton. He was the subject of a nauseating puff piece in the New York Times magazine section a few months back. The writer went so far as to describe him enthusiastically as Clinton without the zipper problem. As though the zipper were Clinton’s only problem! It was delightful to read about Ken’s triumph (though, from another view, a bit depressing since it does not seem that a more genuinely left position like Ken’s is like to amass popular support outside of London).

But I feel way out of my depth here and would prefer to listen in. Thanks for the helpful reply.

**
[/QUOTE]

Mandelstam, They’re proposing something they call a “Public Private Partnership” for the Tube. This is essentially a part-privatisation in which the infrastructure will be sold off to private companies but the trains will be run by a publicly-owned company (London Underground Ltd). Like you say, this seems to be a bad idea, especially in the light of the current state of the privatised national railways. Nobody wants it except the Government. Even the Health and Safety Executive (a Government agency) has suggested that it might be a bad idea.

If you’re interested in the details (and I wouldn’t blame you if you weren’t), they’re on the Department for the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs website

Blair has certainly modelled himself on Clinton in a lot of respects, but the devolution policy is all home-grown.

What I was arguing was the he was happy to set up devolved administrations in Labour-controlled areas like Scotland, Wales and London becuase he thought that he (as leader of the Labour Party) will still retain a modicum of control. In fact, the Labour Party failed to get an overall majority in Scotland and is governing in a coalition with the Lib Dems; Blair’s second choice leader for the Welsh Assembly (the first choice resigned over a bizarre sex scandal) was ousted after a few months and replaced by a popular old-Labour Member; and Ken Livingstone is Mayor of London (partly at least, IMO, because there was no credible official Labour candidate: Dobson never really looked like he wanted the job).

The West Lothian Question, as it was originally phrased, was: “Why should the MP for West Lothian [in Scotland] have a say in the affairs of West Bromwich [in England] when the MP for West Bromwich has no say in the affairs of West Lothian?” In other words, why should we have Scottish MPs in Westminster making laws which apply to England when English MPs have no say most of the laws which apply to Scotland? The simple solution is to provide devolved Assemblies for the English Regions (or an English Parliament), and reserve the UK Parliament for national-level policies like defence, foreign affairs and macroeconomic policy. I suspect the reason they won’t do this is they know that any kind of English devolved government would be Tory-dominated (bear in mind that all the Tory MPs in the House of Commons sit for English constituencies).

I think a Labour left-winger could carry a great deal of popular support in places like Sheffield, Liverpool, Newcastle and possibly Manchester and Birmingham, if they were to have directly-elected mayors. I’m sure this is one reason why they have not introduced directly-elected mayors for other cities, despite suggesting they would do so.

When Labour came into office they did so by utilising the support of industry and business spokespersons including the support of the Confederation of Britsh Industry (CBI) which along with the tabloid media are powerful opinion formers.

To do this they had to campaign on a platform of financial prudence since the Tories had claimed that they would be a ‘tax and spend’ government.
Remember that? I certainly do.The Tories campaigned against Labour by saying that taxes would rise and Labour had to put up pre-election budget proposals to prove otherwise.

This meant that they had to use the budget restrictions that had been put there by the Tories for the first three years.
Everyone knew that the Tories were going to be deposed, including the Tories themselves which is why they put up such artificailly low spending plans in order to hobble the incoming Labour administration.They then ensured that Labour would have to promise to stick with those plans, very clever politics but not all that good for the country, just a spiteful ploy by an unpopular, self-serving, out of touch, right wing administration.

Just how unrealistic these plans were was shown by the large budget surpluses accrued in those years.

Realistic plans to provide proper budgets for public services could only be excercised after those first three years were up.
The reason so many nursing staff have left the NHS over the past ten years is less about pay and more about understaffing.Having worked in Leeds General Infirmary for six years I can say that I saw it all the time.

The Tories decided to create a health market and their claim was that it would increase competition and improve ‘choice’.

Reality check folks, it was nothing more than a precursor to unbinding the glue that holds the NHS together, the next stage would have been to introduce charges for patient boarding(as opposed to medical treatment itself-it did happen to a certain extent too) and onward to full privatisation of the NHS.

Evidence of the Tory love of private healthcare, well they did introduce tax breaks for those who had private healthcare plans, they attempted to break up Local Health Authorities(LHA) by devolving general practice management down to the General Practioners who were allocated their own budgets.This necessitated the hiring by GP’s of administrative staff to perform the functions that LHA’s did
thereby duplicating thes functions many times over.
It was only done so that the GP would end up being autonomous - and far easier to privatise.

In hospitals themselves there was a layer of management taken on to manage their end of the evolving healthcare ‘market’ but you will note that hospital budgets only went up in line with inflation.

Funds had to be diverted from medical care to hire these expensive and very very expensive managers, guess where the cuts were made ?
Yup, right there on the wards.

The Tories had a very predictable way of justifying the sell-off of public assets paid for through public taxation.

The first stage was to cut investment and sure enough the service would fall apart. As public concern grew bodies were formulated to measure the performance of them, and of course the service would fail to meet the requirements.
Then there would be reports saying how much investment was needed to bring them back up to scratch - the figures seemed to me to be highly inflated.Naturally the money could not hope to be found in the public purse.
Came sell-off time the service would be grossly underpriced to such an extent that initial share values tripled or more in a matter of a few hours.
The new owners would come in and claim the subsidy sweeteners to modernise the service, paid for by the taxpayer, and then this would be paid out to shareholders further boosting the value of shares.

Look at what has happened to the rail industry, water industry.What happened to competition reducing the price of phone calls ?
Why do my water rates go up unless the companies are forcibly prevented from doing so yet there seems to be water shortages every summer due to leaky pipework ?

Why is it that public transport completely fails to meet the needs of rural communities so now the roads are jammed with car traffic.The chaos that was bus deregulation and privatisation was a total disaster.

Why was it that Scotland and Wales virtually eliminated the Tory party from their countries and now have regional parliaments ? It might just possibly be the the London-centric policies of the Tories, which closed a huge swathe of manufacturing industry down in every region apart from the South-East which became virtally all a service based economy, caused so much unemployment and hardship around the other 9/10 of the country that it was inevitable.

The Tories were the ones who passed legislation which allowed rendering plants to reduce their operating temperatures depsite concerns from academics such as Prof Lacey and thus gave us BSE.

We in the UK pay 2% more on our interest rates than the Europeans do and yet the Tories keep telling us how expensive further integration would be, only for their friends in the financial markets of course the rest of us would save on average £40 per percentage point decrease in interest rates on our mortgages.
British lenders simply hire money from the European markets and sell it to us for a premium.

The Tories are supposed to be pro-Britannia and National unity but the policies of ‘greed is good’ threw out so many casualities that it has done more to break up the Britsh Union than any Labour, Plaid Cymru, Scottish nationalists could ever have done.

The next Labour government will have to improve its act but how can anyone ever vote for a Tory party that still has in place the same mindset that was the source of so much corruption, nepotism and special interest influence.They need to change drmatically and it will not happen until they lose the next election.
Perhaps then we will have something that we really need to keep the governing party straight, an effective oppsition.

Many of these families voted for the GFA, prisoner release and all. Why don’t you go and tell them that allowing the violence to continue unabated is a preferable alternative?

Ruadh

Also noteworthy is the fact that the Tories could never have brought in any attempt to settel the peace process since they had relied on the support of the Ulster Unionists for many years to pass unpopular legislation their own MP’s would not support.

That support was bought at a price.

Tony Benn was derided when he was seen to be making dialogue with the IRA so was Ken Livingstone but the reality was that there could be no peace without their support.
Tories = nationalism and eternal conflict, simple as that.

[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by TomH *
Nobody wants it except the Government. Even the Health and Safety Executive (a Government agency) has suggested that it might be a bad idea.

[QUOTE]

A case of people eager to line their pockets, perhaps?

Thanks very much indeed, TomH., for this really helpful summary. I might just take a look at this link as I have reason (to boring to go into) to best interested in this subject.

“Blair has certainly modelled himself on Clinton in a lot of respects, but the devolution policy is all home-grown.”

Difficult to imagine a precise US equivalent for devolution. If not giving Manhattan back to the Indians it would have to be re-recognizing the British crown. OTOH, federalism and other moves to decentralize are similar, though without the nationalist component.

And thanks again for your clarification of the analysis with respect to devolution and the state of Labor.

Pardon a dumb Yank, but what the hell is yob?
My first guess was young or black, but that doesn’t seem right somehow.

Yob isn’t an abbreviation. It’s like “lout” or “hooligan” in the non-football sense. Young person with no manners, getting drunk and into fights, etc.

Thanks, matt.

And, for the avoidance of doubt, the vast majority of “yobs” in Britain are young, white men.

Personally, it’s not a term I’m very fond of as it is used by people like Jack Straw to stigmatise behaviour which might be offensive and antisocial but stops short of being illegal. When he talks about an on-the-spot fine for “drunken yobs”, we should ask ourselves what you would actually have to do to pick up such a fine. I suspect that the short answer is, anything which a police officer who happens to be present takes a dislike to.

I think this is a dangerous road to go down. If somebody is committing an offence, even somethink vague like breach of the peace or being drunk and disorderly (or common assault, which can include behavious short of actual physical violence), let him be arrested and dealt with by a magistrate. If not, the police have no business levying a fine.

Interestingly, I believe the term ‘yob’ was first coined by one of us Yanks. Mark Twain. He used the term in an essay about England where he described some of the (general purpose, not football only) hooligans as being the 'yob’s because they certainly didn’t deserve to be called the boys.[sup]1[/sup]

[sup]1[/sup][sub]This is a paraphrase, I can’t recall the exact wording.[/sub]