Do you feel that most of the Governments' reports are just post-justification of things they were gonna do anyway?
Do you feel that most things are a cover-up of bigger things?
Can we really trust our government to do whats best for us?

YES, YES, NO.

Power politics are scary....

Van Basten spouted:
Do you feel that most of the Governments' reports are just post-justification of things they were gonna do anyway?

Yes, and 87% of surveys are carried out for newspaper stories.

The reports sometimes come back in their face though. I remember one where the BMJ (Britich Medical Journal) carried out a report on Cannabis and concluded that there basically wasn't enough of it to go round.
Politicians kind of said: "Right, yes, well, ok, what's next on the agenda...."

The art of being a successful prime minister is to be able to convince most of the people most of the time that you are fulfilling their wishes. Also you need to convince them that they are financially better off under your leadership and that they spend less on public services.

Unfortunately, to achieve this aim you need to employ a lot of spin to keep people happy and you need to cover up the truth to avoid upsetting people. The fact of the matter is that good public services cost a lot of money but nobody wants to pay for it.

To become a successful prime minister you need to be good at misleading people, tax people without them realising, keep scandals hidden and give the impression that you are providing good public services when in reality they are severely underfunded.

Unfortunately people who have these necessary skills are not the people you would really want in power but people are a fickle bunch who are easily swayed by the tabloids and don't like dipping in their own pockets, so we don't have much choice.

An honest, truthful, open government who gave out the real facts would be torn to shreds by the tabloids, ridiculed by the opposition and would last as long in power as the average boy band lasts in the pop charts.

I can't be bothered to contribute to this thread...

Well said monkey fister you're spot on.

Could we clear up what defines a government report, commissioned report, judicial inquiry etc. please ?

I just question the reliability and trustworthiness of our exalted, democratically-voted-for-by-the-people rulers. Think Teflon Tony is gonna move to America soon.

He'd get on the plane and do a u turn mid-atlantic. The student loans thing was disgusting.

The problem with politics is career politicians. Plus the fact that they can seemingly lie they're arses off and get no more than a slap on the wrist, if that.

There must be some way of keeping these fuckwits out, and getting more normal/capable people in.

meh.

As far as the war and its aftermath are concerned, there comes a point where people just stop listening to a government. Watch the politicians/spin doctors moan when they announce some good news and it just disappears. That's the real consequences of lying on this scale, not whether you get away with it or how much money Campbell makes.

harry007jnr spouted:
The problem with politics is career politicians.

Harry, the problem with limiting politicians' terms is that you increase the power of two types of unelected people:

a) public servants (e.g. Sir Humphrey from Yes Minister), who do all sorts of devious things and by the time your local MP learns enough about how government works to wake up to them, they are getting the arse; and

b) toxic scum like Alistair Campbell, who does more harm and less good than the Member for Dithering-on-Thames

meh
*shrugs*

I think this sums up the "general" population!


You want the truth, you want the truth, YOU CAN`T HANDLE THE TRUTH!!!

and I agree with monkeyfister, people want it all but dont want to pay for it. This was proved in Bristol a few years ago when the local council had a vote to either raise council tax by a small amount and improve schooling etc, or to leave it as it was and have no more funding, and guess what happened!!!

I'm guessing they voted for no rise. And guess what, there's a rise four times the rate of inflation this year.

Good points cor. I agree we need experienced politicians, I just think they need a broader range of experience.

By career politicians I meant people who have been a member of a political party all their lives and seem to have done nothing else. Have you seen the average member of the Young Conservatives?

I remember seeing a TV clip of a seemingly prepubescant William Hague squeeking that he would one day be leader of the Tories.

Seen them harry? I have seen them at very close quarters. Now I'm an apostate, like one of those preachy ex-smokers. I'm pretty middle of the road but I go after the Tories pretty heavily.

Someone who goes into politics at 25 isn't going to be there at 65, as they might have been in days gone by (like Churchill or Thatcher, for example). Instead they are going to skip to one of those all-power-no-responsibility PR-dolly jobs.

The definition of a venal person is someone who won't die in a ditch for anything, who thinks that everything can be bargained away. You're taught that in politics. People who do well out of such transactional attitudes stare in mutual incomprehension at those who feel, who believe, who protest.

Don't get me wrong cor, my little jibe wasn't aimed just at the Tories, but at politicians of all hues.

I think someone once said "Anyone who aims to be in power isn't fit for power", or something similar. I don't know the exact quote (or quotee), perhaps someone here does? My little diatribe was aimed at those people, people who seem more concerned with gaining office, than with what they'll actually do when they get there.

If you are a member of the Young Conservatives, or my post insulted you in any way please accept my apologies, you seem like a very intelligent and thoughtful person and my comments were in no way aimed at you personally.

I also apologise for the poor state of my grammar tonight, as I am very, very drunk!

I'm not a member of the Young Conservatives harry, but I think you could be answering Van Basten's question at the top of the thread as a solid YES

ouch, someone will have a bad head in the morning

Our country is full of apathy but people always turn up at the ballot place.

What's apathy mean?

Oh never mind, I don't really care. ;)

sausages spouted:
ouch, someone will have a bad head in the morning

Our country is full of apathy but people always turn up at the ballot place.


I am a bit crap when it comes to politics, but wasnt there a record low turnout at the last election?

We'll I'm no Tony Blair but the people who voted had a say, and stood up for our democracy. Our kin in Somme didn't die in vain.

Maybe this is the reason for voter apathy? http://www.labour-watch.com/sleaze.htm

People voted out a corrupt government in 1997, and look where that got us. Now instead of a bunch of fat cat pervs, we got a bunch of marxist, 'PC facist', authoritarian, lying cunts.


If you told me 10 years ago that a burglar could sue me for loss of earnings for getting injured whilst stealing from my home, ON LEGAL FUCKING AID, I'd have laughed in your face.


Looks like the joke's on me.

is getting injured similar to being shot in the back with a 12 bore ?

Interesting site, plenty of criticism of new labour, surprise surprise there's a few thousand links from the bbc.

is getting injured similar to being shot in the back with a 12 bore ?
I was referering to the Tony Martin case, but there are other examples: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/low/england/2205898.stm.

The fact is that a precedent has been set. If someone enters my home and I act to defend myself, my family and my property, I leave myself open to legal action from both the state and the trespasser (aided by the state).

Yes I am allowed to use reasonable force, but what is 'reasonable', given that: It's probably dark, and I don't know the intruder's physical size or capacity for violence.
I don't know if the intruder has any accomplices, or their size etc.
I don't know the intruder's intent. He may want to rape or hurt members of my family, or me. Either as coercion, or just for the hell of it.
I don't know if the intruder wants to kill me, or if in the course of acting out the above will kill or seriously injure me.
Interesting site, plenty of criticism of new labour, surprise surprise there's a few thousand links from the bbc.
Yes, but most of the links pre-date the Hutton enquiry by years. Believe it or not the BBC have been accused of being biased in favour of New Labour, and IMHO New Labour merit plenty of critisism.

sausages spouted:
Our kin in Somme didn't die in vain.

Wasn't the Battle of the Somme WW1, and there never was a more pointless or terrible war fought (in a long history of pointless and terrible wars, going right back to the siege of Troy). So I'm afraid our kin (and alot of other people's kin) did die in vain, in their fucking millions mate.

all very well in theory but in practice the Hun had to be stopped and they were stopped. Should we have dropped our weapons and discussed the matter ?
We don't vote for a kaiser or fuhrer nowadays, so I suggest they didn't die in vain.

harry007jnr spouted:
If someone enters my home and I act to defend myself, my family and my property
Somebody can be shot (reasonably) for trying to steal your tv?

I find the idea of "shooting somebody reasonably" fairly contradictory, maybe the use of rubber bullets?

Inline with the thread topic though, the reason I think there is such apathy is:

1. Major Issues (until very recently) such as Education and health care were given less media attention than stupid things (IMO) such as fox hunting and a general ban on smoking. - Issues that many people consider "don't concern them".
2. Apathy is easy to foster, but isn't easily removed - unless it reaches crisis point.
3. The lack of a referendum on things like education or the Euro lead the population to believe that the government doesn't care what they think anyway.

I personally don't mind paying more tax, as long as the benefit can be measured and there are reprecussions for the targets on which raises are based are not made.

sausages: fatuous comments like "the hun had to be stopped" might have gone down well in middle england 90 years ago, but seem a bit daft nowadays
your reactionary anti-german coments are ill-informed
'kaiser' is simply an emperor, a bit like the queen (close relative of kaiser wilhelm
'führer' just means leader, just like britains glorious leader Blair (or Thatcher if you'd prefer)

yes why don't they bring back hanging hugo, most people agree with it.

Xavier spouted:
2. Apathy is easy to foster, but isn't easily removed - unless it reaches crisis point.
3. The lack of a referendum on things like education or the Euro lead the population to believe that the government doesn't care what they think anyway.


Bang on Xavier (with point numbers 1,2 and 3)

The apathy (with regards to voting numbers) is a sign that the government is doing its job well. Whenever a government bungles things (eg john major's, and the govermnent in the (great depression), the population gets up and into the voting stations.

what are you on about? hanging?

exactly, but seeing's you've interpolated again

I was merely pointing out that people couldn't vote against Hitler the First or Kartofallkopf the Great because

ii. Harry would get shot as he discussed philosophy with a german field gun
iii. Kartoffalkopf wouldn't call a general election if he conquered britain
iii. Kartoffalkopf wouldn't call a general election in Britain until Harry was shot

can we stay on topic please in future ?

hmm, you've lost me

I'm genuinely surprised

sausages spouted
all very well in theory but in practice the Hun had to be stopped
The term 'hun' was popularly used by British propagandists during WW1, who attempted (succesfully) to demonize the German people and their allies in order to drum up support for the war. As Hugo points out, this term has no place on a forum for reasoned debate. (especially as Hugo is German, if you'd bother to check).

This is the 21st century for christsake, if you can't see through a piece of 90 year old propaganda what chance have you got with more contempory (i.e. sophisticated) examples. You don't believe everything you see on the TV do you?

sausages spouted
We don't vote for a kaiser or fuhrer nowadays, so I suggest they didn't die in vain.
WW1 came about (partly) as a result of the massive arms buildup of several major european powers, and the 'triggering' of the complex network alliances and mutual protection pacts that existed throughout those powers at that time (If God was a programmer he'd have probably called it a cascade failure! :P). WW1 didn't start as a war for teritory or resources. The net result was the wholesale slaughter of millions, and for what? So IMHO they did die in vain.

sausages spouted
Somebody can be shot (reasonably) for trying to steal your tv?
Okay say hypothetically, someone did try to steal my TV.
1. It's my TV, I earned it not they, why should they be entitled to it.
2. I didn't invite them into my home, they chose to be there, not I (you can't accidently break into someone's home)
3. Its very easy to say what reasonable force would be in hindsight. But as I pointed out in my above post, their motives, mental state and capacity for violence would be unclear.

I'm not saying that shooting someone is reasonable force, but in circumstances like these the benefit of the doubt must rest with the victim and not the perpatrator.

Xavier spouted
I find the idea of "shooting somebody reasonably" fairly contradictory
See my above post please.

Xavier spouted
1. Major Issues (until very recently) such as Education and health care were given less media attention than stupid things (IMO) such as fox hunting and a general ban on smoking. - Issues that many people consider "don't concern them".
2. Apathy is easy to foster, but isn't easily removed - unless it reaches crisis point.
3. The lack of a referendum on things like education or the Euro lead the population to believe that the government doesn't care what they think anyway.
Good points (on topic too!).

[qoute]sausages spouted
The apathy (with regards to voting numbers) is a sign that the government is doing its job well. [/quote]
Visit the thread 'Smoking Weed', I'm sure people there would love to know what you're putting in your spliffs mate.

sausages spouted
can we stay on topic please in future ?
Love to, but you're the one who brought up the Somme mate
not me. I simply felt the need to correct your inacuracies.

sausages shrieked
Kartoffalkopf

Who?

harry007jnr spouted:
The term 'hun' was popularly used by British propagandists during WW1, who attempted (succesfully) to demonize the German people and their allies in order to drum up support for the war.

Very true 007, but he term hun was also popularly used by British Soldiers who were shot to bits whilst defending your liberty.

This is the 21st century for christsake, if you can't see through a piece of 90 year old propaganda what chance have you got with more contempory (i.e. sophisticated) examples. You don't believe everything you see on the TV do you?

I dont think this is OTT ;)

WW1 an 2 came about, that is the fact. And I'm not discussing the whys and wherefores. And they came about because of Germany on occasions. In both these cases they tried to overun Britain and bring down its government.

IMHO they did die in vain.
You are an utter disgrace.


I'm not saying that shooting someone is reasonable force, but in circumstances like these the benefit of the doubt must rest with the victim and not the perpatrator.

In other words a burglar entering your house can be shot, tortured and then mutilated without any legal redress. (under certain circimstances).

drunk slurp slurp ;)

Dear Mr Sausages.

Your ignorance of the events leading up to WW1 defie my ability to explain, and I grow tired of trying to widen your obviously blinkered view of history. I suggest you go to a library or look on the web and research the subject before commenting further (in a new thread). But I will leave you with this.

WW1 came about not through some countries need for agressive expansion, but as a result of the arms race occuring in Europe at the time, and through some very silly boy playing with a gun in Sarajevo. Combatants on all sides died honourably and bravely (and horribly), but IMHO they did die in vain because the war was pointless.

Also, resorting to personal attacks may work in the house of commons, but not on a public internet forum, where people can quietly consider their responses without having some shreiking sychophant shout them down. I am not perfect, but I am very far from being a disgrace, and I would appreciate it if you'd keep such comments to yourself in the future.

sausages spouted
In other words a burglar entering your house can be shot, tortured and then mutilated without any legal redress. (under certain circimstances).

Where exactly did I justify (or even mention) torture and mutilation?

harry007jnr spouted:

Also, resorting to personal attacks may work in the house of commons, but not on a public internet forum, where people can quietly consider their responses without having some shreiking sychophant shout them down. I am not perfect, but I am very far from being a disgrace, and I would appreciate it if you'd keep such comments to yourself in the future.

Visit the thread 'Smoking Weed', I'm sure people there would love to know what you're putting in your spliffs mate

quite.

A light hearted jibe commenting on the validity of one of your statements is quite different from:

sausages spouted
You are an utter disgrace.

However if the moderators disagree I will gladly apologise to both you and them.

harry007jnr spouted:
[B]Dear Mr Sausages.

Your ignorance of the events leading up to WW1 defie my ability to explain, and I grow tired of trying to widen your obviously blinkered view of history. I suggest you go to a library or look on the web and research the subject before commenting further (in a new thread). But I will leave you with this.


I suggest that you look up the spelling of defy,
It comes under D for Dunce

Whoever controls art controls politics

misschicago spouted:
Whoever controls art controls politics

That, I think, very much depends on what you define as art, whilst the idea of the country being run by Briteny Spears or Madonna (showing my lack or artistic flare there I think) fills me with dred, maybe our new apathetic nature is due to our inability as a nation to be shocked anymore, hence Damian Hursts half a cow or Tracy Emins rancid bed sit are considered art more than more traditional means of expression?

Events have a habit of becomming centre stage apparantley of themselves with little relation to anything else. I don't know really, I just think it's sensible not to go looking for waves while on a calm sea.

i watch the house of commons
"ask the prime minister every week
i like T-dogg,
your country is crumbling mates,
move into a tent in my vacant lot..

I really don't understand that !

Noun: Apathy

1) An absense of emotion or enthusiasm
2) The trait of lacking enthusiasm in things generally

Adverb: Generally
1) Usually; as a rule
2) Without distinction of one from others
3) Without regard to specific details or exceptions

Noun: Noun
1) A word which can be used to refer to a person place or thing
2) A word which can serve as the subject or object of a verb

Noun: Verb
1) A word which serves as the *predicate* of a sentence
2) A content word that denotes an action or a state

No reason.