General Chat

I need to have a good rant as I am fed up reading some of the rhetoric being used by our prime minister and some of his ministers as to who is to blame for what. No matter what the problem is, governments always finds a way to put the blame on, this section of society or that section of society, anyone or any group except themselves - governments of all persuasions have been guilty of this, none more so than the current government.

I agree there are problems with the benefit system, I agree there are problems with immigration, I agree there are problems with unemployment - especially in relation to the young unemployed, and I agree there are problems in the NHS.

That does not mean that all people claiming benefits are scroungers, that does not mean that all immigrants are illegal, that does not mean that all the unemployed are layabouts who don't want to work, and that does not mean that the NHS and those who work in it are not, on the whole, doing a good job.

For government to stereotype people into groups, then to use scare mongering tactics about those groups, is nothing more than a way, to create smokescreens to divide public opinion and divert attention away from the criticism of their divisive policies.

There is the smokescreen of the need to reform the benefit system to reduce the deficit - when what they are really doing is dismantling as much as they can of it..

There is the smokescreen of illegal immigrants to hide their failed policies on immigration & border controls.

There is the smokescreen that all the unemployed are layabouts to hide their failed policies on creating growth and jobs.

There is the smokescreen of the failings in the NHS to hide the fact that their policy to reform the NHS was more about controlling costs to make it more attractive to private investors, as opposed to improving patient care.

The latest smokescreen is to say that, hard working immigrants from Eastern Europe are better equipped to find a job than our young unemployed, in an effort to hide their failed policies on youth unemployment.

It may well be the case, that the education systems in other European countries prepare young people for the wider world better than our education system does, I don't know, but if that is the case then that's not the fault of our young unemployed - it is the fault of the system.

Our economy used to be geared towards the manufacturing, construction, shipbuilding, and mining sectors, and in those days we required a skilled workforce of engineers, electricians, joiners, welders, shipwrights, draughtsmen, bricklayers, joiners, plumbers, coal miners, etc. Nowadays our economy is geared to the financial and service sectors and those sectors need a different set of skills.

I believe, the prime minister might not, that successive governments of all persuasions, in their rush to promote growth in the financial and service sectors, failed to pay enough attention to the changes required to our education and training systems that would be needed to service those markets.

Stop tarring everyone with the same brush and concentrate on building a fairer society - I feel better now I have had my rant :-)

Ooh you forgot the terrible senior citizens (OAPs) who are daring to live longer and thus depriving everybody younger of everything.

Couldn't find anything to disagree with there OFITG :-)

I've made a decision never to die and keep on claiming my OAP!!! :-D

AnnC - sadly even you cannot go beyond infinity!

I'm gonna give it a go regardless :-D

Over my life I have seen many changes, many things have changed for the better, however in my view, some have changed for the worst, especially the way we are governed and those who govern us.

I remember the days when there was no political correctness and no nanny state, many politicians in those days had some experience of what life was like outside he corridors of Westminster, many had some idea of what the real world was like for ordinary working class people.

Very different from many of our politicians today, politicians today seem to be only interested in bolstering their over inflated egos and self importance, many have had a very affluent upbringing and have no idea of what life in the real world is like for ordinary working class people. While we worry about turning our heating on - many of our posh politicians worry about whether their order from Fortnum & Mason or Harrods will arrive on time.

I commented on a post a while back, that like many on here, I have spent a lot of time researching my family tree. One thing I discovered was that prior to the education reforms of the 20th century, many ordinary working class people lacked basic skills such being able to read or write, as a result when someone in authority said, you have to do this or you have to do that - because we know what is best for you, they did what they were told, albeit sometimes reluctantly.

I often think that today's politicians still think ordinary working class people are no more educated today than they were back in those days and treat people today as they were treated back then.

Well here is some advice for today's politicians, not only can the majority of ordinary working class people read and write, they can also use their brains to see through all the spin to work out what is actually happening to their lives.

Our modern society is engaged in polishing and decorating the cage in which man is kept imprisoned - quote by Swami Nirmalananda

My problem is that I agree with all that you say OFITG and it aplies, as far as I am concerned, to ALL parties. Therefore, at the next election who do I vote for because I don't trust any of them to run the country?

AnninGlos - In that respect we are both in the same boat, I do worry about the way our politics have been going since the late 1970's.

As I am in the sunset years of my life, what ever party wins the next election will probably not affect me to much.

My family are all ordinary working class people, I have no children off my own - but I have 7 nieces and nephews plus 14 great nieces, a great great niece and a great great nephew, and I do worry what the future will hold for them.

We read much about quotas for MP's to be women, quotas of MP''s to be from other ethnic backgrounds - maybe we should have quotas for MP's to have worked in a full time job other than in a profession such as the law, for a minimum of 10 years ;-)

A good rant is Ok, but you could be writing about everyone on here, or any parliament in the world.

We are all guilty of heaping blame on others and certainly categorising groups of people.

T'will never change.

Happy days

OFITG,

I cannot argue with almost all of what you have said but is government not the responsibility of the people who vote. They are the ones who decide upon who is elected. If they vote for someone who is ill equipped to do the job then they must accept the responsibility when the job is not done or is done badly.

I agree wholeheartedly with your comment that we should have a quota for MP's who have some experience of real life rather than a privileged upbringing but no work outside of the realm of politics. Unfortunately I cannot see Messrs Cameron, Milliband, Clegg or any of their cronies ever agreeing to that can you?

Never mind, come the revolution.

Can't see much here to disagree with - all governments make mistakes, most if not all MP's are totally out of touch with the man (and woman) on the street irrespective of their party and the press's half baked (pardon the pun) idea of gauging if a MP is in touch by means if they know the price of a loaf of bread is simply daft... I mean who knows the price of a loaf I don't it just gets paid for at the checkout with all the other stuff by the butler :-)

Unfortunately Joe Public seems to think that there is no point in voting as they believe that, it does not matter who wins an election, the lot of the ordinary working individual will never change.

That is not surprising when you look at the the list of current MP's, you get the impression that the career path to become an MP is, private school, university degree, spell as a researcher or advisor to a political party, stand for election and if they don't win a seat as an MP first time round they don't need to worry as their party will find them a safe seat so that they get elected second time round.

If anyone hoping to be selected to stand as a candidate was educated at Eton College and Oxford University they will have a head start over others ;-)

It is absurd to argue that anybody who has had a decent education, read for a degree ( and possibly taken a postgraduate degree and/or professional qualifications as well ) knows nothing about "real life". Would you put your doctor, dentist, solicitor, architect, surveyor, accountant and so on and on in the category of "privileged people who know nothing about real life" ? No? Of course not.

What is so sad is to see the very limited horizons of Educating Yorkshire.

RolloTheRed - I am having some difficulty tracing any reference to any comments suggesting that doctor, dentist, solicitor, architect, surveyor, accountant and so on and on, are privileged people who know nothing about real life.

My comments were directed at some of those who entered parliament more or less straight after graduating from university.

Living in Wales and being slightly interested in politics, I have noticed a new level of the blame culture. It has always been the case that Labour mocks everything the Tories do and vice versa. The Tories want a less planned economy, with public exdpenditure only possible if private sector is doing well and paying lots of surplus taxes. Labour want a more planned Keynesian typw of economy where public expenditure can be a very high percentage of GDP to "kick start" and seed growth.

But having a devolved Welsh Govenment totally responsible for Welsh NHS and Welsh education is quite amusing if you are a student of human blame behaviour. Jeremy Hunt and Michael Gove spend a lot of time with their civil servants criticising any initiative in Wales and trying to suggest England is wonderful in comparison. And Mark Drakeford and Huw Lewis (and certainly Drakeford's predecessor Leighton Andrews) spend a lot of effort rubbishing health and education in England. :-(

MP's are supposed to be the representative of and the mouthpiece of the majority voters of the constituents of their parliamentary seat. They very rarely are. Instead they are often merely political party puppets given the opportunity to stand for election by whichever party they have allegiance to. Their interests do not lie with their constituents but with their party. That will remain unchanged until political parties are prevented from nominating candidates who do not already either reside or work in the constituency they are to stand for.

If it were conditional that candidates could only be drawn from those who had either lived or worked in the constituency for 2 years BEFORE the election then there would be a better chance that the successful candidate would be more in tune with those they represent.

" Labour want a more planned Keynesian type of economy "

Keynes did not argue for a planned economy, far from it. Labour got that second had from,Lenin ( "socialism in one country") via George Lansbury.

Cutting back to modern times Milliband's energy policy is to break up the current de facto cartels by splitting energy production from retail and SME sales thus creating a competitive free for all - hardly a policy for somebody who wants a planned economy.

By and large the Tories have been against free markets all the way back to the Corn Laws.

Wales does not have any devolved economic powers of any importance and Scotland precious few. As Salmond may find and most of the EU already has countries in a currency union will find themselves dancing to the tune of the strongest member in the union.

Rollo. Good points. But you are having a private discussion on another playing field to me. Where your "biggest countries control smaller countries" argument leads us I am not sure. A large European empire perhaps. Prussia or Ottoman sounds a good name for one.

Point I was trying to make is that, if a power is devolved to a country's national government, why do other governments get involved? It is useful to have European and UK league tables to see progress in education and health is being made. But political whiff waff across Hadrian's Wall and Offa's Dyke hardly helps the ordinary person in the street.

They have ratcheted up the blame culture since devolution. And the blame culture is such a waste of time and effort. Smokescreens is what thread is about - so why raise one?

" Their interests do not lie with their constituents but with their party. "

Indeed so. The roots of the English party system of government go back to the deposition of James II and the installation of Wm of Orange/Anne Stuart as sovereign. For many years the early Tories were regarded as "Jacobites" wishing to restore the Stuart line and they lost out politically as a result.

The whole idea was not to "represent the people" but to ensure that the country had a government that had authority to govern and especially was independent of the sovereign. The basic objectives were to avoid a repeat of the civil war and the events that led up to 1688.

Nothing much has changed which is why the LibDems have failed to make traction and will be wiped out at the next election - they do not have a coherent interest group behind them unless you count the Grauniadistas and Hacked Off. Neither do they have the crucial ingredient for political success - party discipline.

The Tories are fairly obviously falling apart with a total lack of discipline since the very unwise sacking of the chief whip. Milliband OTOH is enforcing party discipline with some ruthlessness e.g. the departure of Dianne Abbott.

For better for worse the German/Danish approach to parliamentary representation was rejected in the PR referendum. Party government is set to continue with a handful of mavericks. We will go on watching "The Thick Of It" rather than "Borgen".

Plenty of people regard government by a herd of oafish capitalists OR government by a horrible alliance of spotty social workers and trade union hacks as not democratic.

Well if you don't like them join one or the other it is the easiest way to change things not involving guns. To be fair Cameron is continuing with his policy of suprise changes to the constitution. His latest whizzo prang is the not-very-democratic idea of a show trial of his ertshwile cronies.

What you will hardly ever get is an MP fearlessly defending half of his constituents' interests against the other half. The sad fate of Dianna Maddock is as good an example as any.

:-0