POLITICS CORNER

[Stanley]

I agree P. The fault with my post was that I assumed he had common sense and ethics in the first place.....
The electioneering gets even more surreal. The big topic now is fear of SNP taking over.... I ask you!

[Stanley]

"Those whom the Gods wish to destroy, they first make mad...." We had another Cameron 'oops' moment yesterday when he calmly announced that he would serve a full five year term in the next government and named his successors. It is of course all nonsense. Apart from the fact the election isn't won yet it is unthinkable that he would serve right up to a third election. History shows that a statement like this automatically means loss of authority and infighting by putative successors. Machiavellian or just plain stupid? On his track record it's the latter. Try as I may I can't think of any advantage he can gain from this so I think he simply spoke without putting his brain in gear. This assumes of course that he has a finely honed political brain....

[Bruff]

I suppose you know something’s a real head-shaker when one Alastair Campbell emerges as a voice of reason (we might recall the last election when Sky’s Chief Political Correspondent lost it so badly on live TV it was left to Mr Campbell to plead with him to maintain his dignity………).

Anyway on the radio last night, Mr Campbell after laughing at the daftness of the PM’s latest missive, regained his composure and noted that this was entirely in keeping with the whole Cameron approach to his position. It is he said, all about him. It is a job, to tick off, as something that he ‘has done’ as he was always destined ‘to do’. Where Mr Campbell asked, was the PM’s vision, his ideas, his ‘’ ‘ism’ ‘’, if you like? What does he stand for? Nobody knows.

Maybe it doesn’t matter, maybe folk are quite happy for their PM to be the sort who can charm you over tea or be sure to address the widowed wife of an Earl correctly, or otherwise come on with that easy charm and well, at least a veneer of politeness (he’s actually anything but if you bother to follow him closely). But you know, it’s a serious business the business of Government and it calls for serious, considerate, careful people. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is no evidence at all that the current PM has any of these attributes. No wonder he was desperate to avoid a 1:1 debate, where his superficiality would be laid bare for millions to see. In contrast to most of the printed media who’ll have you know he’s a titan amongst men…….

Richard Broughton

[Tizer]

As you know, I don't support any political party and I try to be independent in my assessment. I don't rate David Cameron highly but then I regard Ed Milliband as no better, and I can't envisage Milliband as a statesman on the international scene at all. Do you honestly see Milliband as any better a leader than Cameron? Put aside any tribal loyalties!

[plaques]

The problem of trying to be a UK statesman is that we have to follow the interests of other bigger statesmen. Generally speaking the real boss at this game is the 'Big Satan'. Cameron has demonstrated that he is totally committed to monetarism which in the long run makes whole sections of the population redundant and surplus to requirement. Milliband doesn't have any charisma that would label him as a great leader. However, I suspect he has more socialist leanings than he his prepared to disclose to the right wing press. Socialism is still viewed in the same light as communism which would go down like a lead balloon in most capitalist (bank run) countries.
At the end of the day it is up to the individual who they chose to run the country. To abstain from voting just because you don't like someones hair cut or different sounding voice misses the point altogether.

[Bruff]

‘Do you honestly see Milliband as any better a leader than Cameron..’’

Yes I do. It was said a few weeks ago, by whom I don’t recall now, that Mr Milliband would make a much better PM than Leader of the Opposition. This was a shrewd assessment. Rightly or wrongly, how one looks, how one sounds, are quite important when trying to become PM. But once you are PM, then this is all rather immaterial as you’re thrust right into the nitty-gritty of running the country. And this is quite a tricky task. Mr Milliband strikes me as someone who understands this and is interested in it and willing to think very carefully about it. I cannot for one moment imagine the supposedly ‘weak’ Mr Milliband being as isolated as the current PM in Europe at just the time when we need to be fully engaged to get what we supposedly want. Nor can I imagine the supposedly ‘weak’ Mr Milliband blundering into the sort of statement the PM made not one hour after the result was declared in the Scottish referendum.

Mr Milliband’s weakness seems to me a media and Tory construct without any evidence at all. Well I suppose they might mutter ‘Unions’ or something but I struggle see what, aside from the signing up to the EU’s Social Chapter, the Unions in this country have got from any Government for 30-odd years. And that’s not going to change.

Richard Broughton

[PanBiker]

Ed Milliband has been called all sorts in the press and compared to a few cartoon characters and the like again all the makings of the press. I know one thing, he's a hell of a lot more articulate than David Cameron at the dispatch box at PMQT. I think he would stand a fair chance of rising to the challenge if elected. We know what David Cameron is like and am sure Ed could do better.

[Thomo]

It appears to me that giving a vote to someone unproven, yet apparently able to promise anything that could be popular to a portion of the electorate, may result in a big step backwards. Its all very well to vote on principle as many did in the last century. The unions have played their part over time, they have fought hard for the working man, yet have also contributed to the reduction of this countries main industries. To fully understand this, it is helpful if at some time anyone who disagrees with this has actually worked in a major industry, by which I mean an industry that was built on ingenuity and skill, as in engineering, and all of its component parts, indeed any such industry that was able to produce a sound product from raw materials. Just once I was told that I must join a union, and was given a choice of two, the Main engineering union, or the sheet metal workers. I was already aware that in many industries the dominant union had its "bully boys" and that if a person did not agree with what they were told they must do, intimidation would follow, be it mental or physical. Sadly, today, this attitude still applies in some areas, and in some cases the power wielded by some unions and the leaders now of some ethnic minorities still holds sway over their members, even though it should be clear that voting is a personal matter and should not be interfered with. Fear is still a powerful weapon.

[PanBiker]

It appears to me that giving a vote to someone unproven, yet apparently able to promise anything that could be popular to a portion of the electorate, may result in a big step backwards.

The very same could have been said of Mr Cameron and Mr Clegg and many other first time leaders. The question is can they rise to the challenge. In Cameron and Cleggs case what we ended up with is not what anyone voted for.

If we stuck with reelecting the same leader just because they have "a track record" we might just as well have a system and resultant society such as North Korea and other such regimes. You have a vote, but there's only one candidate.

[Bruff]

Interestingly, Mr Cameron might then have been the most ‘unproven’ potential PM for years: Brown has been Chancellor; Major had been Chancellor and Foreign Secretary; Mrs Thatcher - Education Secretary; Jim Callaghan - Foreign Secretary; Ted Heath had done what was then in effect Vince Cable’s job now, as had Harold Wilson. Mr Blair had never been in Cabinet but he had been Shadow Home and Employment Secretary for a combined 5 years plus. Mr Cameron had 6 months as Shadow Education Secretary and a bit of time as Opposition spokesman on Local Government, that’s it. Mr Milliband has at least been a Cabinet Minister – he was Environment Secretary.

Have to say I’m not sure I entirely agree that one has to have worked in ‘industry’ so described to understand the role the Unions might have played in the Nation’s difficulties. However, as a former chemist I have in my time synthesised novel chemicals from base materials never before made by anyone, anywhere. So there’s demonstrable ingenuity of a sorts on my part I suppose. Not engineering though; I don't understand engineering at all and have no aptitude for it at all. All fingers and thumbs me, unlike my father and brother.

Richard Broughton

[Thomo]

If you have done something useful for the benefit of others in your time, then you have a right to feel proud, if you have reaped the rewards of your efforts, then you have earned it. We are fortunate here in that whatever our fundamental beliefs and feelings are, we are relatively safe from oppression or persecution, we are not ordered or told what we have to do for the good of all, at least, that's how it should be. I have been to many counties where this does not apply, where poverty takes on a different meaning, and where people constantly live in fear, where people would not even consider speaking as we have the liberty to do, even when in the majority. What will remain with me always is the quiet understanding of such people and their ability to make a stranger welcome without a deluge of their concerns, maybe they are richer then we.

[Tizer]

To abstain from voting just because you don't like someone's hair cut or different sounding voice misses the point altogether.

I never have and never will abstain from voting. I think perhaps you misinterpreted my saying that I don't support any political party. I don't mean that I won't vote - I just don't have a tribal loyalty to a party. I'll wait until the day comes and then make my decision who gets my vote. And haircut and sound of voice doesn't come into it at all.

[plaques]

Tizer. The voting bit was a general statement not pointing at anyone in particular. As yourself and others have said they will give it a good coat of thinking about and vote accordingly. The local MP may be a very nice person and make all the right noises in his constituency but if they vote in parliament against your own particular political standards then you may have to drop the superficial factors and use your own judgement.

[Stanley]

Interesting posts and some valid points. I think Richard is correct about the difference between Cameron and Milliband in terms of the depth of his ideas and thinking. This shows in his evident concern for society as a whole. True, he has an unfortunate manner and doesn't come across well as a public speaker, same as Clem Attlee....
Richard, I agree about Campbell, I think his contribution was valuable. As for Mr Gove's intervention.... I cringe every time I hear him.
I see the BBC are advertising an upcoming interview with Ed in the bosom of his family. I would prefer a straight political debate, more pertinent to the job of PM than the ability to do the school run or chop carrots.

[Tizer]

I see the BBC are advertising an upcoming interview with Ed in the bosom of his family.

But which of his kitchens will they use for filming?

Plaques, thanks for understanding. For me, the coming election, more than ever, is a case of selecting the least bad apple in the box!

[Stanley]

I have to agree Tiz. The present trend of Tories and Labour vying with each other to rule out tax rises, VAT and Nat Ins is stupid. Remember Norman Lamont? Definite promise not to alter tax rates and then......

[PanBiker]

It's actually a bit like kids in a playground, ner, ner, ner, ner, ner..... with each daring one another to run the country with one (or both) hands tied behind their backs. Nothing to do with the real world or the fixes required for the future or well being of society. In the spotlight name calling, the media are trying to rack up the importance of the exchange in the last PMQ. In reality what was said will not hold sway on how the majority will cast their ballot in five weeks time.

[Stanley]

It's electioneering. The only thing in their minds is gaining or holding on to power. Only solution is to place your bet in May on the horse that seems to have the most solid base of principle and ethics. What is happening now and until the election is flim flam.

[Tizer]

An article on Vlad Putin and why his background, and especially an event in December 1989, means he acts as he does now.
http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-32066222
As the article concludes: "So when wondering what Vladimir Putin will do next, it's well worth remembering what he's lived through already."

[Thomo]

If I was ever going to have the chance to sit down and have a chat with a world leader, without all of the usual protocols etc, it would have to be Putin. I just have the feeling that he would tell it how it is, and how sees it when not faced with someone in authority. Whether I would trust him is another matter! This last could also be applied to several candidates currently on offer in our area, will they work for the good of all, or simply their own part of it?

[Stanley]

I was cheered up yesterday when I realised that technically we no longer have an MP. This means that for the foreseeable future we will not have to read Mr Stephenson's vapid report from the house each week.... Good letter in the BET yesterday identifying the gaps in the matters he shares with us. Worth reading and considering. I'd add Child Poverty and Infant Mortality to the list.....
Double dose of large format Tory coloured paper this week.....
See THIS for the BBC report of the failure of a nasty little political ploy probably initiated by Cameron. In the dying gasp of this session he wanted to pass a Bill making election of the speaker a secret ballot. He was hoping that this would lead to the removal of Speaker Bercow whom he hates. It failed, largely because many of his own backbenchers refused to support this. Good!

[Stanley]

See THIS for a report about leaked papers laying out deep cuts in benefits after the election if the Tories retain power. The Tories of course say that this is only a list of possibilities but we all know that these are a minimum, they need dee[per cuts than this especially after the bidding war ruling out tax changes. Whichever party gains control, more cuts are inevitable. The only variable is how long the time scale is for implementing them. The Tory plan is a sharp reduction and then an easing after two years. Really? Don't hold your breath lads! The obsession with balancing the budget and reducing the deficit is going too far. The only long term way to achieve these objectives is to ease the pressure on the lowest 90% of the electorate, if necessary by borrowing at very cheap rates, and investing the money into increasing the spending power of the only section of the economy that can reliably be expected to raise GDP and general economic activity. This increases the tax take and the net effect is a dividend on the borrowed money invested. This was how we did it after the war and it worked....
Someone should be reading their history books......

[PanBiker]

Apparently our outgoing MP Mr Stephenson was told about the removal of treatment services at our local surgery over three months ago by the senior leadership team. This was revealed yesterday by the senior partner. As a result, the people that are affected get to know a couple of weeks before it closes. Party politics before benefit to the community, that would be about right for this lot.

[plaques]

I know from personal experience that the treatment given by Burnley's 'Urgent Treatment Centre' and Colne's treatment rooms is excellent. But in my mind this does not compensate for having to travel all those extra miles to be assured that all is going well. Forget making appointments for a friday afternoon, yesterday it took me 20 minutes to get from Foulridge to Colne (school run time). Concentrating services into one building may be making its operation more efficient but it also exposes it to possible privatization. This is just a private thought but watch this space if Mr Cameron gets back in.

[Stanley]

But no thought for the clients! I wish the protest well, I've made my views known....