Another victory for the hippies

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/feb/16/forest-selloff-
conservative-policy?CMP=twt_fd

 

Who are you calling a hippie? But, isn't that news several days
old already? I think I read it Saturday ...in the Grauniad...

--
Ivan Reid, School of Engineering & Design, _____________ CMS Collaboration,
Brunel University. Ivan.Reid@[brunel.ac.uk|cern.ch] Room 40-1-B12, CERN
GSX600F, RG250WD "You Porsche. Me pass!" DoD #484 JKLO#003, 005
WP7# 3000 LC Unit #2368 (tinlc) UKMC#00009 BOTAFOT#16 UKRMMA#7 (Hon)
KotPT -- "for stupidity above and beyond the call of duty".

 

Any particular news item seems to last for at least three days:

Day 1: the govt are going to announce...
Day 2: the govt have announced...
Day 3: the opposition have reacted to the govt announcement...

 

Alternatively -
Day 1: we have learned that the govt are going to announce...
Day 2: the opposition have reacted furiously to reports that the govt
will announce ...
Day 3: pressure groups, charities, ex-ministers and Rentamob
commentators all throw in their two penn'orth ...
Day 4: the govt have announced something slightly different ...

 

Using the patented Mavis Beacon "Hunt&Peck" Technique, Charlie

I've never really understood the vehement reaction to so-called
"U-turns" in politics.

To me a "U-turn" says "We've listened to the arguments, considered the
matter, and concluded that we were wrong.".

This seems to be rather admirable to me.

 

Which comes into conflict with the idea that you vote for a party based
upon a manifesto of policies which they then have a mandate to implement.

The trouble with voting for who-is-the-best-management-team is that all
they've managed before they come into power is an election campaign: and
all those people are then marginalised and the actual team is comprised of
the same civil servants who were there all along.

 

Are you saying that Tony Blair is not `ideological'?

 

He knew exactly what he wanted to do and he did it: Thatcherism by
other means. He made a point of pushing through unpopular measures and
not adopting popular ones: that makes him ideological (as is
everyone).

 

Unpopular with whom though?
Seems to me in most areas of policy you will get around a third for, third
against, third not interested

 

The two examples I can think of are the invasion of Iraq and the
nationalization of the railways. Blair made a point of fawning over
the banks, in particular, when there was a popular mood for the
renationalization of BR, for example.

 

But at the time invading Iraq was quite popular with the public. And right
through the military campaign. Was it not? Until the peace side went wrong.
Rail - well that's always going to be a No Win scenario. Railways can't
deliver what many people expect of them.

Get rid of career politicians if you want Issues politics

 

http://www.poemhunter.com/poem/the-leader/

 

Yes, I completely agree. There's nothing at all wrong in changing a
policy to reflect a revealed vehement opposition by the electorate. The
graceful way in which the government has backed away from its early
ideas about the forests is mature politics, in my view. Anyway, it was
only ever a proposal and not a stand-or-fall policy decision.

I think the way the coalition is working out is quite encouraging. The
government is faced with a wretched economy (and it doesn't matter whose
'fault' that is, whether Labour, the bankers or whoever), and they are
trying to fix it at the same time as dealing with an unprecedented and
unforeseen parliamentary structure. Now, there are also the ructions in
the Arab world to react to and cope with. Yes, they may well be making
it up as they go along, but it's even more difficult than usual and I
reckon they're acquitting themselves quite well.

All I meant by my spin on CT's post was that the leak is sometimes
wrong, the furious reaction is therefore wrong, all the usual suspects
then weigh in with their feeding frenzy of responses across the media
and then, eventually, the 'real' story turns out to be mistaken and a
thoroughly damp squib.

 

I was not "he" it was "they".

Nu Labor was a callous take over of a political party with no real sense
of direction by a small group of highly educated/motivated/intelligent men
and wimmin with the express intention of gaining power.

Once this was done the realities of being a government with no firm idea
logical basis became the problem that we live with today.

 

I think that fits his immediate successor rather more snugly.

 

*ding*
I feel Blair knew what he wanted to achieve. But he was all personality and
ideas. No life experience had taught him how to turn really complicated
difficult things into practical realities. The NHS and the Railways for
instance, what could be more challenging.

At the risk of stating the bleeding obvious it also matters how good an
administration even the best PM builds around him in terms of Ministers,
advisors and Civil Servants.

 

Well, I agree Gordon didn't bother with the "elected" bit.