[Vampyr]

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons. Has anyone read the short story It's a Good Life by Jerome Bixby? It was made into a Twilight Zone episode as well. LOL

[mike777]

Do Brits really expect and want the government to provide this? Do they look upon the government as a parent, one who is THE provider?


"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy"

[kenberg]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-14, 11:59, said:

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons. Has anyone read the short story It's a Good Life by Jerome Bixby? It was made into a Twilight Zone episode as well. LOL

Well no I haven't read it. But I gather from this that the good life of the novel/ TZ was not so good..

My thought would be: Is Cameron expecting that his opponent(s) will run on a platform of promising a bad life? It might work People pay to go to horror movies.


There are many things in life that I don't really want to do, but only a few are such that I feel I just couldn't do it no matter what. Running for office is one of them.

[NickRW]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-14, 11:59, said:

David Cameron has promised, if re-elected, to provide "a good life" for Britons.

The whole thing is a sick beauty contest amongst comedians who cannot possibly deliver all that is supposedly on offer. It was ever thus, but seems to be worse than usual this time.

[helene_t]

There was a Danish independent candidate (a commedian) who managed to get elected on a promise of tail wind on the bicycle lanes. A more mainstream party won a landslide offering "we promise absolutely nothing but we are going to keep our promises".

British politicians will eventually get used to the fact that all they can realistically promise is to swallow some of the coalition partner's camels.

[gwnn]

Reminds me of David Mitchell's train of thought on waste in politics:

https://www.youtube....h?v=Zoz5EuIF_y8

[barmar]

 kenberg, on 2015-April-14, 13:23, said:

Well no I haven't read it. But I gather from this that the good life of the novel/ TZ was not so good..

The characters had to do a supernatural child's bidding and claim to enjoy it (i.e. say "It's a good life") or he would send them away to some kind of purgatory.

Quote

My thought would be: Is Cameron expecting that his opponent(s) will run on a platform of promising a bad life? It might work People pay to go to horror movies.

They also expect to be able to leave when the film is over.

[PassedOut]

Today's Guardian has a piece by Paul Krugman with a pretty good explanation of why recent austerity programs were nuts: The case for cuts was a lie. Why does Britain still believe it?

Quote

It is rare, in the history of economic thought, for debates to get resolved this decisively. The austerian ideology that dominated elite discourse five years ago has collapsed, to the point where hardly anyone still believes it. Hardly anyone, that is, except the coalition that still rules Britain – and most of the British media.

I don’t know how many Britons realise the extent to which their economic debate has diverged from the rest of the western world – the extent to which the UK seems stuck on obsessions that have been mainly laughed out of the discourse elsewhere. George Osborne and David Cameron boast that their policies saved Britain from a Greek-style crisis of soaring interest rates, apparently oblivious to the fact that interest rates are at historic lows all across the western world. The press seizes on Ed Miliband’s failure to mention the budget deficit in a speech as a huge gaffe, a supposed revelation of irresponsibility; meanwhile, Hillary Clinton is talking, seriously, not about budget deficits but about the “fun deficit” facing America’s children.

Is there some good reason why deficit obsession should still rule in Britain, even as it fades away everywhere else? No. This country is not different. The economics of austerity are the same – and the intellectual case as bankrupt – in Britain as everywhere else.

I've got to say, though, that it would be wonderful if we in the US could have election campaigns as short and sweet as those in the UK!

[helene_t]

Short, yes, but sweet, no. It is no less dirty than American campaigns. The Murdoc-owned press contributes to it but I think the politicians themselves are pretty bad, too.

[blackshoe]

The one political thing that stands out in my memory from the three years I lived in England (1990-1992) was when a sitting judge in London was photographed, by the police I think, one evening, stopped on some street, with his window rolled down and a woman leaning over and talking to him. It was assumed, when this hit the 11 o'clock news, from the circumstances and the location, that she was a prostitute. The judge was not arrested, but his resignation was on his boss' desk by 2 AM. I was favorably impressed, and it occurred to me that no one in politics in the US would resign in such a situation until he had no other choice. That said, I admit that I didn't pay much attention to the campaigning. What I did see, as I recall, struck me as "well, in this aspect at least, they're no better than us".

[Vampyr]

 blackshoe, on 2015-April-29, 12:48, said:

The judge was not arrested, but his resignation was on his boss' desk by 2 AM. I was favorably impressed,

At the time, and still. Paying for sex is not illegal in England.

[blackshoe]

 Vampyr, on 2015-April-29, 13:42, said:

At the time, and still. Paying for sex is not illegal in England.

Hm. I didn't know that. Or I did but had forgotten.

I felt at the time, and still feel, that he resigned not because he did anything illegal, but because the incident embarrassed the Queen's Bench.

[PassedOut]

Election day in the UK!

A few days ago the NYT had this piece: Britain’s National Health Service, Creaking but Revered, Looms Over Elections

Quote

With the governing Conservatives and the opposition Labour Party locked in a tight race, the political jousting over health care essentially boils down to one question: Who would spend more on it?

Largely untouched by the conservative revolution unleashed by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher in the 1980s or by Britain’s continued drift toward a more market-based society, the National Health Service still mostly provides what it promised when it was established by a Labour government in the 1940s: free treatment for all.

Ahead of elections on May 7, Labour has pledged to find an additional 2.5 billion pounds, or $3.76 billion, for health care, a sum it describes as a “down payment.” The Conservatives — whom, according to opinion polls, voters trust less on health care — have trumped that by promising an extra £8 billion a year, but without explaining where the money would come from.

Despite the system’s many shortcomings and failures, regularly documented in newspapers and on television, there is no serious debate in Britain about moving away from universal health care. Indeed, the right-wing, populist U.K. Independence Party, the one British party to flirt with the idea of shifting to a private insurance system, has retreated on the issue.

In an era when Britons disdain their politicians and detest their bankers, government officials see the National Health Service as “the most revered public institution in this country,” said Chris Ham, chief executive of the King’s Fund, an independent health care charity.

“No government would want to seriously entertain changing the basic principles on which health care is funded and provided,” Mr. Ham said. “It would be electoral suicide to move away from that model, even though clearly it’s under huge strain.”

So the NHS is safe no matter what the final coalition turns out to be.

[kenberg]

I need help ion forming an opinion. Is this good news or bad news?

[Cyberyeti]

 kenberg, on 2015-May-08, 05:58, said:

I need help ion forming an opinion. Is this good news or bad news?

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

[kenberg]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-08, 06:02, said:

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

This is along the lines of what we (or I) have been hearing over here. It's not that there is such enthusiasm for Cameron but rather there is real anti-enthusiasm for Miliband.

Of course US elections often have that aspect to them.

[helene_t]

It felt very much like an American election. Murdoch-owned media spewing smear, the election being more about the leaders than about principles and policies, and in the end we elected a parliament that is seriously out of alignment with the popular opinion on many issues such as for example EU membership, railway privitisation, NHS privitisation, income distribution.

[Vampyr]

 Cyberyeti, on 2015-May-08, 06:02, said:

It was IMO the better of two bad options, Labour lost the election when they picked the wrong leader, Ed Miliband would have been a complete disaster as PM.

Labour have known for years how un-charismatic and out of touch Miliband is. They must have been really cocky not to replace him as leader.

[mike777]

 Vampyr, on 2015-May-08, 08:56, said:

Labour have known for years how un-charismatic and out of touch Miliband is. They must have been really cocky not to replace him as leader.

who decides on the party standard bearer?

For example here in the USA they go through a grueling primary process that the citizens vote on, that this time will last more than a year.

You say they must have been cocky....who are they?

to be honest you make it sound like a tiny bunch of ego driven white guys get in a back room, smoke cigars and decide.

[Vampyr]

 mike777, on 2015-May-08, 19:00, said:

who decides on the party standard bearer?

For example here in the USA they go through a grueling primary process that the citizens vote on, that this time will last more than a year.

Here there are no primaries per se, since the leader of the party with the most seats becomes the PM.

Quote

You say they must have been cocky....who are they?

to be honest you make it sound like a tiny bunch of ego driven white guys get in a back room, smoke cigars and decide.

"They" are the Labout leadership/MPs, whom should have strongly urged Miliband to step down. Then the Labour MPs would nominate candidates, each of whom would need a certain amount of support to appear on the ballot.

As to who votes, well, from what I could glean from the internet (you could have too) the electorate is split into 3 groups, who each contribute one third of the vote, and who I think each send delegates to the annual conference. I am not sure whether a new leader can be chosen in-between conferences. The three groups seem to be:


Labour MPs and MEPS

Trade Unions

Individual Labour members. Membership in the party is not free and I am not sure what is involved.

EDIT: I am not certain that Miliband would have had to step down in order for a new leader to be chosen. Possibly the Labour MPs could have had a vote of no confidence. But this would have been extremely difficult, even if it is possible in theory.