[moodymonster]

Council tax inspectors will be able to enter people's homes and take photographs even of their bedrooms, it emerged yesterday.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...ixnewstop.html

Its so good to live in the UK. What's that phrase I see used by Americans? Oh yes that's it:
An armed man is a citizen, an unarmed man - a subject.

I'm gonna move to Canada or something because this is beyond the pale.

PS and why is it only in England, what about Scotland and Wales?

[Doofy]

Don't bleedin vote for a bunch of Marxists next time!

And if they think they're coming into my house they'd best bring weapons with them.

[moodymonster]

I personally didn't vote in our elected dictatorship for a bunch of left wing fascists.

But, my god how inept do the conservatives have to be to not be jumping all over the Labour party. You've got:

Tony Bliar and Cherie Booth. - that's all you need to say

David 'can't keep his cock in his pants' Blunkett,

John 'can't string a coherent sentence together' Prescott,

Jack 'watches 80 yr old men getting roughed up' Straw

Peter 'whatever I do, I'll never get fired' Mandelson

and more...

and the conservatives just seem to be talking about what type of underwear their leadership candidates wear.

[Y3a]

Whew! I'm glad In the US they can only use eminant domain to take your property and make it into a gas station...

[moodymonster]

we have that too - we call it compulsory purchase

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by moodymonster

But, my god how inept do the conservatives have to be to not be jumping all over the Labour party.

I know, I know. Bunch of idiots need their heads knocking together.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I know, I know. Bunch of idiots need their heads knocking together.

Maybe they should follow your lead and campaign on immigration.

edit: oh, forgot, they already did that - and were comprehensively rejected by the British electorate. Twice.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Maybe they should follow your lead and campaign on immigration.

Since we're overpopulated to the tune of 30 million, maybe so.

(for those unaware of the reference: The UK can produce food for about 40 million people. There's somewhere close to 70 million in the country at the moment. If another event like WW2 happened where we couldn't import food we'd all pretty much starve to death. Well, your idiots in urban London would... ...I'd be OK)

Originally Posted by nath

edit: oh, forgot, they already did that - and were comprehensively rejected by the Scottish and Welsh electorate.

Correctinated.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Since we're overpopulated to the tune of 30 million, maybe so.

Weird that it doesn't seem to have had any appeal as a campaign issue then, despite two concerted efforts by the main opposition party. I guess your views must be pretty much marginal.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Correctinated.

Er...we have elections for the government of the UK Doofy, not just for the (little) Englanders. You may not like it, but that's the system. It's not as if alternative voting systems would benefit the official proponents of your extreme views anyway.

edit: just had my first proper look at the BNP frontpage, and surprise, surprise...it's basically a roll-call of your latest P/L lounge whinges.

Gangs of Asians attacking white schoolgirls
Intifada in France

Nice company you're keeping there.

[moodymonster]

don't know about being over populated etc, but people coming into my house and doing an inventory of my property crosses the line, spits on the line, stamps on the line and, and I don't know.

The gov't should be put under the same amount of scrutiny they're using to investigate British service men and women who made decisions under extreme duress affecting a small number of people's lives. Compared to MPs who make decisions affecting large numbers of people while under comparably no pressure. They should be asked to explain why they feel they have the right to invade the privacy of 22 million homes in England.

I'm feeling seditious right now.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Weird that it doesn't seem to have had any appeal as a campaign issue then, despite two concerted efforts by the main opposition party. I guess your views must be pretty much marginal.

Yep. Because most of you idiots are urban and don't know what a screw-up the government is making of the food supply.

Originally Posted by nath

Er...we have elections for the government of the UK Doofy, not just for the (little) Englanders. You may not like it, but that's the system.

Problem is (as seen in the last line of the OP) that we haven't got an English parliament. I believe that it's only fair that we either get an English-only parliament or get rid of the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments.

*For reference for outsiders: every country in the UK has its own parliament except England, which has do make to with the UK parliament. This effectively means that Scottish representatives can vote on English matters but English representatives can't vote on Scottish matters.

Originally Posted by nath

edit: just had my first proper look at the BNP frontpage, and surprise, surprise...it's basically a roll-call of your latest P/L lounge whinges.

Gangs of Asians attacking white schoolgirls
Intifada in France

Nice company you're keeping there.

Simply because some other folks have also noticed certain things going on it doesn't mean I'm keeping their company. You couldn't pay me enough to vote for that bunch of leftie arse.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Doofy

*For reference for outsiders: every country in the UK has its own parliament except England, which has do make to with the UK parliament. This effectively means that Scottish representatives can vote on English matters but English representatives can't vote on Scottish matters.

Ha. Take that!

Now if only the Scottish could learn what to do with a rugby ball...

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Yep. Because most of you idiots are urban and don't know what a screw-up the government is making of the food supply.

Self-sufficiency is over-rated. You're starting to sound like Swampy.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I believe that it's only fair that we either get an English-only parliament or get rid of the Scottish, Welsh and NI parliaments.

I'm surprised that you're so impressed with mainstream politicians in the UK that you want to add another layer. Personally I'd prefer to just stop MPs from the dependencies from voting on English law changes.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Simply because some other folks have also noticed certain things going on it doesn't mean I'm keeping their company.

No, but it does indicate where you should be putting your vote.

[Millennium]

Originally Posted by nath

Er...we have elections for the government of the UK Doofy, not just for the (little) Englanders. You may not like it, but that's the system. It's not as if alternative voting systems would benefit the official proponents of your extreme views anyway.

Um, I don't think that's what he was getting at. It doesn't sound to me like he wants to make the UK parliament English-only at all. Rather, he wants to create an "English Parliament" analogous to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, and similar bodies: subject to the UK parliament but with power over matters pertaining only to England.

To be honest, I don't see this as all that bad of an idea. Are England and the UK really supposed to be one and the same? If so, then why not the other countries of the UK? If not, then why should the English not get their own government analogous to those of other UK countries? Is England in a particularly special position, such that it should have a different governmental structure than the other UK countries?

[moodymonster]

UK Govt is headed by Scots - they don't have the interests of the English at heart. New English Parliament isn't going to happen.

Is all this devolution good anyway? Just need representation in the UK Parliament that counts.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Millennium

Um, I don't think that's what he was getting at. It doesn't sound to me like he wants to make the UK parliament English-only at all. Rather, he wants to create an "English Parliament" analogous to the Scottish Parliament, the Welsh Parliament, and similar bodies: subject to the UK parliament but with power over matters pertaining only to England.

What he was referring to is something known as the West Lothian problem. The Scottish Parliament has returned law-making in the most substantial areas (health, education, policing, tax, etc) to Scotland (the Welsh Parliament is far less powerful; I would say to the point of irrelevancy, but that's another discussion).

The West Lothian problem was the main difficulty identified by most constitutional experts with regard to the establishment of a Scottish Parliament. Since Scottish MPs would still be required to sit at Westminster to represent their constituents on UK-wide issues such as defence and foreign relations, they would also be able to vote on legislation that impacts England and Wales, but not their own constituents.

Blair's solution to the problem - typical to his approach on all constitutional matters - was to pretend there wasn't a problem. However it would be fairly easy to prevent Scottish MPs from voting on legislation affecting only England and Wales, and to me more attractive than adding yet another layer of government to what is already a sprawling and in large part unnecessary bureaucracy. In fact one of the two current contenders for the Tory leadership is proposing exactly that.

Originally Posted by Millennium

To be honest, I don't see this as all that bad of an idea. Are England and the UK really supposed to be one and the same? If so, then why not the other countries of the UK? If not, then why should the English not get their own government analogous to those of other UK countries? Is England in a particularly special position, such that it should have a different governmental structure than the other UK countries?

We actually have a large integrated system of local government already in place which could devolve and localise power if necessary. The problem is that Labour have followed their Conservative predecessors in favouring a 'command and control' style of centralised government which has continued to strip power from local elected bodies. Which brings us back to the OP - the fact that the government are now running scared from updating the property tax system because they know that there will be no one else to blame when it all goes wrong.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

I'm surprised that you're so impressed with mainstream politicians in the UK that you want to add another layer. Personally I'd prefer to just stop MPs from the dependencies from voting on English law changes.

I'm not particularly impressed with any of them. Thus, I don't particularly want another layer of government.

Problem is, at the general election England voted Tory. If we'd have disregarded the Scottish and Welsh vote we'd have a slightly less obnoxious PM in right now. But the Scottish don't care what government we're lumbered with in England because they run their own affairs anyways.

Americans: A somewhat similar scenario would be Puerto Rico swinging the vote to Democrat all the time whilst mostly not having to deal with the consequences of that vote because they're largely self-governing. With whatever state you're in not having a vote over Puerto Rican affairs. Scales are off, but same deal.

I just want a fairer system (I wouldn't even mind if we just got rid of the Scottish/Welsh/NI parliaments - as long as everyone was on a level playing field).

Originally Posted by nath

No, but it does indicate where you should be putting your vote.

Like I said, you couldn't pay me enough to vote for those leftie scum.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

In fact one of the two current contenders for the Tory leadership is proposing exactly that.

He's gonna walk the election* if he does that (bearing in mind that by 2009 we'll have a totally screwed economy, so Labour will stand no chance).

* If he gets in as Tory leader, obviously. Sources are reckoning that it's a fix for Cameron.

[moodymonster]

by 2009 who's to say the UK Parliament will still be here in any real capacity. We will all be forced to swear allegiance to our new masters in Brussels. Or rise up and then starve from lack of food etc.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Problem is, at the general election England voted Tory.

Er...no.

Labour 286
Conservative 193
Lib Dem 47
Others 2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vot...ml/england.stm

How on earth do you interpret a Labour majority of 93 to be England voting Tory?

Originally Posted by Doofy

But the Scottish don't care what government we're lumbered with in England because they run their own affairs anyways.

As the numbers above demonstrate, Labour won the election north and south of the border. Against a party running on an explicitly anti-immigration ticket.

Originally Posted by Doofy

I just want a fairer system (I wouldn't even mind if we just got rid of the Scottish/Welsh/NI parliaments - as long as everyone was on a level playing field).

You just want non-English MPs not to be able to vote on legislation which only affects England. This is (against all the odds) perfectly reasonable, and achievable.

[moodymonster]

Labour did lose 37 seats in the last election and the Tories gained 32. So someone is voting Tory.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Er...no.

Labour 286
Conservative 193
Lib Dem 47
Others 2

http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/vot...ml/england.stm

How on earth do you interpret a Labour majority of 93 to be England voting Tory?

As the numbers above demonstrate, Labour won the election north and south of the border. Against a party running on an explicitly anti-immigration ticket.

Not talking seats. About half a million more folks in England voted Tory than they did Labour. Of course, the 1997 boundary changes (made by Labour just after they got in) made sure that winning seats is a hard thing to do.

Example:
Biddulph in Staffs (Labour hardcore) was moved from Stoke North (Labour hardcore) and tacked onto Staffs Moorlands (Tory marginal).
Cheadle Staffs (Tory) was then moved from Staffs Moorlands and tagged onto Stone (Tory hardcore).
The Labour voters added from Biddulph and Tory voters in Cheadle removed pretty much gave Labour the Staffs Moorlands seat. This kind of stuff went on all over the country - Blair was a corrupt scumbag from the word go.

Originally Posted by nath

You just want non-English MPs not to be able to vote on legislation which only affects England. This is (against all the odds) perfectly reasonable, and achievable.

Pretty much. I'd also kind of like it if the Scots didn't keep voting Blair in (after all, he has next to nothing to do with their local policy but messes with ours no end).

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

Not talking seats. About half a million more folks in England voted Tory than they did Labour.

Er...no (again). Try 72,544. A little different from 'half a million'!

Labour 8,043461
Conservative 8,116,005

All the numbers are there at the link I provided - I don't know why you're so reluctant to use them.

In any case overall vote share is irrelevant as you well know. We don't elect governments by popular vote, and nor should we. Picking up the votes of a small-medium sized minority of morons in each constituency does not a Tory government make.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Example:

If you want to get into boundary commission changes then you'll have to take into account the fact that your examples were redressing 20 years of changes that were extremely sympathetic to the Tories under their own administration. Seems more likely that you're trying to distract attention from the fact that you don't even understand the basic results from the last election.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Er...no (again). Try 72,544. A little different from 'half a million'!

Labour 8,043461
Conservative 8,116,005

All the numbers are there at the link I provided - I don't know why you're so reluctant to use them.

I was going off different figures. I apologise if I was incorrect about the figure.

Originally Posted by nath

In any case overall vote share is irrelevant as you well know. We don't elect governments by popular vote, and nor should we. Picking up the votes of a small-medium sized minority of morons in each constituency does not a Tory government make.

No, you're right. It makes a Labour government.

Originally Posted by nath

If you want to get into boundary commission changes then you'll have to take into account the fact that your examples were redressing 20 years of changes that were extremely sympathetic to the Tories under their own administration.

Never mind. I suppose it'll all come right when the country is on its fiscal knees and the people start crying out for a proper government again (1979 style).

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

I was going off different figures.

Really? What figures? I'm interested to see who could get it that badly wrong (if only so I know to avoid them in the future!)

Originally Posted by Doofy

No, you're right. It makes a Labour government.

No, a Labour government is when the Labour Party get the most amount of seats, by getting a majority of the votes in the majority of constituencies. Pretty simple, this democracy thing (once you get the hang of it).

Most worrying for Tory strategists must be the knowledge that in two thirds of the seats they actually did win back, those victories depended on Labour voters switching to the Lib Dems.

Originally Posted by Doofy

Never mind. I suppose it'll all come right when the country is on its fiscal knees and the people start crying out for a proper government again (1979 style).

You may not be aware of this, but the 1979 Thatcher government wasn't at all radical or even that great a departure from the Labour government that preceded it. Privatisation, union-bashing and council house sales came much later. The first Thatcher govt. was very much 'steady as she goes', due in part to the fact that she was still at that point surrounded by One Nation Tories at the top level of the Conservative Party.

Even Conservative commentators will concede that Thatcher may not have survived were it not for the Falklands campaign and the awful Labour manifesto of 1983.

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

Really? What figures? I'm interested to see who could get it that badly wrong (if only so I know to avoid them in the future!)

I can't remember the source. It was over six months ago.

Originally Posted by nath

You may not be aware of this, but the 1979 Thatcher government wasn't at all radical or even that great a departure from the Labour government that preceded it.

But somehow we didn't have a winter of discontent in 1980. Strange.

Anyways... Currently, due to the complete lack of competence on the part of the Tories I'm politically homeless. Good job I'll be long gone and won't have to worry about it by the time the next GE arrives.

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Doofy

But somehow we didn't have a winter of discontent in 1980. Strange.

That was 1978-79, not 1980. The Winter of Discontent is what finally brought down the Callaghan Labour government. There is not much point in having a union-run party if the unions still let the dead pile up unburied, the firemen and ambulances go on strike, and the trash goes uncollected.

1979 was the first election I watched intelligently (I was 12 at the time). The idea that the Conservative Manifesto wasn't considered a radical departure from the preceding government isn't at all the way I remember it. Nath is completely wrong. Union reform, the banning of flying pickets and secondary boycotts, council house sales and (a limited degree) of privatization were all in the 1979 Manifesto. http://www.psr.keele.ac.uk/area/uk/man/con79.htm It's true that the wets didn't like it, but those were the policies Maggie won the election to implement.

More to the point, the Thatcher policy of a tight money supply and spending cuts (i.e. moneterism) was very radical. Really it was considered a 180 degree policy departure from the previous Labour and previous Conservative governments. It's true also that to begin with it was deeply unpopular. I don't think it is really the case that the Falklands had much to do with saving the Thatcher government (though it is one of those things that people say without question). In reality, Labour's self-immolation and the fact that it then split with the formation of the "SDP" causing the anti-Thatcher vote to divide almost certainly saved her government in 1983. Thatcher's economic success wasn't recognized really until a couple of years later when unemployment levelled and inflation started to fall. Then it began to be recognized that the much-derided "Thatcherism" Moneterist experiment it was exactly the tough medicine the country had to take. Britain really has never looked back, which is why Labour only won elections when they made the implicit promise not to undo what Thatcher started.

What's sad is the way the Tories now seem to be trying their hardest to emulate Labour in the early 1980s. What goes around comes around, I suppose.

[siflippant]

Originally Posted by Millennium

To be honest, I don't see this as all that bad of an idea. Are England and the UK really supposed to be one and the same? If so, then why not the other countries of the UK? If not, then why should the English not get their own government analogous to those of other UK countries? Is England in a particularly special position, such that it should have a different governmental structure than the other UK countries?

Well, this e-mail that's been doing the rounds here in the UK for sometime now seems to sum up the the feelings of the majority [English] on this situation up quite well...

JUST DON'T SAY YOU'RE ENGLISH

Goodbye To My England - So Long My Old Friend
You're Days Are Numbered, Being Brought To An End
To Be Scottish, Irish Or Welsh, That's Fine
But Don't Say You're English, That's Way Out Of Line

The French And The Germans May Call Themselves Such
As May The Norwegians, The Swedes And The Dutch
You Can Say You Are Russian Or Maybe A Dane
But Don't Say You're English Ever Again

At Broadcasting House' That Word Is Taboo
In Brussels They've Scrapped It, In Parliament Too
Even Schools Are Affected, Staff Do As They're Told
They Mustn't Teach Children About The England Of Old

Writers Like Shakespeare, Milton And Shaw
Do The Pupils Not learn About Them Anymore
How About Agincourt, Hastings, Arnhem Or Mons
When England Last Hosts Of Her Very Brave Sons

We Are Not Europeans, How Can We Be
Europe Is Miles Away Over The Sea
We're The English From England, Let's All Be Proud
Stand Up And be Counted - Shout It Out Loud

Let's Tell Our Government - And Brussels Too -
We're Proud of Our Heritage And Red White and Blue
Fly The Flag Of Saint George Or The Union Jack
Let The World Know - We Want Our England Back.

Been going downhill since 1997

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by SimeyTheLimey

That was 1978-79, not 1980.

What i meant was: Nat is making out that Thatch was no different than the Labour government during her early reign. If that was so, we'd probably have had another couple Winter of Discontents in 1980 and 1981.

[nath]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What i meant was: Nat is making out that Thatch was no different than the Labour government during her early reign.

Not quite, but you're right that I did exaggerate. What I meant was that the 83 and 87 Thatcher governments were far more radical in both composition and execution than the 79 version.

Simey is also right to point out that council house sales and restrictions on trade unions were in the 79 manifesto - however they were not pursued with anything like the same vigour as they were later, and privatisation (the central tenet of the latter Thatcher govts) was virtually a footnote.

Originally Posted by Doofy

If that was so, we'd probably have had another couple Winter of Discontents in 1980 and 1981.

We did. The recessions in those years were actually worse than in 79.

http://www.bized.ac.uk/dataserv/chron/kf80.htm

[SimeyTheLimey]

Originally Posted by Doofy

What i meant was: Nat is making out that Thatch was no different than the Labour government during her early reign. If that was so, we'd probably have had another couple Winter of Discontents in 1980 and 1981.

It wasn't for want of trying on the part of the unions. Remember 1984-5 and the miners? And before that was the Wapping newspaper strike. I'm sure there were others that I have forgotten. Each of them was basically testing the Thatcher picket laws.

An interesting comparison. I took US Labor Law in law school, and found out to my surprise that the laws that were only passed in the early 1980s in the UK -- no closed shop, no secondary boycotts or flying pickets, the rights not to be in a union and not to pay union dues, and the right to freely elect union leaders if you are in the union -- were passed in the US in the 1940s. Secret ballots were in US law in the 1930s but not passed in the UK until the 1980s. I wonder how different Britain would have been if that core element of Thatcherism had been passed 40 or 50 years earlier like it was in the US?

[Doofy]

Originally Posted by nath

We did. The recessions in those years were actually worse than in 79.

http://www.bized.ac.uk/dataserv/chron/kf80.htm

A recession does not a winter of content make. Recessions come and go naturally. It takes an incompetent government way too far in bed with the unions to make a winter of discontent.