Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

In the eighties and early nineties Margaret Thatcher and the Conservative party were in power. When Thatcher came to power at the end of the seventies. Brritain was economically weak. The Unions had power and many were out of work. Thatcher improved the standard of living but produced a me culture. She broke the Unions and paved the way modern management in the U.K. She put more money in the pokets of those working and reduced unemployment. She did not care about the welfare of those that did not, could not or were to old to work particularly and increased the divide between those that were rich and all others.

In the late nineties new labour started it's ten year reich based on Education (?) increased personal freedon (?) law and order (?) etc, etc.
The divide between rich and poor has increased, personal freedoms have been eroded thanks to a nanny state (the way for which was paved by Thatcher). Education results have gone up yet critics claiim the exams are easier now?

Have new Labour like the tories before them been in to long. Is the best way for the people to elect a political party for only one term in the U.K.

Originally posted by Zebedee


Have new Labour like the tories before them been in to long. Is the best way for the people to elect a political party for only one term in the U.K. That wouldn't be very free, now would it?

Originally posted by Bardock42
That wouldn't be very free, now would it?

It's a strategy for minimising parties being able to contol society to much. I'm not saying it would be a law.

3rd term syndrome...Like 3rd film syndrome, but with Prime Minsiters, not trilogies.

Originally posted by lord xyz
3rd term syndrome...Like 3rd film syndrome, but with Prime Minsiters, not trilogies.

Exactly.

They're like weird super-termites, termwise.
Give 'em enough time to dig in, and you're screwed.
You never get em out without seriously f***ing with your house.

Die, whirly-ish thing.

Tony Blair isn't that bad of a Prime Minister, the only reason people really hate him is because of Bush and Iraq.

One term politics don't work either, party's won't have enough time to make a difference.

Originally posted by Fishy
One term politics don't work either, party's won't have enough time to make a difference. True. Jimmy Carter could have made a great difference if he had a second term. Instead, he's seen as a failure.

One-termin' peanut farmers FTW.

It's a difficult choice: On the one hand you want stability and the time you need to complete your party platform, on the other hand democratic systems generally thrive on regular change, certainly in a two party system.

Zebedee is forgetting that we do not directly elect rulers in this country, only local representatives who cannot be stopped from combining as they wish, so his entire argument is basically irrelevant.

Originally posted by Fire
It's a difficult choice: On the one hand you want stability and the time you need to complete your party platform, on the other hand democratic systems generally thrive on regular change, certainly in a two party system. We don't have two parties. It's just Labour and Conservatives are the two leaders.

Originally posted by lord xyz
We don't have two parties. It's just Labour and Conservatives are the two leaders.

Never said the UK was a two party system

Originally posted by Zebedee
Education results have gone up yet critics claiim the exams are easier now?



That part is the thing that rankles me.

The only ones who say that are the fogey brigade whom also think that bringing back National Service and the cane will solve all the problems on the streets (instead of making kids angrier and more violent as well as teaching them military tactics and how to use fire-arms better).

Originally posted by Fire
Never said the UK was a two party system Oh right. Sorry.

And lol @ above post.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh right. Sorry. NO prob, I responded a little crisped because I study politics at uni that's all

Originally posted by Fire
NO prob, I responded a little crisped because I study politics at uni that's all Then can you explain why poeple voted for Neocons like Ronny?

No not really, American politics aren't my specialty, plus that's pretty hard to predict/explain anywayz.

Originally posted by Fire
No not really, American politics aren't my specialty, plus that's pretty hard to predict/explain anywayz. Oh well. The way I see it, they voted because of the religious right. "God's nation", "destroy the evil commies that threaten our democracy". All that bullshit that people gave in to. I might be wrong, but if someone can prove I am, go ahead.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
Zebedee is forgetting that we do not directly elect rulers in this country, only local representatives who cannot be stopped from combining as they wish, so his entire argument is basically irrelevant.
Zebedee talked about the elected parties mandate, as I understood his post. I wonder why Gordon Brown wanted to highlight "his" vision today? Obviously the leader of a party reflects that party. At the same time the leader is the driving force behind the vision of that party and shapes it to their own personal vision by picking the cabinet and shaping policy. The whip system tends to ensure that party loyalties are followed. The local representatives do not want the whip removed. England is such a kinky nation. The longer a party is in the more it is able to complete it's long term objectives. When Thatcher became out of touch, her party discarded her.

It doesn't matter if he was talking about their mandate or not, he was talking about removing the right of a party to be in power for more than one or two terms, which is a ludicrous point to raise when we don't vote parties into power, only local politicans who are then free to form associations- that parties come to power as a result of that is not a direct result of the poll. Moan about whips all you like, it changes nothing. I'm not talking of theory, merely the sheer and unquestionable practicality of the matter. It's not like barring a President from a third term, not at all.

The entire thrust of his point is, basically, irrelevant. You cannot stop people voting for local representatives, and the majority of the party mechanic isn't even voted for. So that pretty much ends the matter.

Originally posted by Ushgarak
It doesn't matter if he was talking about their mandate or not, he was talking about removing the right of a party to be in power for more than one or two terms, which is a ludicrous point to raise when we don't vote parties into power, oinly local politicans who are then free to form associations. Moan about whips all you like, it changes nothing. I'm not talking of theory, merely the sheer and unquestionable practicality of the matter. It's not like barring a President from a third term, not at all.

The entire thrust of his point is, basically, irrelevant.

I didn't read it like that. I read it as, "it's wise for the people to avoid allowing politicians to complete longterm objectives". Almost the ultimate expression of conservatism. Actually Parties are voted into power through local representatives. Opinion polls influence when a party will go to election. Ergo Gordon Brown has decided not to. This is because he is unsure that he will gain sufficient local representatives to form the type of Government he wishes, which is able to implement his vision of "socialism" (small almost invisible s).
I see nothing strange in Zebedees statement. He merely feels letting any politicians complete long term goals usually results in less Freedom for the individual. The Thatcher and Blair years would incdicate this might well be true.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Oh well. The way I see it, they voted because of the religious right. "God's nation", "destroy the evil commies that threaten our democracy". All that bullshit that people gave in to. I might be wrong, but if someone can prove I am, go ahead. There are advantages with the Republicans' views as well as there are disadvantages with the Democrats' views.

You paint a picture that is far too one sided. Democrats/Liberal do not have a stronghold of good ideas, really, to many the current Republicans are just worse due to some of the arguments you brought up.