What we need in 2011 is an opposition

[-:Undertaker:-]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/christopherbooker/8235238/What-we-need-in-2011-is-an-opposition.html
.
What we need in 2011 is an opposition
On all the most important issues effecting our lives, our politicians are in deluded agreement, says Christopher Booker


http://i.telegraph.co.uk/telegraph/multimedia/archive/01795/bookermiliband_1795542c.jpg
Ed Miliband at PMQs



There is no greater problem confronting us as a new year dawns than the way that “politics” has come to have two quite different meanings, On the one hand, to the political class and much of the media, it is about such questions as whether the Coalition can last, whether Ed Miliband is any good as leader of the Labour Party, or who is going to win the Oldham by-election. Looming behind all this, however, as Everest to a molehill, are those real political issues shaping people’s lives which scarcely ever get talked about in the Westminster bubble, because our main parties are so agreed on them that they can simply be buried from view.

There is, for instance, the astonishing way they avoid talking to us honestly about the scale of our government deficit. How often do we hear any politician pointing out that, thanks to Gordon Brown’s hubristic decision in 1998 to double spending in a decade, the state is still having to borrow an additional £3 billion every week to cover the resulting shortfall? In Westminster they prattle about “cuts”, but the reality remains that George Osborne’s plans do not envisage any reduction in public spending, only an accelerating rate of increase, from £696 billion a year to £739 billion by 2014. With the prospect that, by then, we shall be paying the equivalent of £60 a week for every household in the land to cover the interest on the debt, our headlong rush to national bankruptcy continues unchecked.

Equally unchecked is the rush to take over ever more of the power to govern our country by the EU, which again our Government seems unable to resist. Tomorrow, with the EU facing the greatest crisis in its history through the slow-motion collapse of the single currency, with Spain and Italy hanging over the abyss, its External Action Service begins work. It plans to set up 136 EU embassies across the world to represent its Common Foreign Policy. This year will see the EU’s noose tightening around Britain’s biggest revenue earner, the City of London, as three powerful new agencies take over the supervision and regulation of our banking, insurance and stock markets.


....


On this as on the other issues, what we lack above all, in these days of coalition and consensus, are politicians prepared to step outside the cosy little bubble and face up honestly, on our behalf, to what is going on in the real world. If there is one paramount challenge in 2011 it is the need to shake ourselves free of the tyranny of a political class which has completely lost the plot. What we need, first and foremost, is some proper opposition.
This just sums it up perfectly (more in the article about the 3-party consensus on the subject of the dying religious cult of global warming) and people must ask the question of; what is the difference between the Labour Party, the Conservative Party and the Liberal Democrat Party? if you look at the figures for the 'cuts', as Booker points out - there are none. So why are Conservative supporters talking about tackling the debt when that is clearly not happening and why are Labour supporters pretending to hate the Tory Party when the Tory Party is doing exactly what Labour did in office and what they want? - the reason? party politics at its worst putting party before ones own principal or before the country itself.

Afterall I ask, how can you oppose what you created?

Thoughts? who are you planning to vote in the May local elections and who did you vote/support in the 2010 elections?

[Ajthedragon]

If I could vote, I would have voted Conservative at the GE. If I could vote at these local elections I would vote for Conservatives. I just believe in their morales. You shouldn't believe everything the papers say. The Daily Mirror uses a ******* rabbit to manipulate people into voting Labour.

[dbgtz]

No, they hate them because they raised standard VAT which is tackling debt, they want more :D Who would I vote if I could? I don't know, they are all awful. If my MP helps me, it would be conservative and if she does, then I am assured my dad would vote them.

[Fez]

RE May elections: The Pirate Party is going strength to strength lately, they haven't had any strong candidates in Yorkshire, but I've heard whispers of a more Northern centric campaign after the May elections. Us being mostly working class and all we don't exactly have freedom of speech above the immigration issue.

[Jordy]

RE May elections: The Pirate Party is going strength to strength lately, they haven't had any strong candidates in Yorkshire, but I've heard whispers of a more Northern centric campaign after the May elections. Us being mostly working class and all we don't exactly have freedom of speech above the immigration issue.If there isn't freedom of speech are you implying the government censors northerners?

[Cheryl]

Some people do really have some odd political views..

I was unable to vote in the GE, however my mum voted for the Tories and my dad exercised his right to vote - by not voting. We are in a strong conservative area, and I would always consider myself a Conservative supporter.

[Inseriousity.]

I agree, the parties agree with each other so it's good time for a small party to come up and tell everyone why the 'big 3' are no longer fit to lead the country. Despite that, unfortunately, all the small parties that run in my town are right-wing (UKIP, BNP) so I'd rather not vote for them as that goes against what I believe in.

[Jordy]

I agree, the parties agree with each other so it's good time for a small party to come up and tell everyone why the 'big 3' are no longer fit to lead the country. Despite that, unfortunately, all the small parties that run in my town are right-wing (UKIP, BNP) so I'd rather not vote for them as that goes against what I believe in.Well if you don't like either Labour, Lib Dems, Conservative, UKIP or BNP what are you looking for? A truly socialist party or something?

[Arron]

I actually have never took no interest in Politics. They all say they'll do something but just fail! I might start studying this though and come May I will vote - just because I can :)

[Fez]

If there isn't freedom of speech are you implying the government censors northerners?

The government doesn't censor anything, really, it just likes to keep its great big eye on his 100% of the time. I wouldn't say there's a wide freedom of speech anyway, with governments and affiliated bodies being too scared of political correctness sometimes. Huckleberry Finn, the Mark Twain novel, is going to be censored in its new edition (http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/booksblog/2011/jan/05/censoring-mark-twain-n-word-unacceptable) and the US government arms have just opened up a whole can of censorship in the world.

[Agnostic Bear]

The government doesn't censor anything, really

This makes my brain hurt so much.

[Wig44.]

I agree, the parties agree with each other so it's good time for a small party to come up and tell everyone why the 'big 3' are no longer fit to lead the country. Despite that, unfortunately, all the small parties that run in my town are right-wing (UKIP, BNP) so I'd rather not vote for them as that goes against what I believe in.

UKIP R RACIST FASCIST HOMOPHOBIC ISLAMOPHOBIC EXTREME RIGHT THUGS!!!!!!!!

Politics is in a state. The problem is that if you ask people of the public what their views are on politics they are like 'i cant be bothered I'm going to stick my head in the sand your generation can sort it' or 'that party has been called right wing despite having great policies I'm not voting for them ' 'I've always voted <lib lab or con> so I'll keep voting them'. Then you get people who say they arent interested in politics (you don't care who is running the country?!) and will vote whoever. To the people who don't care about politics: Just don't vote. Please.

[Fez]

This makes my brain hurt so much.

Well what does the government itself censor, as in as a body of acting.

The MP expenses parts and the parts that are responsible for controlling, of course they censor, but as a full government only a few departments will partake in censoring.

[Wig44.]

Well what does the government itself censor, as in as a body of acting.

The MP expenses parts and the parts that are responsible for controlling, of course they censor, but as a full government only a few departments will partake in censoring.

That isn't the same as 'the government doesn't censor anything'. Plus, how would you know the government isn't censoring anything? The whole point of censoring something is so people don't know about it. And before you go 'so how would you know if they do censor things' I'd like to point out that plenty has been censored already. And how do you know that only a 'few departments' partake in censoring?

[Fez]

That isn't the same as 'the government doesn't censor anything'. Plus, how would you know the government isn't censoring anything? The whole point of censoring something is so people don't know about it. And before you go 'so how would you know if they do censor things' I'd like to point out that plenty has been censored already. And how do you know that only a 'few departments' partake in censoring?

I know because the Department of Arts and Culture won't exactly take part in censoring what it has to produce, neither will the Department of Education as there's no needs to. Inside, the government has the numbers it needs to work with, the numbers it publishes publicly aren't tampered in government, most of the time, they're tampered with separate companies making it legal in most areas.

The truth is I don't know the truth, and it's confusing to think that a lot of departments are in the mix of censorship but the government as a whole publishes figures which either scare or encourage their citizens to act as necessary. The Pirate Party, the party I support, was founded to create transparency between governments and their citizens; and in essence echos the existence of Wikileaks. Both Cameron and Obama said in their election pledges it would be a term of transparency, yet we have secret costs everywhere and not everything is as it seems. The fact Obama condemns Wikileaks as a threat, for publishing diplomatic cables and not say war strategies or tactics, shows how scared he is of transparency. It shows he doesn't want his people to know, neither does Cameron, as it's either for their own good or he doesn't feel they have a right to know. Most of the time it's the latter, and it's only the former when it involves say something that would put the government in a position of criticism. The stuff we want to know; the level of our impact on Iraq/Afghanistan, where our taxpayers money goes and MP expenses are exactly the things we want to know and not all of it's available.

I believe the government, mostly, is a house of censorship and I've been wrong to say the exact opposite in retrospect. I was tired when I wrote "The government doesn't censor anything, really", but I think if the body of organizations such as Wikileaks exists to do the government's job for them, then they shouldn't condemn or block honesty that:

- Doesn't harm the government or risk lives
- Shows in-depth the level of which we play on the international stage, but doesn't risk dodgy dealings and stuff that would get us in hot bother
- Shows areas we can criticise the government and improve the country
- Shows the level of security and censorship they employ
- Matters to the citizens.

[Technologic]

Why do you insist on posting drivel from various columnists in what is supposedly the news section?

[Fez]

Why do you insist on posting drivel from various columnists in what is supposedly the news section?

I have to agree with this, it's not a correct real source and yeah it gets discussion going but it's not exactly news. Belongs in the debates section really.

[Nationalism]

Indeed this country needs an opposition party, all three main parties in this country are basically the same.
All three parties lie, cheat and deceit the British public in order to line their own pockets, Cameron says over and over again that we're all in this "mess" together, yet we are not.
This country needs a particular form of party. ;)

[Jordy]

Indeed this country needs an opposition party, all three main parties in this country are basically the same.
All three parties lie, cheat and deceit the British public in order to line their own pockets, Cameron says over and over again that we're all in this "mess" together, yet we are not.
This country needs a particular form of party. ;)Why should the richer people who clearly save their money and invest it wisely (Hence why they're rich) pay for the mess of others who can't be bothered to save or look after their money. I mean what are you hoping for, a photo of Cameron shopping in Primark one day because he's suffering from the cuts :/

[Nationalism]

Why should the richer people who clearly save their money and invest it wisely (Hence why they're rich) pay for the mess of others who can't be bothered to save or look after their money. I mean what are you hoping for, a photo of Cameron shopping in Primark one day because he's suffering from the cuts :/
What are you talking about? Not everybody who has money in Britain has earned that money, people inherit it. Cameron's farther was/is a stockbroker and much of his fathers family is too i believe, so it's very much a wealthy family he was born into. David Cameron hasn't earned all the wealth he's ever had at all - to say he has and that other rich people have, is very silly.
It's common fact that David Cameron and all these other politicians (who quite can't frankly, don't do squat) won't really feel any different due to these cuts, it's the normal working people like myself and my family that will feel these cuts not snotty, forty faced, slimey British politicians.

[Jordy]

What are you talking about? Not everybody who has money in Britain has earned that money, people inherit it. Cameron's farther was/is a stockbroker and much of his fathers family is too i believe, so it's very much a wealthy family he was born into. David Cameron hasn't earned all the wealth he's ever had at all - to say he has and that other rich people have, is very silly.
It's common fact that David Cameron and all these other politicians (who quite can't frankly, don't do squat) won't really feel any different due to these cuts, it's the normal working people like myself and my family that will feel these cuts not snotty, forty faced, slimey British politicians.Well what's the point in getting rich if everytime the government gets in debt they'd rob it all off you?

David Cameron might not of done much to gain his wealth other than being born into it, but how does that make the money not his? Because it's certainly not the state's for sure. Would you advocate something where when you die, your wealth goes to the state?

[Nationalism]

Well what's the point in getting rich if everytime the government gets in debt they'd rob it all off you?

David Cameron might not of done much to gain his wealth other than being born into it, but how does that make the money not his? Because it's certainly not the state's for sure. Would you advocate something where when you die, your wealth goes to the state?
Absolutely not, i am totally against the state getting a deceased persons wealth, all money left behind should defiantly stay within the family.
I am not saying that the government should take money off deceased persons nor am i saying that Cameron isn't entitled to his own money and the money he has been born into.
I am saying, however, that he shouldn't be making such propaganda as "we are in this together", when he certainly is not - it's me and you, the ordinary British public who aren't rich or at least aren't on par with his wealth, that are "in this together".
When your born into wealth with a farther who is a stockbroker, you go to private school for education and haven't done much to earn your money, then you cannot go around the country claiming that "we are in this together" without making hard working, proud British citizens angry.

[Jordy]

Absolutely not, i am totally against the state getting a deceased persons wealth, all money left behind should defiantly stay within the family.
I am not saying that the government should take money off deceased persons nor am i saying that Cameron isn't entitled to his own money and the money he has been born into.
I am saying, however, that he shouldn't be making such propaganda as "we are in this together", when he certainly is not - it's me and you, the ordinary British public who aren't rich or at least aren't on par with his wealth, that are "in this together".
When your born into wealth with a farther who is a stockbroker, you go to private school for education and haven't done much to earn your money, then you cannot go around the country claiming that "we are in this together" without making hard working, proud British citizens angry.I wouldn't go as far as describing it as propaganda but "The vast majority of us are in this together" doesn't sound quite as good. I suppose it is somewhat hypocritical but we mostly are all going to suffer from the cuts except a few. He's risked his political career for it at least, if he fails to sort the deficit there's no way he'll have success in the next election.

[Nationalism]

I wouldn't go as far as describing it as propaganda but "The vast majority of us are in this together" doesn't sound quite as good. I suppose it is somewhat hypocritical but we mostly are all going to suffer from the cuts except a few. He's risked his political career for it at least, if he fails to sort the deficit there's no way he'll have success in the next election.
It is propaganda, it's information which he is spreading to help the cause of his popularity and to gain the British trust and to help the likeliness of us voting for him in another/next election. I know what your saying though, and i agree with you on your last point. He is defiantly a hypocrite when he can go home and tuck into a freshly made spot of supper from his personal chef while people up and down the country and struggling to feed their children's mouths, let alone their own. That to me, doesn't sound like we're all in it together.

[Jordy]

It is propaganda, it's information which he is spreading to help the cause of his popularity and to gain the British trust and to help the likeliness of us voting for him in another/next election. I know what your saying though, and i agree with you on your last point. He is defiantly a hypocrite when he can go home and tuck into a freshly made spot of supper from his personal chef while people up and down the country and struggling to feed their children's mouths, let alone their own. That to me, doesn't sound like we're all in it together.I really wouldn't go as far as describing it as propaganda. You could argue that he'll be hit by the VAT increase for instance so technically we all are in it together. It shouldn't be taken so literally though, as we can't literally all be "in" something, nor can everybody in the country - we - apply to everything.

[Nationalism]

I really wouldn't go as far as describing it as propaganda. You could argue that he'll be hit by the VAT increase for instance so technically we all are in it together. It shouldn't be taken so literally though, as we can't literally all be "in" something, nor can everybody in the country - we - apply to everything.
It is propaganda, whether you want to admit it or not.


- Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

- Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

The reaction he wants you to have is to believe this government will work, that this government is riding the cut backs out with you and that government officials are in the same financial boat as you, when in-fact they're not.
They can go home and have spectacular food made for them in a few minutes, whereas normal working class British citizens are going to work for their food. I know the VAT doesn't effect the price of food, but that's just an example.

[Jordy]

It is propaganda, whether you want to admit it or not.


- Information that is spread for the purpose of promoting some cause.

Source: wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

- Propaganda is a form of communication aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position.

Source: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

The reaction he wants you to have is to believe this government will work, that this government is riding the cut backs out with you and that government officials are in the same financial boat as you, when in-fact they're not.
They can go home and have spectacular food made for them in a few minutes, whereas normal working class British citizens are going to work for their food. I know the VAT doesn't effect the price of food, but that's just an example.Of course he wants you to believe the government will work that's not propaganda. He's not going to say it's unlikely the government will change much and we'll probably be in even more debt by the end of it. No where does he say government officials are in the same financial boat as everyone else as he'd be stupid to considering the number of millionaires in the cabinet. "We are in it together" should not be taken so literally, the vast majority of us are in it together, of course there will always be exceptions.

[Nationalism]

Of course he wants you to believe the government will work that's not propaganda. He's not going to say it's unlikely the government will change much and we'll probably be in even more debt by the end of it. No where does he say government officials are in the same financial boat as everyone else as he'd be stupid to considering the number of millionaires in the cabinet. "We are in it together" should not be taken so literally, the vast majority of us are in it together, of course there will always be exceptions.
It's still propaganda, governments have been using propaganda for hundreds of years.

[Jordy]

It's still propaganda, governments have been using propaganda for hundreds of years.It really isn't widespread. By that reckoning all TV commercials are propaganda (There are some people who believe that is the case). For instance it can be defined as "The word propaganda refers to any technique that attempts to influence the opinions, emotions, attitudes, or behavior of a group in order to benefit the sponsor." - Which I believe is how you're defining it.

Whilst Wikipedia calls it a form of Communication, it then lists examples such as during World War II and during the Cold War, not 21st century governments; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

[Technologic]

Recession = cuts. Deal with it.