http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/21/queen_set_to_outlaw_id_cards_today/

 

The ID card scheme is well and truly dead! Not sure what the changes to DNA retention are, but hopefully they conform the the EU ruling that keeping on record the DNA of anyone who's been arrested, regardless of whether charges were made or convictions secured, is totally illegal and just plain fucking wrong.

 

Fuck you old New Labour and your authoritarian mentality.

Wow!

My thought on seeing the title was a "yeah right", but... it is actually something good.

Yay! (dance)

I so totally love the coalition government - from a purely foreign observer/political scientist POV, natch. None of their policies affect me so i don't have to fixate on that aspect of what they're doing. I just totally love the fact that you have 2 parties actually working together!!!! Canadian federal politics is so fucking dysfunctional right now (has been for 5-6 years now)... it's beyond depressing. The UK coalition has singlehandedly revived my love of politics.

Abso-frikkin'-lutely. A government of harmony. It's just so awesome to see two parties making love not war. Just like the tearing down of the Berlin wall, but with better coiffures and sharper suits.

Dunno if i'd go that far! But compared to the excessive partisanship, stalemate, and hostility that's dominated Ottawa for the past few years, yeah, things look much better over the pond.

I can see where you're coming from, few things piss me off more than when a politician is asked a question and the answer is phrased as a comparison to another party.

ie~
q: how much are you spending on health?
a: well, in real terms, we are spending 76% more (over 5 years) than the previous administation

me: wtf? just answer in numbers you fuckwit!

Well it's not that hard really. Not when one of the parties involved is the Lib Dems. They never really had any policies to start with so it wasn't too much of a stretch for them to adopt the Tory ones.


(But seriously: I respected the way that Labour and the Lib Dems worked in coalition in the first Scottish Parliament term. They worked together to make a workable administration while still sticking to their own beliefs on stuff.

The Westminster coalition is just a farce. For the Lib Dems to sell out on their beliefs just so they can have the chance to scrabble for crumbs from the table cloth is not admirably in any way. In fact, it's everything that I despise about politics.)

I have to say that personally, i don't by the "selling out" thing. First of all because i'm the type of person who shudders at the thought of a party sticking to all the crap it promises during an election (since there's not a single party in Canada i really like or support - i'm most likely to support the one i think will probably just govern according to reality and not fixate on the BS it promised). But also because if one goes back to the Sept 2009 Lib Dem conference, Clegg was really clear that major cuts would be needed and he fought to keep the idiotic tuition fees thing out of the manifesto. The Lib Dems unfortunately give the members too much say over what goes into the manifesto so they were stuck with that, but Clegg always made it clear they'd not be able to get rid of fees any time soon (if ever). So i don't really see any inconsistency there on his part at least - he's stuck with a party membership that is totally unrealistic in their assessment of the real world.

 

And i've spoken quite a bit with a friend who studies coalitions in other countries where they're more common (Germany, Netherlands, etc.) and she says this is pretty much how things happen. Considering the whole thing was cobbled together in 5 days, they've not done too badly. I've been livestreaming some of the of committee hearings into things like AV and fixed-term parliaments and how the coalition came about, etc - great stuff.

 

If proper PR was ever adopted (not AV - real PR), i would expect to see all the parties sort of split up somewhat and major political realignment happen - the Orange Book Lib Dems and the Cameroons joining up, the Neanderthal Tories moving back to their usual place, the New Labour part of Labour maybe teaming up with the old SDP part of the Lib Dems, etc. I read most of the main British papers online (Guardian, Independent, Telegraph, plus BBC and sites like ConservativeHome, Spectator, New Statesman) and it's fascinating how tribal people are and how they totally don't get the debates going on in the other camps. People on the left accusing Clegg of being far-right Tory, while the mainstream Tory supporters hate Cameron and think he's too left-wing, and that the Lib Dems totally control the government etc. It's really funny (but sad that people are too blinded by ideology to even read other sites and try to understand what's going on in the other camps - like the really interesting debate on "liberal conservatism vs mainstream conservatism" over on ConservativeHome these days - also discussed in the Spectator blogs).

 

But still so much better than here. I can't stand here politically. Barely ever read any Canadian news coverage anymore.

But would the numbers actually mean anything to you? It's just going to be a big number in the billions. At least a percentage is something that is easy to understand.

There's a difference between not getting rid of fees, and increasing them to £10k a year.

I doubt anyone (except a few idealists) expected fees to instantly vanish, but to put them to a level that will cause significant financial burden on anyone not rich who wants to go to uni is stupid.



If it was truly cobbled together in 5 days, then the people involved are not fit to run a country.

The press were constantly going on about a possible/probable coalition from the start, so each of the parties should have planned well in advance, deciding on possible strategies for each of the significant measure of votes.

So?

There's no reason both can't be given, such as: "we're increasing health spending from 50 billion to 88 billion, an increase of 76% over the previous administration".

That way the people that want the information can have it.

(Although it's probably still meaningless information - e.g. if costs have doubled then they're spending 24% less)

Au contraire. Everyone going to uni and getting a degree so that the possession of same is meaningless, now that's stupid. There has to be some way of limiting the number of degree-holders so that it regains its cachet. And taking it out of the reach of the poor and disadvantaged is as good a method as any. :Y

And I'm sure Rendle will agree with me.

Actually, the press was mostly saying it would be a hung parliament. A hung parliament doesn't mean there will be a coalition - the past 3 elections in Canada have been hung parliaments and we've ended up with 3 minority governments. I don't think anyone really expected a coalition - maybe some sort of confidence agreement between 2 parties, but not really a full-out coalition because they're so very rare in Westminster parliamentary systems. However, that said, the Tories were well prepared - Oliver Letwin even dug up old Lib Dem ideas from past conferences to propose to them. Labour admits it had no plan (or interest to be frank) in a coalition, and so had absolutely nothing to offer the Lib Dems when they started talks. The Lib Dems had also done some work. However, even then, it normally takes weeks, if not months, in other countries where coalitions are the norm and everyone knows the election will result in a coalition, for parties to negotiate a workable coalition platform. To hope to achieve the same level of comprehensive coalition programme in five days is quite unrealistic. There was all sorts of (what i think were totally artificial) deadlines being put on the parties - like they had to recall parliament by such and such a date because the Queen's speech had to happen on some other date, etc. Why? If the parties needed 5 weeks to reach a solid agreement, they should have had 5 weeks - reschedule when parliament opens. Shouldn't have been a big deal to do that.

you think stupid kids from rich families /deserve/ a better education than smart kids from poor ones?

What? Parties listening to their membership? What a terrible idea. :?

Abso-frikkin'-lutely. As long as they're not a drain on the already over-burdened Great British taxpayer, that's all that matters. I'm only thinking of you.

 

Besides, kids from rich families have a higher standard that they expect, and so need better paying jobs. Unless they expect windfall inheritances and HMG promise not to tax those too much. In which case, it's all up in the air, init?

The poor families probably aren't going to be affected though. It's the children of the families in the middle that will suffer.

that is true