Leaving "Westminister" who else would?
Discussion
I am astounded by the amount of posts stating that the Scots hate the English. I can honestly say that I have never encountered anyone with these views, I don't know if it is paranoia on those posters behalf, or just a general false belief held that this is how Scots feel toward the English. This is definitely not the case. When Scots post about their dislike and loathing of Westminster, that is exactly what they mean, Westminster does not = English, as someone posted earlier. It's the antiquated, out of touch, corrupt and unrepresentative system of government used in the UK that people refer to. I am sure that many if not most people in the UK would agree that the current political model is now unsuitable for this country and change is necessary, for everyone in the UK. It just so happens that the Scottish people are the first to have a real chance to change it. Be honest, if you had the chance to change the Westminster system into one that was fairer and more representative, would you reject it?
This was written in 2008. Already picking upt on the alienation of significant parts of the electorate but has been ignored. Basically agree keep voting other.
Either Labour represents its core voters - or others will
http://gu.com/p/x3zjb
Either Labour represents its core voters - or others will
http://gu.com/p/x3zjb
If ever there was a change of the operation of government, or a more representative parliament, I doubt it would make a ha'porth of difference. With not much more than half the electorate voting, and that vote split between a gaggle of no-hopers, I don't see much advantage.
Further, given the current curriculum in schools I can't see: a) enthusiasm for politics being engendered in the young and b) any challenges to the public school ethos of privilege/nepotism.
Further, given the current curriculum in schools I can't see: a) enthusiasm for politics being engendered in the young and b) any challenges to the public school ethos of privilege/nepotism.
Rich Boy Spanner said:
I don't see any future in an English parliament. Mainly because I don't think England has any cohesive identity, it's really just a collection of disparate regions.
In what sense does England not have an identity? Of course there are regional differences and there are class differences, ethnic differences and 40 something million individual preferences and tastes.It doesn't have an overtly marketed identity like the (largely mythical) highlander in his kilt tossing kabers around, perhaps because we haven't really felt the need for it as acutely as the Scottish.
And is it Bavaria or Hamburg you feel has more in common with NW England?
dudleybloke said:
I'd like an independent Black Country! 
So would the rest of the nation! 
Old but good 'un
Aynuk: Wots the difference between a buffalo and a bison.
Ayli: Dow now mate.
Aynuk: You cor wash yer onds in a buffalo.
(ps - one set of my grandparents were from Tipton, the other from Sedgley so i'm laughing with not at)
RedTrident said:
Its not at all a distortion of reality. Our political leaders are being drawn from a smaller and smaller demographic group. You only have to look at the Cabinet to see evidence of this.
Turkey's vote for Christmas. 
" “Parliament is more unrepresentative of society than at any time in my political career,” Michael Meacher, who has been a Labour MP since 1970, asserts. “The whole parliamentary process has become much more elitist and become much more of a Westminster bubble.”
The dominance of those from independent schools within the Conservative party is well established. Naturally, Labour is never shy to point it out – but its own claims to represent the British population may have never been more dubious. Recent research in the Guardian found that over half of Labour candidates in marginal seats, or seats in which the sitting Labour MP is standing down, have previously worked in politics, as party workers, researchers, lobbyists or special advisers
Twenty-three years ago, Professor Anthony King warned about “The Rise of the career politician”. He argued that, “the demise of the non-career politician has led to a certain loss of experience, moderation, detachment, balance, ballast even, in the British political system”, and led to a rise in, “the tendency of politicians and civil servants to develop a private language, private quarrels, their own interests, priorities and preoccupations.”
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2014/08/parli...
Halb said:
Turkey's vote for Christmas.
" “Parliament is more unrepresentative of society than at any time in my political career,” Michael Meacher, who has been a Labour MP since 1970, asserts. “The whole parliamentary process has become much more elitist and become much more of a Westminster bubble.”
Michael Meacher - son of accountant and stock broker, educated at Berkhamsted and New College, Oxford, pilloried by the Mark Thomas Radio Project for failing to disclose his substantial property portfolio correctly in the directory of memebers interests." “Parliament is more unrepresentative of society than at any time in my political career,” Michael Meacher, who has been a Labour MP since 1970, asserts. “The whole parliamentary process has become much more elitist and become much more of a Westminster bubble.”
It's a good job no-one could throw the claim of elitism at him. But then he was never in a position of influence.
As ever Margaret Thatcher is the guiding light - grammar school girl, scientific training, decided what needed to be done and went about it. Not universally popular, but arguably far more in touch with Mr. & Mrs. Average than Blair, Brown, Cameron, Clegg or Milliband.
IMHO if the gubberment would just butt out of most people's live we'd all find ways to get along and make a buck far more efficiently than with their interference. Parliament has a place, but it should acknowledge where it is and stay there.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff