A public element

Have you noticed Nick that whatever the issue, be it failing to call an election in 2007, admitting the need for regulatory change in the banking system, holding a public enquiry into the Iraq war etc etc, Gordon Brown never takes the 'brave' option. As a commentator, you will probably argue that this is being politically canny. I suspect however, that the public is slowly realising that this man always acts in his own best interests and not in the interests of the the greater public. Finally, one has to laugh at the notion of the man who employs/ed and befriends the likes of Charlie Whelan, Damian McBride and Ed Balls 'cleaning up' politics. This is akin to a housewife/househusband offering to do the weekly wash with manure!

The inevitable result of having control freaks in charge is that there is pandemonium when they lose control...

The ridiculous spectacle of a prime minister repeatedly pledging transparency adnd repetedly practising cover up and spin is too comical for words.

He is being outed one cut at a time either by his own ministers or those who are asked to do his bidding.

This will be recorded in history as the most inept and bullying administrations on record.

Call an election.

For all the governments promises of renewed transparency and probity this new Iraq enquiry does appear to be a cynical and old fashioned bit of spin. Its findings will not answer any of the questions that the whole debacle has raised and the people, who I believe to be culpable of real crimes, will be allowed to walk away from it with impunity and the money they've made off the back of it.
Isn't that right, Tony?

If it was going to be held in private why did they not start two years ago?

Answer :- Event in secret there is only so much you could hide and getting re-elected is the important thing, isn't it!

As a young student I never thought I would dislike a PM more than Mrs T. Both Brown and his shiny predecessor have both now eclipsed her in my eyes.

At least Mrs T did what what it said on the tin (like it or not)
and when it came to a war she spent the cash

I'm beginning to miss the days of fairly brutal competence over this bunch of prevaricating dissembling incompetents.

Whenever has Gordon Brown put the country's interest before his own personal ambition? Lord Butler's remarks just reinforce this.

The political survival of Labour under Mr Brown is now the obvious priority of this "Government". Stuff the relatives of the dead and wounded who want to know how we really ended up in this mess both in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Your eternal shame will follow you out of office.

Gosh,

No pro labour/government/brown spin and no anti conservative/cameron/osbourne slight.

Has even the BBC recognised the writing on the wall ?

Yet again the PM fails to fully involve the othe Parties in a matter which affects the whole Nation.He just cannot abide not being in total control.We saw it ove the expenses issue and now we are seeing it yet again over this matter.

Well I'd hoped that the inquiry would be a public one but frankly am not surpised.
So once again he promises a open and accountable government - and delivers neither ..
Well I'm glad that someone has the courage to challenge him but I have given up on the supine cabinet - waste of space the lot of them

just what is the point of this enquiry apart from GB doing his usual trick of grabbing a headline to take the electors (and journalists) eye off the important things. One could almost write its conclusions now without having to wait for a year.....What is required is an independent judicial inquiry to find out the truth and not more smoke and mirrors. Just like the mp's expenses published today...supposedly for transparency but in practice edited to hide the wrongdoings...luckily the Daily Telegraph had the unredacted versions, so at least some truth was told.

If I ever hear the word transparency again come out of Browns mouth I will scream VERY LOUD.

There is no transparency with this administration (see the redacted receipts published today). It's almost as if he speaks in opposites, transparency? Honesty? Candid? Prudence?

"The unavoidable conclusion of the content of the Butler report (is) that we committed British troops to action on the basis of false intelligence, overheated analysis and unreliable sources".
Robin Cook.

What else can the new inquest reveal that isn't already public knowledge?
The only remaining business is to prove or disprove once and for all whether the decision was taken "in good faith", or whether there was political intervention and subversion, and the naming of all involved.

And there is no realistic hope of this government (or any government) offering up ex-members or serving members as fall guys for a public whipping.

The opening sentence of this blog is absolutely devastating.

How CAN these people live with themselves, bearing in mind the Iraq death toll? And events such as the tragic death of David Kelly?

And Blair is now being touted as the next EU president.

Yeuch.

And what bits will be "blacked out" of THIS report?

Far from Usshering in the new era of openness, it's a flipping disgrace.

#1 Brownloather

You suggest that the public is slowly becoming wise to Gordon Brown acting in his own interests.

I know I'm not typical of the public mood but I'd have gone further and suggested that the public must have realised that New Labour was all about the personal interests and egos of those in charge fairly early on, surely.

Anyway, thank you Lord Butler, I think he's expressed the public's desire very well.... truth and reconciliation.

4. rcemortimer

My feelings exactly. Rather an honest dictator than a devious one.

Shame he didn't hold these views when he threw his own bucket of whitewash over the affair.

Is it not indeed time to take a deep breath and take a measured view?
It is not appropriate for such vitriol to appear on a BBC blog.
The blogosphere is long overdue an overhaul.
This is a plea for standards of accountability on the blogosphere:-
https://moralorder.mediumisthemess.com/

Isn't it nice to have a Government that believes in openess and honesty. At least, I guess it would be.

Given its 'willingness' to divulge info on MPs expense, I anticipate the Iraq report will read something like:

"Dear Reader

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXthat nice Mr BushXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXwarXXXXXXXXXXX never did like that Saddam bloke XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXwho is going to ever find out XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX off to write his memoirs XXXXXXXXXX

And they all lived happily ever after. Except the ones we blew up.

The end."

Talking of the expenses, do you remember Nick, saying at the start of the expenses exposure that there was nothing in it that was a resigning issue? How many does Kitty Ussher make now? How wrong do you need to be before you are prepared to admit you got it wrong?

...of course...Lord Butler is an expert on inquiry cover ups and whitewashes!

Quite right number one. I had not thought though of advoidance of bravery - I see it as gifted with appalling judgment. I would add the 10p tax farce and the 56 day detention proposal, not to mention the botched attempt to sideline Darling.


The Labour party will pay a heavy price of delaying the extinction of the woolly mamouth discovered roaming around No.10!

"putting its political interests ahead of the national interest" - so no change there ..

Comment 4. is one I'd endorse .. at least Mrs Thatcher had some convictions - Brown only has expedience

I went round the Cabinet War Rooms this week and the contrast between Churchill and Brown is so marked its painful ..

CENSORSHIP and COVERUP together with whitewash, lies, corruption and sleaze.

A discredited unelected Prime Minister
A discredited sycophantic Cabinet
A discredited Labour Party
A discredited former Labour Prime Minister
A discredited House of Commons
A discredited Speaker
A discredited unelected House of Lords
A discredited bunch of MPs
A discredited political system

Might there be a case for wholesale reform?
Perhaps bulldozing the entire lot and starting from scratch is necessary?
Maybe its time to emulate the streets of Tehran?

Quite right. Brown the manipulator, always an ulterior motive in his own aims in everything he does.

Ann Widdecombe - tribune - I herald that. She is a stoical and formidable figure (and has PRINCIPLES - viz. expenses).

Well Done to Lord Butler.

All we here from Gordon Brown is talk of transparency and openess but when we see his actions all that is apparent is secrecy and hidden agendas. He wishes to stop the public knowing things and either doesn't realise or doesn't care that nearly everyone has seen through him.

Its a great shame for the families who have died...

The war was started in the fury after 911 (although Iraq was not involved in the atrocity) on the premise of weapons of mass destruction.

It was REALLY started due to Bush Senior pulling out of Iraq originally too soon, thereby disappointing millions of ordinary Iraqui's who had thought America would save them from the tyranny of Sadam.

However, it was a twofold operation:

a) to secure the oil fields as part of the New World Order / globalisation, one world federal state (starting with the control of the banks by government) - think about it!

b) to free the Iraqui people from the tyranny of their leader, Sadam, and his henchmen.

Why is everybody afraid to say this?

Politicians are something else aren't they? Put their own political aims above those of ordinary, hard working people.

It begins at home, not on the world stage.

This country really does deserve better than Gordon Brown as PM. If he really is the best that labour have then an immediate election should be called.
Labour are supporting a PM that blatantly lies. What price integrity.
Brown says that he is not arrogant. BROWN YOU ARE ARROGANT!!

Can anyone really be surprised at the nature and terms of this Inquiry?

Surely, by now, the British people have come to realise the depravity of this Labour Government. If it wasn't so serious it would be a laugh to note the extent to which each new act or announcement from the Government reflects the culture that now pervades its every move. A culture of contempt for the British people; of deceit; of incompetence. A Government adrift, bereft of any vision, wallowing in debt and deluding itself as to the profound nature of the actions needed to turn the country away from looming socio-economic catastrophe.

Holding the Iraq Inquiry in camera simply typifies the dire character of the shallow, spin-obsessed, self-serving gangsters that now purport to be the Government of this country. Roughly one-third of the Parliamentary Labour Party are now Goverment ministers.

We really do need to let the British people speak now; just like we're urging on the Iranian dictatorship. Like I said, it would be amusing if it wasn't so serious.

No matter what anyone says or thinks Gordon knows best, why would he listen to someone like Lord Butler, what does he know about enquiries into wars??

14. Extreme Sense, ditto to your remarks.

I have looked into the reasons and who voted Labour.

It seems to me that those who vote Labour roughly fall into the following three categories:

1. The lower working classes (the salt of the earth types who have always voted Labour)

2. Foreigners / who have managed to settle here and do very nicely thank you under Labour, Benefits systems, houses etc. etc. - working the system.

3. Our own benefit fraudsters

4. Public sector workers, students, those whose jobs depend upon the labour government keeping them there, many of whom were brought up in Conservative voting households but were brainwashed via their education and colleagues into left leaning tendencies. Every single teacher, lecturer, academic I have ever met is a leftie.


The first three groups, one can understand why, vote in their own interest but the fourth, WELL! What can I say about them, the do-gooder types, the hippie types, the liberalist types with their own families but God help the rest of us if we say anything like Golliwog.

They are terribly naive and think they are doing good for the under privileged etc. A sort of inverted snobbery. One eminent acadamician I know said to me a few years back "These Convservatives are terribly greedy". Well, whose laughing on the other sides of their faces now that Labour have proved to be even MORE greedy?

Goes to show, does it not?

The fourth groups are the most misguided, cloistered, arrogant, NAIVE group of all and its their fault we have this shower in ruining the country, still, even as I speak.

Tribunes? Crusty old Senators? Whence our Sulla?

I think enough is enough and we should have an election now. We have Brown in charge basically holding the Country back from having their say just because he believes he is the only man who is capable of running the economy. His arrogance knows no bounds, he has no mandate from the Country to continue. Butler is only expressing the view of most people which is that Brown has alway put the Labour Party and its interests above those of the Country.

With the published expenses this morning by Parliament which bear no resemblance to the ones in the newspaper, the resignation of a treasury minister who was knowingly avoiding tax, perhaps she took advise from her boss, the lack of an open enquiry into the Iraq war wasting more taxpayer money, it is time for the public to say this Government must go. We have King at the BOE effectively saying that he wants his powers back to run the regulation of the banks properly, which should have never been taken away from him anyway. This tells us all we need to know about how wrong Brown was to set up the dreadful FSA in 1997 and how wrong he and Darling are to continue to want to use the FSA as our sole regulator. If we are not careful we will see this banking crisis happen all over again.

Nick,

We (the public) can only handle 1 scandal at a time, lets get back to MP's expenses as I have just seen my 'tightwad' MP has been charging for fountain pens.

I work for a voluntary group in the constituency working for the local community and although we do re-imburse our members for out of pocket costs - I don't remember a single request being made for replacement pens - generally people use their own!!!!!!

We all know this inquiry into the war will be a cover up - it stands to reason that Brown isn't going to drop Blair (the cause of the whole war) in it because he probably wants a job at a certain investment bank once he's removed as Prime minister!

##22 brian_teilo

"Perhaps bulldozing the entire lot and starting from scratch is necessary?"

I have to disagree - what about all those lovely buildings? We shouldn't cut off our noses to spite our faces.

Maybe we move all the occupants into the street first - and bulldoze them rather than the buildings which we can use as tourist traps in the future.

...also the construction industry has a lot of spare capacity at the moment....

I misheard and therefore misquoted her as saying she wished to be "queen" in comparison to "trusty old senators". She in fact said - as the metaphor should have made me realise - that she wanted to be tribune.

Easily done. 'Kw-een' vs. Trib-une'. Nearly identical to all but the untrained ear. Simples:)

Shame no devices exist to ensure checking and fidelity of reporting of fact if not objectivity.

Now, have we established who will she get to mow both her lawns on our tab?

This government has manipulated and continues to try to manipulate with the Inquiry into the Iraq war,
the swine flu people frightener,
the global warming people frightener,
the war on terror people frightener and of course the utterly disgraceful Wheelie Bin frightener. Think about how they have tried to control and frighten us.

I don't think we deserve this appalling treatment from a self appointed Prime Minister with his parachuted in chums and shoddy reshuffle.

Come on people, wake up and smell the stench of this lot and DEMAND a dissolution!

@ the-real-truth, post #6

Thanks. Comments like yours never ceases to amuse me; The organisation which consistently reported the facts of the sketchy evidence Blair was using to justify the Iraq invasion (despite protestations from the government), stood by Andrew Gilligan when the government attacked him over the "sexed-up dossier" affair, reported accurately on the heinous state of Brown's cabinet and his unpopularity within his own party, and even now is carrying stories about Labour MPs and their expenses claims when even The Telegraph seems to have temporarily run out of new stories... being accused of "Pro-Labour" bias.

Are you, perhaps, American? If not, might I suggest that you seriously consider the option of moving there? Only - as ridiculous as this may seem to most people - the view that "If XXX isn't acting as a non-stop constant mouthpiece for right-wing/Conservative thought, it's automatically Lefty-biased and shouldn't be trusted" is actually taken seriously over there.


@ extremesense, post #14

Regarding this comment;

"Anyway, thank you Lord Butler, I think he's expressed the public's desire very well.... truth and reconciliation."

I must say, I entirely agree with you. My only question is; if he's this much in tune with the public mood, how come there wasn't so much of this "Truth & Reconciliation" stuff in his own report into the war?

I mean; the report pretty-much said straight out that the evidence used was faulty, some of the claims made by Blair (and other politicians) shouldn't have been made at all without clarification (WMD strike in 45-minutes, anyone?) and that much of the information given to us by the Americans was flawed and ought to have been re-assessed by ministers (particularly in light of the failure of the UN to find any trace of the alleged WMDs) before the decision to join the invasion was taken.

So why does it painstakingly avoid the obvious, logical conclusion - that this means the UK (and US) governments, and particularly their respective leaders, lied both to their own Parliaments and to their people in order to justify invading a sovereign nation?

They had supposition, theories and a bunch of flawed, circumstantial evidence that nobody in their right minds would seriously think was reliable. And they told us (whilst refusing to show us the evidence) that they had "proof" that the need for war was real and immediate. I can't see any way in which this is NOT a lie.

So yes - "Truth and Reconciliation" is exactly when I would like, right now. But I really don't think Lord Butler is the appropriate person to be calling for it - nor to be accusing anyone else of 'putting political interests before the National Interest'.

#25 flamepatricia

The bald truth - thankyou.

It should be taken further as one of your points is the crux of why, not only Brown is so mendacious and furtive but why any leader would be over this matter.

Your first objective - securing oilfields - is the key.

The world is run by big business, particularly multinationals and, unfortunately, we plebs just elect the public face of these companies. Mssrs Bush, Rice, Chenney et al were all executives of major oil companies.

Also, look at the French reaction to the second Iraq war and their reticence to assist during the conflict. They were horrified and really furious with the US and Britain as their Government was in the process of securing multi-billion pound contracts in the Iraq oilfields.

If we think that any enquiry would expose the whole truth we are all very much mistaken.

The only thing this sorry affair has reinforced is just how weak and ineffectual Brown is.

@ flamepatricia, post #29

I think you missed a category;

5. People old enough to still remember the sleaze, corruption and privatisation-induced chaos and greed that marked the final period of the last Conservative government, and were actually daft enough to believe that anything was going to change if they simply voted for the "other side".

Those - to put it neatly - who forgot the old adage "No matter who you vote for... The Government always gets in".

#25 flamepatricia

Regarding (a), yes they seized control of the oil fields and US specialists put out the wells that were ablaze. Then Iraq was partioned so the US troops controlled Baghdad area and the UK Basra and the coastal region.

After 4 years the UK withdrew from Basra, replaced by Iraqi forces. Shortly after the Iraqi forces supplemented by US forces, forced out opposing militia that had threatened to take control of Basra. At this point specialist US re-development teams re-assessed what had been done and what not.

The oil termini were in a severe state of neglect and during the Saddam embargo years the equipment had been cannabalized. The US immediately set out to get the termini up and running again. Blame for this NOT having occurred sooner rests firmly with Blair, Brown and the Department of International Aid and Development.

If this had been done at the outset (now 5 1/2 years ago) Iraqi oil would have been exported at volumes approaching the pre-sanctions levels. Would last summer's peak in the oil price have reached USD 150 per barrel? No and it does put into context Brown's pathetic trip to Saudi Arabia begging OPEC to increase production. And we are still paying over the odds for high energy prices.

If oil was a reason to invade Iraq, then it is another abject failure of the New Labour project. Utterly disgraceful.

#11. TheBlameGame

"The only remaining business is to prove or disprove once and for all whether the decision was taken "in good faith", or whether there was political intervention and subversion, and the naming of all involved".

==========

Absolutely spot on.

Whatever the inquiry comes up with, and why it seems to me that no one is satisfied now nor will be in future regardless of whether it is in private or public, is because the truth has never emerged about the collusion of the UK government, the US government and the intelligence service to 'construct' a fictitious reason for going to war.

Instead of following a series of events and arriving at a decision, it seems the establishment arrived at a decision and then dreamt up how they got there.

If we turn our minds back, Blix, who was working for the UN, was about to finish his work and report back that there was no evidence of WMD. Before he could do this, Blair and Bush made their move and the rest as they say.....

Fast forwarding ahead 60 years when many of us will be dead, the government will reveal the truth, but of course, it will be too late; the perpetrators will have got off scot free again and lessons will not have been learnt.

The lesson that needs to be learnt and you don't need an inquiry to do it is:

Don't lie; always tell the truth!

If you heed this advice, you will never go wrong.

I totally agree with the comments Lord Butler will make.

As for Gordon Brown, his survival is the sole driver behind actions now. Nothing else matters to him. Not you, me, not the people, not truth, justice or fairness, not the government, not the Labour Party and not the country - just Gordon.

It is in no ones interests, whatever their political inclinations or viewpoints, that this situation is allowed to continue......

' One eminent acadamician I know said to me a few years back "These Convservatives are terribly greedy". Well, whose laughing on the other sides of their faces now that Labour have proved to be even MORE greedy?'
Sad, isn't it? The Conservatives are greedy and Labour are more greedy. And they ALL voted for that crappy war! The 'left' and the 'right' queueing up to screw the country over and over again.
Hilarious.

#33

There's nothing wrong with the buildings.

I was talking metaphorically about the entire corrupt system - the so-called 'unwritten constitution' and 'parliamentary sovereignty'. Power should be vested in 'The People' of the UK in a written constitution, with a Bill of Rights to protect them from arbitrary government. A Supreme Court is required with power to strike down unconstitutional legislation which threatens the rights and liberties of citizens.

Power lies at 'the top' in the present political system. It unfortunately developed like that in the pre-democratic era. In other democracies there have either been revolutions which brought in written constitutional arrangements such as in France, or in the case of the newer democracies in the post colonial age, new systems were created on independence.

Of course, no political system is perfect. Some are better some are worse, some are awful. I think the UK's falls into the latter category, but that's just my personal opinion. I think we've had bad secretive incompetent and inefficient government because of it for generations. The present crisis is symptomatic.

What will an enquiry actually achieve?
I think everybody has pretty much well made up their minds that 1) We were taken into the Iraq war on dodgy grounds. 2) Although most people could understand why the war on Afghanistan was started (although might not have agreed with it), hardly anybody could understand why Iraq became a target (although most think it is because of oil). 3) Few people supported the war on Iraq (except the Tories). 4) The "war" itself was run okay, but the "peace" afterwards was botched. 5) The UK armed forces were sent into battle with poor equipment. 6) The armed forces were not able to cope with the job in Basra.
Whether any of the above is true doesn't matter now does it? Your minds already made up.
Also. No government will learn the lessons. History has shown time and time again, the same mistakes are made time and time again.
Basicaly, unless an enquiry points a finger of blame at Tony Blair and says "your guily, here's your punishment" - nobody will be happy with the result anyway. That is never going to happen, so why bother with an enquiry and waste all that money?

37m 38, 39.

Thanks for your response.

I have become very plain spoken in my old age. Anyway, Brown wouldn't hit a lady with glasses on - would he?

41, Pickled.

You have it there, in a nutshell.

I think your words should be on the front of all newspapers with a big black border.

14. At 09:23am on 18 Jun 2009, extremesense wrote:
I know I'm not typical of the public mood but I'd have gone further and suggested that the public must have realised that New Labour was all about the personal interests and egos of those in charge fairly early on, surely...

I was a Labour voter all my life until New Labour appeared. They were obviously wrong 'uns because they didn't believe in anything. Except whatever I believed in, whatever that might be. They rose on the back of Blair's charisma and the Tories decided that they'd better do whatever Blair was doing because it obviously worked and just look at what we've got now. And the very few people who have brains, gravitas and backbone, and whom people might have been prepared to follow have been rejected as leaders by their respective parties because they won't appeal to the younger voter.
Do we really get the givernment we deserve? Surely we don't deserve this!

31. At 10:48am on 18 Jun 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
I think enough is enough and we should have an election now...

I suspect you are not alone. But why would GB do that? How could it possibly be in his interest in any way? If he held an election now, Labour would be buried, probably for the next 15 years. As it is - a week is a long time in politics.

Trouble is no one believes anything from this government anymore, Prudence , Transparency and such like 'heard it all before'.

The only way out is a public inquiry and to hell with security we'll worry about that after. One way out of this is a change of government not leadership, it's a bit like criminals being the judge and jury, this present Labour party is a joke and the leader(s) being the joker, not one single person dare speak out and say... "this is wrong gov, I don't wanna know", towing the party line it may well be but what does that make the individual.

It would be better if Labour said nowt' did nowt' until after the next election no matter what they say no one will stand up hand on heart and say I believe them.

Prudence we don't hear anymore, Transparency will soon be gone God bless our eardrums.

A clear pattern has emerged here,not least in the PM's behaviour. Behind the bluster of transparency, lies deliberate obfuscation. Like all bullies, he is a coward.If it is all to be conducted in secret,why did the start of the Enquiry have to await the departure of British troops ?

The "kick-it-into-touch until after the election" plan behind the secret enquiry is reminiscent of the plan for a referendum on the Constitutional Treaty. ie we don't need to make it an election issue, we can discuss it later etc etc. And after the election - lo and behold ! - the completely transformed Lisbon Treaty ("Oh! good God,no. No constitutional issues here old boy") negates the need for any democratic accountability.

This disgraced,unelected,unwanted (see latest election results,Mr 15%)PM said that he "was advised that the enquiry would take a year". By whom ? And why? Can we see that advice under FOI ? Why did he accept that advice ? Why doesn't the H of Commons, led by the new Speaker perhaps, demand that the Enquiry reports ahead of the election within the lifetime of this Parliament ? Then the voters can cast their judgment on the guilty men and women, incl the then Chancellor who - almost alone - had the political authority in Cabinet to restrain the messianic tendencies of his predecessor who promised to serve a full term.

It is good to see Lord Butler repenting. He is truly one of the guilty men and if he - at last - speaks out against narrow political interests being put ahead of the National interest, then it is long overdue. For he allowed,inter alia, the PM's communications' adviser Alastair Campbell not only to usurp the role of civil servants operating under the Civil Service code, but also - appallingly - to pressure the Intelligence Services to distort the evidence they presented to Cabinet and the British people.To my certain knowledge a senior diplomat among others was required to report to Alastair Campbell in the special unit in Downing Street handling "communications" on Iraq issues, along with the Intelligence Services. That must be a focal point for "lessons to be learned" from any enquiry.

As Cabinet Secretary, Lord Butler (as he then wasn't) bears tremendous responsibilty for allowing the heart of Government in our nation to be so seriously corrupted by narrow political self interest and calculated deceits to be perpetrated (dodgy dossiers,45 minute claims,leak of Dr Kelly's name, distortion of nuanced intelligence data as 'firm', categorical assertions by the then PM that he was "certain" Saddam had WMD etc etc etc).

If the Enquiry remains secret, why don't all those Parliamentarians who have been bleating for weeks about the need for greater scrutiny of the Executive Branch, set up a parallel "truth and reconciliation" commission under Parliamentary auspices and conduct all it's hearings in public ?

And a member of that Cabinet, now PM, thinks he can dictate terms for the Enquiry with no all Party consultation, no public accountability,no discussion of his appointed Team, and no demand to report ahead of an election ??????? Bring on North Korea and a bit more openness please.

Nick,

You gave me a good laugh there.

Queen and Tribune.

Different number of syllables, they do not even sound alike!

Do you take shorthand or bother to take a digital tape recorder with you? They cost so very little!

BBC expenses fiasco next?

Anne Widdiweb makes so much sense.

An interim Speaker like her would divert the Thames to clean the Augerian Stables aka Houses of Parliament.

The web pages with MPs' expense claims are even more out of this world. I advise all to read about their own MPs' indiscretions avidly.

Well..Im sick of hearing about the Iraq war! nothing was said much when the same thing happened over the Falkland war and nothing is mentioned and once again as soon as the tories say they are going to push on the Iraq war..what do you want to make the theme..the iraq war. Well im more interested in what will happen to people in Britian, our childrens education and health...but hey Nick we dont want to discuss that...I wonder why...?

Look forward to Lord Butler hammering another nail in Browns transparency coffin.

NIck, yet another example of how often the misheard is better than the original. Keep it up.

P.S. Did Doris like being called Queen ?

Didnt spot 41 stricktlypickled on my scan but caught flamepatricias 46 so had a look.

I agree 110% . Get it on the side of a bus that can drive up and down outside Westminster.

Get that wonderful man who we are all indebted to , Brian Haw, to shout it loud from his megaphone in parliament square.

Mr.Robinson, you are an educated man and a B.B.C. political blogger; how could you possibly confuse 'queen' with 'tribune'?
As for the so called Iraq enquiry, just who is in control of this Government? The titular head is the Prime Minister, but the more I read the more I suspect that the person pulling all the strings of these puppets is (President Elect - God forbid) Tony Blair, he would not want his plans to stroll the International stage ruined by THE TRUTH on Iraq.

#25. Yes, history would have been very different if Bush Snr had seen the first Gulf War through. He was the man who called on the Iraqi people to "Rise up against Saddam!" and when they did he abandoned them! At the time he ordered a ceasefire, the American army had cornered the bulk of Iraq's Republican Guard in the area between Basra and the Al Faw peninsula, had military operations continued, those units who Saddam depended to for his survival would have been either captured, destroyed or they could have been contained in that area and been unable to help the regime. But Bush didn't want to have to clear up the mess and the Saudis actually wanted to retain Saddam as a buffer against Iran! So a ceasefire was called which allowed the Republican Guard to retreat to the north, largely intact, the terms of the ceasefire also allowed the Iraqis to use their military helicopters which they used to help brutally crush the Kurdish and Shia uprisings. One of my most vivid memories of the aftermath of that war is of a Kurdish woman refugee crying at the side of a road "Bush called on us to rise up against Saddam. We did what he asked but he didn't help us!"

Had Bush posessed the cojones to face down the Saudis, then Saddam could have been toppled relatively easily, there wouldn't have had to have been a march on Baghdad as some commentators claim. With the Repbulican Guard out of the picture and with large sections of the country in revolt Saddam would have had to flee. Iraq in 1991 was by regional standards a prosperous country with good infrastructure and a large, secular and pro-western middle class. The years of sanctions after 1991 destroyed the infrastructure while those who could afford it emigrated, it also inflammed anti-western feeling on the streets of the Arab World. The Americans also retained a sizable military presence in Saudi in case Saddam attacked again. This was used by Bin Laden as the basis of his jihad against the West because of the presence of foreign troops in the land of Mohammed.

It could all have been so different!

51 davidou1234

"Well im more interested in what will happen to people in Britian, our childrens education and health..."

I think everyone is interested in those issues as well. Gordon Brown clearly has no ideas or plans on these important issues. He bottled the phantom general election, stating that he needed more time so set out his vision of the future. Almost two years on, does anyone know what this vision is ?

Politics and government cover many aspects of life, and affect different people to different degrees. Many people have been directly affected by the Iraq war, some actually losing loved ones and family members. I suspect from the tone of your post that you are not one of these people, and for you to say that you are "sick of hearing about the iraq war" is incredibly disrespectful to the people who have died there, and their families who have to live every day with the consequences of the actions of this government. They deserve to know the truth about the war, whether you are sick of hearing about it or not.

ps And the Bank of England govenor is also having a dig at GB via AD of coarse over the reforms.

Are they all positioning for when the music stops ie the election and the writing of history, maybe they see that they should not and must not be pooddles anylonger. And in the past that was there mistake to be builied by Mr Gordon "iron fist" Brown and the cheeesey elect me
Mr T. BLiar. (I'm the good guy) NOT

#51 Davidou1234 fancy wanting to dicuss the family Courts then do we ?
baby P and forced Adoption etc. Well then bring it on. I game today
I'm up for it then, lets have the debate then. My Spitfire is ready to engage in combat over this issue. Its been a long time coming?

Well then Davidou1234 lets see the colour of your money on the subject then ???????????????????????????????????????????????????????

53 xtunbridge
46 flamepatricia

Thank you!

Glad you enjoyed the "Thought for Today" from the pickle factory.

#45 flamepatrica

Of course not, he'd get you to remove them first...

davidou1234
I know you're 'sick' of the Iraq War but could you explain why? Is it because it was such a put up job by Tony and his cronies? Or perhaps because it was such an underwhelming success? Is it the civilian body count? Poorly equipped troops? Rendition? The lack of any sort of coherent plan for 'after' the war? I could go on.
Or do you think that it is really not worth the effort involved in even thinking about it?

51. At 12:03pm on 18 Jun 2009, davidou1234

What a stupid comparison.

If it hadn't passed you by the Falkland Islands are British and so are the people there. British sovereign territory.

Iraq is neither British nor American and is Iraqi sovereign territory.

It would have been spineless to ignore the Falkland invasion. It was spineless to agree to join the Americans in invading Iraq under the ridiculous definitions concocted by Blair and Alastair Campbell.

Collateral damage? Dr David Kelly, Andrew Gilligan, nearly 200 of our brave forces, the integrity of the Government and Parliament - but does Brown care?

No, he is still PM so everythings ok - that's a relief then.

I'm very sorry, Susan Croft and others, who want an 'election now', because it clearly isn't going to happen.

We live in a democracy which means that we elect various 'honourable' people as Members of Parliament, who gang together into political parties and the party with the most MPs chooses the Prime Minister by a method of their choice.

Once the election is over, we the people have two democratic choices available to us in terms of what the Government and the MPs actually do.

Those choices are 1) like it or 2) lump it.

Whatever the vast difference between what they say they will do and what they do actually do, it doesn't alter the fact that they hold all the trump cards almost all of the time and we're pretty powerless to do anything about it.

And don't for one minute think that after the next general election, whoever gets in or however a hung parliament is arranged, that it will be any different ... because that is the democratic system in this country.

If we had public elections for the prime minister, then we could probably vote in Stephen Fry, Simon Cowell or Gordon Ramsay or some other populist 'celeb' leader - though whether they would be any good at the job might be another matter.

I mean if Tony Blair could be European President, why couldn't Lenny Henry be UK prime minister?

#51 davidou1234

You may be sick of the Iraq War II but it will never go away because it taints this government with characteristics that are not very pleasant (deceit, lies, manipulation etc) and these same characteristics carry over into other areas such as education and health which I agree are more important.

When was the last time you heard a proper debate on these or any other importatnt issues?

They are not debated in the House of Commons by your MP or my MP; this is because no time is set aside in the parliamentary timetable. Even when a little time for discussion is made available, the debate is cut short, guillotined and passed lock, stock and barrel in the House without amendment.

And you have to ask yourself what is the point of the House? It matters not a jot what anyone says; at the end of the debate, the Whips wheel into action and bingo we have yet another 'undemocratically' decided law on the statute book.

Your debates or discussions on education and health don't exist as far as our ruling classes are concerned.

Leaked documents containing government policy of the day are drip fed to the media not the House of Commons; that is how business is done and it is a disgrace.

Which brings me back to the Iraq War II.

The debates about the war, before during and after, have all been conducted as described above.

One last thing.

Forget the difference between the 'Tory' Falklands War and 'New Labour's' Iraq War II; it is a puerile argument even if oil was the main reason behind the two.

In the Falklands War, the Tories were able to use the excuse of an invasion of sovereign territory as their reason for going to war.

In Iraq II, no such excuse existed; it was created by spin and false information.

You would only be able to compare the two wars if you were able to show that the Argies who invaded the Falklands were unemployed British actors dressed up in foreign uniforms and air dropped there by our government in collusion with the intelligence services.

To my knowledge this has never been proved but then I could be wrong.....

Re FlamePatricia's Outburst.

Well, I'm an ex public servant, an academic, who despises New Labour and everything it represents. But that's because I'm Old Labour and I guess, FlamePatricia, that this fact will confirm all your prejudices about we public servants. For your information, I've met many public servants who don't vote Labour.

I don't know what kind of country you'd imagine that we'd have without public servants but, of course, then we'd be in hock to the greedy, manipulative, dishonest bosses in the private sector whose sole mantra is getting as rich as possible and the devil take the hindmost.

For the record, Brown is an insecure, self interested politician who is possibly a bully and his preposterous Iraq Enquiry is a sham devoted only to ensuring that Blair and the other supine members of the Cabinet who voted for this calamitous invasion escape the justice they so richly deserve. But, let's remember the wretched Tories supported them all the way, with a few honourable exceptions.

32 writingsonthewall

Yes expenses. There has been an interesting twist relating to the lady friend of the Birmingham MP Khalid Mamood. She who spent nights at a posh hotel with him at our expense. He has paid 1500 quid to charity to make up.

This infuriated his constituents as much as the expense did in the first place.They say give the money back to us not some charity of your choice.

The interesting twist. The lady friend,Elaina Cohen, whom I had never heard of before has suddenly turned up in the Brummie press as an unsuccesful Council election candidate. A secret Council Standards Comittee enquiry, now theres a change, has found against her complaint that a Councilor she approached to support her nomination refused it on the grounds she was white and Jewish and would not get the local vote!!!

Oh yes she also complained tht her complaint wasnt taken seriously because it conicided with the revelations of her nights at the posh hotel with the MP at our expense. Not afraid to use all the angles is she?

Small world isnt it?

There's no point in ccming on these blogs and moaning about Gordelpus.....ACTIONS SPEAK LOUDER THAN WORDS....and other than marching on parliament ,the only action people can take is to have a GENERAL STRIKE ...therefore People need to badger the press (as it is only them that could generate the impetus and co-ordinate strategy)....the vaguest hint that a general strike is imminent will Force the cretin to give us the election we deserve.

#36 Khrystalar

Yes, having read your post, Lord Butler does seem to have undergone some sort of Damascene conversion.

Or is it simply that he was leant on at his own enquiry so he had to dumb down the report.

On the subject of Damascene conversions, how much power does Monsignor Blair currently have in the UK now that Mandelson is pulling Gordon Brown's strings (so running our fine democracy)?

#63

"If we had public elections for the prime minister, then we could probably vote in Stephen Fry, Simon Cowell or Gordon Ramsay or some other populist 'celeb' leader - though whether they would be any good at the job might be another matter".

When has being any good at the job been a consideration? - just refer to present occupants of Downing Street.

Reminds me of a famous sketch on Spitting Image.

Thatcher takes the Cabinet for lunch, orders a steak and when asked by the waiter....and vegetables madam??....replied....."Oh, they'll have the same as me"!

#65 but only based on the "evidence" that was presented to them and the country

#64 "In Iraq II, no such excuse existed; it was created by spin and false information"

and that "andfinally" is the most important issue

PS
And that the falklanders along with the Gibalerians want to remain british although that does not seem to matter to manny.

#29 flamepatricia

Your post is not worth my contempt.

#66 exTunbridge

"A secret Council Standards Comittee enquiry, now theres a change, has found against her complaint that a Councilor she approached to support her nomination refused it on the grounds she was white and Jewish and would not get the local vote!!!

Oh yes she also complained tht her complaint wasnt taken seriously because it conicided with the revelations of her nights at the posh hotel with the MP at our expense.

Not afraid to use all the angles is she?"

===========

In her defence, I think she has done more for Israeli Muslim relations and Middle East peace than anyone to date, more even than our dear friend, Mr Blair.

And at £1500 a night, a whole lot less as well.

51. davidou1234 wrote:
Well..Im sick of hearing about the Iraq war!
=
Me too. But if you're so interested in Education and Health, think what a difference the money spent on Iraq and Afghanistan could make to those services. Or are you happy to let any future government act with the same impunity as ours did over Iraq and squander billions at the expense of other more worthy causes? Wars cost lives and money. Health and Education save lives and create money. No-brainer then.

For those who are agreeing with my post 14, please note that I agree with truth and RECONCILIATION.

We need some sort of truth in order to reconcile.

The right-wing newspapers tell just as many lies as the government so why not try applying some consistency and turning on them too (this can be done by refusing to purchase them). You might like to explore some of the Daily Mail's claims before quoting them.

#36. Khrystalar

As you are new here, I won't put much store by what you say.

Had you been here longer you would be aware that this blog has plenty of form for the behaviour that (in this case) I noted the absence of.

In defence of my statement, re academic Labour voters etc.

My brother is an Oxbridge Don and the transformation I saw in him was unbelievable from normal suburban chap to a liberal, leftie, hippie, sandal wearing PHd. He actually told me my children were not my children they were "children of the world" and the world would bring them up! State rearing so they can indoctrinate I suppose, although he changed a little from that when HIS children were born. He is not into politics in any way but is strongly supportive of this shower (although, unusually for him, he cannot back this up with any reasons).

We are deeply into the Council's Social Services Dept. (disabled son) and they are terribly leftie and supportive of Gordon - well overtly anyway.

I know and have known / met hundreds if not thousands of Labour voters and they are all people in the public sector, graduates etc.

We have teacher and lecturer friends, Offsted inspector friends and the arguments get quite heated with them sometimes. You see, they are mostly TOO bookish, head in the sand, etc. to know what affects ordinary people, although they think they do and they pontificate like mad on the subject. They always think they are saving the world / people themselves.

Again, I suspect they may be examining their own affiliations now - who wouldn't?

New Labour will end as it began - 'education, education, education' - taking on board, of course, the better elements of John Major's premiership - 'back to basics'.

So here we are againg with the three 'Rs':

Redaction: The 'blacking out' of anything which is inconvenient.

Repudiation: The outright denial of anything that cannot be redacted.

Resignation: Shrugging the shoulders rather than putting the hands up to anything that can't be redacted or repudiated.

Anything, in fact, to avoid resigning.

73 andfinally

I am with you.

I did think of saying Khalid Mamood sounds better qualified than TB for the Middle East peace job.However the Mods have been a bit blue pencilly
with me lately so dint.

You have said similar for me . Thank you.

Sutara 63

Have to say the last line made me laugh. I agree with you I know what our system is like. However everyday I have this sense of frustration that we have a Government that is just engaged in damage limitation all the time. We are in a recession and all the Governments attention seems focused on making sure by whatever means they stay in power. Brown if he had any integrity would have gone to the people before now to secured a mandate for office. Browns belief that only he is right about everything and his constant untruths when faced with obvious facts are just becoming unacceptable for a man who is supposed to be the PM of this Country.

72 extremesense

Secondtime today I have missed the post giving rise to the reply.

Had a belated look at flamepats "offending" post and I dont agree with it but it is well stated and I dont see how your expression of contempt will change her views.

By all means argue the points but walking off with the ball changes nowt.

77

Many thanks for responding to my comment, Flamepatricia.

It does seem to me that the logic of what you are saying is that too much education equals dangerous political views. Perhaps it indicates that education can provide another perspective and understanding of the society in which we live. This perspective does not have to be left wing. Most Tories are from university stock and they certainly aren't liberal hippies.

I can't dispute what you say about the social services people that you deal with. If they are explicit New Labour supporters then that will put them in a smallish minority. Most public service workers that I know complain about the spin that suggests that everything is fine in education or health when those working in it know that this is not the case! They despair over New Labour as much as they might about the Tories.

Most people enter the public services NOT to secure a cushy job for life but because they want to contribute something to society, to help people, to care for them. I think it's a little mean to impugn us all as unthinking state automotons who have been indoctrinated into worshipping the State (or New Labour). I'd really like to know what sort of country you'd imagine without a decent public sector.

My final point is that surely you wouldn't want a society in which people don't possess'bookish' views. Surely there's room enough in a large, complex society for a range of views, even those we don't like, without dismissing them as unworldly or out of touch?

I suppose that makes me a wishy washy liberal hippie. Good!

Kind Regards

76. At 1:50pm on 18 Jun 2009, the-real-truth wrote:
#36. Khrystalar

As you are new here, I won't put much store by what you say.

So what is this now, a local blog for local people? Should there be a waiting period perhaps, like a golf club?

#25 flamepatricia Good afternoon

....to free the British people from the tyranny of their leader, Brown, and his henchmen.....

Please can someone, anyone, HM The Queen?, do precisely the above?

On a weekly basis Gordon Brown proves himself to be the most dispicable and disingenuous Prime Minster ever to hold office. Margaret Thatcher, who I still quite admire all these years later, had faults too numerous to mention, Brown on the other hand constantly reacts to events rather than shaping them. What a way to run a country, lurching along like a drunk bouncing of garden fences on the way home.

65 Tonyspart

I don't know what kind of country you'd imagine that we'd have without public servants but, of course, then we'd be in hock to the greedy, manipulative, dishonest bosses in the private sector whose sole mantra is getting as rich as possible and the devil take the hindmost.

-----------------

As opposed to the greedy, manipulative, dishonest workers?

I don't know where you get this idea that just because the workers are less fortunate\able\hardworking they are morally superior to the bosses. It is a fantastically arrogant attitude to have.

To demonstrate, the recent strike by the RMT in London, demanding more pay and no compulsory redundancies, holding the city to ransom in a time of great turmoil in order to get it. This will of course lead to much more lost revenue, many more redundancies and significantly more work for the vast majority of London workers, but to hell with them as long as the tube workers get above inflation payrises and immunity from the redundancies that absolutely every accountable commpany is being forced to make.

Your attitude is typical of labour supporters, new or old, an odious sense of moral superiority simply because you are less well off than some others. You think that it is virtuous to desire the wealth of others to be distributed your way, well it ain't I'm afraid, you are every bit as greedy as those who have the wealth in the first place. What is great about the current labour government is that it is making more and more people poor, and therefore perpetuating its own support, because far too many people continue to believe that they are the "party of the poor" despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

For your information, company bosses are accountable to their shareholders, primarily pension funds and such which will provide the only post retirement benefit to those who have the forethought and discipline to pay into such. Your perception of them as omnipotent beings whose every move benefits only themselves is grossly ignorant.

@ the-real-truth, post #76

Ah, ok - so your accusations of pro-Labour bias were directed at this blog? I see. A little confusing, then, that you referred to "The BBC" in your original post when what it seems you actually meant was "one particular journalist writing a blog on the BBC website". Not that I've seen any particular sign of Mr Robinson cheerleading for Gordon Brown or anybody else for that matter - but you're right, I haven't been reading this particular blog for very long.

In my experience, though; a lot of the time when people complain about "media bias", what they actually mean is "the media isn't reporting the news I want to hear, and justifying my own pre-conceptions". Which is probably the case for you, I guess. That *could* be indication of an insiduous, lefty plot designed to make the noble Conservatives look bad. Or it could simply be that you're wrong about a lot of stuff, and don't like it when the media reflects this. Only you know for sure, I guess.


@ extremesense, post #68

"Or is it simply that he was leant on at his own enquiry so he had to dumb down the report."

Well, I wondered that myself. It's quite likely there was political pressure applied, for all sides - whether he succumbed to it we'll never know.

Although it did seem to me - as was the case with the Americans' own report into pre-Iraq intelligence - that he was essentially trying to keep both sides happy with his final conclusions, and thus avoid treading on any toes politically. Yes, the evidence was faulty and shoudln't have been relied on, and Blair and Bush probably oughtn't to have described it in the terms that they did. (Which satisfies the anti-War position). But no, they probably didn't mean anything bad by it and did nothing really worse than make a few silly mistakes when assessing how strong their evidence was; and anyway, it's really not a bad thing that Saddam was removed from power as he was a very bad man (which satisfies the pro-War position).

All well and good if you're looking to avoid making any powerful political enemies by coming down on one side or another. About as much use as a chocolate chisel when it comes to running an enquiry into who should be held accountable for the mistakes made which led to over 200 of our soldiers dying during an occupation of a sovereign nation in the name of finding WMDs which were never there in the first place, though.

78

"Resignation, Resignation, resignation !"

I think you could have hit upon something here !

#77 social services and support for El Gordo thier super hero but
they are in fear of the real super hero's whom want the state of the family courts exposed for what they are ?

Bankrupt
Bully
Sexist
Anti-child
Covering thier own position
Guilt by Association
Incompetant

They TB+GB+Co gave them loads of money for forced adoption (state Kidnapped) so they would be supportive. Wouldn't they.

When its out in the open they be running from cover of te lawyers pens too.

Below I have pasted an Early Day Motion that Dai Davies, the independent MP for whom I do some research, attempted to Table on Tuesday, on which the Table Office has sat for two days refusing to publish it. After Dai Davies gave them a verbal fusillade today for blocking it, they have caved in and it will appear, they promise, tomorrow as EDM 1701.

The TO are supposed to act on behalf of Parliament, but by being so obstructive, are in effect acting in support of the Executive. I recognise that publication of expenses and allowances may be the political story of the day, but you may wish to reflect the political implications of this obstructionism, especially after Lord Butler's outspoken comments in the Lords today.


EDM on Committee of Inquiry on Iraq and unjustifiable secrecy
That this House rejects the justifications provided during the Prime Ministers statement on the establishment of a Committee of inquiry into the invasion of Iraq and its aftermath for holding the Inquiry in secret (Official Report, 15 June 2009 : Columns 23-40); recalls the Prime Minister told this House in his earlier statement on Constitutional Renewal that he believes that we should do more to spread the culture and practice of freedom of information(Official Report, 10 June 2009 : Column 797); records disappointment that this apparent commitment to more openness lasted less than a week; believes the General Public, including the millions of citizens who marched and demonstrated against the invasion of Iraq in 2003, and many families of servicemen and women who lost their lives during the invasion of, and subsequent occupation of Iraq, will not find it acceptable to hold the inquiry in secret, and would want to be able to attend hearings as in the Hutton Inquiry and earlier Scott Inquiry; notes for example that John Miller, whose son Simon was killed in Iraq in 2003, has said private hearings would be marred by "lies and deceit"; and therefore calls upon the Prime Minister to scrap the announced arrangements for the Iraq inquiry committee forthwith, and as a democratic and transparent alternative, to consult widely with a wider range of interested parties, including backbench Honourable Members, the Stop the War Coalition and Military Families Against the War, to ascertain what they believe would be a just Inquiry

Written Questions for Answer on Friday 19 June 2009
144
Mr Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent): To ask the Prime Minister, what representations he received on the format and remit of the inquiry into the Iraq war before taking his decision on the committee of inquiry; and if he will make a statement. (281624)
145
Mr Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent): To ask the Prime Minister, what criteria were used in the appointment of members to the committee of inquiry into the Iraq war. (281625)

Written Questions for Answer on Wednesday 17 June 2009
418
Mr Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent): To ask the Prime Minister, whether the committee of inquiry into the Iraq war will be required to publish the oral and written evidence taken during its inquiry with the report of its findings. (280887)
419
Mr Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent): To ask the Prime Minister, what remuneration each member of the committee of inquiry into the Iraq war will receive; from which budget such remuneration will be drawn; and what secretariat will be provided for the committee.(280888)
420
Mr Dai Davies (Blaenau Gwent): To ask the Prime Minister, whether witnesses called to give evidence to the committee of inquiry on the Iraq war will be required to give evidence on oath. (280889)

This is just another example of Brown's consistent errors of judgement. You would think that he would learn from past mistakes. Would the spineless ministers in the Cabinet please call time on his leadership for the sake of the country?

I'm sorry but I have to disagree. I feel we all live in a society that is too public. There is no way are British Armed Forces should be subject to a public enquiry. This should be done in private and the outcome given to the public.

We went to war for good reasons and in full back of the USA. The best ally any country could want.

We owe a lot to our ruthless leaders of now and the past.

91 antdawe

And now I must disagree with you friend.

1. There was no good reason. A despot shouting wolf is not good reason.
At the outside go and check he dint have the WMD,s then back off with a " you shouted wolf once too often matey"

2.Pease expand on "the USA,best ally any country could want". Coz they have lots of equipment and cannon fodder? Coz they have the CIA and take people to 3rd world counties for torture ? Who invade ex British colonies coz they dont like the govt there ?

3 A society can never be too public.

4. Any ruthless leaders in mind ? Vlad the Impaler types or who?

#58 davidou1234 you are very silent

85.

For the record, I don't necessarily believe that the workers are morally superior to the bosses. Greed is ubiquitous in a capitalist society and I don't think I was suggesting otherwise.

My position has always been, and always will be, that we need to create a fairer, more just, well educated and healthy society. That involves us being inclusive and planning for the future carefully.

I'm not envious of the bosses. I just feel that they should be prepared to pay a little more of their income in tax in order to ensure a fairer, better society.

I'm sorry you think me arrogant. I'm not, actually. I've 50 years plus of experience watching how society operates and reflecting upon it and these are my sincerely held views. I don't make blanket assertions that all bosses are bad and all workers are good. Life isn't that simple.

94

Following your even and well mannered response, I am a little ashamed of my outburst and apologlise for my rudeness. Bad day at the office, bad couple of weeks in fact, no excuse I know but there it is.

My views on labour, new or old, stand however. I resent the view that Labour wants a fairer society, since it is a misconception that even distribution of wealth = fairness, which is the way it is typically viewed by Labour. A fair society is one where everyone has the opportunity to make the most of their opportunities. I do not even necessarily feel that there must be the "equal opportunities" spouted by so many, I certainly never had the opportunities of many, but through hard work I managed to do quite well for myself. Adversity builds character and determination, trates that you can not be handed on a plate by a priveleged background. As long as all have the opportunity to succeed, then I think society is as fair as it needs to be.

If I were to live in a society where the succesful were brought back to the level of the unsuccesful in the interests of "fairness", I would find myself wondering what the point was in endeavouring for success in the first place.

Opportunity to make the most of their gifts that should read.

Thanks for your response, greatHayemaker. Your apology was generous and not needed. I hope things improve for you at the office.

Kindest Regards

greatHayemaker 95

You are so right.

I come from a very deprived area and through hard work in education and work have succeeded in my jobs to earn a decent wage. Now because I am earning more this Government wants to take it away from me in tax to pay the very people who decided that education was too much effort and wasted their school years. They are now on benefits and moaning.

I resent the fact that I have worked so hard and am expected to hand over my cash to these sort of people. We have forgotton in Britain that no one owes you a living except if you are unable by illness etc to do it for yourself. This politics of envy has not made a fairer society it has made people lazy and reliant on the state. People who have drive and purpose will now say to themselves why should I work so hard to be taxed so much, I will take my skills elsewhere. This Labour Government has actually made our society more unfair by favouring those who are not prepared to work. However it has not made for a better society nor a more prosperous one therefore I had hoped this politics of envy was behind us, however it seems the gulf has widened where these people believe they are entitled to yet more.

These taxes they impose do not effect the very rich because they just flee the Country, the Government knows this very well. It affects the people who are prepared to work hard to make a better life for themselves. Truthfully I am sick of it all, private pensions have been ruined, you get nothing for what you save, and I have to work probably until I am 70 because of this Governments mishandling of the economy. If you have acted responsibly and have not run up credit you are the very people suffering whilst those who have borrowed to the maximum are helped. Its all wrong.

#98 susan-croft

Even by your standards, that is the most self-satisfied and self-pitying rubbish I have seen on the site.

Do you really think the difference is just between lazy good-for-nothings who need benefits to survive and "hard-working successful" people like you think you are?

The position is, people like you who earn more have a choice. Those who do the less qualified jobs in this world, still need to survive. They need to be able to eat, clothe themselves and have a roof over their heads. So, as a community we either spread the wealth out more evenly, which means those like you, who believe they are naturally worth more, have to take a cut in pay, in order to pay more to those on or near minimum wage, or you have to pay taxes to re-distribute some of your earnings to them. The second choice is a cheaper way for you to have a low paid workforce to do your dirty work for you. You know those things which would, if not done, spread disease, like emptying the bins, cleaning the streets, keeping the drains flowing, that sort of thing.

In order to make sure that these wages are kept low, you have to have a level of unemployment which just keeps enough pressure on those in work, not to feel too comfortable. Hence the group of people you think of as the lazy useless articles who don't deserve anything from your "hard work" are as important to you, as you think you are to yourself.

So let's experiment and follow you theory through. Don't give them benefits and let them and their useless offspring die, from their uselessness. Who will pick up the bodies? Those people who are minimum wage of course. Those who didn't work hard at school, but deserve something because, well, at least they are working.

There is the first problem for you. They will say to themselves, "Why should we do this dirty work, for such small reward, when my neighbour works behind a desk in a comfortable office, selling insurance and earning forty grand a year while always moaning about how much tax she pays. I want more".

What will you say when they demand more? You can't deny them their rise, because you, in your fit of selfishness, have killed off the people who you used to be able to use as your threat. The unemployed. There won't be any. So, are you going to pick the bodies out of their homes?

You have to address the fact that your high wages relies every bit to an underclass, who may be a bit sorry they didn't do well at school. Then again, let's suppose they did.

Let's suppose they were all as determined as you and worked hard at school and passed all their exams and went on to higher education. Who then, would do the dirty jobs. If it is down to what you think it is, just hard work, this deserving of money, suppose we all worked hard. Why would what you do be worth more than what I do?

If we all worked hard to achieve the same level of education, the thing you distinguish yourself from others, then people may chose what job to do, because they like it. They may say, I am highly educated but I like working in the fields, growing food for everyone. I like the feel of the summer sun and the freshness of the winter chill. It's hard work, but it is useful. Then others may say, I am highly educated but I prefer to work in insurance, I prefer being with others and I don't like getting cold. It's hard work but it's useful. Who is worth more?

You could argue that it's because not so many people can do what you do, so you deserve more for that reason alone. You have worked hard at education and now can do something that not many others can do. So, you take advantage of that rarity and exploit the rest of us.

But then, you could make the same arguement for the person who does something that, maybe lots of people could do, inasmuch as it doesn't require too many qualifications, but not many would want to do. Say, sewer inspectors and sewer maintainance teams. How are you going to set a level of pay for the person in comfort with qualifications and the person with none, but doing things you won't want to do?

You see we all need each other. I would love to see the day when no one needs to ask for benefits to survive, but to achieve that, you will have to take a pay cut.

#77 flamepatricia

Perhaps I could make a suggestion. Maybe your brother changed and became a 'leftie' when he got educated and woke up to the fact that the people who run (or who want to run) this country are infact complete imbociles - intent solely on fulfilling their own desires at the cost to others - and who will pander to peoples unfounded fears about immigration / race / crime etc in order to achieve what they want.

Ignorant people find it much easier to follow right wing tendancies as it doesn't require much (or any) thought. It's easy to identify people who are of a different colour, creed or are different physically - to see the differences between the classes takes a lot more enlightenment.

That's why the ignorant people off Belfast are blaming and attacking the Romanians as they are easily identifiable and accessible - however the real perpetrators of the cause of their misery are in fact the people that rule them through Government, Monarchy and inherited colonial wealth - which is much harder to see and much harder to defeat and overall - much more effort.

Whilst you seem to promote anti-left philosophy you seem quite happy to take the assistance of the Government for your disabled son. I can assure you that the right wing see the disabled as 'inferior' and would not be providing any state aid for you or your son. If you were to loose your job in the private sector - or become unable to wrok through ill-health a 'non-leftie' Government would not be assisting you.

I can see your ignorance displayed quite clearly in an earlier post where you show the groups that voted new labour in. How wrong you are because the only reason Nu Labour got in was because of all the middle class who changed their votes from Tory to Labour after they got screwed over in the last recession. The groups you provided never actually change their voting stance and most of the 'lower working class' as you describe them (Band E to the sociologists out there) all vote Tory as that's what the Sun tells them to do.

I am underwhelmed by the intelligence shown by the right wing support.