Labour...

[Bluecube]

Scottish (not sure about the welsh) students also dont pay university fees, being in the UK, it costs £3070 a year.

England isn't the UK. I never actually believed that the English education system was as bad as what it's always been claimed until I read stuff like this. I thought the Americans geography was bad...

[Stewart]

Probably true, but I doubt it would change much. I don't know if I have less faith in Brown or Cameron, since every time I've watched Prime Minister's questions, Cameron has been completely pathetic. Every time he's used arguements that consist of well thought out soundbites, which would be fine if they were followed by some weight to back them up, but they never are. This has left him open to be convincingly beaten by both Blair and Brown.

The devolution business is a bit weird, I'd like to know how the policies are paid for - do Scotland and Wales have seperate budgets or is England subsidising them?

You are obviously mad, drunk or Spanish.

Cameron has consistently won the day at PMQs. Brown usually gets a good hiding.

It got so bad, at one stage the Labour party had to whip up the back benchers and get them to make more noise, as the weekly spankings were getting so bad.

Blair maybe, but how exactly has Brown beaten Cameron convincingly? He just hasn't mate, the exact opposite is true.

Remember Browns hand shaking? That was during a good old fashioned beating at PMQs.

[Bluecube]

I also want to know how i ended up being dictated to by a PM thats bloddy Scottish!!!!!!!!!!

First thing we need to do is get someone running England thats actually English. Half the cabinet is bScottish for christ sake.

I SERIOUSLY doubt the Scots or Welsh would put up with an Englishman in charge of their assemblies.
I realise before anyone says that most things are still run in these countries from Westminster but they seem to get alot more from the system than we do./..........and lets face it, i will hazard a guess that the English pay the lions share in.

Your ignorance is startling. Gordon Brown is PM of the UK not England. No matter how bad he is he's always emphasised his belief in the UK. Most of the Labour government is Scottish because a significant chunk of Labour's support is/ was in Scotland. Plus the Scottish have always been better politicians than the English and always wangle their way into top jobs. It's the same the world over. C'est la vie.

[Doctor.Bob]

I often run through the maternity ward of my hospital, shouting 'It's all your fault for voting labour!'......




....I'll get my coat!

[Stewart]

Plus the Scottish have always been better politicians than the English and always wangle their way into top jobs. It's the same the world over.

Well Blair was born in Scotland, so they may 'wangle' as you put it, but saying the Scottish have always been better politicians means nothing.

On what exactly are you standing this comment?

Because our greatest PM, Winston Churchill was born in... Oxfordshire, England?

Or because Brown is doing such a good job? hahaha

Or because Alex Salmond is such a political genius?

[Main]

You are obviously mad, drunk or Spanish.

Cameron has consistently won the day at PMQs. Brown usually gets a good hiding.

It got so bad, at one stage the Labour party had to whip up the back benchers and get them to make more noise, as the weekly spankings were getting so bad.

Blair maybe, but how exactly has Brown beaten Cameron convincingly? He just hasn't mate, the exact opposite is true.

Remember Browns hand shaking? That was during a good old fashioned beating at PMQs.

Maybe a little of column A.

I can't see how you'd come to the conclusion that the situation is the complete opposite of what I've said, unless you've based that on the news coverage clips of the PMQs rather than watching the entire thing - and trust me, the differences between what the clips make out as what happens and what actually happens semm to me to be quite large.

That or the wonders of difference in opinion and drawing different conclusions from watching the same thing.

Every time I've watched PMQs with Cameron vs Brown I've repeatedly seen Cameron spend his entire time asking questions highlighting the latest easy target, or another favourite of his, trying to get a straight answer out of the PM on an issue, even when (or should that be, *especially* when) he has every reason to not give one at the time. During this Brown usually picked up on the way Cameron has avoided any issues with substance and points this out, along with any inconsistencies with what he's saying at the time and past Tory policy. It's usually ignored. And convincingly beaten by Brown? In my view it has happened, not often but it has, usually because he's left a gaping hole in his arguement. I remember him using the same sort of thing against Blair, who would promptly eat him alive.

From this I come to the conclusion that Cameron is spending his entire time highlighting how bad the current government is, not that we really need any help with that. His attacks are all the easy targets, as if to ride on the press. I've never seen him bring up a problem that we didn't already know about, and lastly, and the biggy for me, I've never seen him attempt to show that the Tories can do better.

Another good bit was him saying (on the BBC) he believed that Crewe was not a protest vote - cut to voters' comments about thinking Labour is crap at the moment, but that they remember the Tories being just as bad/worse.

So yeah, David Cameron doesn't convince me in the slightest, you're welcome to think otherwise.

[Stewart]

Well we will agree to disagree, but being the boring person I am, I do usually watch PMQs live, either on the Daily Politics on BBC2, or on BBC News 24.

My conclusion is that Cameron usually wins the tussle, mainly because there have been so many cock ups during Browns time as PM his powder is always damp, but Cameron can just crow about these constant faliures, and get under the PMs skin.

Brown has lost his temper on more than one occasion during PMQs, and you don't get mad if you are winning.

[schmunk]

Then again, what has the ability to argue convincingly in front of a crowd got to do with the ability to manage a country? Not a lot, I say.

[Bluecube]

Well Blair was born in Scotland, so they may 'wangle' as you put it, but saying the Scottish have always been better politicians means nothing.

On what exactly are you standing this comment?

Because our greatest PM, Winston Churchill was born in... Oxfordshire, England?

Or because Brown is doing such a good job? hahaha

Or because Alex Salmond is such a political genius?

Better politicians I said - that's totally different from being able to run a country

[Saracen]

....

Every time I've watched PMQs with Cameron vs Brown I've repeatedly seen Cameron spend his entire time asking questions highlighting the latest easy target, or another favourite of his, trying to get a straight answer out of the PM on an issue, even when (or should that be, *especially* when) he has every reason to not give one at the time. During this Brown usually picked up on the way Cameron has avoided any issues with substance and points this out, along with any inconsistencies with what he's saying at the time and past Tory policy. It's usually ignored. And convincingly beaten by Brown? In my view it has happened, not often but it has, usually because he's left a gaping hole in his arguement. I remember him using the same sort of thing against Blair, who would promptly eat him alive.

From this I come to the conclusion that Cameron is spending his entire time highlighting how bad the current government is, not that we really need any help with that. His attacks are all the easy targets, as if to ride on the press. I've never seen him bring up a problem that we didn't already know about, and lastly, and the biggy for me, I've never seen him attempt to show that the Tories can do better.

Another good bit was him saying (on the BBC) he believed that Crewe was not a protest vote - cut to voters' comments about thinking Labour is crap at the moment, but that they remember the Tories being just as bad/worse.

So yeah, David Cameron doesn't convince me in the slightest, you're welcome to think otherwise.

But the thing is .... PMQs is when people are supposed to ask Qs of the PM. Gordon Brown doesn't appear to have sussed that yet. He spends most of the time when he should be answering the questions he was asked either spewing forth a torrent of totally unrelated statistics, or asking Cameron what the Tory policy is. PMQs is NOT for the PM to ask about Tory policies, it's for answering the questions he's asked, and it would be nice if, just once in a while, he'd actually properly answer a naffing question .... and I don't mean the sycophantic and self-serving "Wouldn't my Rt Hon colleague agree that ...." drivel that most Labour MPs ask.

Also, that continuous evasion Brown does so much of the time is an outright insult to those, of us the public, that watch PMQs.

And there's a good reasons for the Tories not putting too much in the way of policy forth yet ... though that time is rapidly approaching.

First, as has happened before, if it's any good, Brown will nick it, grind off the serial numbers, give it a quick respray and flog it as his own. So why give him ideas? Secondly, a fair bit of policy relies on having accurate data, like Ministers have but the opposition don't. Without that data, such as costs, it's hard to formulate detailed plans. And third ... and this is the bit where time is running out .... there's little point in the Tories having too much policy, certainly in any detail, too far in advance of an election (where they stand a prayer of winning) because anything you announce too far in advance may well be overtaken by events by the time you either get a chance to implement it or even have a relevant debate about it, and the events require policy change.

So, in my view, not announcing too much, too soon, is sound strategy. Of course, it cedes the other lot an easy target ... accusing you of being a policy-free zone. That, I'm afraid, is just the price you have to pay.

[Stewart]

Exactly. Cameron said to Brown once that PMQs was for him to ask questions of the Prime Minister - 'if he wants to ask me questions he can call a general election and ask 6 a week'

[mediaboy]

Then again, what has the ability to argue convincingly in front of a crowd got to do with the ability to manage a country? Not a lot, I say.

I'd disagree... if he can't talk convincingly in front of a crowd, and manage to support his views to the greater populace then maybe it's because those views have no actual support behind them? Yes, managing a country may not require the ability to argue convincingly (although in a democracy you most probably do), but if you cannot argue convincingly because your views are unsubstantiated then those views are poor ones.

In my opinion anyway.

[schmunk]

if he can't talk convincingly in front of a crowd, and manage to support his views to the greater populace then maybe it's because those views have no actual support behind them?

And equally maybe not.

[Blitzen]

Your ignorance is startling. Gordon Brown is PM of the UK not England. No matter how bad he is he's always emphasised his belief in the UK. Most of the Labour government is Scottish because a significant chunk of Labour's support is/ was in Scotland. Plus the Scottish have always been better politicians than the English and always wangle their way into top jobs. It's the same the world over. C'est la vie.

and your reading skills are poor
Read what was written and you may grasp what i said.

I didnt say that Brown was JUST the PM of England. What i was questioning is that now Scotland (and Wales) have their won assemblies, and that these countries seem to get far more 'perks' than the English, why do we have to have a Scottish PM.
There is a BIG contigent of Scots in the cabinet and whilst they are happy to dish out a fat wad of cash to Scotland, they do sod all for English people.

I have ALWAYS voted Labour but i certainly wont this time. Im suprised any Englishman would vote for a Scot.

[Saracen]

I agree with you, Blitzen, that the situation re: the "West Lothian question" is untenable, and (IMHO) sooner or later, it's going to unravel. Perhaps very messily.

But as for a Scottish-dominated cabinet doling out a "fad wad", by which I assume you're implying an unjust proportion, I'm far from convinced it's got much to do with Scots in the Cabinet. Surely, it's just the operation of the Barnett formula? And if so, it's survived more than two decades worth of successive Cabinets, Labour, Tory then Labour again, both Scottish-dominated and English-dominated.

It may well be that Barnett is well past it's sell-by date and needs to be scrapped or at least, revised, but (much as I'd love to) I can't see how we can really stick that transgression on Brown, other Scots in his cabinet or even the whole government.

[iranu]

I'm a Brown (and Blair) loather, but I do not have a problem with a Scot being a leader of a political party and hence a PM. What I do have a problem with is the fact that, in the current situation, such a PM cannot vote on policy that affects his own constituents when that policy is derived from the devolved Scottish Parliament, yet he can push through legislation regarding England and Wales whilst requiring Scottish MPs for a majority. Not only that, but those same Scots MPs are in the position he is, i.e able to vote on measures not affecting those he/she represents, but unable to vote on certain matters that do. I've got no problem with decentralisation, infact I think it's a good idea, however, it should be practised countrywide and not be subjective.

It's not surprising that there are a large number of Scots in cabinet/higher positions of government because this is where Labour's power-base is (once was?). Again I have no problem with this except with regard to the West Lothian Question as stated above. Devolution is an open and writhing can of worms.

The Barnett 'formula' needs to be revised. I'm lead to believe that it was a temporary solution that has lingered too long and not changed with the times. Again I've no problem with disadvantaged regions of the UK being granted more money (for roads/business tax incentives/housing/etc/etc) because this is required for regeneration and providing a standard, however, when that allowance per head becomes so large that the money is there to be spent on services that the rest of the country cannot afford then I think it's time for a review. Now I'm aware of the argument that these things come from a fixed budget and it's the region that decides what to spend it on , however, it's another thing for that region to be able to afford services ontop of the basics that other regions cannot afford.

Leaving the West Lothian question and the PM's nationality leadership aside and back to the OP; what have New Labour actually achieved?

There were great hopes in 1997, everyone was sick of the Tories, sick of Major (even though I think he might have been one of Britain's best PM's given better timing - he did win an election, however, another topic) sick of the sleaze. There really was a feeling of euphoria, hope and anticipation of the New Labour (NL) project and government. Britain would be revitalised and invigorated. NL had a huge opportunity to really do something, to transform the nation, to use the support and the mandate for something big. They had managed a repositioning of their party within the framework of British politics; shaken off the old donkey-jacket image, made themselves electable and ready to actually govern people who wanted a modern, progressive party that would govern for all, including big business, but who'd ensure that the little man would get a good/fair deal.

Brit Pop and NL went hand in hand, we ruled the world and things could only get better. NL stuck to Norman Lamont's budget for 2 years and NL gained trust. It was in the bag. On the back of a steady, rising, prosperous economy, NL were able to dominate the Tories given the Conservative infighting and scavenging of the party corpse.

And for what? Sweet Felicity Arkwright that's what.

They really were not much more than a front man smiling and charming his way, whilst the back-room boy controlled the moolah and did the sums, but wasn't too good at understanding economics or the British mindset. The front-room boy's hound controlled the party and the backroom boy.

NL squandered the best chance they ever had to really make a difference. And they could have made a huge difference; a transformation of Britain, but somewhere along the line they ballsed it up. They had the ideas, but didn't know how to implement them. They tried to perform "total government". That's my made up phrase meaning 'control everything' and the reason for this, I believe, is that the Labour Party needed such tight discipline and control whilst in opposition (to stop the loony left) inorder for the leaders to make the party electable that once they actually gained the reigns of power they couldn't get rid of the mindset. It had become a habit.

They subsequently reduced themselves to "focus group policy", "Pre 60's Romanian tractor factory metrics", sound-bites, double-speak and re-announced policy, total media control, obfuscation, popular grand schemes (but without direction), unpopular grandstanding (on the world stage) without direction and a whole host of initiatives that would have gone down well with the electorate whilst they were in opposition, but which needed to be delivered whilst in government, all the while lacking the direction that proper party debate would have given them. I think they were frightened of their own shadow and didn't realise that Labour had intrinsically changed within (just like the times) but more importantly had been given a platform to showcase these ideas amongst an open minded electorate.

Forget the economic slow down. Have Labour achieved what they set out to do? I'd say yes. They set out to achieve power, what they didn't do was to build that achievement into the sort of Britain that they had promised, yet this has cost the tax paying Briton alot of money.