NationStates Jolt Archive

Will Gordon Brown last much longer as PM? He has lost a couple of votes, lots of sniping from the backbenches, rumours of people ready to defect to the Lib Dems, criticism from Hazel Blears, Harriet Harman saying she doesn't want to be PM. Worst of all senior party members gathering around to say how he is the right man for the job and how much they support him, a sure sign of impending back stabbing - can the end be far away?

my only fear about brown and the labour party being out is that the conservatives will replace them.

Whoever takes over is going to preside over the biggest Labour defeat in history. Who wants to hold that bag? Surely, all this talk is more to distance themselves from Brown (designated fall guy) so they have some credibility after they massively lose the next election.

Then again they aren't the sharpest tools in the shed. So there might be something to this.

At this stage they are more concerned about holding onto their own seats than they are to the Labour Party. Nobody will want to replace Brown because they know they will not win an election, but they know if they don't replace him a lot of Labour MPs will lose their seats.

I don't think replacing Brown makes any difference. I suppose if they picked a new leader and went straight to the polls they might capitalize on a bit of a bounce, but even then there is the chance that people will see through that straight away and punish them further.

I mean whatever people feel about the other two parties, Labour has pretty thoroughly discredited itself.

The question for the Labour Party is are they better off losing the next election with Brown, or losing it with someone else. Either way they are likely to be in the wilderness for a good few years replacing one ineffectual leader after another. Brown's big mistake was not having an election when he would have won.

my only fear about brown and the labour party being out is that the conservatives will replace them.

^ this. i'd rather have anything than that

^ this. i'd rather have anything than that

Yeah, but what can you do? Vote Lib Dem?

long live the conservatives in the UK!!!

my only fear about brown and the labour party being out is that the conservatives will replace them.

Except that under David Cameron, the Conservatives are largely beneign.

Except that under David Cameron, the Conservatives are largely beneign.

I don't know... I get the feeling that it's just the "being in opposition to Labour" that forces Cameron and the Tories to appear benign.
Basically, it's Labour's appalling position on many issues that make the Tories take opposing views, and therefore make them seem... well, almost nice.

Yay!

I don't know... I get the feeling that it's just the "being in opposition to Labour" that forces Cameron and the Tories to appear benign.
Basically, it's Labour's appalling position on many issues that make the Tories take opposing views, and therefore make them seem... well, almost nice.

Nah, if you read Cameron's voting track record, he's a very centrist politician. He even leans left on some issues. It's not a matter of his policies though, it's a matter of whether he can keep his party in line, should he be elected.

Nah, if you read Cameron's voting track record, he's a very centrist politician. He even leans left on some issues. It's not a matter of his policies though, it's a matter of whether he can keep his party in line, should he be elected.

I know, he's been confusing me that way for a while now. Gordon Brown turning right, and the Tory leader turning left....
But I'm not sure I buy into Cameron's admittedly very carefully constructed image. Might be, might not be.
It's a shame the UK only has the two options, really.

Yeah, but what can you do? Vote Lib Dem?
I lol'd.
Except that under David Cameron, the Conservatives are largely beneign.
I don't see how his 'maverick' image changes the fact that there are a lot of the old guard in the back benches.

Will Gordon Brown last much longer as PM?
He'll last until the next GE.


I don't see how his 'maverick' image changes the fact that there are a lot of the old guard in the back benches.
As Stewart Lee says, if political correctness has done anything, it's forced the Conservative party to conceal its inherent racism under a cloak of respectability.

As Stewart Lee says, if political correctness has done anything, it's forced the Conservative party to conceal its inherent racism under a cloak of respectability.
I don't see how the Conservatives are inherently racist. I can't say I agree with most Tories on much of anything, though.

Except that under David Cameron, the Conservatives are largely beneign.

i don't believe his carefully constructed PR for a moment. the man was a special advisor to Norman Lamont during the 1992 recession and Black Wednesday, FFS. that's enough for me to not give the man an ounce of trust, even if it was almost 20 years ago. and i would hope most other people in the country would remember those events, too... but clearly his new shiny image counts for a lot more :rolleyes:

i don't believe his carefully constructed PR for a moment. the man was a special advisor to Norman Lamont during the 1992 recession and Black Wednesday, FFS.
And he ran Michael Howard's rather sour-tasting 2005 election campaign... before denouncing Michael Howard and others of his ilk when trying to get elected as head of the Tories.

Nice chap.

You might as well elect the conservatives because if you need an IMF loan you'd have to implement those sorts of polices anyways.

I just can't bring myself to care... I used to care a lot. But there's something so sapping about the current political paradigm. I guess what politics reminds of most at the moment is high school cliques and the obsession with how you're viewed by other people.

I think Britain should take that Max Mosley chap as PM. Impeccable family political history and scandal-prone as only a born politician can be.

I think Britain should take that Max Mosley chap as PM. Impeccable family political history and scandal-prone as only a born politician can be.

Screw it all dismantle the Parliament and give the Monarchy absloute power again. :p

Long live HM Queen Elizabeth II

Hopefully Brown will be succeeded by a less draconian PM who will dismantle - or at least scale back - the police state in the UK. Fat chance of that, though. :(

Hopefully Brown will be succeeded by a less draconian PM who will dismantle - or at least scale back - the police state in the UK. Fat chance of that, though. :(
Why do you think David Davis called a by-election and resigned from the shadow cabinet? There's little doubt that the bulk of draconian legislation and the ID card pseudo-database introduced by labour will still be on the statute books after the next Tory government.

I just can't bring myself to care... I used to care a lot. But there's something so sapping about the current political paradigm. I guess what politics reminds of most at the moment is high school cliques and the obsession with how you're viewed by other people.

Same here. Politics is of course sooooo important, but each and every time you witness what amounts to a 'school yard' slanging match between the opposing parties, well It does not feel you with anything other than impotant rage.

i don't believe his carefully constructed PR for a moment. the man was a special advisor to Norman Lamont during the 1992 recession and Black Wednesday, FFS.But what sort of advice did he give to Lamont back then? I'd really like to know...

Why do you think David Davis called a by-election and resigned from the shadow cabinet? There's little doubt that the bulk of draconian legislation and the ID card pseudo-database introduced by labour will still be on the statute books after the next Tory government.There's PLENTY of doubt. Apart from the fact that several senior Conservatives oppose (at least some of) those measures on principle and announced an intention to scrap them as soon as possible back when they were introduced, and the fact that scrapping a lot of those measures would be an obvious vote-winner, there's the simple fact that scrapping the ID-card business is an obvious (and politically easy) way of cutting government expenditure...

Hopefully Brown will be succeeded by a less draconian PM who will dismantle - or at least scale back - the police state in the UK. Fat chance of that, though. :(

Huh? What police state?

Hopefully Brown will be succeeded by a less draconian PM who will dismantle - or at least scale back - the police state in the UK. Fat chance of that, though. :(
Aye I fear for my life under the brutal oppression of the National Socialist police force. Ho yes. All the time.

Aye I fear for my life under the brutal oppression of the National Socialist police force. Ho yes. All the time.

Who said anything about brutality about National Socialism? I didn't.

Huh? What police state?

Please tell me you're joking.

Please tell me you're joking.

Not at all. I live and work in London, and I just don't see this police state, elaborate!

Who said anything about brutality about National Socialism? I didn't.
Just thought I'd add some extra mindless hyperbole onto what you'd already said.

Not at all. I live and work in London, and I just don't see this police state, elaborate!

See here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/25/social-networking-sites-monitored), here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4987415/All-travel-plans-to-be-tracked-by-Government.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_2005), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006), here (http://policestate.co.uk/), here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1173325/I-numb-I-Daughter-blasts-Gestapo-social-services-bundle-mother-86-family-home.html), here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger64.html), and here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger30.html) for starters.

And you don't find being spied on by security cameras everywhere disturbing at all?

*lame sources*
Yeah find me a state without those measures. Hell, Facebook tells you that the US reads everything you post ever when you sign up.
And you don't find being spied on by security cameras everywhere disturbing at all?
No, because I'm not a criminal.

And you don't find being spied on by security cameras everywhere disturbing at all?


Well I'll check those Guardian, Daily Mail, and Telegraph sources out in due course. But you really equate our CCTV cameras with a police state?

When we are not free to vioce our opinions, I may agree with you, when we are not free to live as we like(without braking the law) then I may agree with you.

If this is a poilce state then, would you prefer to live elswhere?

Yeah find me a state without those measures. Hell, Facebook tells you that the US reads everything you post ever when you sign up.

Cute. You don't even try to refute them.

No, because I'm not a criminal.

Nor a believer in privacy, apparently.

Well I'll check those Guardian, Daily Mail, and Telegraph sources out in due course. But you really equate our CCTV cameras with a police state?

When we are not free to vioce our opinions, I may agree with you, when we are not free to live as we like(without braking the law) then I may agree with you.

If this is a poilce state then, would you prefer to live elswhere?

I don't live in the UK. If I did, I would either get the hell out of there, kill myself, or follow Guy Fawkes's example.

Cute. You don't even try to refute them.

The point though is I belive that the internet should be monitored. Why not? If criminls can use technology then the police must also be allowed to do the same, or risk an unlevel playing field.

Cute. You don't even try to refute them.
Absolutely not. Although who the fuck is Lew Rockwell and why is he selling someone else's books?
Nor a believer in privacy, apparently.
You get to have privacy in private. If you're out in public, you don't have quite as much privacy. "Oh no".

Well I'll check those Guardian, Daily Mail, and Telegraph sources out in due course. But you really equate our CCTV cameras with a police state?

When we are not free to vioce our opinions, I may agree with you, when we are not free to live as we like(without braking the law) then I may agree with you.

If this is a poilce state then, would you prefer to live elswhere?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8000641.stm

This says to me a distinct disproval of people voicing their opinions. Couple that with the 2 people -caught on tape- assaulting people, one of which was fatal... does not make a compelling argument that we are already living in airstrip one, but it should -worry- you.

I don't live in the UK. If I did, I would either get the hell out of there, kill myself, or follow Guy Fawkes's example.

Bwahahahahahahah! So where do you live? The check of it though, you telling me a native Londoner that I live in a police state, yet you do not live here so you have no understanding of what it IS like to live here!

I don't live in the UK. If I did, I would either get the hell out of there, kill myself, or follow Guy Fawkes's example.
Aye, when those teenage hormones go away you'll actually discover that the people are great, the state is here to help, and the quality of life is excellent.

Aye, when those teenage hormones go away you'll actually discover that the people are great, the state is here to help, and the quality of life is excellent.

hahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahaha. haha. hah. hah. hah. no.

Firstly, I get insulted by random members of the public when I go outside for being who I am. So I'm unconvinced that the people are great. The state, so far, allowed me to lose my house, has provided insufficient support for my mental difficulties, renders it nearly impossible to get around the country due to inadequate public transport, and wants to prosecute me for what I get up to in the bedroom consensually. And the quality of life might well be good if you can afford it.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8000641.stm

This says to me a distinct disproval of people voicing their opinions. Couple that with the 2 people -caught on tape- assaulting people, one of which was fatal... does not make a compelling argument that we are already living in airstrip one, but it should -worry- you.

Nope this show the basic police response to large crowds and the expectation of trouble. Couple the two deaths with the amount of people there and you'll see that your rhetoric is more akin to student fervour than to the reality of the situation.

Absolutely not.

Because you're too pathetic to argue your point?

Even though I know you people won't read them, here are more sources: Here (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/pdfs/02_11_06_surveillance.pdf), here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jan/28/terrorism.humanrights1), here (http://www.no2id.net/), and here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/global/2008/nov/28/damian-green-arrest-conservatives).

Nope this show the basic police response to large crowds and the expectation of trouble. Couple the two deaths with the amount of people there and you'll see that your rhetoric is more akin to student fervour than to the reality of the situation.

Any deaths are unacceptable when the police initiate the violence. Do not make excuses for murder, please. And yes, this does indeed show the basic police response to large crowds. well done on reciting a fact. For example, the basic response to apostasy in saudi arabia is death.

That doesn't make it a good thing. in both examples.

People should be allowed to protest peacefully without being murdered by the police. people should be able to protest peacefully without being involuntarily detained by the police (see the kettling article which DOES NOT ALLOW people freedom of movement.)

Bwahahahahahahah! So where do you live? The check of it though, you telling me a native Londoner that I live in a police state, yet you do not live here so you have no understanding of what it IS like to live here!

Most Germans living in the Third Reich didn't believe they were living in a police state. This is not to say that the UK is anywhere near as bad as the Third Reich, of course, but that most people living in police states don't even realize it.

Any deaths are unacceptable when the police initiate the violence. Do not make excuses for murder, please. And yes, this does indeed show the basic police response to large crowds. well done on reciting a fact. For example, the basic response to apostasy in saudi arabia is death.

That doesn't make it a good thing. in both examples.

People should be allowed to protest peacefully without being murdered by the police. people should be able to protest peacefully without being involuntarily detained by the police (see the kettling article which DOES NOT ALLOW people freedom of movement.)

Now you see you have used that word Murder twice, but (and to quote a phrase) I do not think that means what you think is does.

Unless the Police Officer knew that by barging that man to the ground it would kill him, then he is not guilty of murder.

Ohhh did you fail to read and undestand what I wrote?

Let me remind you of two things, first of it is important to keep in mind the posts that you have just written to which people may be replying, this is called context.

Secondly, this is what you said:

'This says to me a distinct disproval of people voicing their opinions'

My reply was, no it does not show any sort of disaproval, it merely shows the police response to a large crowd and the expectation of trouble. Got that? Now give me a better response and stick to the argument in hand.

Now you see you have used that word Murder twice, but (and to quote a phrase) I do not think that means what you think is does.

Unless the Police Officer knew that by barging that man to the ground it would kill him, then he is not guilty of murder.

No. You see, when someone beats the crap out of someone they might not INTEND to murder them, but hey, when they're hauled up in court, can you guess what they're charged with? That was assault culminating in death as a direct cause of the assault. That's murder.


Ohhh did you fail to read and undestand what I wrote?


Charming.


Let me remind you of two things, first of it is important to keep in mind the posts that you have just written to which people may be replying, this is called context.

Secondly, this is what you said:

'This says to me a distinct disproval of people voicing their opinions'

My reply was, no it does not show any sort of disaproval, it merely shows the police response to a large crowd and the expectation of trouble. Got that? Now give me a better response and stick to the argument in hand.

First of all, you're a condescending arse. Stop it.

Also, it does show disapproval of people voicing their opinions. By deliberately detaining all of the protesters in a small area and denying the ability to protest effectively by surrounding them with police officers, you make the demonstration look small, and you keep it 'out of the way'. And how do they manage to keep this from boiling over? with the simple threat of 'don't try and leave or we're going to attack you.' This shows that the police and the government don't approve of the protest, and will do anything legally in their power (and illegally, as the assaults were) to minimise the effect of it.

I'd imagine the police were expecting trouble. They were after all, the ones who started it.

hahhahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahaha. haha. hah. hah. hah. no.

Firstly, I get insulted by random members of the public when I go outside for being who I am. So I'm unconvinced that the people are great. The state, so far, allowed me to lose my house, has provided insufficient support for my mental difficulties, renders it nearly impossible to get around the country due to inadequate public transport, and wants to prosecute me for what I get up to in the bedroom consensually. And the quality of life might well be good if you can afford it.
What? Do you have a thing for livestock or children? Those are pretty much the only things I can think of that would get you prosecuted.

No. You see, when someone beats the crap out of someone they might not INTEND to murder them, but hey, when they're hauled up in court, can you guess what they're charged with? That was assault culminating in death as a direct cause of the assault. That's murder.

Well first off in the video I saw, the police officer did not beat the man to crap, he barged him in the back, which sent him spralwing to the pavment. Then in this country the charge would be manslaughter.


First of all, you're a condescending arse. Stop it.

Also, it does show disapproval of people voicing their opinions. By deliberately detaining all of the protesters in a small area and denying the ability to protest effectively by surrounding them with police officers, you make the demonstration look small, and you keep it 'out of the way'. And how do they manage to keep this from boiling over? with the simple threat of 'don't try and leave or we're going to attack you.' This shows that the police and the government don't approve of the protest, and will do anything legally in their power (and illegally, as the assaults were) to minimise the effect of it.

I'd imagine the police were expecting trouble. They were after all, the ones who started it.


Why thank you, but I do try to reply in a manor suiting the poster. Nope I shall not, unless of course you first stop being angsty and a little bit silly?

Did you see the size of the protests(and that's plural BTW)?

Now consider that alongside the size of these Kettleing situations? How many people where kettled in this way, how many of those groups that where kettle had not first had some trouble in there?
Funny you know but when I saw the news I saw no police men braking windows whilst hiding their identiy underneath hoodies and face mask?

But you have not answerd one of my questions, namly where do you live?

What? Do you have a thing for livestock or children? Those are pretty much the only things I can think of that would get you prosecuted.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63

Section 3, subsection 7b.
"an act which results, or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breasts, or genitals."

This is part of the criminal justice and immigration act, which has already gone through.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63

Section 3, subsection 7b.
"an act which results, or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breasts, or genitals."

This is part of the criminal justice and immigration act, which has already gone through.

brb deleting goatse images

Because you're too pathetic to argue your point?


Perhaps we are too afraid to agree with you because they will put us into death camps

Well first off in the video I saw, the police officer did not beat the man to crap, he barged him in the back, which sent him spralwing to the pavment. Then in this country the charge would be manslaughter.

Oh I see, sorry, gods, how silly of me. That's much better.




Why thank you, but I do try to reply in a manor suiting the poster. Nope I shall not, unless of course you first stop being angsty and a little bit silly?

People died and I'm being silly for thinking that the police behaved unacceptably? I'm worried for you. No wonder you can't see a police state if they have to do MORE THAN THAT to be behaving incorrectly.


Did you see the size of the protests(and that's plural BTW)?


Yes I did, and I seen the poor people attending them being crushed together quite inhumanely whilst being detained for several hours. Something that is illegal.


Now consider that alongside the size of these Kettleing situations? How many people where kettled in this way, how many of those groups that where kettle had not first had some trouble in there?
Funny you know but when I saw the news I saw no police men braking windows whilst hiding their identiy underneath hoodies and face mask?

Opportunistic troublemakers are opportunistic. Who says they were attached to the protest in any way. they could have just been stirring trouble for the sake of it. We can tell however when the police were causing trouble and acting illegally, because of the glowy yellow jackets with 'police' wrote on the back.


But you have not answerd one of my questions, namly where do you live?

Britain, and that's all you need to know.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2008/ukpga_20080004_en_9#pt5-pb1-l1g63

Section 3, subsection 7b.
"an act which results, or is likely to result in serious injury to a persons anus, breasts, or genitals."

This is part of the criminal justice and immigration act, which has already gone through.

When laws are passed in this country much much thought goes into it. With such porn images in the act you have provided a link to, it is nigh on impossible to determine whether or not 'Serious Injury' was caused with the consent of the person being injured, and of course causing such injury in and of itself is ileagal. So I'm sure that any resonable person (like yourself?) can easily see why such laws come about?

When laws are passed in this country much much thought goes into it. With such porn images in the act you have provided a link to, it is nigh on impossible to determine whether or not 'Serious Injury' was caused with the consent of the person being injured, and of course causing such injury in and of itself is ileagal. So I'm sure that any resonable person (like yourself?) can easily see why such laws come about?

No. I do not agree. The police can find some real evidence of some real crime before they prosecute anybody. If they can't determine whether any offense took place then they cannot charge somebody for a crime

Oh I see, sorry, gods, how silly of me. That's much better.

No your sillyness is as a result of you seeing one thing and then writing here that you witnessed a differant thing, I call you silly because well that is what you are being.


People died and I'm being silly for thinking that the police behaved unacceptably? I'm worried for you. No wonder you can't see a police state if they have to do MORE THAN THAT to be behaving incorrectly.

No you are silly for the reason above. For the record, I don't actualy belive that kettleing was nor is the beast way to root out and contain trouble, but then I really can't offer an alternative. Can you?


Yes I did, and I seen the poor people attending them being crushed together quite inhumanely whilst being detained for several hours. Something that is illegal.

Opportunistic troublemakers are opportunistic. Who says they were attached to the protest in any way. they could have just been stirring trouble for the sake of it. We can tell however when the police were causing trouble and acting illegally, because of the glowy yellow jackets with 'police' wrote on the back.

How do you suggest that the police root out and contian trouble makers, that yourself admit may not have been part of the 'protest' yet installed them selfs amongst the protesters? Again in this country we have the concept of 'reasonable force' it is legal for a police officer to use such force when and where nessacery.

No. I do not agree. The police can find some real evidence of some real crime before they prosecute anybody. If they can't determine whether any offense took place then they cannot charge somebody for a crime

So then you claim to be unreasonable?

So then you claim to be unreasonable?

You're having a laugh. I'm out, this is boring me.

*waits for the equally tedious claims of superiority*

You're having a laugh. I'm out, this is boring me.

*waits for the equally tedious claims of superiority*

Meh!

When laws are passed in this country much much thought goes into it. With such porn images in the act you have provided a link to, it is nigh on impossible to determine whether or not 'Serious Injury' was caused with the consent of the person being injured, and of course causing such injury in and of itself is ileagal. So I'm sure that any resonable person (like yourself?) can easily see why such laws come about?

Would the same then apply to film set pictures? How can we know that it isn't just make-up?

I'm sure politicians put a lot of thought into things that concern them, but are easily swayed by passionate proposers for things that don't. The offence lies in the act of injury; if consent or not cannot be determined, how is holding the image an offence? How do you know most porn images aren't rape?

(And do stop poisoning the well in your questions, it's really cheap)

See here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2009/mar/25/social-networking-sites-monitored), here (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/4987415/All-travel-plans-to-be-tracked-by-Government.html), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_2005), here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terrorism_Act_2006), here (http://policestate.co.uk/), here (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1173325/I-numb-I-Daughter-blasts-Gestapo-social-services-bundle-mother-86-family-home.html), here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger64.html), and here (http://www.lewrockwell.com/pilger/pilger30.html) for starters.

And you don't find being spied on by security cameras everywhere disturbing at all?
Of course it's disturbing, and IMO wrong. And the death of Ian Tomlinson, the process of 'kettling', the concealment of police identity numbers, and other dodgy police tactics are despicable and unacceptable.

That being said, this is not a totalitarian police state.

An unrepresentative, inegalitarian, exploitative, illiberal, pseudo-democracy it may well be; but the UK is no police state.

Back on topic, a couple of interesting articles from the informative Political Betting (http://politicalbetting.com/), about the possibilities of Alan Johnson, currently Health Secretary, succeeding Brown. I still personally think that Brown won't go until the GE, though some commentators seem to think this is becoming increasingly unlikely and, I suppose, if Labour does particularly badly in the upcoming local and EU elections, Gordo may be forced to go more soon than I expected.

Johnson becomes the favourite to succeed Gord (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/05/johnson-becomes-the-favourite-to-succeed-gord/)

Is Alan the only one with a strategy to fight Dave? (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/05/could-pm-johnson-impede-the-tory-band-wagon/)

And you don't find being spied on by security cameras everywhere disturbing at all?

No, only massive hyperboles disturb me, as well as irritate me. Especially when they are based on fucking sensationalist newspaper stories and clearly non-objective biased websites with an agenda. For every tabloid sensationalism you can give me about Britain, I could give you a 100 others regarding how oppressive the US is. It's not a good basis for an opinion at all.

unrepresentative, inegalitarian, exploitative, illiberal, pseudo-democracy it may well be; but the UK is no police state.

To use these terms, you would have to define them so extremely broadly so as they apply to pretty much every country on earth, except from perhaps Norway, but then probably Norway too.

No. I do not agree. The police can find some real evidence of some real crime before they prosecute anybody. If they can't determine whether any offense took place then they cannot charge somebody for a crime

What an incredibly simplistic, cliché way of looking at an extremely nuanced issue.

To use these terms, you would have to define them so extremely broadly so as they apply to pretty much every country on earth, except from perhaps Norway, but then probably Norway too.
*ponders*

That's no bad thing.

To use these terms, you would have to define them so extremely broadly so as they apply to pretty much every country on earth, except from perhaps Norway, but then probably Norway too.

Oh, I don't know.. I think you could justify most of them..

Unrepresentative?

Possibly.. My MP certainly doesn't represent my concerns in parliament. I had no say in his candiacy nor his election to the house of commons. Those who did vote for him definately didn't have a say when he decided to defect from the Tories to Labour. Besides, how much power to individual MPs have when it comes to the concerns of thier constituants? I'm betting it's not a lot..

Inegalitarian?

Well there are still economic and social classes, women still get paid less than men, gays can't marry and the national minimum wage for under 18s is a few quid lower than everyone elses which concidering the tax increases on alcohol is digraceful!

Although, that's porbably true around most of the world..

Exploitative?

I'm not sure what this means or in what context but my boss definately exploits me!

Lazy bastard..

Illiberal?

Again, I don't know.. It's a context thing I suppose..

Psuedo-Democracy?

I think this is true but only because I have quite high standards. I mean it's all well and good with letting people vote but for it to really work the people have to make the effort. That just doesn't happen and I'm not just talking about the general election. There's a whole machinery involved in the selection of candidates that people are either unaware of or just don't care about. I don't know if it's just me but I think democracy works better if people actually vote..

But anyway, what's so great about Norway?

What an incredibly simplistic, cliché way of looking at an extremely nuanced issue.

And with absolutely no alternative shown, either. Show me why the government needs to make such images illegal, and you might have the beginnings of a point.

Because you're too pathetic to argue your point?
No, just because I don't mind those things. I abide the law, and I have nothing to fear from it. I don't really care about security cameras in public. You get all uppity about that shit if you want, but there are more important things in life.

Back on topic, a couple of interesting articles from the informative Political Betting (http://politicalbetting.com/), about the possibilities of Alan Johnson, currently Health Secretary, succeeding Brown. I still personally think that Brown won't go until the GE, though some commentators seem to think this is becoming increasingly unlikely and, I suppose, if Labour does particularly badly in the upcoming local and EU elections, Gordo may be forced to go more soon than I expected.

Johnson becomes the favourite to succeed Gord (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/05/johnson-becomes-the-favourite-to-succeed-gord/)

Is Alan the only one with a strategy to fight Dave? (http://politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2009/05/05/could-pm-johnson-impede-the-tory-band-wagon/)

Ooh, a mention of my second home.

OT: The Labour constitution makes it tricky to force out a sitting PM. Iirc it can only happen once a year at conference and requires assent by various different constituencies within the labour party. It's a tricky business. Even moreso given the backstage machinations about gaining nominations/forms etc.

Of course it's disturbing, and IMO wrong. And the death of Ian Tomlinson, the process of 'kettling', the concealment of police identity numbers, and other dodgy police tactics are despicable and unacceptable.

That being said, this is not a totalitarian police state.

An unrepresentative, inegalitarian, exploitative, illiberal, pseudo-democracy it may well be; but the UK is no police state.

It's not totalitarian, but it is a police state.

No, only massive hyperboles disturb me, as well as irritate me. Especially when they are based on fucking sensationalist newspaper stories and clearly non-objective biased websites with an agenda. For every tabloid sensationalism you can give me about Britain, I could give you a 100 others regarding how oppressive the US is. It's not a good basis for an opinion at all.

The U.S. isn't much better, if at all.

It's not totalitarian, but it is a police state.

You keep using that phrase. I do not think it means what you think it means