The Ed Miliband Story

dblboggie wrote:In your country, I might not object to that program, I might even understand and support it. I cannot say for sure, as I would need to do a much closer study of it to see if it would or could achieve its stated objective. But I would not object in principle.

So, did your country not have that problem in the late 90s early 00s?

dblboggie wrote:But in the US, such a program would not have a constitutional leg to stand on. Of course, this has done nothing to prevent such programs from being implemented at taxpayer expense. And given the vastness of this country, and the size of its population, it is much harder to say that many of the things our government does with our tax dollars benefits all citizens.

Sorry to be so blunt but if you had such a critical labour shortage, blocking it on the grounds of the Constitution would almost be cutting off your nose to spite your face and could ultimately have been damaging to your economy and your competitiveness in the world market. Yes I know how important it is (or should be) but this is perhaps one of those times when the Constitution might have been counterproductive to society.

Of course Constitution aside the other issue is the size of your country and whether it would even have been necessary or even practical to have a national programme. Because we are less geographically dispersed, it was more efficient to organise it at a national level through the Ministry of Education to attempt to bring a level of standard to what would constitute a basic level of IT skills necessary to the government programme. If each individual council would have been left to their own devices, some might not have implemented it at all, some would have put cost before practicality and with such disparate organisation it might have taken too long and cost more money in the long run with some areas having a better level of training than others.

dblboggie wrote:Now I underlined one sentence above as an illustration of the fundamental differences between peoples thinking in the UK, from peoples thinking in the US. That sentence implies a national sense of collectivism (not in the scary, evil USSR way). It might well be that due to the size of your country and its population, collective efforts directed by the government are seen as good things when executed well. And I would have no objection to that whatsoever.

Of course you must also remember that "England" as a country has existed for 1100 years and the Union has existed for over 300 years. Things have always been this way and while that is no reason not to change when the time is right, we have never really had the parochial idea of a national pride while thinking locally... at least not to that extent and certainly not in the way government would work. Our core institutions have always been about unity, as have our hard won rights and freedoms, and those freedoms are now inextricably linked to one's responsibilities.

The Welsh, the Scots and the Northern Irish sort of have that idea, but that is because they now have a national assembly away from Westminster. The smaller party that I support is calling for an English Parliament and it is a disgrace that there is no such Assembly that deals only with English issues. I don't think it will lead to the break up of the Union but in some ways national attitudes are starting to develop away from a Westminster only based democratic process. If England had its own Assembly, then Westminster would meet only to discuss ideas that affect the entire country (or all four countries as we are four and one in one).

dblboggie wrote:That might well prove to be wrongheaded - though it has worked well for us up till the turn of the 20th century

Nobody ever claimed there was such thing as a perfect political system and if they did they are either lying or are completely naive and have fallen for some blatant propaganda.

dblboggie wrote:The vast majority of American's are not opposed to taxes either, though many object to the way we are taxed. And they are very upset with the way their tax dollars are being abused and wasted in an ever increasing number.

Well I think we are both in agreement there.

dblboggie wrote:Every year, the "I feel your pain" rich Democrats are always out done by the "I eat proletariats for breakfast" rich Republicans, and usually by wide margins.

I am incredibly selective when it comes to charity and I don't mind saying so. Not because I am tight fisted, or because I don't have any money (which I don't anyway having only just found work), I just do not respond to the sort of emotional blackmail that some of them think is acceptable. I give with my head, not with my heart. But that is a debate for another thread.

dblboggie wrote:Interesting. Who were the two previous leaders, and why were they hounded out?

William Hague who I think just tried too hard to seem "one of the lads". After falling to the backbenches for a while he is is now in government as Foreign Secretary. I really quite like the guy but he was the wrong man at the time. I would still like to see him given a fair crack at the whip of PM and he might be when David Cameron decides he has had enough. Ian Duncan Smith was the leader who never took them into an election. He was in charge for two years or so and his only crime seems to be that he was completely devoid of any emotion. A bit bland and he was hastily shoved aside with a vote of no confidence. He is also in government with the role of Secretary of State for Work and Pensions.

dblboggie wrote:By the way, I actually quite liked Thatcher. Did she not do a good job in your opinion? Or are you too young to remember? That was, admittedly, a ways back there.

I was 4 years old when she came to power and 14 when she left. At the time my parents were Tory voters and neither seemed to like her in the slightest but saw her as the only option. And I guess she was for a while considering the turmoil of the 1970s Labour government with strikes galore. She effectively curbed the powers of the Trade Unions and brought a sense of national pride and built a strong economy.

However, she was a radical. A US style Republican that never really went down well with her own party, let alone most of the voting public. She went too far and many blame her for the "me, me, me" attitude so prevalent in society today. Additional fuel came from the Labour government that encouraged people to feel like victims... a deadly cocktail there. Her years as PM were certainly bittersweet looking back. Teachers went on strike over massive education budget cuts and of course the "Community Charge" (Poll Tax) riots.

She did a lot of good, but she also did a lot of damage. I won't be too upset if we never see her kind again.