Sunny, agreed.

This article may be of interest:

Sir Stephen, a former head of MI5, said: “The brainboxes in the Home Office have been putting together a sort of harm model. It articulates the harm that is caused to the UK under a number of headings – the rewards taken and made by the criminal, the social and economical harm to the UK, the institutional harm, and tries to put a cost. It also brings into play judgements about the degree of public concern – and they have a proxy for this which is the amount of column inches in the press. It is pretty rough and ready but it is asking the right questions. It is asking not what is the incidence of something, but what is its impact.”

(my emphasis in bold)

Actually, it is right to blame the government. After all, there are also lots of columnists, writers, bloggers, campaigners etc who are strongly opposed to the Government’s assault on civil liberties. The Government has chosen which group to listen to and which group to ignore, and it is responsible for that choice.

John Rentoul, as per this:

http://johnrentoul.independentminds.livejournal.com/24421.html

Who do you think is also to blame? I’ll start with the easy ones: Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray.

Yeah I’ll go with that, two easy targets, both about as loony as each other.

Yup, they’re lousy, but I wouldn’t spread the net too wide and blame Islamophobes for the curtailment of civil liberties, for fear of letting this Govt off the hook: New Labour have screwed civ libs in all kinds of fields, suppressing the rights of privacy, freedom of speech and of peaceful protest in a whole host of areas completely unconnected to Islamist terrorism,

Thatcher. Thatcher is the root of all evil, even now.

And Paul Dacre.

I’m with Iain. The buck stops with the government, and perhaps more pointedly at those in the Labour party (and on the opposition benches too in some instances) that abandoned principles in favour of fear. You can blame the Mail or the Sun but it isn’t like there weren’t others shouting loudly too about the issues from the other side.

Sunny said others as well as the Government are to blame.

The government are the only ones with the power to make the change (well, parliament anyway). They didn’t need to write the legislation that threw away our rights, and I certainly don’t remember papers specifically calling for the raft of measures that have ensued.

People, papers, think-tanks…they should be ashamed for their influence in the matter, but there is no-one else to blame for the state we’re in. Next thing this leads to is the people being to blame for voting for them in the first place…it’s a fallacy, this government…the Labour Party… has always been (though perhaps less since the last election) too much in control to be able to shift any of that blame away from themselves.

Islamic terrorists have murdered people in this country and no doubt are planning to do so again.
50 young people have been murdered in London over the last 2 years. The problem with preventing crime is that all sorts of measures are required to be successfully implemented , often in the correct order, over several years. What this government does is implement knee jerk laws which restrict peoples freedoms without reducing the threat of crime. This is in part because of the politicians lack of experience. When D Healey was Secreatry of State for Defence 1964-1970, he joked that he spent the first 2 years making mistakes, the next 2 years rectifying the mistakes and the last 2 years doing something effective. When the RAF wanted to bomb the Indonesians during the Borneo campaign he refused as this would escalate the situation. Instead Special Forces , Marines, Paras and local inhabitants were used in relatively discreet manner.

The problem is that the Labour Party has no politician with relevant experience for being Home Secretary. The advantage of people like W.Whitelaw ,a former Guards officer who won the MC ,as a Home Secretary is that they tend not to over react. Having politicians like Whitelaw or Healey as Defence and Home Secretaries is that they do not have to pretend to be tough . However, on the rare circumstances when force is needed; they can often move quickly, discreetly and effectively; extinguishing the smouldering material before it bursts into flames and and the fire spreads.

These laws to prevent terrorism have come about because of the rise of threats from Muslim radicals which first appeared in Europe( mainly France due to their connection with Algeria) in the early 1990s. The French warned Britain about Abu Hamza in the mid 1990s but was ignored. Rimington closed down the joint MI5/MI6 working party on Muslim radicals in the 1990s. Many people running mosques reported their concerns to the authorities about the infiltration from radicals but were ignored. For example, those running Finsbury Mosque asked the Police to remove Abu Hamza in 1997 after he had used bully boy methods to take it over, but they were ignored. There were people working in inner city areas who told me about their alarm in the increase in violent street crime in 2001 but were apparently ignored until 2005-2006 by which time it significantly increased.

Basically the Labour policy is do nothing, ignore warnings, allow minor problem to escalate dramatically and then introduce legislation to try to remedy their past incompetence but which in actual fact, makes the situation far worse. It is like dealing with a fire; the correct extinguisher has to be used- using water on an electrical fire is not a good idea.

Our Lords and Masters make these repressive laws, not the papers, not the bloggers not even the wingnuts.

Labour is responsbile for their own legislation. Trying to spread the blame around will not get rid of that fact.

Excellent post by Charlie, and ties in with one of the worst aspects of New Labour:they’ve signalled the fullest implementation to date of managerialism by career politicos, all of whom lack relevant experience. Impose a system from above, ignoring the views of those at the coal-face or grass-roots, and try and mould the world to fit your theory-derived system. When it doesn’t, and people dissent, disagree, or just don’t comply, then the gloves come off.
The disconnect is frightening, and pace Sunny’s attempt to widen the pool of the blameworthy, it’s entirely New Lab’s fault that they chose to listen to the Mail/Sun editorialists and their own ignorant blinkered cliques instead of attempting to gain a fuller picture. Much talk was made of evidenc-based policy, but instead we’ve had policy-based evidence making, and attempting to shoehorn the nation into New lab ways, rather than meeting the nation’s needs.

Are they to blame for the banking crisis and knife crime too?

There are plenty of Islamists under the bed – many of whom are a threat.

That does not justify the attack on liberty we have seen.

It is possible to believe both those things you know.

The problem with Mel and Doug is that they’re both, well, nutters. We expect them to be nutters. If they didn’t exist, we’d have to invent them so that we had some idea of just how wrong it’s possible to be.

The government, on the other hand, really isn’t meant to act like that.

The government has ignored advice whenever it felt like – their reefer madness approach to cannabis being a prime example – so this all down to them chosing who to listen to.

Islamic aggression deniers only add to the suspicion . The British people are perfectly capable of being threatened without giving up Liberties unreasonably . Of course if the Muslims stopped trying to kill us there would not be problem so I think they might get a teeny inclusion in the list if culprits don’t you ?

Oh no lets just blame the Daily Mail genius !

“Who do you think is also to blame? I’ll start with the easy ones: Melanie Phillips and Douglas Murray.”

May I remind you of another of your posts.

“The right-wing blogosphere is full of vindictive tossers who spend all their time screeching, shouting and generally publishing rubbish.”

Substance free. Check
Ad hominem attacks. Check
Arrogant superiority. Check

Yup. Liberal blogging at its best.

“[A] prince who is not wise himself will never take good advice… Therefore it must be inferred that good counsels, whencesoever they come, are born of the wisdom of the prince, and not the wisdom of the prince from good counsels. ”

- Machiavelli, The Prince, chapter 23

I’d rather just be left to live my life without unnecessary restriction from the authorities.

I’m happy to take my chances with the suicide bombers.

In newspaper terms it has to be the Sun and Daily Mail, if they both ran out of ink and paper I trust that suppliers will not aid these terrorist organisations!

See, I don’t buy the view that New labour alone is to blame because I know for a fact they’re influenced by the media and the noise they hear around them.

I’ve not absolved them of blame, I’m asking who else is also part of the nexus. We’re underestimating the extent to which they’re influenced from outside…which perhaps reflects on why the left has generally been so shit in making itself heard over the last 5 years – we think it makes no difference so we don’t bother.

There is a point made in all this CC, even if you’ve cruised by it. This isn’t mindless outrage over the Politically Correct Thought Police, as is typical of many I mentioned earlier.

They seemed quite capable of ignoring a million people marching against the invasion of Iraq. And they can’t ignore Melanie Phillips?

Yup. Liberal blogging at its best.

Whatever.

Party politics is all about throwing the same tired accusations at each other. Why would political blogging be any different? Get a grip.

What I find interesting is that from a purely political advantage standpoint, the position the govt has taken is of no benefit to them at all. They have pissed off their natural supporters , and yet, at the same time curry no favour of any meaning with their opponents. So you get the ridiculous situation of one of the most reactionary neo con newspapers, The Daily Telegraph, using Rimmington’s comments to bash the govt over the issue of civil liberties, hilarious.

We are not governed by either Labour or Conservative on issues of the police or civil liberties. . We are governed by Right wing newspapers, and neo fascist , right wing, pro Zionist proprietors and columnists, which the parties are terrified of. Blair’s entire time as Prime Minister was governed by abject fear of the tabloid press. He had watched for 20 years as the Labour party had been branded as weak and loony left, and so New Labour is the result of the Tory tabloids total destruction of the Labour party. He was their creation. The real reason we went to war in Iraq was his total fear of Murdoch and the right wing press.

Terrorism is the new catch all excuse to tear down every right that has been hard won over the last 100 years.

“Labour is responsbile for their own legislation. Trying to spread the blame around will not get rid of that fact.”

Which just shows how little you understand of ‘real world’ polictics. Without the tabloids, Labour would not have been elected at all..

Sally, surely if, as you seem to be suggesting, Labour are so weak that they can’t legislate responsibly away from the tabloid press then they’re simply a bad government and deserve an end made of them as soon as possible. It’s not good enough. Blaming the tabloids for showing up Labour’s weakness is classic messenger shooting. Governments are not supposed to be in hock to Rupert Murdoch any more than they are supposed to be in hock to banks, big business or foreign governments.

Governments are not supposed to be in hock to Rupert Murdoch any more than they are supposed to be in hock to banks, big business or foreign governments.

Yes, but reality doesn’t quite work like that does it? In fact, if government weren’t supposed to listen to people or groups or commentators, then what would be the point of making FB groups about MPs expenses, or having think-tanks or lobby groups or even cash-for-questions?

The problem isn’t (to my mind) that these people get influenced from the outside. The problem is that we – those on the liberal left – aren’t able to make an impact sufficiently loudly enough.

They seemed quite capable of ignoring a million people marching against the invasion of Iraq. And they can’t ignore Melanie Phillips?

Well, she is read by more people (unfortunately) and she keeps repeating herself constantly, as do others in her circle, so it does end up having a drip-drip effect that the million people march alone did not.

And besides, Tony Blair was a stubborn tosser in thrall to Bush.

Sunny, you’re far too kind to ‘em: this Govt has wilfully turned a deaf ear to opinions it doesn’t like from the masses, but will pick up on every whisper and whimper from some quarters (ACPO being one, certain think-tanks another,a certain caste of bankers-Freud, Goodwin,Wanless etc). It could face ‘em down, the chance was there, as back in ’97 the tories were so hated, that lab had a blank canvas, and needn’t have been craven. However, it had sold out, didn’t know any principles apart from power and the wielding of it, so looked only to the powerful for tips.

So its Bush’s fault?

The reason the liberal left has failed to influence New Labour is that New Labour is neither ‘liberal’ nor ‘left’.

You aren’t speaking the same language.

The media simply tells Lew Labour what it wants to hear: that the British public has gone to hell and needs a firm hand.

Sunny

I got your point. But alarmism isn’t just a tactic of the right. Whether it’s Obama’s approach to passing the stimulus, the environmentalist’s approach to AGW or the left’s race-baiting approach to so called institutional racism. Alarmist rhetoric can hurt different groups. Yes, moderate islam is damaged by badly aimed rhetorical attacks on islamofascism. How is that different than the lumping together of all policemen as racist for example. Prejudice is unworthy, political prejudice included.

My point was, you can hardly claim to be superior when your level of discourse consists of “vindictive tossers”. Yours is a better site than that, even though you’re all a bunch of pinko wet moonbat liberals.

The Sun has certainly pursued a slavishly authoritarian line but I have the impression that the government has actually gone too far even for the Daily Mail in occasions, although it might just be a case of its anti-Labour prejudice outweighing its authoritarian tendencies.

I actually think a lot of the blame lies with relatively moderate Labour-supporting commentators (including bloggers) who have given the government a way too easy ride over this, and theirs are the voices that could have got the government’s attention and made a difference. Rentoul is a prime example. Because a lot of the opponents of the government’s illiberal laws have been the New-Labour-sceptic left and the libertarian right they have been more interested in partisan point scoring than in seriously looking at what the government has been doing. And I just don’t think that for them civil liberties are a big issue anyway.

Iain, well quoted.

It is interesting, is it not, that MI5 seems to be more worried about civil liberties than our left-of-centre government? Not sure what to make of that.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/lawandorder/4643415/Spy-chief-We-risk-a-police-state.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/former-head-of-mi5-says-42day-detention-plan-is-unworkable-862947.html

Rightwing papers will always say reds/muslims/whatever are under your bed and ready to murder you, but no-one makes a labour goverment listen to them.

So lets look at the people who did say Labour had to listen to them. I’ll start with Alistair Campbell, then go on to all the other major spin doctors.Not Draper because he got out early before the terror scare, but Mandelson is another name.

you’re all a bunch of pinko wet moonbat liberals.

And proud of it

the left’s race-baiting approach to so called institutional racism

not sure what you’re referring to here – that racism doesn’t exist or you don’t like people on the left raising it and getting angry over it. My point wasn’t that alarmism itself is wrong – but its somewhat annoying when it’s truly pointless. That ‘controversy’ when Iain Dale, Dizzy and Guido thought they’d spotted a govt logo like the Swastika was a good example of such stupidity.

Andrew: I actually think a lot of the blame lies with relatively moderate Labour-supporting commentators (including bloggers) who have given the government a way too easy ride over this, and theirs are the voices that could have got the government’s attention and made a difference. Rentoul is a prime example.

Agreed.

Alisdair: this Govt has wilfully turned a deaf ear to opinions it doesn’t like from the masses, but will pick up on every whisper and whimper from some quarters

See, I do think its also our fault. As Sunder Katwala points out in his post about Beatrice Webb – the only way the liberal left see their agenda progress is by building mass-movements and sustaining them. Have we done that? No. We’ve in fact failed miserably to figure out what sort of an agenda we want to see and build mass movements to make any progress on them. The last one got overrun by the SWP and is owned by bloody George Galloway.

The biggest guilty parties, after the right wing tabloids is the back bench Labour MPS. Once again Parliament has shown that it is completely unable to call the executive to account. Just in the same way that the Tory back benches, with huge majorities in the 80s and 90s failed to call account of their out of control executive. And as we all know, it ended in a Tory meltdown in 1997. The same looks like happening to New Labour.

Every time I hear some pompous politician droning on about the mother of parliament, and the wonders of that institution I just want throw up. Party politics trumps everything. When Labour loose the next election, and a lot of Labour MPS lose their seats they will blame Brown, but they are responsible for electing Brown, and closing down any chance of a real contest when Blair left office.

Sunny, you are wasting your time with Conservative Cabbie. He is just another version of newmainia.

Alix “surely if, as you seem to be suggesting, Labour are so weak that they can’t legislate responsibly away from the tabloid press then they’re simply a bad government and deserve an end made of them as soon as possible. It’s not good enough. ”

Go and ask John Major what he thinks of the tabloids. I understand he is still bitter today about the covergae he got. Thatcher got great coverage because you she was a right wing nut case which became more obvious the longer she stayed in power.

@ Sunny “the only way the liberal left see their agenda progress is by building mass-movements and sustaining them. Have we done that? No2
D’you know what part of the problem may be? That sensible, liberal, open-minded but still moral lines, as i’d say favoured by most on this site, and (when they think about things and ramifications), an awfully big number of people aren’t that politically ‘sexy’: they don’t require grand sweeping schemes, are a bit mundane, not hugely headline-catching, nor suited to simplistic slogans and broad-brushstrokes. It’s easy to work up a head of steam by using gross generalisations and glossing over the details which usually make things less black-and-white. I’d argue the British mindset is more one of moderation, compromise and muddle-through,streaked through with individualism, and needs decent administrators far more than leaders, but we have a cadre of politicians who love nothing more than appearing to lead from the from, and far too many managerialists who fail to appreciate that a sign of good management is that’s it’s barely noticeable-it shouldn’t be intrusive, or seek to upend things every couple of years with yet another tedious trend-driven vogueish idea: witness business leaders, council and NHS trust chief execs etc all desperate to be seen to make their mark (egoistically) rather than quietly keep things ticking over. Thus New Labour cannot tighten up on a few laws as a response to terror threats, they have to wholesale throw the bloody baby out with the bathwater,cannot let the NHS work towards gentle relevant record-sharing, because it’s got to be a BIG policy, a BIG programme, which they have to control. Egos over competence and proportion.

I think the problem with left activists influencing Labour is much simpler. Labour can commit whatever apalling, repressive, criminal, murderous abominations it wants while in power, then come election time it just has to go “woooo, Tories!” and these sensitive, concerned left-liberals fall dutifully into line and vote Labour again. Why on Earth should Labour bother listening to them?

As for why Labour behaves the way ot does while in power, the most parsimonious explanation is that it does these things because it wants to. Take ID cards (and the national ID database) for example. For years these were a solution looking for a problem. They were on Labour’s agenda from an early stage, and no one was clamouring for them. Indeed, if you want to see this Government’s attitude laid out bare, go and look at the transcripts of the Home Affairs Select Committee when they were taking evidence on ID cards. All sorts of experts, campaigning groups and all the rest were called to give evidence. All were against the scheme, with only two exceptions. The police were sort of in favour, but only if it was made compulsory to carry the ID card. The other group in favour were the large IT contractors who hoped to gain the contracts. There were no “ID Cards Now!” campaigns, no popular demand for them. Labour did it because Labour wanted to do it.

I thought you liked the SWP?

. I have been reading a collection of essays by those concerned to break the cycle of Conservative decline just prior to Cameron` election. It was published by the Bow group . This would be instructive for anyone genuinely wishing to save the Labour Party from what begins to look like the end (See MORI , 48% Con 28% Lab.and that’s a pro Labour poll usually )
What strikes me about this wailing and gnashing of teeth is that it all starts from the wrong place . In this post , behind the feeble attempt to blame the Daily Mail for Labour authoritarianism , there seems to be some realisation that Labour have deeper problems than they have yet admitted . …

“- the only way the liberal left see their agenda progress is by building mass-movements and sustaining them. Have we done that? No. We’ve in fact failed miserably to figure out what sort of an agenda we want to see and build mass movements to make any progress on them. …”

The state of denial is forgivable .The Conservative Party went with immigration and super-bugs and flat lined in their safety zoned for about nine years . New Labour have a better excuse .All the fun and excitement of prancing around being a world leader ,( are all ends the same I wonder) , has caused an amnesia to set in about the extent of their unpopularity before the economy imploded , remember ? . Its early days as well and an election defeat may be needed for the grim truth to register . Conservatives needed two
The Bow group contributors , and others in the Conservative Party close to Cameron . went through the evidence .They drew on sophisticated marketing techniques of course but at heart it was ‘listening’ and formed the basis of most of what Cameron has done since it has bee central to forming the ‘message’ .
That’s the first thing \Labour have to do , “Start listening “. Blaming the press has its mirror with Conservatives , with much more reason , blaming the BBC , eventually this is barren . Stop leaping from foot to foot like Rumplestitskin shouting at everyone and open your ears . At the moment there is still the inevitable Cinderella fantasy , if they only understood who we are they would love us . No , they know who you are and they do not like you. Having done that , then carry the Party….

What Cameron managed to do was find the intellectual resources in the Party to make and direction seem ~”Conservative “ That’s the other half of the equation. He emphasised the quietists , moderate , conserving side of the Party , the suspicion of dogma and much more to marginalize doctrinaire Thatcherites . Labour have to play the same game. Labour needs to ditch socialism finally and irrevocably . I would look at emphasising the tradition of self improvement , traditional working class values and municipal low level government . You need a Purnell that’s sounds and looks like Alan Johnson , new ideas that sound old . Forget trying to transplant Sweden into Britain , it has to be a British story , not in the odiously fake Brown manner but drawing on real British resources

That’s my idea anyway , I would imagine there was much to learn from Obamah Sunny . Its not just rats that leave a sinking ship ; life boats do as well.

“What Cameron managed to do was find the intellectual resources in the Party to make and direction seem ~”Conservative “ That’s the other half of the equation. He emphasised the quietists , moderate , conserving side of the Party ”

Just like GW Bush did with his compassionate Conservatism.

We all know what he and his buddies really believe, and it is not the green wash nonsense he has been telling us for the last 18 months. Cameron will move far to the right if he wins the next election, just like Bush.

My biggest fear is that the internet will be like alternative comedy in the 80′s: it acts as a safety valve so that we can blow off steam in the evening and then go back to work the next day and continue to do what the government tells us.

I suspect I’d have jacked my job in years ago and told my line managers where to stick their targets if it wasn’t for the internet; as it is I’ll just continue to turn up to work on time, hit a bunch of meaningless targets and do my more effective work when my line manager is not looking.

39. Alisdair Cameron. Thank you for your compliment. Excellent explanation of the sort of politician we need and Clement Attlee fits the bill perfectly with support from Ernie Bevin as his deputy. Attllee was the perfect example of competence over ego. In addition, his war service meant that he was a Labour politician whose patriotism and competence to defend Britain could never be questioned by the Conservatives. Even Thatcher described Attllee as a patriot. When it comes to competence over ego and an ability to earn the respect from across the political spectrum the only people who come to mind are Frank Field, Vince Cable, Paddy Ashdown and Ken Clark. Gwyneth Dunwoody would have been included but alas she is dead.

When it comes to understanding the importance of Labour reconnecting to with the working class, Billy Bragg talks more sense than many Labour supporters.

I think part of the problem is that many people look at our politicians from all parties and think of them as a bunch of non-entities with little or no practical experience. It would be a pleasant surprise for a Labour MP to have actually worked in industry. As for the Conservatives , having a MP who owned and worked a large estate would at least provide some practical experience of management, rather than being like Cameron, whose only work experience is in PR and as a political advisor.

I nominate Ian Blair. The police are too politicised and too comfortable in demanding stronger and stronger powers. And for some reason they’ve got to thinking that their job is no longer to calm the communities they serve, but the opposite, to scare the bejesus out of everyone by writing apocalyptic columns in the Sun, and constantly harping on about how dark the sky is.

That’s a good one Larry, I’d forgotten about the other bloody Blair.

The government are the only ones with the power to make the change (well, parliament anyway). They didn’t need to write the legislation that threw away our rights, and I certainly don’t remember papers specifically calling for the raft of measures that have ensued.

I agree that the Government and its drones bear the ultimate responsibility, but I think it is unreasonable to suggest that outside influence does not or should not affect them.

After all, we don’t complain on the rare occasion that they bow to our demands.

And there have been articles calling for the end to jury trial, for making it easier to convict people suspected of terrorism or rape, to make it easier to deport people to countries where they face a real risk of torture, to locking people up without charge, and so on…

“I agree that the Government and its drones bear the ultimate responsibility, but I think it is unreasonable to suggest that outside influence does not or should not affect them.”

These people all have their part to play, and they should all feel their own sense of responsibility…but the *blame* can only go to those making the decisions and making the orders.

“After all, we don’t complain on the rare occasion that they bow to our demands.”

We are nothing if not hypocritical, if we weren’t we’d sit back and do nothing. You can’t be a government that talks about “being paid to make tough decisions” and then say “oh but you reeeeaaallly wanted us to do it.”

If a kid dies of type 2 diabetes I will not blame the kid for wanting so much candy, I will blame the parent that had the responsibility and the power and chose to ignore that position.

Equally I won’t congratulate the kid for stating they want to become a doctor…until at least they start making decisions for themselves…unfortunately in this country our democracy is such that we cannot make the important decisions for ourselves..we’re never given a referendum or even adequate consultation…so for now there is no power we hold so much that our “parent” isn’t the only one culpable in our developmental direction.

Sunny: “I don’t buy the view that New labour alone is to blame because I know for a fact they’re influenced by the media and the noise they hear around them.”

and if someone told you to jump off a cliff, would you do so? The Labour party decided what legislation to persue and they alone are responsible for doing so. Their listening and consultation exercises have been nothing more than window dressing to support an agenda they already had. Alternatively, if the Labour party so amoral and unprincipled that they bow to the latest headline with no thought beyond keeping their grubby mitts on the levers of power then that again is their failing, not some nebulous group of “others”.

Sally: “Which just shows how little you understand of ‘real world’ polictics. Without the tabloids, Labour would not have been elected at all.”

Which just goes to show how little you understand the tabloids. They follow their readers prejudices more than set them because they want to sell papers. Even if I did lack an understanding of “‘real world’ politics” that would still not alter the fact that Labour are responsible for their own legislation.

Their actions, their responsibility. Even you should be capable of graping that basic truth.

Who do you think is also to blame?

Everyone who continues to support Labour despite their actions. Labour supporters and members should write to the party and their MP saying they withdraw their support until Labour see sense on this issue.

Sunny, are you in love with Melanie Phillips? Did she turn you down for a date once? How can one person have such a vindictive and obsessive hatred for one individual? I could understand maybe, if she was on the Bin Laden scale of evil, but even if you disagree with her, she is not in the least bit aggressive or vindictive, quite unlike yourself.

You are the problem with society. JFK said that let us not focus on what divides us, let us concentrate on what unites us. I, as for example a pro Israel supporter, seek to find agreement with those pro Palestinians who want a two state solution, as that is our common ground.

You though, have a habit of wanting to fight against us. Anything which isn’t your extreme left wing socio-marxist rhetoric is shouted down by yourself. Grow up, you’re supposed to be a ‘respectable’ journalist.

Cabalamat (50): an excellent point. New Labour would not have been able to get away with what they have done without being able to claim a ‘mandate’ and its those of us who have continued to vote them back in who should accept ultimate responsibility.

Shatterface:

If only it were that easy to blame the electorate. With less than 50%, in reality I think it’s less than 75% of the voters actually able to “make a difference” perhaps we should say that it is the Labour voters within the 25% that count in the swing areas? Except that also ignores the promises made by governments that never get fulfilled, and actions taken for which they have no mandate…so…essentially a good proportion of *them* have been conned to some degree, perhaps in to a vote they wouldn’t have gave.

Both of the above, along with the political stagnation and homogenisation New Labour brought also contribute to lower turnout…but then maybe we should blame the disaffected too?

The government, and our political system in general, doesn’t allow people to actually get the government they want or think they’re getting, so I’ll be damned if I can ever agree that the electorate should bare responsibility.