If comment is free, then my comment is that you're a bunch of morons

[the0lady]

 
Seriously. The Grauniad have launched a new section on their website: "A New Politics: Blueprint for Reforming Government". They say this is "in the wake" of the expenses "row".

So let me get this straight. When Alistair Darling was giving away FIFTY BILLION POUNDS of OUR MONEY to a bunch of incompetent, mendacious, infantile, off-with-the-

Comments

[martinoh]

I find very little to disagree with you on here, with the exception that I have absolutely no problem with having a Head of State with little real power and a Premier who can never aspire to be Head of State; it has traditionally maintained a sense of proportion on both sides which is missing in most other systems.

I have to question though your assertion that the Guardian has an "emerging image as a self righteous middle class rag with trendified, fashion-driven ethics". To anyone outside its core readership, it's always had that image, which is not to deny that there's been some damned fine journalism come out of it at times.

[the0lady]

The G is the de facto progressive rag for the same reason that Jon Snow is considered left-wing: because there's nothing to the left of them. So they both effectively demarcate the breadth of the political spectrum in this country, which is its own kind of heartbreaking tragedy when you think about it...

(oh and as for Her Maj, see my response to the Upper House comment below: the rest of the developed world is, surprise surprise, not permanently mired in backstabbing ambition, despite the lack of royalty's civilizing influence)

[martinoh]

You misinterpret my position on the Monarchy, although I'm prepared to put that down to habit. I have never argued that the Monarchy has a general civilising effect and much less that they have anything to offer to day-to-day politics; my assertion was that there have historically been advantages to British premiers feeling uneasy when they overstep their authority, although this premise was rather undermined by Anthony Charles Lynton Blair.

I have some reservations about holding up Hilary Clinton as a shining example of how America has held itself clear of backstabbing ambition, but I think I understand your point.

[worst_witch]

Pluralism in which sense? The political philosophy of pluralism or the political theory of pluralism, I ask out of genuine curiosity, not as a matter of pedantry

[the0lady]

I meant pluralism in the sense that there should be more than one opinion on any given topic in the House. At the moment, we've effectively got a 2 party system; so the only options are a) what the government party wants to do, and b) the opposition opinion. The latter is always that whatever the government party wants to do is crap, so you never get more than one option to choose from on any issue. I'm not sure how you reform that, but getting rid of FPTP is key I think

[worst_witch]

Ok so I'm with you on the pluralism, the House of Commons has become a sham of both main parties seeing who can shout the loudest to be in accordance with what they perceive public opinion to be. And then when they're not doing that the Government is quietly passing the Bills that we really ought to know about with shockingly little opposition from the Opposition