If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Options
UK Shadow Governments
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
David Cameron has apologised for mistakes his party made on the economy, among them not warning about the extent of the UK's debt crisis.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7942277.stm
The above story got me thinking about how Politics is different in the UK compared to the USA - At every single election in the USA there's always a totally new person from the party NOT in power trying to become the president - and all they have is a campaign team that simply tries to win them their party's nomination and then win them the whitehouse. And it's only then .. if they actually win that they then start to look for the people to fill those roles.
In the UK we have a shadow government in place throughout the 4 years they're not in power - the conservatives have someone in every key role to shadow the person in the Labour party who has that job for real.
Where indeed was this shadow government's warnings over the last few years to warn the party in power and the public of the dangers ahead in the banking system?
If anything I'd say whoever is the shadow party at the time has a even greater responsibility to to steer the UK away from potential dangers. The should be able to see things with great clarity then whoever is in power.
All I ever see them do is wait for the ruling party to make a move and then try and pick fault - but in the role of warning of future dangers surely this is what Shadow governments are all about?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7942277.stm
The above story got me thinking about how Politics is different in the UK compared to the USA - At every single election in the USA there's always a totally new person from the party NOT in power trying to become the president - and all they have is a campaign team that simply tries to win them their party's nomination and then win them the whitehouse. And it's only then .. if they actually win that they then start to look for the people to fill those roles.
In the UK we have a shadow government in place throughout the 4 years they're not in power - the conservatives have someone in every key role to shadow the person in the Labour party who has that job for real.
Where indeed was this shadow government's warnings over the last few years to warn the party in power and the public of the dangers ahead in the banking system?
If anything I'd say whoever is the shadow party at the time has a even greater responsibility to to steer the UK away from potential dangers. The should be able to see things with great clarity then whoever is in power.
All I ever see them do is wait for the ruling party to make a move and then try and pick fault - but in the role of warning of future dangers surely this is what Shadow governments are all about?
0
Comments
If he hadn't known ...there'd be nowt to apologise for would there.
He did know and so did all his ilk ...guilty.
I don't think there's anyone smart enough in politics that has any say that knew what would happen .. but the point is that surely the role of a Shadow government is to look at government policy, see how the country is being run and point out the dangers - otherwise we might as well do things the way the Americans do it and not bother with shadow roles.
Up until now I'd put a lot of blame on the current economic climate on Gordon Brown because he'd been in a position of great economic power for so many years - but I have to say this has made me think about the role of Shadow governments more.
The current Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer - has now been in the role for 4 years - plenty of time over the years to have pointed out the flaws in the governments handling of the economy and to warn people of the upcoming dangers..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_Chancellor_of_the_Exchequer
What has he been doing for the last 4 years?
These days, the boys in the city come from all the classes. While there may be some 'old school tie' nepotism, I don't think its nearly as bad as it was. I think its unfair and shallow to knock Cameron just for his Eton connections. He can't help it that he was born into wealth and was sent to that school.
Take Sir Fred Goodwin - a working class boy, the son of an electrician and the first in his family to ever go to university. If we used him as a shining example of working class, we'd look a bit silly, wouldn't we?
In a rare moment of contrition (sort of) last week, Brown claimed that he admitted to mistakes over the 10p tax debacle. He claimed that he was "hurt" by accusations that he was ignoring the poor. If you believe this, you'll believe anything. Gordon's alleged "hurt" over this issue didn't stop him from lying repeatedly for several months that nobody would lose out from the tax changes he was making. Only when Frank Field and other MPs started asking questions - the job they're paid £60k a year and often far more in expenses to do - did the Treasury admit that millions were due to lose money as a result. A man who was genuinely on the side of the poorest in society would never have abolished the 10p tax band in the first place.
This "apology" nonsense is going to backfire in Cameron's face. He has opened a Pandora's Box which he will now be unable to close. Will he apologise on behalf of Margaret Thatcher for all the people made unemployed during the 1980s under her government, for example? Will he apologise for the Major government not allowing a referendum for the Maastrict Treaty? The list could go on and on forever. He has just handed a propaganda coup to Labour, and they won't let him forget it. And nor should they.
The difference being though ...Cameron has never experienced the reality of everyday life for the majority of the electorate ...nither have the other Eton boys.
The other guy ...has proved he and his family can work hard and win.
I know who I'd rather put my money on.
He has 'never' experienced the reality of every day life? Isn't the recent death of his son a 'reality of every day life'. That's a rather sweeping statement.
And how do you KNOW that he hasn't experienced further realities of life? It's like saying you met a Chav who doesn't work so all Chavs don't work. Its just reverse prejudice that you're inciting. If you are basing your prejudice on Cameron's upbringing, then what's wrong with prejudicing against Chavs?
(And I use the word Chav for the sake of argument before anyone jumps down my throat)
I would hardly say 'win'.