[Politics] Sense of security, my pockets jingling.

[davywavy]

About ten years ago now, I was going out with a girl who worked as an account manager for one of the larger advertising agencies. Despite nice job with plenty of perks, something she used to do was claim to be working class; as you can imagine, this would wind me up something rotten. With the possible exception of PR, I would say, there is no more middle class profession than advertising. However, this didn't win her round because her grandad had been a miner and so she felt justified in 'remembering where she came from'.

As I was galumphing painfully round the track in Battersea Park last night (no fun at all - you try running 5K with a nasty head cold), it struck me that it was recognising that self-classification which was one of Tony Blair's best ever political insights. I may be no fan of Blair, but I do recognise him as one of the sharpest operators we've seen in a good long while and at some point he must have had an insight into the nature of who 'the workers' really are.
Traditionally, the view of 'the workers' has been one of horny-handed sons of toil, digging things up or making things. However, it struck me just how much that has changed - a better, modern definition of 'the workers' would now be 'those people who provide goods and services on a taxable wage in a competitive environment'. And that was Tony's stroke of genius; recognising that the people he needed to win over were the middle classes, and that the way to do that was to convince them that Labour were 'a safe pair of hands' with the economy.
It was odd, therefore, to watch the pre-budget report yesterday as Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling undid Tony's vision and in so doing guaranteed losing the next election. I hadn't been certain before that they were going down in flames, but now I am, as the middle classes - which is most people in employment, these days - aren't going to take kindly to the plans outlined. It's them who pay the taxes to fund the government as the rich don't pay tax unless they really feel like it (as my accountant says: if you're earning over £100,000 a year, paying tax over 20% on that is largely voluntary) and so gestures like raising tax on incomes over £150,000 are a sop to the press rather than a meaningful income generator. Corporation taxes, once again, are just a way of taking money from the consumer (studies show that the people who pay cororation tax are ultimately employees, in the form of lower wages, customers, as higher prices, and shareholders, as lower dividends) and the largest consumer group in the country are...the middle class so well wooed by Tony, who are now going to see higher (unavoidable) tax rates, higher prices, and an even lower return on their pension funds.

A few months ago, whiskeylover and silver_blue, amongst others, were kind enough to take a wager with me on the outcome of the US presidential elections (they bet on McCain); I was wondering if anyone would care to make a bet on the outcome of the next UK general elections? We're two years away yet, but I reckon it's a done deal. Anyone want to take an outside punt on Labour?

Comments

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Both are fair, and both are things I agree with

What are? Keeping or reforming? You're a bit imprecise here.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

Ahh right, sorry, both of your comments are fair.

I like the House of Lords as it is, thank you - at least at the moment. There is a part of me which would like it to be a little more representative, but it does a good job - and as we're not a democracy, and it works, I don't see a good reason to mess with it.

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

So long as executive power is vested in the hands of the people, I have no problem whatsoever with the checks and balances not being; neither the Queen nor the Lords can make legislation, but they can stop it if they think the case for doing so is strong enough. If anything I'd look at repealing the Parliament Act.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

Repealing, or revising?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I'd repeal the bit whereby the Commons can force legislation through the Lords when it's been rejected.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

Yeah, thats a good call I think.

Though by the same measure, doesn't there need to be a way of getting legistlation passed if its needed and the Lords are blocking it, doesn't there?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I think that depands on what you mean by 'needed legislation'. The only use of the Parliament Act this century was to force through the Hunting Act 2004. They also threatened to use the act to force through an immediate introduction of compulsory ID cards if the Lords didn't agree to the compromise of slower introduction rather than outright rejection.
I don't see that being in any way essential legislation to the social fabric of the nation.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

In both cases i'd agree - but I can imagine there *could* be a need for some sort of legislation that was needed which the Lords was refusing, I can't imagine any details, but I can imagine it happening.

Perhaps some way of Her Maj. overruling the Lords? Or something?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I thought her Maj, constitutionally, could - she just doesn't for obvious reasons.
As one poster below notes - if she told the Household Cavalry to take No. 10 by force and shoot Brown in the head, do you think they woudn't? This is why I like having a monarch; no effective political power by plenty of potential power if things ever get out of hand.

What odds?

[(Anonymous)]

Let's see, she'd need to hold 10 Downing St., the Houses of Parliament, the Bank of England, Heathrow and the B.B.C. Would 3 out of 5 do it? I see an opening for a British edition of Junta here.

BTW what odds are you offering against Broon pulling it off if he bribes the electorate shamelessly enough? I have Five Yankee Dollar if they are good odds.

D

Re: What odds?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Well, the way he's going with the value of the £, that's probably going to be worth £10 in two years time...

Re: What odds?

[(Anonymous)]

If you're giving better than 7/2, put me down for a fiver.

Re: What odds?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

Odds are evens unless specifically stated.

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

I honestly don't know - if their company officers gave the order then I suspect so (same with the Guards who might well be providing the protection), however, there aren't so many of them in London proper at any one time - and I've a suspicion that the company officers wouldn't be as up for it as one might think.

After all, thats a heck of a step to order, and a bigger one to take!

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

One feels that if we were in a position where she ever felt the need to give an order like that, the company officers would probably be broadly sympathetic! :)

[riksowden.livejournal.com]

Well, yes, there IS that.

Prince Phil you could kinda go "well, he was drunk and ranting" but not Her Maj, nor Prince Charles either for that matter!

[(Anonymous)]

Oh I agree, it would be a wholly unlikely scenario. But just as a laugh how about this?:
British forces are in...oh I dunno, say Kossovo as peacekeepers. The Russkies want a peace of the action so launch the Desantniki into Pristina airport. The Yank General in overall command...let's call him General Clark, orders the Brit general to go in and engage the Russians. The Brit, call him Sir Mike, says "F off, I'm not about to start WW III". But the British P.M. sees his place in history and tells him to do what the Americans say.

The Cabinet are spineless as usual. MI6 tell Sir Gus O'Donnell that the Russkies are serious, he backchannels to Hague and Cable (ignoring the pretty boy figureheads who will do as they are told). The loyal opposition will support her Maj. Sir Gus has a chat with Sir Christopher Geidt and the C.D.S. They all have a chat with the P.M. (At this point in reality the P.M. resigns). The P.M. won't resign, he can carry his Party with him and he is on a mission from God. Brenda says do it.

The Cowboys pop a cap in his head. Job done.

D

[(Anonymous)]

As far as the Lords are concerned, once the decision to get rid of the Hereditaries had been taken there were only two realistic choices: Elective (hopefully for fixed terms, perhaps on a Regional basis like the U.S. Senate) or the present Appointee. The problem with the latter is that it does provide a huge system of Patronage to the three main party leaders. It would be lovely to have a House appointed by Posts held outside politics (Vice Chancellors, a smattering of Religious plus Dawkins, the Law Lords, Chairmen of the TUC & CBI etc) but what politician is going to surrender the power they now hold?

As far as the Prerogative is concerned, Her Maj. does not exercise it, the P.M. does; so what may appear as a back stop control on the Executive is simply another means of wielding power without debate - and there have been an awful lot of Orders in Council recently.

If Brenda really has to dump Gordo, and she tells the Guards and the Knightsbridge Cowboys to storm 10 Downing St. they will. Their officers were at Eton after all (not that we a are a Class based society anymore). It would be the end of the Monarchy of course.

D

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

TBH, I don't think we should ahve got rid of the hereditaries; it seems that the appointees ahve been doing a pretty solid job so far though. Why change something that works?

[davywavy.livejournal.com]

I can't see another medium for party political politics being a good thing, overall.