±«Óătv

I am by instinct a Labour voter and as such consider Gordon Brown to be the best option for Prime Minister.

But I am increasingly bewildered by his wanting to "reach out to all parties" so he can use "all the talents" to the "benefit of the country."

Yes, it is important to have a range of talents but the whole nature of politics and the reason we have different political parties is because different people have different political idealogies.

If you do not have good faith in your own party and the people who make up its core, then party politics is not for you - which is fine but means you should voice your views independently, or form a new polticial party with a new idealogy as George Galloway did.

Gordon Brown clearly wants to utilise Tories and Lib Dems for posts which he obviously feels there is no capable Labour politician. This suggests he does not have 100% trust in the minds of the people of his own party.

If there was an election tomorrow, I'd still vote Labour - but I hope Gordon Brown will stop this nonsense of appointing Lib Dems and, especially, Tories to posts which could just as easily be filled by his own like minded Labour politicians.

I can't for the life of me understand why no Labour members are saying this.

I listened to GB on Today this morning, and he still has a long way to go if he wants to convince me that he is interested in a "new kind of politics". John Humphrys asked him several times about whether there would be an election in the autumn, and every time he avoided answering the question.

Does GB not realise that what turns so many people against politicians is the way they are utterly incapable of giving a straight answer to a question? Until they can sort that out, I won't be holding my breath expecting anything to change.

Here we have a man who has had ten years in waiting for the PM job in which to formulate his "new politics" and have them ready to introduce to the public.

What does he do? Try and grab as many Conservatives politicians and their ideas as he can and refuse to answer any questions about his own headlined initiatives.

A king without clothes?

Certainly many of those that he left behind at No. 11 are now coming apart at the seams.

i wonder if this is a genuine move by gordon to try and change the shape of politics. Or, like Robinson said, is it just an attempt to wrongfoot the tories?

...only time will tell i suppose

I think Gordon Brown is his own man and a very good choice as prime minister. We have yet to hear lots more change, probably a change to the Disabled laws which are gravely abused. Give him time, after all, there is no one capable to take over no 10, other than Gordon.

#1
Justin, how can an 'instinctive' Labour supporter vote for Labour these days. They're just Tories by another name! They ALL feed from the same trough! Don't listen to your 'instinct', try using your brain instead!

Dear Nick,

When Gordon Brown first entered politics I was extremely impressed with his knowledge, commitment and apparent integrity, so much so, that I predicted that one day he would become PM.

This morning I watched his speech to the voluntary sector where he called for people to become re-engaged in politics, acknowledging that one of the reasons for this lack of participation was a distrust of politicians.

He hit the nail on the head but unfortunately his record goes before him and until he realises that he is one of the principal reasons that people like me no longer feel they have anyone to represent their views, the situation will never improve.

I am sick and tired of 'professional' politicians trying to defend the indefensible and whilst Gordon Brown and the insufferable Jack Straw and Hazel Blears etc., still refuse to admit that the illegal attack on Iraq was wrong and instead of making feeble excuses about the aftermath etc., apologise totally for their catastrophic failure to hold Blair to account, I and many thousands of others will continue to believe that there are very few politicians worth voting for.

I am getting fed up with Gordon Brown trying to be nice to all people. He should be focusing on running this country and introducing new policies what the public want to hear.Instead he spends all his time looking for new talent from other parties. Just goes to show he has no faith in his own party. Why is he so obsessed with the centre ground.No wonder so many people are fed up with policians and parties,they all keep talking about the same thing..
Voters want a choice when it comes to voting, perhaps that why, d'ont give people a choice, people get so fed up then say, Whats the point they are all the same, keep with the devil you know..Take a look at the french elections earlier this year over 80% voted which was a record, because they had a choice between the candidates on there policies and there ideas - thats what the british people want not all this enlarged centre ground rubbish.

As an American I can see now the precise similarity of Gordon Brown to the now President of the United States George W. Bush.The continuation of the U.S. policies now being expressed internationaly offer Mr Brown a leadership path that is as American as Apple Pie.Business as usual is how we "should be pleased" by our leadership.Gordon Brown is no poodle more like a sidekick.Like kind, like minds.
Peter Dalton
Sarasota Fl.

Hi Nick, A new sort of politics you ask. Well, for a very long time now most keep saying that Westminster should give more power to the people where local decisions are concerned. So one minute we all want more power to the people and at the same time some would argue that this is spin.
We shall see if this is so in the months and years to come.
One thing I am sure of Nick, and that is while one party says that there should be more investment in people, another party is saying that while keeping up with the planned expenditure for the next 3 years there will be no inheritance tax, less income tax less corporate tax. In other words Nick, we have the Tories saying that 2 - 1 = 3. See if you can work that one out Nick! Have a nice day.

I have always doubted in the back of my mind whether our democracy - parties competing for votes.. is a sham.

Clealry under Mrs Thatcher it was not.. Nor under Harold Wilson.

But with the two main political parties agreeing on so much.. Iraq, spending, etc - I wonder is it a sham?

And then we get Opposition MPs advising the Government.

This has all thge hallmarks of government by tacit agreement of the Opposition: not democracy as we know it.

I think he should stop talking about "new politics" and remember the old ones. The Tories have enough supporters without glad handing them, and those that do support them are so economically independant it doesn't matter who does what, but who is looking after those that can't buy a house and struggle daily.

People are fed up with great grandiose revolutions, they just want the obvious things done that you can see if you simply look on the web, and actually spend some serious time with the 25% of the population living in poverty, and the other 25% struggling.

Personally I wouldn't bet too much on labour winning the next election, it seems to me to be more of the same.

Deluded escapism from running a country.

Duncan,

Can you offer me a better alternative to voting for Labour? I don't think so.

I am not a member of the Labour Party but I do think that the modern Labour party is the best option for the country.

To rephrase my earlier statement, I am by instinct a NEW Labour voter and am glad that the party has evolved from the joke run by Neil Kinnock.

Please use your brain and heed my earlier advice: form a new "old Labour" party if you don't agree with the idealogy of the present one.

I for one welcome GB's attempt to appoint talent from all parties to get the job done. I would like to think that it is not lack of faith in his own party that is the underlying factor in his decisions. I hope it is a desire to show that the posts these non-labour people are being appointed to are for the sake of distancing the job from political point scoring. In my humble opinion, UK politics is more about style, with very little substance.

In an ideal world, and especially in a democratic government, a person would be appointed to a post because they are passionate and knowledgeable about the task and would be the best person for the job, not because they sit with the right group of people. ALL MP's have been voted into the commons after all.

I just hope GB's tactics are not for the sake of publicity.

Committees, juries, commissions, advisers - sooner rather than later PM Brown has actually to do something rather than set up something to talk about it.

Nick

Brown is deeply cynical and sinister. His sole prupose is to undermine the opposition. His talk of "all the talents" and "Citizens' Juries" are redolent of one party states where enemies of the state, aka the party, are enemies of the people.

Orwell would have been fascinated to observe the New Labour project.

Citizen juries? Argh! Not again. I thought we already had them - Members of parliament...and Lords come to that. Focus groups on steroids. Argh again.

Hmm...GB is not that stupid. Perhaps this is not an idea of what to implement so much as a way of wrong-footing the Tories. He seems to be a lot better at that than was expected...

Nick,
Good to see you are not taken in by Brown's antics. This man will do anything for power including trying to destroy any opposition to his party and their ruinous policies. We have seen his version of politics for ten years with his stealth taxes and his craving to replace Blair. This leopard will never change his spots and anyone thinking otherwise is just another lamb to the slaughter.

As I posted on the previous page about Labour recruitment, the talk about October elections is just hot air.

The aiming to bring in Tories does have a precedent under Blair, when Brown was Chancellor. Michael Mates was brought in to assist the government with something. He then walked out saying that the government would not listen to reason. Brown has said he is the personification of substance, the only thing he has done so far is weakly try to use the same strategy of big tents and involving the opposition in decisions.

It does not impress me that Brown has planned for No.10 for so many years and then has to ask the opposition for help. The Labour party smacks of intellectual Bankruptcy under Brown and a tendency to flip flop and blur on all the issues. It seems to me that the government despite a descent working majority is dependent on the opposition as Trident and Educational votes in the House of Commons have demonstrated.

If the government has a substance filled agenda, surely it should put it before the House of Commons and let MP’s decide. Not pervert the political system and try and share blame when things go wrong. The PM is showing he cannot shoulder responsibility alone here and I can only assume that this is the alleged psychological flaw that a No. 10 insider once referred too.

The failure of Brown to take responsibility and blame has eluded Mr Brown from the first week he walked into government. Whilst the Bank of England independence was a good move, it was one he actually opposed in the early 1990’s – so much for consensus politics! I think the real motive for Bank of England Independence was to pass the buck if things went wrong. Again one of the first actions as PM was Brown saying that MP’s would decide on dissolutions and future deployments of troops. Again passing the buck as he ultimately advises and advocates a course of action anyway. It is part of the job as being PM.

So the PM has used gimmicks and cheap publicity to try and spin his way out of accepting the real challenges the British people face today. People are not stupid and utilising Blue Ties and Blue backgrounds does nothing to persuade me of his past or present inclination in politics! If anything the blue reminds me as an English voter of his base (Scotland and it’s flag) and the inequality of power in electing an English government in contrast to the Scottish government an elector their can choose.

From the Comments I have read, it would seem that most folks are sick to death with politics and polticians. If GB does call a snap Election, they could perhaps seek solace in voting for the only Party that seems to be gaining in strength with each passing Election. I refer of course, to the Apathy Party. Suppose no one voted for anyone?. The imagination soars. Former MP's would be out of cushy, lucrative jobs. The more astute among them would speedily sell off their Westminster pads and leg it for Spain, while the dullards formed an endless queue to sign on for Jobseeksrs Allowance. GB would look grimmer than usual, and Lakshmi Mittal start eyeing up Buckingham Palace. Terry Leahy could take over England and run it at a profit. Come to think of it, a vote is a very powerful instrument!.

Oh dear, poor ±«Óătv Radio4 News: they've had a terrible time today trying to get the political parties to fight, (with only limited success from the Tory spokeswoman who was unable to resist a waspish complaint that Gordon didn't ask David first!) otherwise all was sensible cooperation - "we're putting the good of the country first". Bravo 'new' politicians - perhaps we can begin to take it seriously at last if Yah-Boo idiocy can be abandoned. I await with hope the continued response of Tories & LibDems. I hope too that Today & PM editors & presenters will just LISTEN & allow us to learn, instead of constantly interrupting & rubbishing everything.

JURIES? Well, this will send people with Mental Health needs back up the creek without a paddle! Our drive for emancipation could be set back 100 years with this terminology. We will simply NOT be permitted to serve on JURIES! Beware, because if we are persistently marginalised by the empowered, that will have telling consequences Very Soon. Those of us with the vote will not tolerate exclusion and we are numerically very strong. So no one can say that they weren't warned...

M E M P H A S I S

While policies and people on the ground may be a little thin for the moment, the look and feel of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's intent has that qualitative and inclusive feel typical of the sort of man he is. Bringing Patrick Mercer on board adds a touch of realism, and John Bercow's assistance with children with learning difficulties looks equally sound. If Johan Eliasch can be persuaded to add his zeal to the collective wellbeing we should have quite a party.

Calling for change and finger pointing is common, and tends to feed a cycle of procrastination, so seeing Prime Minister Gordon Brown put down this marker is very interesting. If he can continue to maintain this focus and we see delivery and community building develop on the ground, the success will speak for itself. As people begin to succeed and wellbeing develops politics should start running cooler, the consensus change, and governance become easier.

The parallel with nation building in Iraq is entirely deliberate. Classic counter-insurgency or policing failed communities, and a sense of direction and cooperation, are the same beasts merely wearing different clothes. By driving a sound order, hierarchy, relevance, and consensus, with delivery and inclusiveness, Prime Minister Gordon Brown is driving lots of small positives towards one bigger positive. By flexibly working the top and bottom he is unbeatable.

As an American General is fond of saying, "Simplicity, simplicity, simplicity", echoing the words of a well renowned Zen Buddhist monk: "As most people struggle to acquire complexity, I struggle to acquire simplicity." As the Iraqi government tries to build cooperation, they echo the death poem of another Zen Buddhist monk, that investing in the centre was the most important thing. Prime Minister Gordon Brown gets this, and President Bush seems to have got on board.

You can't change the world but you can change how you see it. Britain is a failed state in many ways, but the potential for develop success within the disaster is there. As surely as sound strategy can bring about a new Britain, so the surge in Iraq can deliver. Perception tends to lag reality so I'm minded to think we have already succeeded. Mistakes are plenty but by keeping our eye on the ball and remaining persistent this will unfold as surely as day follows night.

Things have changed. Don't let it woosh by.

Whether or not Gordon Brown may or may not call an election this autumn completely misses the point.

Which is that there should be a fixed term for a Government, for example, four years.

We English are only a couple of hundred years behind the American democracy in this respect.

Nick - you're right - this is Brown having it both ways - particularly by encouraging his MPs (who wouldn't need much encouragement) into taunting the Tories over Mercer's alleged racism and then hiring him to more after a certain amount of 'he was treated badly' sentiment had been seen to arise from the public. Which is, in effect, taunting the Tories some more.

Cameron is in a hopeless situation where everything he does is going to be portrayed as either irrelevant faffing or a 'lurch to the right' whilst Brown will do almost exactly the same things (or at least be obviously working to the same priorities and philosophies) and present them as either stunning innovation or just straight plain commonsense from people who know what they're doing in government.

Brown really is very canny, but it isn't really very principled or very new.

I am sorry to return to a theme I raised in an earlier blog comment, but why are we not analysing the work and actions of this government and prime minister in depth? Acres of newsprint has been used to tear into the Tories and yet even if the polls were heading their way, electoral arithmetic dictates that they cannot win without some sort of Labour melt down (they need to gain 100+ seats!). However, the headlines are not a of a vacuous statement behind which there is little detailed policy (as Nick acknowledges) but instead of two Tory MPs having been beguiled into working for the man who would give his eye teeth to destroy their party. Contrast today's GB speech with the various policy documents produced in recent months by the Tories - not everyone is going to agree with all of their conclusions, but they are addressing major issues following detailed research and analysis - and they provide some thought provoking ideas about the future direction of this country. And from GB: my party has insufficient depth or ability to provide my government with guidance and advice about some very important matters and I am going to dress it up as "new politics". Where are his big ideas, his meaty proposals for the future of this country - he has had ten years to prepare for this moment and instead we have three MP's tipped off the front benches of their own parties offering him guidance and advice! This is pretty weak stuff from the "clunking fist".

He's trying to bee all things to all men. Essentialy trying too use the old military tactic of divide and rule.

The main catalyst for this is the fact that Scotland is probably going to be very few in labour seats after the election. As the general lack of trust and recent party appointments astounds good judgement. People in Scotland feels a buzz in the air, contrary to all the scare stories from Labour head office.

We look forward to local autonomy, Increased jobs (zero business rates for small businesses) and healthy cooperation with our neighbours.

Scotland is only being driven forwards towards independence , contrary to the cry wolf tactics of the labours contemporaries further north.

Perhaps G Brown is trying to wrong foot the Tory party, he has so little to offer in the delivery area, and is so bereft of oringinal ideas he has to go talent spotting and looking for ideas. What better way to get them but straight from the derfecters from the Tories? We are still waiting the results from the investigation that was carried out re the foot and mouth
outbreak. The government were given the results we understand on Friday but as yet the public are still waiting to be told what the content is. Perhaps it is being interpreted for us? After all we might not understand it, rather like the treaty. Where is this openness we hear so much about? Citizens juries, another grand idea that has no substance, just more spin. G Brown has had 10 years to show us what he can do and the economy is littlered with debt, both public and private,
PFI deals that dont show up on the balance sheet. As no 8 says use your brains when the chance comes and leave instinct out os it.

For generations my family and I have voted liberal, my Grandfather was given the Ashanti war medal in the first world war, for his service in Africa in the Royal Navy.

Even as a child in the early 1960's prime ministers weren't much in the public limelight well at least not courting the camera with celebrities, hasn't it all gone a bit belly up?

Harold Wilson god bless him, did not allow the British to take part in Vietnam, yet the Tony Blair went wading feet first over the supply of British troops in Irac, it just goes to show how the party has no grass roots philosophy.

I haven't really any time for the labs or cons and if you look at their track records of inflation, immigration, crime and health service it shows a particularly despondent picture.

I have to say "Menzies my Man" and do as much work as I can before the next General Election.

Nick,

I read GB’s speech and thought it was a very thoughtful, well measured speech. Maybe he is trying to out flank the Tories, but maybe he is also trying to genuinely forge a new kind of politics. Maybe he is trying to do both. However, with the comments you made on this blog and which I also heard you make on the Radio 4 Six O’clock news I can understand that even after 10 years in Government he is being cautious and slow. His biggest blockers to any “new” kind of politics are going to be the media who continue to grow fat on comment, conjecture and spin, rather than reporting the news. Brown has called for a new kind of politics, Cameron did the same when he became leader, the public are largely turned off by the current way we conduct political life in this country (and across Europe). Perhaps it is now time that the media asked themselves what role they will play in helping this along. But don’t worry Nick I’m not going to hold my breath on that.

British people are born-gamblers. They like to gamble with practically everything. Once again we are gambling about elections when we should be seriously thinking about purpose and political consequences. Changing faces is not the issue. The issue is serious policies and not merely faces or popularity contests. Just a few day ago I felt so desperate regarding the state of British politics that I even considered the possibility of not voting ever again. If the vast majority of the British population ever decides to stop voting, the very future of democracy will be at stake.

Whatever Brown says ,and does,he will always be associated with the last 10 disastrous years. He controlled the purse strings and ,as such,he is mainly responsible for this disaster.It's great pumping extra billions into the Health service,which,incidentally,is no longer National as the scots,Brown's countrymen,get better treatment thanks to the English taxpayers,when there is no real improvement.Our armed forces are being denied adequate equipment,prisons are overflowing because of his refusal to release money for more prisons to be built.Everywhere you look ,lack of police,poor infrastructure,cutting back on flood defences etc is all down to our Prudence.He's the one responsible for this mess.Unemployment up,manufacturing almost non existant,but there's nearly 800,000 extra bean counters thanks to our Gordon.It's time people woke up and saw how bad this country is under labour ,crime ridden and up to our eyes in debt.

A one party state? Appointed MP's?TB's new labour now GB's new new labour?what's it all about? the recognition that party politic's by spin and persuasion has run it's course and only with consensus can politic's deliver for the whole nation,it's refreshing to hear a PM saying he cann't deliver for every one without the help and commitment from everyone"ASK NOT WHAT WE CAN DO FOR INDIVIDUAL'S BUT WHAT WE CAN DO COLLECTIVELY"if i could borrow a saying it would be this "THE TIMES THEY ARE A CHANGING"

Gordon Brown is, I believe, a person of integrity and that when he says he wants to reach out he means it.

However we have had ten years of TB spin and misguided self-belief and so the general public have become more and more cynical.

People do not want a new kind of politics but NEW Politics - policies that will change the WORLD, and not just the UK, for the better and more importantly politicians who believe in them and live by their policies.

Policies do change as the world changes but all this talk of reaching out smacks of politicians who are no longer rooted in the communities they are paid to represent and hence they do not instinctively know what is needed.

Gordon get out of the Westminster village and go and in live in the real world.

All the chatter in the past about Cameron being Heir to Blair and it turns out that Gordon would prefer to be a Cameron (could make some reference to the Gordon and Cameron Highlanders). He's copying the David Cameron script from 2006/6 to the letter, though as in European constitution, sorry treaty, he's changed the words a bit.

He's spinning like crazy but dropping in the polls faster than he bounced - down 5% in a week in YouGov, level pegging in the others. Cameron's comeback seems to have punctured Brown's bounce.

Nick,

As a long suffering member of the public, I am getting weary of being constantly bombarded by attempts via mobile phone, landline, email and snail mail etc., to either scam or rip me off.

Now I find that even our Prime Minister is at it !!!

As with all scams, some people will fall for it but the majority will have more sense and realise that Gordon Brown's latest idea to increase political consensus by drafting in politicians from other parties is no more than a gimmick, or as 'Steve Wright In The Afternoon' would put it, "it's Muppetry" (readers unfamiliar with this term please contact ±«Óătv radio 2). If Brown really did want to build bridges, he should have promoted some of the left wing MP's who opposed his support for the illegal invasion of Iraq.

Way back last century, in the mists of optimism, some of us, mistakenly as it turned out, thought that we were electing a socialist government that would curb the excesses of corporations, banks, utilities etc., who had only one thing in mind, i.e. to relieve us of as much of our cash as they could get away with before being rumbled. How wrong we were.

Applying the assessment "You can judge a man by the friends who keep him" (I may have got that a bit mixed up) to Gordon Brown; with friends like Rupert Murdock and Henry Kisssinger, pity the weak and powerless.

A new sort of politics?

Yeah Gordon, pull the other one.

This is coming from the insular control fiend whose notion of centralist control would put Stain's bureaucrats to shame.

We should be judging PM Brown by his 11 year record as Chancellor Brown? ... was there openness? ... was broad church inclusiveness supported or even sought?

Electors should pause & give thought, if Brown as Chancellor with the virtual control of domestic policy & the Inland Revenue for 11 years could not make sense of his much derided family tax credit system (illegal recovery & pending rebates aside) what chance for his other big ideas (e.g.. Sure Start) & new ones waitig in the wings.

But when has the realities of failure ever put off a presbyterian scottish socialist with a myopic verve & passion

Big Ideas, Big rhetoric, Big failures - Brown Boomerang continues to home in.

vikingar

Well, with the Tories promising to match Labour's spending plans and both parties copying each other's policies to maintain the mythical centre ground, it seems there IS a new age of politics: one with no choice for voters!
We live in a one party state if the main parties offer exactly the same policies and spending plans, and citizens juries sound a lot like "participatory" democracy of the sort found in the German Democratic Republic! Or you could vote Lib Dem... hmmmm.

I agree with Nick. If one really wants to bring in a new era of politics then proportional representation would surely serve the country better. I am impressed with Gordon Brown's strategy but not fooled by it. It is nothing to do with what is best for the country. Rather it is trying to ensure that Gordon Brown retains the upper hand in politics and remains at number 10. He has had years of forward planning for his strategy. I say this as a labour party supporter although not a supporter of the present PM.

Gordon Brown realises that we have a situation not unalike war with islamo-fascism (though he is gentle in his attempts to woo muslim youth and so doesn't use that word).

That alone would be enough to call for national unity, and he is backing his words with actions.

The other parties will continue to try to undermine ANYTHING he does, for their own personal, petty interests.

A Speaker's Conference on increased public democratic involvement is likely to prove long winded, and a means of publicity for oppositionists, who want a ruck, regardless of the consequences.

Thier ilk frequent these pages, to MacCamaroon's continuing doom.

(Like most oppositions, he needs a 15 point lead going into an election to be fairly sure he will stop HM Governing Party getting an overall majority.)

Is Brown so bereft of talent on his benches that he need Tories to help him?

We are already well aware of his prediliction for thieving Tory policies so now he needs to thieve Tories. Tories that only a few months ago he unleashed the full force of their contempt for comments made.

Mmm... the word hypocrisy springs to mind.

And finally, Citizen's Juries? Announced 12 times in the past, never implemented.

Come on Nick, that's spin if every there was some.

#16
Justin, you seem to be under the impression that I'm an 'Old Labour' supporter. Far from it! I'm with Orwell who said something along the lines of every intelligent 16 year old being a socialist as they can't see the hook for the rather stodgy bait!
You said that you think that the modern Labour party is the best option for the country. That may even be true but it doesn't mean that it's not one of the most depressing things about Britain today!

Duncan,

Orwell (I presume you mean George) was planet Earth's beggest ever socialist. He was monitored by MI5 for decades because of his extreme left wing beliefs. So pot, kettle, black to him.

I am not a "radical" socialist and am willing to accept that leaning too far to the left has caused immense damage to this once great kingdom. But I also think leaning too far to the right has done its fair bit of damage to the country too.

Thus, I opt for the middle of the road and vote Labour - confident that if I voted Tory the country will be a gazillion times worse.

Keep the aspidistra flying, Justin!
But I think you've grossly underestimated just how bad the Tories would be.

If one really wants to bring in a new era of politics then proportional representation would surely serve the country better.

Proportional representation and first past the post have their pluses and minuses. While proprtional representation has salience in some quarters there's a strong argument that it's a red-herring. The key to understanding this is how people work. Bottom line? It won't change a damn thing. More important is people. Want better politics? Be better people. People don't like to hear it but it's true.

Duncan,

I was about 4 when Thatch (she who is made of iron) was the dictator in our country.

Although I was only little, I can still remember the nasty men coming to have a go at my parents for not paying her greedy poll taxes.
This, while the 9th Earl of Sterling was paying less poll tax despite living in a house the size of a small city.

I know many people suffered in very similar ways because of this.

It is a thing for which the Tories should never be forgiven.

I agree that proportional representation would serve our so-called democracy better. Why the politicians continue to express the word "honour" with this lack of duty is beyond comprehension. Another serious point is whether our locally elected MPs are truly capable of seriously serving their constituents given that only one of them exist and, in some cases, 100,000 of us exist in their constituents. Again, there is a serious question about our democratic value in the UK. It seems clear that our own back yard needs to be addressed and cleared before we go to other sovereign countries and kill innocent people with teh objective of implementing democratic values. How do we get away with it. Also question why we, "the people" tolerate such a weak infrastructure of localised political support that really and truly addresses the issues. It seems to em that we, "the people" need many more Bob Crowe's as political representatives, instead we have 'career MPs' who care more about getting up the ladder to more pay and benefits rather than "serving" the peoples needs. My own local MP is no different to what I've discribed. Why do we continue our gullible and tollerant stance when it comes to the lack of true and fair representation from our MPs? If only MPs stood up in the House of Commons much more arguing for better policy fairness and addressing the failings of their own Government, mayb public confidence will be given the opportunity to be restored, but until then ....

Justin
Re Thatch.
I quite agree with you about her. There is something rotten in the state of Great Britain and I think a lot of it stems from her 10 year stint in charge (For which I blame a spineless Tory party, a decrepit political system and a joke opposition!) I was about 12 when she got into power. I thought she was awful then and I can't stand the sight of her today. However, Blair, and now Brown, have confessed to scavenging the Thatcherite corpse and so the rot continues. You mentioned the hated poll tax? Well, I was pulled up before the beak for refusal to pay, then had what I was told I owed stolen out of my wage packet by a faceless bureaucracy, with no right of reply. I suppose that that was only money but New Labour want blood i.e. The DNA database!
Here's a good bit of advice for how to tell when a politician is lying? It's easy, their lips move!

The PM is usually addressed as Mr Brown or Gordon Brown these days. It used to be Blair!
Is there some journalistic reason for this or is it something to do with one of them being regarded as feral or perhaps the journalists being regarded as feral by one of them. It is all very confusing.

Please can we keep this modern, Thatcher was 17 years ago, what has Labour done in the last 10 years!

How about a new kind of politics where the English get financial and democratic equality with the rest of the "UK"?

Now that would be radical. Don't anyone hold their breath.