Except they don’t “know”, they’ve been “informed” by a press that’s practically salivating at the thought of a Tory government sticking it to the poor again.

The examples of true welfare dependency in the UK are actually relatively few – certainly fewer than the right-wing tabloids imply, but it suits the wealthy to turn the working poor and the welfare-dependent against each other while they make off with enough billions to have kept the welfare system solvent for the next century.

Waffling on about positive outcomes for the Kurds is, frankly, c r a p. If you seriously believe the people of Iraq are grateful for having their country invaded and subsequently turned into a disaster area then you are seriously deluded. None of it had anything to do with democracy (how could it, we didn’t ask them to vote on whether they wanted us to bomb the shit out of them), defeating the evil Ba’athist regime (no worse than, say the Burmese regime and probably marginally less oppressive than our allies the Saudis) or the human rights of the Kurds, Shi’ites or anyone else.

Finally, the Police comparison. Remind me who appointed the US to the position of World Policeman? I’ve seen a film with a similar title, but I’m pretty sure it wasn’t meant to be taken seriously …..

Never mind.

Motoring taxes have been handled so badly that drivers no longer trust what ministers say the charges pay for, an MPs’ report says.

A lot of “waste” is merely something that people don’t like. For e.g. people think ID cards or Trident are a waste of money but, to those who are pro-nuke and those who are anti-immigration, than Trident and ID cards might seem a good idea. Once again, people showed in 1983 that they don’t like parties that they think are too “pacifist” on defence. And, re ID cards, it always strikes me that people on the left fail to notice that lots of ordinary apolitical voters are actually quite hardline on crime issues. And are quite anti-immigration. If they thnk that ID cards will somehow reduce crime or somehow make it harder for illegal immigrants then they will support them. A worrying number of people read the Sun and the Daily Mail and seem to share the views expressed in their editorial line. I think the left should spend more time trying to challenge those views rather than bemoaning Labour and the Lib-Dems and talking to ourselves.

Kate, this is very silly and unworthy of you – and you complain about people being dismissive?? When Rantersparadise said, @44:

“Kate, why did New Labour carry on with were the Tories left? Why is Alan Sugear a Sir? What about the Houdini brothers?”

…they were parodying you when you were repeatedly demanding (@passim) that Lynne instantly offer solutions to all now and future problems faced by the UK or you wouldn’t give her the time of day. You know that’s what you were doing. It was an unreasonable set of demands because you were angry and you wanted to have an unreasonable go at someone vaguely culpable, and here is someone vaguely culpable (in that they’re an MP) who stuck their head above the parapet – and who, by the look of their last post, probably won’t bother next time.

In doing this, it’s true that you’re only accurately reflecting public anger, but there is such a thing as self-awareness. Rantersparadise saw what you were doing and called you out, quite rightly, so have the grace to admit to it.

UKLiberty, as I mentioned in an earlier post – the electorate have shown – at 4 consecutive elections – 1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992 that they didn’t like Labour’s msg of paying more taxes for better public services

I’m not sure that’s true. I think it’s more fair to say that they trusted Labour less on the most important issues (including spending public money) than they trusted the Tories.

People might claim in polls that they favour more spending but, when it comes to their vote in the secrecy of the ballot box, it seems not.

You seem to have a dim view of the public. It seems to me rather that people do not want to see their hard-earned money wasted once the taxman has his hands on it. At various times (e.g. elections) they trust one group of people more on this than others.

On Richard’s last point, re why I think too much cynicism about politics plays into the hands of the right, its really simple. If people feel disengaged from politics, then they are hardly going to be in favour of a positive role for the state.

People do seem to believe the state has a role – what matters here is the efficiency of the state, what it does with the money we hand over to it, particularly in a time of recession when we are all having to tighten our belts. And we do not want to see politicians taking advantage and being dishonest. Some MPs really don’t seem to comprehend the level of, and justification for, public anger. It is they who are fuelling disengagement from mainstream politics, through dishonesty and profligacy.

If you have contempt for the people elected to represent you then, for e.g., you are hardly going to support it when they raise taxes or when they nationalise industries. The logical corrollery of that is that, if you don’t trust the state to do something – be it healthcare, be it the postal service – then you won’t have the political will to resist the process of privatisation and moving things into the realm of the market. After all, people would say “If you don’t like those in political power, then why do you want the state to take a bigger role in the economy”. The current distrust and disengagement from politics plays straight into the hands of the anti-state, libertarian right.

Richard, I wasn’t intending this to turn into a debate on Iraq, but it does strike me many of those on the left are too keen to condemn all of what happened. I remember reading a quote from, I think, Martin Amis’ Saturday that was once quoted by Harry’s Place. He wondered why the anti-war protestors seemed so jovial. Remember, not having a war would have left Iraq under the Ba’athist dictatorship. Either situation has negative consequences – be it war or leaving the Ba’athists in power. I am not sure why you think the status quo ante was necessarily the best situation. In terms of the actual WMD issue, it seems pretty clear there weren’t any. This doesn’t mean that the _consequences_ of the war were necessarily worse than the consequences of the peace. Iraq does now have an elected government and the Kurdish community does have autonomy. You seem to be ignoring this outcomes. In terms of the decline of basic services, yes, there has been a lot of that. But this was not something new. It had been happening since 1980. Since then, the Iran-Iraq war, sanctions and then the chaos post-invasion had been damaging Iraqi infrastructure. You can’t just blame the West for that. I think you should also be blaming the Ba’athist regime which, after all, invaded Iran and so turned the country into one of the most militarised in the Middle East and so neglected basic services.

The argument that the US, UK shouldn’t have invaded Iraq because there are other equally bad regimes seems a rather odd one. It’s a bit like saying that, because the police can’t catch all criminals, then they shouldn’t bother catching any. What I am concerned about is whether the _outcome_ in Iraq was good or bad. I have given reasons – in terms of greater civil rights and rights for national minorities – why there might have been positive effects. You can disagree, but then you also need to explain why leaving the status quo in place and leaving Shi’ites and Kurds under an repressive Sunni minority government was better for them.

It’s an indictment of the political system we live in, where we trot out every four years or so and pretend that we’re voting for a prime minister, or a party in marginally better terms, and then complain about the MPs we get for such short sightedness, poor judgement, or (much more likely) the lack of options or power we have to make any change in that situation happen.

You can add to that the waste that the public have seen, the ID card scheme that is going to cost billions – and for what? The criminalisation of people just for being citizens of the UK, especially the poor. The working-class, Labours once stronghold are turning to extreme parties because they feel so left out of the political process.

When a government spends so much money on nothing – or worse something that only half-arsed works and costs 3 times as much, people get pissed off. Poor people vote, working-class people vote – and there are a lot of them – ignoring them can be fatal to a party, and this time it looks like it is going to be fatal to NuLab – yet I have to ask if that is a bad thing.

NuLab are worse than the Tories – and I never, ever believed I would repeat that. This is why the LibDems are getting my vote – I hope that millions of others feel the same. NuLab needs to die a complete and utter death. Then we can look to getting a left-wing party to challenge and give people what they really want.

Seriously, though, what exactly is it you disagree with in my statement on Iraq? I said that “they conspired to wage a war in Iraq on the basis of lies.” Do you think that the whole WMD thing was true? Are you expecting them to turn up at some point soon? I didn’t mention Kurds or Shi’ites. And I’m curious to know why you think the war and it’s follow up are “on balance” better than Sunni minority rule. Would it be the numerous casualities, military and civillian, during and subsequent to the invasion or the complete breakdown of pretty much all basic services (admittedly just minor stuff like electricity, water, schools, health services etc)?

I don’t quite follow the logic which leads you to conclude that criticising those in power leads to big decisions being made by the market. Is this an unexpected new liberal – left interpretation of V.I. Lenin’s doctrine of Democratic Centralism?

Ukliberty, yes, I am sure some public spending is wasted. But MPs expenses (at £20k each for 600 of them, which is the max it could be) is £12m. This is a drop in the ocean of public spending of £500bn.

Of course it is. I think the anger about MPs’ expenses has at least the following aspects:

1. the deception;

2. the war against openness and transparency (e.g. ignoring and refusing FOIA requests, battling it out in the courts);

3. the profligacy, particularly in recession;

4. that some MPs seem to feel entitled to be profligate with our money.

The fact is, the public are inconsistent. They want more public spending but less taxes.

That’s not what the polls seem to say.

I agree we need to question the cliches of some left-wing thought. For e.g., on Iraq, it does seem that the WMD stuff was a lie. At the same time, this lie did lead to the end of Sunni minority rule in Iraq and a better deal for the Kurds.

Oh my god, can I marry you!!

“The problem is not with politicians but with the electorate. And, to be honest, that’s the way it should be – since it is better that the electorate get the government they deserve than that left-wing politicians impose their views on the public before the public is ready for it.”"

I’ve jus had had the biggest argument with my closest friend, who we grew together and loved problem solving issues but when I questioned the ‘left’, which I was..she became the most dogmatic person…

I just asked questions..

In terms of your criticisms, I would say that – the trouble with saying that MPs and senior officials should not be trusted to make big decisions – is that it then means that those decisions are made by the market. That, to my mind, is a worse situation.

Ukliberty, yes, I am sure some public spending is wasted. But MPs expenses (at £20k each for 600 of them, which is the max it could be) is £12m. This is a drop in the ocean of public spending of £500bn. The fact is, the public are inconsistent. They want more public spending but less taxes. It is because of this that politicians are scared to tell people the truth that there’s a trade-off. Labour tried to tell people the truth – that taxes will have to go up to improve public services – at 4 consecutive elections (1979, 1983, 1987 and 1992) and they lost. The problem is not with politicians but with the electorate. And, to be honest, that’s the way it should be – since it is better that the electorate get the government they deserve than that left-wing politicians impose their views on the public before the public is ready for it.

If we’re to believe ‘Animal Farm’ by Orwell…

Shurely, New Labour exists as such ‘group’??

You believed and you thought it’d be all good and then, they did more or less the same…non?

So who’s to blame?

Or do we have to blame?

I think that the average voter does not recognise the need for more taxes to pay for better public services.

I think the general consensus is that people are OK about paying taxes provided they believe they get something out of it / it is worthwhile.

When we hear about waste at all levels of government, MPs expenses etc, it is no surprise there is anger and less willingness to pay tax.

Lots of progressive stuff!

Why don’t we start with an end to ‘free market policies?’ and instead look into behavioural economics?

Why instead of empirically assuming my next door neighbours are victims because they are poor and actually ask them why??

Why not stop, presuming what people want without asking them?

So by progression, I suggest actually..

1) looking at people, more qualitative research..
2) More cuts in benefits and in exchange have better mentoring plus exchange communities
3) With the money left from the cuts, spend on re-designing communities with a say by the community

I could go on but you get the picture..

AnonyMouse – “Left-wing goals, to my mind, require a strong role for the state.” depends how left wing, doesn’t it? “This requires us to have some degree of trust/faith etc in those [be they ministers or civil servants] in some authority.” I don’t have any respect for such people. They have conspired to wage a war in Iraq on the basis of lies, used the fear of terrorism to expand the power of the state at the expense of the rights of the individual, presided over an economic debacle then financially rewarded those responsible, defrauded the people they claim to represent and that’s just the recent stuff. How many MPs also receive “consultancy” fees from companies of various kinds? How many MPs and Senior Civil Servants leave their “vocation” in “Public Service” for Directorships?

But I do wonder whether you would be willing to stand for eleciton and face the electorate.

The answer to that is yes, I would. I may add to that; that I did campaign in the first ’97 election for New Labour, knocked on doors got spat at – the usual. But, as you may or may not see from my posts I have always been seen a “Bolshi” and as such I just cannot see any political party picking me as their candidate. How long I would last in the house calling the PM, or any other minister a twat, c*&t or f*cking liar for talking bollox – well, that would be another story.