成人论坛

Dear Newsnight

Gordon Brown鈥檚 idea today of including MPs of other Parties in decision making gives me a little hope (albeit in a world with many false dawns) that even now Parliament itself could edge slowly and with trepidation towards a more intelligent newer form of politics.

There are MPs in other parties languishing on the back benches who might potentially play a greater role than at present, I鈥檇 like to think this could make politics more dynamic and less cynical, with Government being able to draw upon a wider pool of talent and ideas and people wishing to enter politics not necessarily being doomed to never making a major impact on our society if they show too much integrity in which party they affiliate themselves to.

On balance I think we should be positive about this rather than think negatively about it.

It鈥檚 even a neat idea really if you think about it, say Gordon Brown has made it clear in the past that he would ideally like to see MPs of other parties in his Government. This way he can still draw upon their skill and expertise, but without the political complications of formal arrangements and all this without even the need to pay them as a Ministers! ! Now that鈥檚 shrewd thinking if ever there was!

In time with regular visits to Downing Street it might appear after a time that these MPs of other Parties were actually a member of the Brown Government for extensive purposes. I think this is quite a smart move all in all.

It will be really interesting to see how these MPs 鈥榟ost鈥� parties react to this move!

Talking of making Government more inclusive and using the best talents in the land I think retired generals and officers such as Mike Jackson, Colonel Bob Steward, Maj Gen Tim Cross, Major General Sir Patrick Cordingley and Flight Lieutenant John Nichol are a wasted national resource. I would put them in charge of the problem. Give them direct line management of all Ministry of Defence civil servants with authority to dismiss any of them without the need to have this confirmed by Downing Street, if they prove to be obstructive or unhelpful.

Immediately re designate a main UK hospital as a Defence super hospital for wounded servicemen only.

They would be ideal for heading up responses such as to the recent flooding and quite a few years ago firms that had hired former Army officers to plan for contingencies were able to operate again much faster than other firms after the Canary Wharf bombing.

At the end of the day I think we just need a harder more focused military objective-driven approach to getting things done than what passes for leadership in some quarters at the moment.

Where does the money come from for things like a Super hospital and the equipment our forces desperately need? Savings can be made, otherwise the cost must be met by the Government. Governments need to also be honest about the true cost of war before attacking other countries both financially and in terms of the suffering caused not only to our people but the upwards of One Million people who have now died in Iraq.

They can scrap the idea for Super carriers immediately. Against whom are they intended? Not only that with anticipated advances in military technology they would probably be rendered obsolete before they left the drawing board. In any major confrontation with a major power, I presuming we would not launch a first strike against another major power, any country planning to wage war against us would sink major targets like the carriers first. High altitude weapon platforms, the probable use of space, longer range missiles and other weapons probably being developed would make any surviving carriers unable to do their job.

Money also needs to be spent on the safety features demanded for the Nimrods 鈥搘hat has happened to this programme, and to supply safe equipment for our soldiers. Who thinks it is a good idea to deploy the army like this, driving up and down roads like sitting ducks in a shooting gallery, It is ridiculous.

And what about the safety of the Hercules aircraft?

In fact the Commons defence committee has highlighted seven main areas of concern in relation to what it calls the "challenges" facing UK troops in Iraq.
It says the issues raise "a fundamental question about defence policy". 10 August 2006,
On 30 January 2005 an RAF C-130 Hercules transport aircraft was shot down as it left Baghdad, killing all 10 on board.
Shots from the ground caused an explosion in a right wing fuel tank, tearing off part of the wing.
In response the MoD decided to fit an explosion suppressant foam safety system to fuel tanks of aircraft deemed most at risk.
The defence select committee said it believed this should be fitted not just to some Hercules but to all of them in operational areas.
"The protection of our armed forces should be given the highest priority."
Other concerns from the Commons Defence Committee

Snatch Land Rovers
Heat & Equipment
Helicopters
Airbridge
Pay
Overstretch

There are too many unanswered questions, what is happening with the introduction of equipment to reduce friendly fire deaths?

Politically across the Globe, Most Muslims and most countries oppose extremists so WHY is everything being done to alienate our natural supporters in this struggle, Why? It makes no sense at all.

In the last war there was a term LMF Lack of Moral fibre, no doubt frequently unfairly given to people but it seems increasingly clear that this is a term that should be applied to the cowardly chickenhawks, one now gone, another to go soon, who sent western forces to fight an unjust war, when the war should be waged politically and with ideas more than with bombs, sending people to fight when they themselves are proven cowards who refused to fight for their country in its time of need, and who would not send their own sons and daughters to fight in Iraq or Afghanistan now.

Given the American concept that the President is C in C of the Military the Democrats might consider passing a Bill barring anyone who has refused to serve their country in time of war from holding that office or certain positions in cabinet. That would certainly have barred two of the leading villains in this.

What I draw from all this is the absolute imperative to put better and different people in Parliament who will make more intelligent and just decisions. Back to where this message started with today鈥檚 news on using all the talents in this country.. At the moment one way or the other the current democratic system keeps many very able or talented people from entering politics or gaining influence in parliament if they do.

Perhaps Gordon Browns move today is a start to changing this?

We certainly do not need creepy crawlies who toe the party line and cow tow to vested interests but strong independently minded people who will stand their ground. To improve the standard of Government may I suggest that we need to start thinking how we can encourage more of these type of people, not necessarily drawn to party politics or dogma or the art of compromise (which seems to be what is required at the moment to prosper in the current system) but a different newer breed of politician more representative of this nation and the rich talent and ingenuity it possesses.

This will not be easy as the current vested interests In Parliament have in the past done all they can to resist changes as for example they did by rejecting the Electoral Commissions recommendations to scrap the 拢500 deposit which is a deterrent from standing for Parliament, replacing it instead with more nominations from voters (which would be harder for the more unusual candidates to come up with than the deposit)

But it can be done; we can improve our democracy which would stop some of the horrible things happening such as the attack on Iraq for their Oil, the refusal until recently to intervene in Darfur because they are poor, and the obscene neglect of our troops and much else besides.

Perhaps the changes will come from the top as hinted at today, or perhaps the people of this country need to do more to change things?

One other crucial thing that Gordon Brown should attend to immediately. If a soldier has multiple injuries surely this compounds the disability so the benefit should likewise be compounded, the current system where only the first injuries is counted in full is quite disgusting and seems almost unlawful. Perhaps this needs to be tested in court?

There鈥檚 always chance a National Newspaper might come forwards to pay for such a test case if the Government doesn鈥檛 change this?

Bob

POLITICS

Whilst opposition for its own sake is clearly pointless, and turns most voters off, I do believe part of the reason for low voter turn-out is indeed the lack of any apparent significant difference between the main parties. I'm not suggesting there's no difference at all, but it seems to me that the differences are more about the "how" than the "what".

In some respects it's not a bad thing that the main parties seem to be heading in roughly the same direction (certainly a lot more than was the case in, say, the 1980s). And if people are generally happy with that direction, it should come as no surprise that many voters do not see the need to turn out to vote. I think that is a mistaken view, on principle, but I can understand it.

The main problem with this, which you allude to in your piece, is who exactly DO we vote for if we are NOT happy with that direction. I think that does pose a very serious problem in the long term, because if people begin to feel that none of the main parties speaks for them, they may begin to vent their feelings in other ways.

How we deal with these issues will take more time than is available in a comment like this, but there needs to be a balance between grown-up consensual politics on the one hand and a real choice on the other.

During the 1939 / 1945 war we had Churchill leading a coalition government and all parties running the country. After the war we had an election and went back to the system where the parties fought and bickered with each other and forgot about the consequences to the country. Many times people said we'd be better off with a coalition government, maybe this is what Gordon is trying to bring about.

>why voter turnout is so low<

among whom? which cultural groups? Postal votes are very popular for some reason. When MPS can have three of four 'other jobs' that goes to show their commitment to delivery?

Rather than effective managers democracy delivers incompetent party cronies. Do we elect surgeons? Do we elect airline pilots? Do we elect TV presenters? Should we expect success if we did? yet we elect people to multi billion spending departments with no qualifications and so end up with failed projects, massive waste and foreign wars not in the uk interest.

So democracy is not about having the best or wisest people in the jobs but about telling a story to the multitude which is why you need movie stars, celebrities etc to gain attention. Reagan, Arnie etc and who can doubt Boris will be chosen as candidate not because he is considered competent or skilled but because people know him as a TV joker?

So whoever is the best story teller wins.

One Party State.

On PM this evening Eddie Mair [quite rightly] gave Meg Munn a bit of a kicking over the cop out that a decision on a gas pipeline in Burma would made at a 'European level'.

He was a bit softer on Patrick Mercer, who is going to do some work for Gordon Brown on security matters. Justifiable, I suppose, on the basis that however bad it is in the UK, obviously we cannot be compared to the situation in Burma.

And anyway, Eddie Mair would have needed Gordon Brown in the hot seat to have grilled the originator of the 'all the talents' policy.

But the reason we are in a much better state than Myanmar/Burma is that we can punish a Government if we don't like its policies by voting them out. Okay, it takes a while..

But if the Government were to decide the policy on 90 day detention or ID Cards by use of the same 'government of all the talents' task force, where will that leave the ultimate sanction of the electorate ??

They will turn around and say, 'Well everyone is agreed on that, we have a cross-party consensus on this vital issue of national security / terror laws / civil liberties / tax on petrol / price of beer - so don't expect the opposition party to do anything different if / when they get in'.

If this carries on the two main parties will end up agreeing on key things like the total amount of tax and spending and no one will bother voting. Er, hang on a moment...

Sorry, but one more thing from Brown's speech. He seemed to mention 'Citizens Juries' about a dozen times, but then slipped something in about a 'concordat' - I thought that was something to do with the Catholic church ? Not something he would ever get involved with surely ?

Any chance of posting a transcript of the speech on the website if NO 10 have provided it ? Counting the number of times he used the word 'varlues' may help me later this evening if I'm having trouble getting off to sleep...

Hello,

I feel that turnout at elections is low, because the majority do not see politicians as trustworthy and that Westminster is told what to do by the EU. We are no longer masters of our own country. So why vote for leaders who have been politically castrated? Poland found this out when they joined the EU. Poland was told it could not bring in or bring back capital punishment - CP -. Whether you are for or against CP is not the point. The EU told Poland what they could or could not do, CP or otherwise. That 'is' the point. We are no longer sovereign, so why vote for 'puppets'. Have a free vote to stop the EU telling us what to do and see how many turnout. We won't have a vote on that, like we won't have have a vote on the EU constitution! But 'BOY' what a turnout I feel it would be!

Loved the Almodavar feature.

Always good to see the man himself talking, and it was particularly interesting to hear him talk of the difficulty of translation from Spanish screen to British stage.

Burning with desire Jeremy? Only for you of course........

I see that Newsnight Review is being inflicted by stealth through the back door, with the inclusion of the last segment about Spanish movies. This is not news.

The Big Ben location was far more interesting than the content of the report on Gordon Brown's new politics. Though good analogies, the camerawork was better, with interesting shots of the innards of Big Ben, and the view from its balconies.

With the Tories now wedded to Brown's tax and spend plans, the only potential opposition, the Lib Dems, repeated the nonsense that was rejected at the last election. This is depressing.

A new politics would see the introduction of proportional representation, under which a party with X% of votes would win X% of seats. A new politics would afford England its own parliament, and would standardize the political arrangements for England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. A new politics would permit voting using secure internet and mobile phones. If this is secure enough to underpin the financial system with internet banking, it should be capable of being secure enough for elections.

Most parties offer what they call new politics, but within unspoken limits. The self preservation instinct of MPs and their parties will ensure that the Sir Humphreys will sleep easily for years to come, whilst the next generation will confine their voting to matters of real national interest, such as the X Factor, Big Brother, Strictly Come Dancing and such like.

A government made up of the best talent is a great idea. Its just that it would be more palatable if he was to officially give up (New?) Labour's hold on power *first*. Instead Brown has been imposed on us without a party or general election (and lets not even mention the 'West Lothian question'). Clearly he thinks that Labour are the natural party of power, and we don't need to be consulted on how (or by who) we are governed.

People have no interest in voting because they can change little. I am in an area with a large Tory majority, so it does not matter who I vote for - I can have no impact on the choice of local MP, and (like everyone) have no input at all on which party forms the government. That government then picks the least-untalented to form the cabinet, and keeps shuffling them around every couple of years so they cannot achieve anything.

Why do we not get to vote for a local MP, who cannot represent anyone (eg a party) except their constituents. *And* then vote again for a cabinet, hopefully choosing from groups formed by people knowledgeable in the fields of health/education/defense/crime/etc. A 'doctor' running the NHS?! Maybe there would be businessmen (not Richard Branson please!) who would be willing to give up 5 years to 'put something back', but who would not be willing to dedicate 15 years to climbing the greasy pole only to get booted out of office after the first bad headline. It would also reduce the hurdles to getting more race/gender diversity in government. And why, in debates, do our MPs not just sit back, shut up, and take representations from acknowledged experts, rather than swapping ignorances and prejudices.

Whatever the parties promise, they inevitably fail at. Blair prioritised health and education, and spent massively. They have barely changed. We spent most of the 80s 'revolutionising' the economy, at massive cost to entire regions, but most now think it was worth it. Now the outstandingly inefficient 'industry' is the public sector. Successive parties promise to reduce it but it is still growing, out of control. Its incredible to me that as we get wealthier, government takes an increasing share of an ever-larger economy - we are nearly halfway to an entirely government-run economy. Surely the government is there to provide the basics, and as we get wealthier less people should require their services.

Finally, we see daily that the way to get governments to act is to shout loudly and get newspaper headlines. Governments 'react' to events (as well as cash!). Compare that to 'playing the game' and going to see your MP and hoping they will be 'allowed' to raise the issue. Its laughably na茂ve.

Ed Davey 'hit the nail on the head' whilst remarking he doesn't trust Gordon Brown's NEW approach to politics.I was very surprised to hear MGs remarks that we should(party -wise) all agree to co-operate more with the Labour machine when it's in the public interest. Did N Labour concern themselves with what the Public thought before the Iraq invasion .. or up- dated.. have ignored calls for a referendum on the so called Treaty?(as Peter Haine said prior to the previous Constitution" it's only a tidying- up exercise.) Gordon Brown must be laughing all the way to the polls at the naivety of the Conservatives... @ the 2 Tories x-ing the floor on loan to Labours think tank.. they will be very welcomed !! Don't be fooled Dave...get real & use the (Alistair Campbell)school of politics, it's the only language the Gordenites understand.

BASRA
I am not surprised at the findings of the Newsnight poll.The public has been fed an unending picture of doom and gloom by journalists who seem to stay in Baghdad most of the time. God help us if 24 hour news had been available in 1940.

As a resident of Northern Ireland I had to endure not only the "troubles" but the constant repetition of the idea that the "two communities are at each others throats". It seemed that the only news was bad news with no balancing attention being given to the great majority of people who were just getting on with their lives.Is the coverage of Iraq being painted with the same brush?

Not sure JP has grasped the idea of the watch again feature. it's for those of us who are not sitting obediently waiting like schoolgirl swots at 10.30pm for the live holy mass i mean broadcast. Some of us at that time if night are out getting perky at Pinkys Wine Bar or whathaveyou.

Gordon Brown's "Citizens Juries" -

Any chance of a 'citizens jury' (ie referendum) on the EU constitution?

And when Gordon Brown, the man with "Stalinist tendencies" talks about 'national unity', I can't help thinking that he dreams of building a single party state!