Prospects: Friday, 14 March, 2008
- 14 Mar 08, 01:22 PM
Dan Kelly is today's programme producer - here's his early email.
Good Morning.
We have some strong stories today.
This morning there are reports of gunfire and rioting in Tibet, what is going on?
Michael Crick is at the Tory conference - in the light of recent Government problems why are they not doing better? Given the concerns of Middle England about rises in the cost of living and higher taxes on cars, drink and income, many in the party believe they should concentrate more on policies which could ease the financial burden on the suburbs.
An interesting EU climate change report which says that global warming could lead to mass immigration into Europe - could this make voters care more about the environment?
Let's watch the dollar too. What suggestions have you got for guests, treatments and other stories?
Dan
Comments Post your comment
Dear Newsnight
鈥 Application to interview the author Jeremy Paxman live on Newsnight about the future of British Politics.
Some of the stories you have covered this week seem to run into the issue of our expectations of those who lead us, perhaps something they have encouraged? That we the public may be handing too much responsibility for events and solutions to Politicians and they are a little too ready perhaps to take it and foster this dependency. But is the future not that of the latest Politician in Government conjuring up 鈥榤agical solutions鈥 to problems but really more realistically 鈥榖ottom up鈥 drawing upon all the talents by deed as well in name, with all of us playing some part in providing the solutions rather than just the 鈥榝ew鈥 and what should we expect of politicians in working towards this?
At a national level should the PM become more like a chairman of the board, one the coordinating efforts of his or her equals, on other levels is it really about organising the queue jumpers, getting the plumbing sorted or can more be expected than that?
I would very much like to explore the psyche of politicians, what makes them tick, how can matters and leadership be improved and to that end I would like to interview live on Newsnight, Jeremy Paxman, author of the most excellent and enlightening book 鈥淭he Political Animal鈥 which I have read from cover to cover, making copious notes on people worth contacting with reference for example the embryonic campaign to encourage people to stand more in their own right in Elections either as Independents or as a step towards this for MPs to be given a stronger mandate within Political Parties to act according to conscience through the wording of their candidature on ballot papers. (ie stressing their first duty is to constituents,
Ie The Independent (Political Party name) candidate for (town or City)
I look forward to hearing from you
Best wishes as always
Bob Goodall
Instigator of a few campaigns
www.morechoice.org.uk
embryonic campaign
Complain about this post
POINTS ARISING FROM POSTING No.1
I have long been asking the 成人论坛 for a weekly look at political utterances; to be conducted by a duo comprising psychologist/psychiatrist and an applied-English scholar. But as both the politicians and the media are 鈥渓iving inside the lie鈥 I doubt this suggestion will be acted upon any time soon.
Universal suffrage is a gift to the manipulator-politicians. It is about as smart a doctrine as 鈥渢he right of every citizen to own a gun.鈥 I have suggested a 鈥淐ertificate of Voting Competence鈥. Again, as above, this spoils the game AS CURRENTLY CONFIGURED so the 鈥済ame-masters鈥 will see to it that it does not come about. Ironic in view of the citizenship test?
I stood for Parliament in 2005 offering simple representation of Newbury鈥檚 views and aspirations; undiluted by party affiliation. As I was well aware: the party system is very rarely assailed with success. Hence my credo: 鈥淪poil Party Games鈥. I stood against three 鈥渞osette stands鈥. The people of Newbury voted 鈥渞osette鈥 and the winning stand became an honourable member available for three line whipping. Oh, in passing, I polled 86 and something was proved..
In Westminster, parties play games to a set of rules that are all about them and not about us. All parties pre-select rosette-stand candidates WHO ARE THEN, AND ONLY THEN, OFFERED TO US TO CHOOSE FROM. It follows that we can only choose what suits the Westminster games.
To sum up: British democracy amounts to manipulated ing茅nues voting when they are told they may, for self-preserving, dogma-driven ciphers, whose allegiance is already given over to a party.
It is time our Queen cried 鈥淓nough!鈥
Complain about this post