For example there is economic momentum. This means that a lot of a new government’s achievements in the first term are actually the result of the previous government’s policies. Policies don’t have an effect immediately but take time. In many cases it may take a couple of terms to have an effect. For example the stability of the economy and the falling unemployment figures are a result of Clarke’s policies which Brown basically continued knowing a good thing when he saw it. Give Brown his due. Giving the Bank of England autonomy was quite inspired.

I agree the minimum wage is a good thing. I would hope that spending on schools and the NHS was going up other wise how could you give nurses and teachers pay rises without cutting costs elsewhere. Also there’s inflation so the spend should be going up anyway and as technology moves on general costs increase. The question is does the increase cover the general increase of costs? I.e. is there a genuine gain there or just a paper one?

In some cases they don’t go far enough. Why should poor people be paying any tax anyway? If they are genuinely poor they should be below taxable earnings range?

Tory-lite slipped in the tuition costs right at the start hoping that everyone one would forget about it. Why should 50% go to university? The distribution curve of IQs means that over 50% of people have an IQ less than average (i.e. under 100) so if 50% go to university you will have people of less than average intelligence attending. Is that a good use of taxes? University *is* eliteist. If you’re bright enough you go. If you’re not you don’t. Make it 10% and pay for everyone so that any one capable of going can regardless of their family background. Ah but that would mean rising unemployment!

As for the unemployed training courses. They are a joke. My partner has first hand experience of them. It’s just another way to reduce the figures.

So I am waiting for the day there’s an honest politician. One that admits that the previous government may have got things right in places. One that admits his opposition may have some good ideas. One that just doesn’t do the contrary purely because it is the contrary. One that admits to their mistakes as well as their successes. I suspect I will be waiting a long time.

I too voted for Tory-lite. Not again. What improvements there have been have been thoroughly smothered by the disasters and climate of fear.

erm - while I’m all on board your point about indirect taxes (not sure how the maths works out exactly) - and while I’m also all on board with the fact the NHS has some big problems - there is one part of what you wrote that is crazy.

I can’t believe anyone - no matter how politically blinkered - could possibly believe that the NHS has not seen spending increase in the last ten years - the fact is that spending on the NHS has doubled - its not a ludicrous claim - its not spin - its just a fact - pay for nurses doctors and porters (and so on) has risen drastically - the number of new hospitals built has skyrocketed - likewise for renovated ones.

I didn’t mean my post to be a defence of the Labour government (Iraq is shockingly bad - and its handling of drug policy, tuition fees, and its general liking for totalitarianism really wories me)

I completely understand old labourites being really distraught at the general free market preference of New Labour (though as it goes I’m a free marketeer).

But seriously - what does your think is happening to the extra 40 or 50 billion pounds a year if its not going to the NHS? Sure large chunks of it got gobbled up in higher wages for NHS staff rather than being used for equipment and more operations - but is that so bad? nurses deserve decent pay.

it is indeed the least we could expect from a labour government. (though I wonder sometimes what more people expected - after all most criticism is about totalitarianism or foreign policy failure - both hall marks of socialist policies.)

but would you expect that list from a tory government?

your system would lead to ignorance or elitism. Without a rough party line to guide them - people would not know what the candidates in their area stood for. or - all local candidates would have to be very rich to send out leaflets and pay for radio time and billboards to make people aware of what they represent.

and on top of that few policies and new laws would ever be passed again- it is always more popular to oppose than support - to criticise than welcome - as such - candidates with no self benefit in the over all well being of the country (the best basis for re-election as a party based government) would regularly vote against much needed change - and keep being re-elected as services failed to improve and the economy crumbled.

in other words your proposal would destroy the fundemental basis of accountability.

It’s time for a change in the way politics is carried out.

I would like to see a dual format electoral process:

1) The political parties are allowed to contest 50 central seats (i.e not representative of any local area) via proportional representation. The PM and Cabinet would be formed from the winners of this contest.

2) The remaining seats are elected in non-partisan local elections; with candidates having to make a legal declaration that they are not a current member of a political party. They have a legal duty to represent the views of their electorate and have to undertake formal local consultations before voting on primary legislation.

In this way the political parties would be forced to seek a consensus and contentious issues and local communities would have much more input into the wider political process.

I realise that this is ‘pie in the sky’ but I think it would rescue politics from its current downhill spiral.

Sure, everyone says it. I notice, however, that the situation hasn’t changed. I’m pretty happy with more people saying it until it does.

the minimum wage - the right to join a union - an end to mass unemployment - equality for homosexuals - better pay for teachers and nurses - more spending on schools and the NHS - tax cuts for the poor - million less pensioners in poverty - million less kids in poverty - new benefits for the working poor - training programes for the unemployed.

I’m sure nothing will change when the tories come back - they are all the same anyway…

Yeah, the Archer case still makes me smile :) Ah, good times.