i thought she was a joke because of er hypocrisy over education, but then i don't follow these things as closely as i should. Am i wrong? i just have her filed under "stong principles: see toynbee".

A colleague pointed out to me that Diane Abbott went to Cambridge.

It seems sad that someone closer to the origins and former radicalism of the Labour Party is treated as a joke. She seems the best candidate to lead a credible opposition, which is a vital part of democracy.

"But why is her candidature treated as a joke, or at best a half-hearted bit of tokenism? Look at her voting record: [...] Diane Abbott is the only possible candidate left who was against the Iraq War, against Trident and for civil liberties."

I think you've just answered your own question there... And as if that weren't bad enough, she's a girl. The Establishment may be willing to accept women in positions of power as long as they're smashing the unions and murdering Argentinians (or even just gutting civil liberties), but there are limits to the sort of fluffy-headed nonsense that they're prepared to put up with, and opposing wonderful things like illegal foreign wars and potential nuclear Armageddon definitely puts you on the wrong side of the line.

She will bring all sorts of subjects into the leadership debate which otherwise will just be suppressed.

She will make people actually interested in the contest because she will talk about things which actually interest people and are relevant to their life, rather than the candyfloss blathering and avoidance strategies the other candidates specialize in.

She will also add to the gaiety of the nation.

Mention any of this on Labour's moribund sites and you're frozen out.

Without Abbot your quote - "what is New Labour for? To me, it has found its niche as a neo-conservative opposition to a more traditional Conservative party given a still more comparatively Liberal tinge by coalition." - sums up the election perfectly.

"All the other candidates are deeply steeped in Iraqi blood"

The Labour Party itself is irretrievably steeped in Iraqi, Afghan and Serbian blood. Its warmongering record in government should have rendered it unacceptable to any civilised, honest and morally consistent voter by 2003, if not long before.

But in practice people who claim to take humanity seriously are often hypocrites who put their own domestic political preferences on relatively minor tax and spending issues ahead of blowing apart women and children in foreign countries.

If Labour had been destroyed electorally in 2005 as a direct consequence of the Iraq crime, we would at least have a clear precedent to put before our political elite - engage in a war of aggression and you get voted out. And it's hard to see how a Conservative government from 2005-2010 could have been any worse than Labour in terms of blowing people up (or much else for that matter). They probably wouldn't have been any better, either, but at least we would have an opposition that genuinely opposed aggressive wars at least some of the time, and no British government for the foreseeable future would have lightly stepped into a US-led war of aggression without at the least looking over its shoulder nervously. And perhaps politicians would look on million-plus demonstrations as actually meaning something they have to pay attention to, rather than being able to dismiss them as nothing that won't stop them winning another election.

But no, 9 million hypocrites and warmongers re-elected a party of war criminals because in the end their petty partisan party loyalties weighed more heavily for them than the crime of aggression.

And those warmongers remain in control of the Labour Party and will do so for the foreseeable future.

Labour - party of war criminals and the hypocrites and useful idiots who enable them.

Just to save the Labour apologists time, I'll post up some of their inevitable rationalisations here so they don't have to bother soiling themselves with apologetics for mass murder.

Conservatives just as bad, supported Labour wars......what about the poor......education....health......no realistic alternative.......what about gay rights.....racism.....sexism.......environment........humanitarian intervention........naive idealist.......strong defence.........evil Tories....etc, etc ad nauseam

There. Now go and take a good long look at some photographs of butchered Afghan wedding parties, or Iraqi families shot to pieces at roadblocks, to put your apologetics in perspective. We all know you'll vote for the war criminals again next time anyway, so what's the point?

"what is New Labour for?"
It is for control, by state oppression, smothering control of business harking back to the days of nationalisation which was right for its post war (WW1 & WW2) period but not for a new Century where education and personal freedom are the expectations of this country. It’s for covering up its complete lack of business acumen by creating a QUANGO state to use public funds to employ people it can’t otherwise find jobs for because it has abandoned the working man by stifling business development. It’s for Orwellian, creeping, micro control of individuals, spying by database convergence and manipulation, Internet and CCTV and NHS database integration with employment and immigration data.
Quite what we are going to get with ConLib remains to be seen but we can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the Blair/Brown years are behind us, God forbid that either of the Milliband nuts or the congenital idiot who is Ed Balls gets in and if you listen to Diane Abbot on ‘This Week’ she is a dismissive, arrogant bitch who is barely controlled by Michael Portillo but guests frequently suffer her grimaces and facial contortions that are rude and clearly display her contempt for anything other than her opinion.

isn't the Labour Party in a mess, when a man like John Macdonald can't get enough support from his colleagues to stand for Leader, so he stands down to give Dianne Abbot the chance of getting over the starting line. The real reason D. A. is larfed at by the media is that she's a threat to the UK buying American weapons, Trident and Aircraft (for the carriers). btw the aircraft are going to cost a lot more than the carriers.

I had never previously dismissed her as a joke but was very disappointed with the way she conducted herself on Question Time.

She had a perfect high profile opportunity to expose Israel's murderous agenda but blew it because she couldn't get her figures straight.

At one point it was 6 flotilla dead; at another it was 4. Where's the credibility in that?

Despite these reservations I do support her taking a stand against the other candidates and am happy for her to scupper David Milliband having a smooth ride of it.

Always had a lot of time for Diane Abbott, I very hope she can be factor in the leadership election.

Behind the smiley, friendly exterior is a real tough lady, and will do damage to Nu Lab whatever the outcome.

I'd prefer John McDonnell too, who is a genuine left candidate that would represent what Labour should stand for. He allegedly has handed to the media a big stick to beat him with, though he is reported (gleefully by the Sun and other outlets) to have joked that he would like to go back in time to assassinate Thatcher.

Sadly he has withdrawn his candidacy, ostensibly on the basis that he won't get the nominations and that he would like to "secure a woman on the ballot paper".

Quoth Redders: "Orwellian, creeping, micro control of individuals, spying by database convergence and manipulation, Internet and CCTV and NHS database integration..."

Well, have to say that sounds a lot like the motivations and intentions of most of the megacorporations, to be frank. Whenever I hear some greed apologist bleating about how business acumen is mercilessly crushed in the UK, my first reaction (after filling a barf bag or two) is to laugh like a drain for, oh, roughly a week. Yer kidding, right? Light touch regulation and other bizniss perks have made the UK a capitalists playground. Whereas in an authentic democracy, bloated salaries and bonuses would not be tolerated, nor would attacks on public services and the sections of the state which are intended to maintain basic standards of civilisation. The pro-business lobby's attitude is what its always been - yes, you the little people can have jobs and services and decent schools, even good health care, all of that good stuff - just as long as some entrepreneur can figure out a way to make a buck out of it and you. Otherwise, just shuffle off to your hovels, will you?

Have you seen her supercilious, dismissive and arrogant attitude towards guests on the BBC Politics show? Most unpleasant. No thanks.

Cruddas would have been the best bet.

If she doesn't win the leadership, maybe she'll join us in the LibDems. She seems to vote with us anyway.

She's treated as a joke because according to westminster doctrine such policies are suicide - people want strong authoritarian government. They don't actually care much about illegal wars until British casualties mount - foreigners are an abstract, we feel bad for them and then get on with our lives.

Unfortunately I think that the Westminster wisdom is about right - but largely due to years of propaganda from Westminster and politicians (left and right) - especially through the education system (the purpose of which is to train people for industry (hence a focus on regurgitate and repeat) and to squash critical thinking).

Cruddas was a positively enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq war. A peculiar hero of the left.

What is New Labour for? Well, I suppose the short answer is... nothing. Nothing in the sense of it not being a radical, or progressive, alternative to the other two 'conservative' parties, or factions, that make up the triumverate.

Labour was always a social democratic party, and essentially these parties, across Europe, were employed to make as good a deal as possible out of the cards they were dealt, in a game that wasn't there's in the first place.

More radical interpretations would probably focus on the role of social democrats as 'lighting rods' designed to channel popular, mass, discontent, into managable and untimately non-threatening forms of political behaviour.

Without the Labour alternative, one could be forgiven for thinking we actually lived in a one-party state, which of course we don't.

She is now in the running having secured enough nominations.

`Cruddas was a positively enthusiastic advocate of the Iraq war. A peculiar hero of the left.`

Cruddas is the champion of the right wing think tank the Compass group. It`s purpose is to masquerade as a left group to keep Labour members on board and paying their subs. They make them think that they have a say and influence on Labour party policies.

"Beware of Greeks bearing gifts" when dealing with the Compass group.

Tony Blair and Mandelson destroyed the Labour party, thus completing Thatcherism.

Both were well paid for their work.

Diane Abbot would be the perfect leader of what's left.

You're a brave man Craig, walking across that bridge with Diane.

Compass
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2009/jun2009/comp-j18.shtml

@mike cobley

So a QUANGO state where the nulabour deregulated the banks after they had been regulated following the 1930's depression to avoid exactly what happened then, to happen again, is better that a business driven society? A nulabour country where bonuses spiralled beyond what would have been naturally allowed by well governed business instead of the government glove puppets the banks turned out to be?

You would prefer all that as well as paying your income tax straight into some 'non-job' occupying lacky who is too lazy to get off his/her ass to get a job that means they have to actually work for a living; but work hard enough and you can reap considerable rewards.

Typical nulabour attitude, corrupt, lazy, whining excuse for a worker who wants everything handed to them on a plate whilst hiding behind legions of non jobbers in the hope that they are the last to get sacked when the cuts come.

I want the cuts, I'll take the pain, none of us is innocent in this downturn, we all contributed to it with profligate spending and rampant debt and the banks were no more guilty than a government totally ignorant of the commercial world, that sold our gold reserves at the worst possible time.......don't mention the war(s)!

I want the majority of QUANGO's kicked into touch, once that's done we can pay off a huge amount of debt and try to encourage businesses back into the country, diversify our business portfolio into more manufacturing instead of relying on the service sector. And that has to be one of nulabours biggest betrayals, to the working community who don't want or expect anything more than a manual job to sustain some pride in their existence, so what did nulabour do? They stabbed them in the back, sold them the pup of higher education for all and employed them in unsustainable, taxpayer funded organisations and like the pack of cards they built it’s all coming tumbling down. Now they have barely any manufacturing infrastructure to fall back on and who’s going to have to pick up the pieces? Yep, business because the evidence is there for all to see, a state funded workforce is unsustainable particularly when it produces nothing!

Thatcher freed us from creeping communism and not before time; but previous labour governments were just playing at it compared to nulabour. As usual, a labour government screws our economy up and the Tories are left to sort it all out, personally I would rather it were the Libertarians who are committed to complete freedom with almost no government intervention in our lives, and importantly, almost zero income tax. But you think all that’s bad because you’ll be responsible for your own destiny instead of being directed to disaster by some corrupt, expense grabbing MP.

While I'm no particular fan of Diane Abbott, she is at least one of the MPs for whom it is not straightforwardly morally unacceptable to vote, since she did not vote for the invasion of Iraq.

On the other hand, characterising her candidacy here as tokenism seems only fair. It's objectively inarguable, surely, given that her nomination was supported by rival candidate (and established warmonger) David Miliband specifically for the purpose of making the contestants seem a more diverse bunch. You can be sure Miliband wasn't nominating her with the slightest concern that she might actually win. Same applies to another established warmonger who nominated Ms Abbott, Harriet Harman, and furthermore she only got the nomination at all because John McDonnell pulled out and "gave her" his 16 nominations explicitly on the grounds that it would "at least secure a woman on the ballot paper". Does it actually ever get more token that that?

The true power in the Labour Party is well illustrated by the other candidates for leadership plus Ms Harman:

David Miliband - a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Andy Burnham - a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Harriet Harman - a proven warmonger who voted in favour of blowing up women and children in Iraq by assisting a US war of aggression
Ed Balls & Ed Miliband - two greasy pole-climbers and leadership lackeys who would undoubtedly have toed the Labour leadership line in 2003 if they had been in the Commons - buying career advantage with the lives of foreigners.

Of them all, Abbott is the least bad option, but not coincidentally she is also the least likely to win.

@Randal

A very concise and accurate summary. I would add just one thing and that is that if DA has to be propped up for her candidacy it’s an admission of her ineligibility and an indictment of nulabours policy of PC before ability. No wonder we're in the mess we are. Besides, doesn't it just make your skin crawl when that grinning monkey Dave Milliband 'nominates' DA and you just know they are plotting something once he's elected, nice bit of back scratching.

`As usual, a labour government screws our economy up and the Tories are left to sort it all out`

I think not. The tories gave birth to this disaster and NuLab feed it.

`Prior to the 1997 election, which brought Labour to government, one senior Conservative smugly noted that, in terms of economic policy, there was “not a cigarette paper between” the Thatcherite Tory Party and Blair’s New Labour.`
http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid;=18948

Appearing opposite Portillo on the political equivalent of This Morning probably hasn't helped.

`Prior to the 1997 election, which brought Labour to government, one senior Conservative smugly noted that, in terms of economic policy, there was “not a cigarette paper between” the Thatcherite Tory Party and Blair’s New Labour.`

And didn't nulabours policy change as they saw all the new opportunities especially towards the end.

I wish you would use a monika on your posts.

Portillo is more to the left (these days) then Abbott. He has denounce much of what Thatcherism was all about. Strong supporter of Gordon was Abbott.

`And didn't nulabours policy change as they saw all the new opportunities especially towards the end.`

No.

There is one line of defence NuLab could mount and it would be a true one. That they/we were on a global financial helter skelter and it had no breaks. All they/we could do was hang on until we hit the buffers.

We have now hit the buffers. It was Thatcher what done it. Back in 1979 where she led the world followed.

Of course they could not say that,they were more then willing partners.

Redders:
"So a QUANGO state ... is better that a business driven society?"

Interesting that you restrict debate to just those two options. Fortunately, my intellect is sufficiently robust to allow me to consider a wider variety than that.

"I would rather it were the Libertarians who are committed to complete freedom with almost no government intervention in our lives, and importantly, almost zero income tax."

I'm sorry, but have you ever heard of the paradox of freedom? Clearly not from the narcisistic bombast of your post. Okay, it goes like this - complete freedom is merely freedom for the strong to enslave the weak, which is why we have civil and criminal law; similarly, complete economic freedom is nothing but freedom for the economically strong to enslave the economically weak, which is why we have regulation. So, quangos or not, I`ll stick with a democratically elected government and a state apparat strong enough to legislate and, basically, to protect me from people like you.

'Voted strongly for more EU integration'.

But she wasn't that keen on Finnish nurses getting jobs at her local hospital, though !

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/diane-abbott-is-sorry-for-the-record-miss-finland-is-also-black-1354725.html

I like Diane Abbott, precisely because I got to know her views on "This Week", she's quite tetchy and a bit moody, but it's television, after all. I also respect her decision to send her own kid to a different school - I looked into it and with the unbelievably low number of black boys achieving A-levels at that school, I applaud her for not sacrificing her kid's future for the sake of her career. Shocked to say, though, that based on the program I like Portillo more, but then again, he can express himself much more freely than DA.

I'm starting to get sick of the whole lot, though, and I've been keenly interested in politics since I was a child. Watched PM's questions today and absolutely nothing has changed. Might be a different bloke as PM, but the answers are still the same - keep deflecting by pointing to the other side and shouting "It's them wot did it, I'm innocent." Frankly, I wish they would stop (being politicians) for even just one day and give straightforward answers without once mentioning how the previous government is to blame for whatever comes up. The school boy antics are getting on my nerves, seriously.

Example: Daily Politics, today, Andrew Neil asks the two government guys about finances, they keep harping on about "it's worse than we thought, Labour lied, it's so much worse than we thought etc" Eventually, Andrew Neil goes: "But we now know the actual figure for the deficit is £18bn less than announced before the election. How can less debt support your claim that it's much worse than you thought?"

Answer (and I kid you not): "bla bla, it's much worse than we thought, bla bla..." Andrew Neil: "I ask you again, deficit is £145bn, not the £163bn the election campaign was based on, so how is that worse?" Answer, again: "It's worse than we thought, bad Labour" and so on, ad nauseam.

It would have been really funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

The Labour Party so many people thought they were voting for over the last 20 years died with John Smith

and it saddens me that so many people still insist on voting for that corrupt, blood-drenched, authoritarian party - simply on the basis that 'they are not tories'

I'm hoping Miliband wins and takes that whole ghastly project into the toilet once and for all

and if you're casting about for a Labour MP with a history of sticking up for civil liberties, opposing war and honestly speaking her mind, Kate Hoey has a far more honourable record than Abbot...

http://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/kate_hoey/vauxhall

She does, however, enjoy blowing small furry creatures away

@mike cobley

And the alternatives are?........half way houses in almost every case.

"which is why we have civil and criminal law;"

and if you care to do some reading for a change instead of blustering your way through a debate you would see that the Libertarians promote a policy of robust Law and Order.

"complete economic freedom is nothing but freedom for the economically strong to enslave the economically weak"

And the economically weak have the opportunity to flourish themselves which, because of the stifling government red tape in business, most small time entrepeneurs are unable to do, quite apart from them being forced to hand over a considerable amount of tax which could be better used re invested in their business.

It was only to pay for WW1 that an income tax regeime was introduced in Britain, it became a limitless pot that politicians realised was there to do what they wanted with, they certainly didn't do what it was intended for, paying off our wartime bills. They got their beady eyes on it (and I don't restrict this to labour of any description) and convinced us all that it was a good idea to spend it.

Our welfare state is a lumbering beast that probably costs as much in administration as it does in benefit handouts because its jobs for the boys. We have some of the worst child poverty in the Western world which deteriorated under nulabour, how can you possibly defend that record? At least if people are able to get work they can feed and clothe their kids. The NHS is now a hiding place for senior management on exorbitant salaries as is the Police with only 25% of its personnel described as 'Response officers' the rest being civilian 9 - 5 workers and office bound cops. ACPO is now more a top heavy political organisation with a vested interest in its own welfare so far removed from the real job has it become. The Senior officers on its payroll are similarly overpaid, as are most of the senior officials in nearly every ‘government’ organisation a fact recognised by both one council leader and one senior police officer. I thinks its Durham where the council leader has imposed a pay cut on himself to earning somewhere around £30,000 but what he’s also done is saved a fortune by untwining his town with some Chinese towns that his staff were quite happy to blow thousands of Council Tax payers money to arrange mutual visits; commendably he’s also come out; he’s come out as being rabidly anti PC, a nulabour favourite, and withdrawn funds for, amongst others, the towns gay pride march asking why taxpayers should be paying for it.

Now you can say what you like, but I was a copper in the 70’s and 80’s and I’m well aware of the devastating effect nulabour have had on the job, it is by sheer luck that we live as peacefully as we do, but unless the Police are empowered to get on with their job there is an up and coming generation that barely know what a cop looks like. They are growing up believing they are untouchable because if they cry wolf the perpetrator, invariably a responsible member of the community, will be prosecuted.

Nulabour has done this, no one else.

@monika

Rubbish, no one even expected from nulabours original manifesto that the modern version of nationalised industries would be unproductive QUANGO's.

You guys can't even argue a case for them, they are criminally responsible for our global financial meltdown along with Bush because it was them that deregulated the banks despite a clear historic case for not doing it. And they did it because they have no commercial acumen, always the easy way out for a labour government, tax and employ. They saw the revenues from the casino banks as their way of paying for it all and they were comprehensivly stuffed when it all went belly up. And I really mean I believe Blair, Brown and Bush are criminally responsible, with the hitoric evidence in front of them they deliberatly ignored it and screwed the global economy, they should be put behind bars. They did nothing to encourage labour intensive businesses which is why we have 5M unemployed, 2M of that disguised by back to work schemes which, guess who is paying for, yep, the taxpayer.

Redders

Rubbish, it was Thatcher who got Reagan to lay the foundations of this insanity.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/1185177.stm

"..right wing think tank the Compass group"

What a load of old rubbish. But then again, I suspect the Khmer Rouge were a right wing think tank to some of the posters on here.

"Rubbish, it was Thatcher who got Reagan to lay the foundations of this insanity."

And you base your judgement of this on a single BBC article from 2001 where Robin Cook willingly stands with Colin Powell?

"Earlier in February, at his first press conference as Secretary of State, Colin Powell had the symbolic presence of the British Foreign Secretary, Robin Cook, by his side."

If you had the intelligence to post an identity for yourself, then manage to click the little box that says "remember me" I might consider your remarks serious, instead I believe your ill considered comments to be nothing more than trolling. Go and post your inflammatory little remarks on Cbeebies, here's the link http://www.bbc.co.uk/cbeebies/

@alan campbell

LOL anything resembling a successful business is a 'right wing think tank' to some of the idiots on here.

@Redders

So...strong on law and order, go-go corporate boosterism, slash-and-burn reform of welfare state (or scorched earth, whichever), bonfire of the regulations, throw millions out of employment, sprinkle generously with the magic pixie dust of the free market, then sit back and cry out 'Trebles all round'!

Now, where's my copy of Atlas Shrugged?

Oh, and Redders old bean, I haven't even got into the core functions of business yet. That's gonna be so much fun.

"...and it saddens me that so many people still insist on voting for that corrupt, blood-drenched, authoritarian party - simply on the basis that 'they are not tories'.."

Look forward to re-visiting that comment in five years' time. Cos you ain't seen nothing yet.

`And you base your judgement of this on a single BBC article from 2001`

Redders

No, you want somemore. I can give you lots more. Let me know.

"idiots"

That applies to anyone who disagrees with you Redders. Those who lose debates tend to resort to abuse.

mike cobley

"So...strong on law and order, go-go corporate boosterism, slash-and-burn reform of welfare state (or scorched earth, whichever), bonfire of the regulations, throw millions out of employment, sprinkle generously with the magic pixie dust of the free market, then sit back and cry out 'Trebles all round'!"

Having worked extensivly in and with both environments I would stick with slash and burn every time, at least it gets rid of communists like you who want nothing more than to sponge off the state.

And talking of slash and burn in its most negative sense, there is no one better than nulabour at just that, slashing business and burning an economy, at least the Conservatives only slash and burn the crippled public sector and left the country in profit that nulabour spent in a glorious orgy as they usually do.

I know from experience that in business, anyone willing to work damn hard, no matter what their background is, can live a comfortable life. Working hard for advancement in the civil service is met with more obstructions than I care to remember including jealous peers and senior managers running scared because they think you want their crappy job.

Kindly tell me about your theory of the 'core functions of business' "old bean" because I have been there, in the core and if you think you're going to have fun I have no doubt it's all just that, theory.

"That applies to anyone who disagrees with you Redders. Those who lose debates tend to resort to abuse."

Yada, Yada..........no name, no pack drill, off into your little mystical world of self delusion.

mike cobley

"at least it gets rid of communists like you"

That was uncalled for and I apologise.

Brilliant illustration of the resistance to voting anything but labour, and I meet it everywhere.

http://powersminions.blogspot.com/2010/06/breaking-down-scottish-labour-mythology.html

Where is the working man now, the manual 'labourer' who was traditionally represented by a labour party willing to engage in far left and far right politics to fairly represent the truly oppressed and misused worker. The 'labour' party has no mandate for authority because it has no populace. If there is a class system in this country it is 2 classes, Royalty (don't get me started on that one) and the rest of us middle classish mob. The Conservatives have moved to the left to engage with the newly educated, former working class 'left' who aspire to what was middle class. The labour party have lost their core voters, the true working man and when the pseudo working class wake up and realise they no longer have blistered and cracked hands, no longer have to shower to go home, no longer fear working with machinery any more dangerous than a laser printer they will question what value is there in voting for a party reliant on PR and spin and very little else to get the job done. The colour red? the socialism identity? I think nulabour should be ashamed to desecrate the colour that once represented a noble party dedicated to lifting the working class out of poverty. The only labour stalwarts left in poverty are the children and they should have been the first out. Shame on you nulabour, you are a disgrace to politics and will only redeem yourselves when you recognise you are of no constructive use in this country and disband.

@Redders
Thanx for the apology - although I should state for the record that I am not a communist or a marxist, nor do I have any truck with dialectical materialism. I'm a critical rationalist, if that means anything to you.

So, to the core functions of business, specifically the majority of companies and corporations operating in the private sector. Their core function is very straightforward - maximise profit, minimise loss. Community wellbeing, enlightenment of the individual, care of the environment, none of these matter in the slightest when it comes to the bottom line. Shareholder value is what counts, not the dignity and wellbeing of the customer. And you know what? - I think that's how it should be. Commercial enterprise is very good when its manufacturing widgets, cars, dvds, ipads, etc, but when commercial imperatives become entangled with the administration and provision of public services something goes seriously out of kilter (and before you jump in with your size 10s I am 100% in favour of rigour and the elimination of waste in public services, but not to the point where there is absolutely no slack in the system, since extra capacity helps when you`re dealing with social crises).

The core function of public services is the wellbeing of the people. Again, before you come down ton o' bricks-like, public provision certainly is scrappy, uncoordinated, and just about coping in certain areas. But compared to the USA, we shine - the state of public provision in the States is a grotesque joke with a lot of blame due to federal underprovision coupled with the haemorrage of funds into private corporations. Dunno about you but I deeply resent seeing the taxes I pay (shock, eh? I work and pay tax) go to pay for company profits and exec bonuses in the health and education sectors.

The overall point I want to make is that trade and commerce are an important part of a forward-looking, open democracy, but that is all it is - a part. Not the whole. Defence of the public sector and social and welfare provision is not the same as an attack on the private sector (although I have no doubt that there are industry types who would see it that way). Just as government needs to be strong, transparent and responsive to public need, so does trade and commerce need to know their place.

And that place is not at the heart of a democratic government, pulling levers for the sake of greed and advantage.

@mike cobley

Slash & Burn big business
Smash & grab big business
"go-go corporate boosterism"
"sprinkle generously with the magic pixie dust of the free market"

Just remind me again, where do you shop?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/guest_contributors/article7146383.ece

I met Diane Abbott, she came to cheer me one when I competed in a sporting even. Se gave me a ham sandwich, so I told her I was Muslim. Then she took it back and gave me a cheese sandwich.

So that might be another reason why Diana Abbott would make a better leader, the others didn't even bother to cheer for me, let alone get me a ham sandwich then replace it for a cheese.

@Redders

Sigh - and Mikey shrugged.

You know, in your blog you come across as a much more reasonable bloke.

Erm, assuming that Hotscot is your blog.

@mike cobley

Right, ignore the last post because it seems you and I actually approach the whole political environment from an almost identical angle.

Like anything else we must have balance, business and government have to co-exist or else we go nowhere but swinging from one extreme to another.

My belief is that we need local authorities, the NHS, the military, vehicle regulation so on and so forth but do we really need QUANGO's like the NPIA

"Chief Constable Peter Neyroud is the £195,000 a year boss of the National Policing Improvement Agency (NPIA)............Mr Neyroud’s employment package includes a Westminster apartment — in a block that has a gym, pool, sauna and valet parking — within walking distance of the quango’s offices. It cost the taxpayer £23,200" (Times Online)

This is truly obscene particularly when we have ACPO, already established many years ago to improve the Police service. I think I'm preaching to the converted (critical rationalist.......Hmmm, does that mean you're rationally critical, is that politically or philosophically....never mind, I probably wouldn't understand anyway) but do we really want to live in a society that creates these organisations because they can?

And I'm happy to accept that public services will be a bit scatterbrained, and providing it doesn't get out of hand and the people it serves comes first, I'm prepared to accept there is waste, and I will pay for it via reasonable tax regimes. What I wont accept is these honourable institutions being used as corporate escalators ejecting a succession of chief executives onto the lecture circuit. I learned I wasn't suitable for Police life because I joined it as a job, so did many of my mates but unlike them I quit after 11 years when I recognised I was going to get nowhere without being a backstabbing, political, manoeuvring, sycophant. I feared leaving the cloistered, safe environment of public service but looked at different forces which were the same and different government organisations, just the same. So I went into business and I cant deny it's been difficult, a rollercoaster through the late 80's recession where I lost one business, to early 2000 where I was months from being a multi millionaire before Bin Ladin laid waste to the IT industry in one fell swoop, but it has been fun. Throughout those years I did nothing but employ, or cause to employ well paid, well treated people because my, or my employers businesses relied on their performance. I'm not alone in this, Tesco's, Ford, Microsoft etc. all value their employees because that's where success comes from and if you think wealth is what drives success, how can you possibly imagine Paul McCartney still gets up on a stage to perform. Its not personal wealth that drives success, its success. As a wealthy man once said to me,"the first million is tough, then its all downhill from there"

Are we so different in our politics, probably not. Your post demonstrates you as a reasonably minded individual who doesn't mind a bit of circling and baiting before realising a pint's more in order than a punch up. But isn't that civilised society? Fair warning though, I enjoy some circling and baiting so don't get complacent ;)

@mike cobley

PS, there isn't a sane commercial manager who would want to take on the role the real public services do because they can't stand 'inactivity'. Like a Parkeeper talking to the dogwalkers or kids, the copper more interested in getting to know his community over a cup of tea or a pint than locking them up. A midwife calling in to see an expectant Mum just because she's passing not because she's called. Public service is about humanity and that equates to waste in the beancounters book. I want and embrace waste in essential services but not in the plastic, bureaucratic, employment cop outs nulabour wants to hide its appalling employment record behind. PPS my wife was a nurse and now teaches it in University so we are still very much in touch with the establishment.

@Redders

Seems like we got stuff to talk about. I understand what you said about starting businesses and coming back for another shot - my father, gord bless im, has had several businesses involving accountancy, a hotel, sports shop, wheel and tyre, etc, and if he hadnt been laid low by a heart condition from years back he`d still be at it now.

Would like to say more about quangos (uh huh, you need a bureaucracy to make sure information goes where its supposed to go, but quangos seem generally superfluous) but gotta go get a cuppa for my better half. Probably see you on another thread, tho. Slainte!

Paxman eloquently put her as being a "token candidate"

For Paxman standards I thought that was a little lame!!

I'd go with the Malcolm X version - she's nothing but a house negro
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ

Paxman eloquently put her as being a "token candidate"

For Paxman standards I thought that was a little lame!!

I'd go with the Malcolm X version - she's nothing but a house negro
www.youtube.com/watch?v=znQe9nUKzvQ