HAS GORDON SCREWED THE POOCH?

I've had BBC World News on the tee-vee all day (God, i wish they'd learn how to pronounce Chrysler!) --i've now heard more about the trials of Gordon Brown than i'd ever have wanted to know . . . but i've been too damned lazy to go find something else to listen to.

How do they pronounce it? Kriss-ler?

Cycloptichorn

No . . . "Kr-eyes-zzzzzzzzzzz-ler."

(I've always heard it pronounced "Kr-ice-ler.")

I know he and Labor are very unpopular, but I haven't really checked out why.

Is it over the fraudulent MP claims? I thought both parties were firmly "in it"...and Tories a tad more than Labor?

I don't have a strong opinion about the relative merits of the contending parties or their leaders & ministers, real & shadow. However, after a decade of weariness with whatever may be the adverse perceptions of "new Labor"; an extra-electoral succession by Mr Brown; the disclocations of the ongoing economic crisis; and now the stories of Parliamentary venality - it doesn't appear to be a good season for incumbents generally and ruling governments in particular.

Indeed not.

Wondering whether Tories provide a viable alternative to the electorate, though?

Mind you, I think in most democracies there is still an almost mythic need to ritually punish, cleanse and renew from time to time, which means a government will be ousted justy because people want to try something new.

And governments seem to get stale, weary, bloated and tainted.

Not just governments: institutions of all kinds from corporations to universities, governments, cultures .... everything.

The Second law of Thermodynamics holds true !

I agree, we can only hope the replacement is wiser, fresher, and better.

Cyclo has pointed out that the electorate may be no more enamored of Tories and Liberals than of Labour (have the Liberals had a real shot at government in living memory?), and that that could be Brown's salvation. But i think there is a bigger quotion of "for shame" when it's the government who are caught with their hand in the till. Even venality by the opposition at the taxpayers expense can be laid at the door of government, who are responsible for assuring that this kind of thing doesn't happen.

A nice revolution, relatively bloodless, wouldn't hurt--and it would provide the rest of us some entertainment . . .

No. Ministers. Not PMs or MPs. Ministers.

Some new ones are coming in over the weekend. It's no sweat though. It's I'm a Politician-Get Me Out of Here.

The Civil Servants run this country. Watch re-runs of Yes Prime Minister.

The only unusual thing happening is that serious TV has racked up its laughing quotient.

The interviews in the streets with indignant, hard-working taxpayers are the best bits. A Creature Comforts using their voices would be inadmissable I fear.

BIL lives in the north of England.

He tells us he's voting for the nazi party at the next election

Oh . . . so he's a Tory, huh?

You are behind events Set. The Tories are now left of Labour.

Now that our tribe of highly self-serving legislators has gerrymandered their way into lifelong careers in the Congress, and , as events have unfolded, is directly holding the reins of most of the core economic processes in this country, ranging from banking and finance to (soon) energy, manufacturing and rail transportation - I suspect we will soon enough be served up with similar findings. It is already interesting to note the degree to which the Congress goes to demand complete transparency from thiose it regulates and, at the same time, hide its own "upkeep" expenses, and exempt itself from most of the labor legislation it inflicts on others.

They have an added advantage which people don't notice. That is that almost no Americans recognize the scope of power and responsibility of Congress. Almost everything which happens in government is laid at the door of an administration. So if a President asks for war powers, he or she can be held responsible for that initial decision, and for an subterfuge used to gain that end--but no war powers can be granted without Congress. Congress has always had the biggest effect on the economy, since money bills can only originate in the House, and given that all tariffs are produced in Congress, as well as the Senate being responsible for the ratification of any treaties concerned with trade and trade concessions. Nevertheless, the people look to the President for a salvation he or she cannot provide, and to shoulder a blame which might often be unjust. Presidents can, of course, provide leadership, and hold Congress ransom to the will of the electorate which a clever communicator on Pennsylvania Avenue can manipulate. But at the end of the day, the most power that President has in money matters is to shift discretionary funds or surpluses, or to refuse to spend money allocated by the Congress. So, Clinton has been credited with the surpluses of the late 1990s, although he could not have accomplished that without the consent and cooperation of a Republican Congress. At the same time, Bush is blamed for the tax breaks to the rich, the burden on the middle class, and the faltering economy, when all of those matters are properly in the realm of the powers of Congress--a Congress which for the first six years of his administration was Republican, and which played the "tax and spend" game in a manner to put previous Democratic Congresses to shame.

There are some comments running on this topic on The British Thread. The Thritish Bread.

Gordon is having some problems, but will come through.

There's another interesting aspect to this, and that's the European elections. Because the EU parliament uses a similar proportional formula as do many European nations, some smaller parties who can't elect a member in a "first past the post" election can get a seat if they poll a sufficient percentage of the vote.

Fringe parties often do well when voter turn out is low, because they can muster their supporters, and rely upon a heavy turnout among their people. It would hilarious, and ironic, if UKIP or BNP were given a MEP because Gordon's problems lead to low voter turn out and either of them qualified on a proportional basis. (For those who don't know them, UKIP--the United Kingdom Independence Party--and the BNP--British National Party--are both anti-EU; UKIP claims not to be racist, but the BNP are unashamedly "anti-immigrant" which is their code name for their racism.)

What fools these mortals be.

You premisses set them up to be fools. Your argument is circular.

Our apathy regarding MEP elections reflects the importance we attach to that splendid body they are designed to populate. If we thought them important it would be of no consequence what Mr Brown did or didn't do.

If some nutcase gets elected to it as a result it adds to the fun.

It also allows racism a public voice, rather than it be simmering beneath the surface, and renders that voice vulnerable to questioning in ways which don't ordinarily take place. More searching questioning.

It is you who is the fool Set. Pumping up your sense of self-importance with specious tripe of that nature.

Gordon Brown has to rework his image and acquire some showmanship. He has to emphasize the good stuff and stop the nitpicking friends like pointing out that Obama gave him DVDs that were not Euro standard but American. Concentrate on bigger issues and smile like 6-year-old Connie Talbot was told to do when she appeared on Britain's Got Talent.

Also, Gordy needs more diplomatic skills.

Early reports of the election results indicate a big setback for Labor. I'm not attuned enough to know if the result was much worse than preelection expectations, or to relate the result in this EU parlimentary contest to expectations for the national scene.

O'George, according to BBC, it was the worst Labour result since 1910 . . . you know, when the industrial world was still young and innocent, and the lady-killer Edward VII was king?