so........

[thirdcrank]

... I wonder what will happen next.

As I post, Gordo is in the middle of resigning.

The biggest likelihood is that the politicians will try to carry on pretty much as before, without recognising how many people are sick of them. I've not seen anyhing published about what happened in Buckinghamshire where the Speaker, John Bercow, stood without opposition from the main parties. Even so, standing as the figurehead of the House of Commons, he only managed to poll under 50% of the votes cast; he could not secure an absolute majority against UKIP, Buckinghamshire Democrats (or whatever) Monster raving Loony and a mix of independents. That was easily enough to see him re-elected, of course, but with what sort of credibility?

[reohn2]

...................... what sort of credibility?

What sort of credibility do either of the two main parties have?
We've had 18years of the Tories (if they were doing such a good job why where they voted out?)followed by 13 years of the (so called) Labour party.
And the country is in a worse state than its ever been.
A hung parliament can't possibly be any worse than the shambles we've seen from either party having a majority.
If the present system has taught me anything at all its that there isn't anything worse than a landslide majoity in the house of commons,but that power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely.
The British people are the losers yet again.
We're wrapped up in two wars that should never have been,and almost all of our manufacturing industry is a desolate ruin,due to it being sold off to the highest bidder then stripped of any assets of any use.
Whilst the governnment stands by wringing its hands,saying "let the market decide"whilst they sit on consultative commitees and quangos for those very companies,its tantamount to treason against their own countrymen and no better than some banana republic in the back of beyond.
We are(perhaps were by now) the fifth richest country in the world and we cannot even mend holes in the bl@@dy road and are being over un by an evergrowing criminal fraternity dealing drugs openly on our streets to kids who can't find work due to the politrickians allowing our industries to be sold off to subsidise tax cuts to the rich,I could go on but.................
To cap it all another public school boy has just become prime minister,I can only hope Nick Clegg has enough guts to stand up to him.Other than that everything's OK
Beam me up Scotty!

[rbrian]

Good work rheon2, I do enjoy reading a good rant, even more so when I agree with it!

[thirdcrank]

... To cap it all another public school boy has just become prime minister,I can only hope Nick Clegg has enough guts to stand up to him. ...

Let's hope he he had some character-building at his own public school - Westminster School.

[kwackers]

Good work rheon2, I do enjoy reading a good rant, even more so when I agree with it!

We get what we deserve.
Political parties evolve to suit the voters, hence the middle ground all the parties occupy.

Industries have closed down primarily because you can buy the same thing cheaper elsewhere - and people did. Of course you could argue that tax payers money be used to prop up failing industries, but I reckon the 70's showed why that was a bad idea. Give the British the option of being paid to do nothing and they'll grab it with both hands.

Recent wars are simply a by-product of our need for oil, an attempt to make the Middle East more stable and guarantee our supply. Complaining about it is all very well, but the majority would create no small amount of noise if the supply had dried up, governments know this and act on our behalf, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Fixing holes in the road is like any other of our infra structure problems, everyone thinks they should be sorted, nobody wants to pay for them. No political party has gotten elected by promising tax rises, to do so would be political suicide.

Overall, we get what we ask for. It might not be what we'd like, but we want it cheap and that's what we get.

On the other hand I don't subscribe to the 'broken Britain' philosophy. There's no doubt in my mind that the country is in better shape than it was 30 years ago, and absolutely no doubt that the majority are decent (if misguided), sure there's a minority that make things more unpleasant than it needs to be but they're just that - a minority whose presence is over-advertised by all the right wing rags.

[mark a.]

Going back to the OP's question, there's a chance that we may see some improvements for cyclists. Both Cameron and Clegg have been going on about climate change, so hopefully zero-carbon transport will get a boost. Plus, at least Cameron has been known to cycle occasionally.

If nothing else, Westminster is in London, which has loads of cyclists, so it should be seen as something "normal" to be encouraged.

[reohn2]

... To cap it all another public school boy has just become prime minister,I can only hope Nick Clegg has enough guts to stand up to him. ...

Let's hope he he had some character-building at his own public school - Westminster School.

Yep,that'll be right.

[mark a.]

What's wrong with having very intelligent people with excellent education (Eton / Westminster, Oxbridge) running the country?

[reohn2]

We get what we deserve.

It would appears so

Political parties evolve to suit the voters, hence the middle ground all the parties occupy.

This isn't middle ground it far to the right of say Ted Heath.The parties have evolved(?) to suit the electorate that do vote,which is by no meams all.

Industries have closed down primarily because you can buy the same thing cheaper elsewhere - and people did. Of course you could argue that tax payers money be used to prop up failing industries, but I reckon the 70's showed why that was a bad idea.

It doesn't have to be like the 70's and theres more to running a country than just profit!

Give the British the option of being paid to do nothing and they'll grab it with both hands.

Give anyone the that option and they'll take it,but I agree thats the problem,its been too easy for some to claim benefits then get forgotten about by the system.

Recent wars are simply a by-product of our need for oil, an attempt to make the Middle East more stable and guarantee our supply. Complaining about it is all very well, but the majority would create no small amount of noise if the supply had dried up, governments know this and act on our behalf, damned if they do and damned if they don't.

No! its the USA's monopoly of oil that Iraq and Afganistan that is killing our young men and more so the natives of those countries,Bush's and to a lesser extent Blair's business interests lie in oil and weapons,lets have a war boys.

Fixing holes in the road is like any other of our infra structure problems, everyone thinks they should be sorted, nobody wants to pay for them. No political party has gotten elected by promising tax rises, to do so would be political suicide.

As you rightly say we get the politrickians we deserve.

On the other hand I don't subscribe to the 'broken Britain' philosophy. There's no doubt in my mind that the country is in better shape than it was 30 years ago

I can't agree with that.

and absolutely no doubt that the majority are decent (if misguided)

I'll agree with that

sure there's a minority that make things more unpleasant than it needs to be but they're just that - a minority whose presence is over-advertised by all the right wing rags.

That minority is a large one IMO and on the increase the reason its on the increase is that theres no work (for what ever reason).I can remember when a murder shocked the nation,now they're many and don't get a mention they're so numerous.
Without vision the nations perish is a saying that springs to mind,this nation is in severe vision deficit and has been since its wealth and nationalised industries were sold off to foriegn "investers" for tax cuts.Oh its broken alright .

PS I don't read right wing rags.

[kwackers]

R2, the issues you bring up are long and complex and I've spent a fair bit of time pondering them over the years (from when I too thought society was broken) in the end I came to one main conclusion.

Over reporting.

So I'll demonstrate this with just one example.

I can remember when a murder shocked the nation,now they're many and don't get a mention they're so numerous.

The low points for murders in the last century was the 1960's when per year per million of the population 6.2 people were killed. At it's peak in the mid 90's it reach 14 and since has been falling again (I think it's currently around 10 - similar to the early 1900's).
Even at it's peak it wasn't unprecedented, the numbers being similar to the mid 1800's.

So taking your statement - where does it come from? 6.2 to 10 is hardly "shocked a nation" to "numerous" is it?

Possibly more importantly, if you strip out drug dealers or people involved in nefarious activities you're much safer these days than you've ever been.

As I said (and my research seems to suggest), the issue is more one of reporting than anything else.

[glueman]

What's wrong with having very intelligent people with excellent education (Eton / Westminster, Oxbridge) running the country?

Call me an unreconstructed old pinko, but I resent Bullingdon Club members telling me what social responsibility is about.

[thirdcrank]

[quote="kwackers"] ... The low points for murders in the last century was the 1960's when per year per million of the population 6.2 people were killed. ... /quote]

I think it's really hard to make comparisons between different periods of time. I'll bet that a lot of murders once went unrecognised as murder. (I think it was only in the early 20C, for example, that the practice of coroner's ordering a post mortem began. OTOH, more recently, people who would have died in the past have been saved by improved medical facilities. (This led to the 'death within a year and a day' requirement for murder being repealed as more people were kept alive on life support.)

As I've just posted on another thread, the period after World War II was one of full employment and a long working week and it's my impression that a large part of the population was too busy and too tired to be naughty.

I think it's probably right that the way stuff is reported affects our perceptions of it. I've also heard it suggested that as we become generally more law-abiding (or less tolerant of those who are not) then these arguably higher social standards will make delinquent behaviour seem even more common. In short, a lot of the figures are not really comparable and our expectations / tolerance change with time.

[reohn2]

R2, the issues you bring up are long and complex and I've spent a fair bit of time pondering them over the years (from when I too thought society was broken) in the end I came to one main conclusion.

Over reporting.

I disagree.

So I'll demonstrate this with just one example.

I can remember when a murder shocked the nation,now they're many and don't get a mention they're so numerous.

The low points for murders in the last century was the 1960's when per year per million of the population 6.2 people were killed. At it's peak in the mid 90's it reach 14 and since has been falling again (I think it's currently around 10 - similar to the early 1900's).
Even at it's peak it wasn't unprecedented, the numbers being similar to the mid 1800's.

So taking your statement - where does it come from? 6.2 to 10 is hardly "shocked a nation" to "numerous" is it?

Possibly more importantly, if you strip out drug dealers or people involved in nefarious activities you're much safer these days than you've ever been.

As I said (and my research seems to suggest), the issue is more one of reporting than anything else.

Statistics aren't always right,see TC's post above.

[kwackers]

Statistics aren't always right,see TC's post above.

No they're not, but we're comparing two pretty recent eras - the "golden age" (1960's) to the present.

However, lets not prevent facts getting in the way of opinions, after all where would that take us?

[glueman]

Facts are usually opinions in formal dress.