Is there a "sell by" Date for every government?

Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by jimbojetset, Nov 23, 2007.

?
  1. yes

    97.6%
  2. no

    0 vote(s)
    0.0%
  3. Don't know?

    2.4%

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. As this current government seems to be in the last throws of power (in theory) and seems to do nothing to be able to create positive press, do people feel that no matter how "good" a government is, people will always eventually want to get rid of them?
    The grass is greener theory of politics perhaps?
     
  2. in_the_cheapseats

    in_the_cheapseats LE Moderator

    It comes, passes and then is realised meaning the incumbents get one last term in before the country realises they voted for a cluster fcuk whose catalogue of errors really do go beyond the pale.

    Labour (here's hoping) should find that out next time we go to the polls.
     
  3. Well this lot's certainly gone off
     
  4. Its not just this government though is it, its all governments. Even the good ones get booted out eventually, why? Is it because they lose their way or is it because we expect them to fix everything?
     
  5. When all the people with real talent have had enough or realised that they can't actually make all the changes they were hoping to make, the 'second team', or the youngsters with no real life experience, take over. Competence levels drop, then things start to go wrong.

    Maggie had that problem, Major was hardly the best PM we've had so the problems came from the top, Blair burned out the energy of his team and now Brown is stuck with the Millibands, Swiss Des and Capt. Darling.
     
  6. I hope I am wrong but I think you are underestimating the client base that this shower of sh1te excuse for a government has built up. When you add up the millions of snivelling servants, the work dodgers, the immigrants and then put them together with the retards who would never vote for any one but labour because they live north of the Watford Gap then it makes a pretty impresive number. What I am trying to say is that I don't think they are dead and butired yet.
     
  7. They should be with that blithering idiot in charge. Anybody who can't take a breath without trying to dislocate his jaw shouldn't be let out the looney bin!!!

    I also wonder if any of them (the Government) could ever give a straight answer?????

    PS - check your bank account somebody might just have your details or at least those two cd's!!
     
  8. I certainly have the impression that we are in the same sort of political atmosphere that we had in the last couple of years of the Major government. You just get the feeling that, despite Brown's very long screwdriver, this governement has lost grip and the plot. Darling has been like a rabbit caught in very strong headlights and came accross as a gibbering wreck the other day. Des "two-jobs" did'nt come accross very well this morning and they were forced to call in Eric Joyce (Lab MP for Falkirk) to try and defend them on World at One. Needless to say IMHO he flopped. We will have another couple of years where the wheels fall off this government one by one and they will be unelectable for 10 years thereafter.
     
  9. **** off with the stereotyping.
    Agree with all but the North of the Watford Gap bollox.
    Do you really think any of those in the Common's care for anybody but themselves regardless of party allegiance? The lot of them long since forgot that their purpose is to administer the country on our behalf.
     
  10. I hate to be a kill joy but I reckon that Labour have a very good chance of getting at least one more term in power.

    Reasoning? As drawsdac said plus the fact that the economy hasn't tanked yet. People have jobs/money/security and these are very powerful reasons not to change things to much.

    Plus of course they have the New & Improved Leader who will get the "OH give him a chance" vote from the brain deads.
     
  11. Possibly, but we seem to be about to be entering a period of economic turbulance. Secondly I don't detect the same "give him a chance" feeling among the general population> Brown has been at the centre of Government since day 1 and indeed, if some of the old and bold Labour types are to be believed, he has had the power of veto over everything since day 1 as well as a 55-foot screwdriver.

    There is a long way to go before the next election and the problem for Brown is that the Government appear to have lost the plot and a downward momentum is building a head of steam. This is just what happened with Major (although the circumstances were different). If it continues to go this way then by the time the next election comes along the government will be considered a joke and will get creamed.

    I also beleive that what is happening now is a classic case of an heir-apparent, who having been waiting in the wings doing a good job as No 2 or what ever, finally makes it to the top spot is found to have been a propomtion too far. Eden succeeding Churchill is another example.

    Blair, love him or hate him, at least sounded like a PM. Brown never has and is a bully who is incapable of answering any question. As for his cronies (Darling, Alexander, Balls etc) - well they are just crap.
     
  12. Brown's problem - apart from arguably not being up to the job - is that he hasn't a great deal of talent to draw upon. Blair was only marginally better off, but had the benefit that he had the charisma (or should that be the ability to bulls**t plausibly?) to appear that even if the minister hadn't got a grip, he, Tony, the straight kind. Of. Guy, well, y'know, had it all under [pause, grin] control.

    Whatever you think of them as individuals, Blair at least had Reid, Straw, Brown and Blunkett and Robertson who could come across as being half competent in their jobs, along with Kate Hoey in the second tier of ministers

    Hoey refused to sing from the Alistair Campbell hymn sheet and was dropped.

    Robertson upset Brown with the SDR and then went off to NATO.

    Blunkett's hormones got the better of him so that the public began to suspect that the guide dog would be better off in a senior post.

    Reid went because he had no desire to serve in a Broon government.

    So that left Straw and Brown. Brown is in the process of demonstrating that he's pierced his promotion ceiling.

    So - alarmingly - we have an administration led by a man who isn't up to the job of leadership with, what, two competent-ish ministers, namely Straw and, to a degree, Milliband, who is, in truth, making a reasonable fist of the post for someone with almost no ministerial experience to speak of in comparison to all his predecessors. The fact that Brown had to appoint someone with such limited experience as Foreign Sec demonstrates just what a paucity of ministerial talent the Labour party gave us in 1997.

    One of Blair's greatest achievements was disguising from the electorate that a number of ministers of the crown were utterly 'unfit for purpose.' To make matters worse, the politicisation and emasculation of the civil service, who used to quietly and unobtrusively recover ministers from the holes they'd dug for themselves so that reasonably competent governance continued despite the politician and without the press noticing, means that swathes of that organisation are now incapable of rescuing the government from itself.

    We may not have been fond of Major, Hurd, Hestletine, Clark, Howard, Portillo, Hague and the like in 1997, but they were in many ways - remarkable to relate - more switched on than the current administration.

    The Brown government may go down in history as one of the least talented the nation has ever possessed, unless historians come to rate the ability to dissemble and to be the least worst option ahead of having some vague idea of what needs to be done.
     
  13. I read somewhere that in ancient Greece, ( The cradle of Democracy), when they elected their head of state and his party, it was for one year, and if at the end of that year that government had not come up with the promised goods, THAT ELECTED LEADER WAS BEHEADED, ....Rather neat..What!....

    "Thompson....Creme de Menthe Frappe for the Air Marshal, Chota Peg for me please, thank you"
     
  14. Good question. I think it's because the longer a party is in power, the more out of touch they become with the voters. Most people vote them in to sort out domestic problems, like crime, immigration, health, education etc. The politicians start off well but then try to make their mark on the international stage and forget about domestic problems. Maggie (God Bless Her) got like that and Bliar was a prime example. The problems in UK are now coming home to bite and if Cameron (prat that he is) concentrates on home issues he will have a good chance of kicking this lot out.
    Plus the longer in power, the less they can blame those that went before. Gordon shot himself in the foot the other day by doing this and Harold Wilson was famous for it.
     
  15. blue-sophist

    blue-sophist LE Good Egg (charities)

    Archimedes, I couldn't agree more strongly. The shallowness of the political gene pool is terrifying ... on all sides.

    I am, however, getting a faint feeling that [if the electorate can see the facts facing them] the Tories actually have some substance on the benches behind their Leader.

    And Michael Gove [the one with the brain] has got contact lenses at last, which stops him looking like a 6th Form Prefect ... GO Michael!