hung, drawn and quartered

7 05 2010

So here we have it: the first hung parliament in a generation, a surge on Wikipedia for the meaning of “proportional representation“, men in suits claiming victory where there is little to be claimed, David Dimbleby surely working illegally long hours and the BBC budget blown on touch screen displays and ridiculous CGI. I mean, if they can make hundreds of people appear surrounding Jeremy Vine, can’t they make Jeremy Vine disappear? Forever.

The Labour term is over as we know it, with a resounding non-vote for them and a resounding non-vote for the others. The people spoke, and the people said “Erm, hi – oh, sorry, wrong number.” Where does this leave us? Who knows, that is for the king-makers to decide. And the Queen.

What I do know is this, and for this I borrow heavily from this article by Johann Hari in The Independent: we owe a lot to the Labour government. We also have heavy and justified criticisms. The war and the economy being among the greatest. I know some of my regular readers will be able to list more! However, we must remember the importance of huge steps like the minimum wage, tax credits, increased public spending. To quote Hari at length,

When you remember the country that we voted to leave behind on May 1st 1997, what do you see? I remember the science block in the sixth form college I was studying at, where they couldn’t afford to fix the roof, so every time it rained, water seeped through, and lessons had to stop. I remember my friends who earned £1 an hour, because there was no legal limit on how little you could offer a human being for their labour. I remember one of my closest relatives having to decide whether to buy nappies or heat her flat, because there were no tax credits, and single mothers were the subject of a Tory hate campaign. I remember how it felt to grow up gay and discover I could never have a legally recognised relationship. I remember my elderly neighbour waiting two years for a hip operation on the NHS, crying every night with the pain.

None of those things happens in Britain today, and it’s not by fluke. Spending on public services has risen by 54 per cent since 1997, paid for by higher taxes. The result? Nobody is on a waiting list for more than 18 weeks – and the average wait is just a month. Nobody goes to school in buildings that are falling apart. Nobody can be legally paid less than £5.93 an hour. The poorest 10 per cent receive £1,700 in tax credits a year each – meaning their children get birthday parties and trips to the seaside, and parents who aren’t constantly panicked about how to buy food at the end of every week.

Is this any comfort to an Iraqi child orphaned by British bombs? Is it any comfort to a kid imprisoned in Yarl’s Wood, whose only “crime” is to have a parent seeking asylum? No. That’s why you have to join the groups arguing for justice all year round, whatever party is in power: democracy isn’t a twice-a-decade trip to the polling booth, but a constant ongoing process of monitoring and pressuring your government.

But I can’t deny it is a real difference – and it wouldn’t have happened without that vote, that day. How do we know? Because the Conservative Party opposed every one of these changes. Under them, all the horrors of the Labour years would have happened, plus some, without any of the progress. Even in an age of retrenchment caused by the global recession, the differences between the parties will matter – perhaps even more. Cameron has made his priorities plain: he will introduce a lottery-style £200,000 tax cut for the richest 3,000 estates in Britain, the people he knows best, while slashing his way through services for the rest. It’s a policy more extreme than anything Thatcher advertised in advance.

So as the Labour government is dissected and history is inevitably re-written, as those in power always do, let’s remember that there have been many good things over the last 13 years, that have made our country a better place.

What the future holds we can only wait and see; as followers of Jesus our responsibilities remain the same whoever is in power. To do justly, to love mercy and to walk humbly with our God.

As the previous government is hung, drawn and quartered, and it will do us good to remember that.
………………………………..
Share this!

Add to FacebookAdd to DiggAdd to Del.icio.usAdd to StumbleuponAdd to RedditAdd to BlinklistAdd to TwitterAdd to TechnoratiAdd to Yahoo BuzzAdd to Newsvine

Advertisements

Actions

Information

27 responses

7 05 2010
c2drl

Is this country really a better place?

We have surrendered to the terrorists and done their work on thier behalf. We now have more government than ever before, with interference and surveillance in our lives on a daily basis.

International respect for Great Britain has been frittered away.

We have yiedled sovreignty to the European Union which is run by a non elected ruling class who have no concern for the will of the people.

We have a political structure so remote from the people that most of us feel nothing can be achieved – we are regarded as tax payers not citizens.

We have been subjected to social engineering on a massive scale. It turns out that immigration was encouraged to boost votes in a certain direction.

We have massive taxation, with the money not going to the poor or to good public services but to enriching the top managers and the ruling classes.

The gap between rich and poor has increased. The minimum wage has not helped, it has hindered as does so much political meddling.

Trust in politicians and leaders is at an all time low. Politicians of all colours have eschewed principles in favour of personality politics.

So what do we as Christians make of all this?

Our faith does not appear to support one particular party or to lay out a particular political creed. What it does say is that people are important and that governments govern on behalf of the people and as agents of almighty God. It also tells us that all people have a responisbility for and to the community in which they live.

So as we hear about coalitions etc I pray that we will have a goivernment that has real compassion for the poor and works tirelessly to reduce the gap. That we will move towards subsidiarity, giving power to local communities and to families, shrinking massively the size of Governments and quangos. That we will restore integrity to public service and we will put the money we have into providing good services not into banks of managers and parasites.

We sit at a point where politics in this country can be changed and we can again become the kind of country my parents fought for in World war 2. My prayer is that this opportunity is not wasted.

The only thing we learn form history is that we learn nothing from history. That is proved in the voting pattern at this election – people who have lied and cheated over many years have been believen and re-elected. We are in danger of getting the government we deserve, I pray we may get the one that God can use.

7 05 2010
Kevin

I think your use of hyperbole may be verging towards a mention of the Daily Mail… I am not sure ‘they’ have done the terrorists work for them, for example. The media may well have done that. Social engineering? Conspiracy theories…

Yes there are things that have not been good; but a lot of them would have happened and been much worse under the Tories. Like the gap between rich and poor, like the NHS, like schools, like being a single mother, like the Department for International Development… and a lot of things would have been better, like the budget deficit, which is horrendous and needed to be stopped years ago. It is our duty to ensure whoever is in power is held accountable, and to try to see the good things that have happened and ensure good things happen again.

I for one do not believe un-taxing the rich and cutting benefits for the poor is a good thing. Neither do I believe spending money we do not have is a good thing. So I also am an internal hung parliament in my own head!

7 05 2010
c2drl

You could be right, but you aren’t!

I think this shows the problem today. There is so much comment, reporting, spin and data but no information and no time to digest it so we all end up with our internal hung parliament. I agonised long and hard before I voted for the ones who I think would do the least badly. Nobody seems to have principles and policies they are prepared to state and stand behind.

The “they” who have done the terrorists work for them are those who have used the terrorist threat as a smoke screen to bring in the masses of surveillance and control of ordinary people, freedom from which was a massive pillar of lour society. This legislation is then used for purposes not connected with the control of terrorism, for which it was n ot necessary anyway. The terrorists have not needed to undermine our society, we have allowed the government to do it for them.

As for social engineering it is a matter of record that the Labout government actively encouraged immigration and a multi-cultiral society becauase it brought in people who would work for less and vote Labour. I don’t ever remember this being a manifesto pledge.

It shows the need for Christians to get involved with and understand the political process and to enlighted and inform the rest of us, as Bishop Tom Wright has done. We will never all agree about parties but we need a better understanding of what we are about and what should be the underlying principles. Can I commend the Christian Think Tank Theos for its work on this, please and then agee to differ with you and suggest we form a coalition.

8 05 2010
Chris Cook

I think it was the mention of the Daily Mail that did it for me. It was Labour who perfected the art of smearing their opponents and belittling their comment – Dr Kelly, Gilligan etc etc etc.

Interesting that you should quote this “I remember how it felt to grow up gay and discover I could never have a legally recognised relationship” when the Christian church has been instrumental in opposing this legislation and actively attacking bishops for their homosexuality.

We don’t know what the Conservatives would have done if they’d been in power since 1997 – but Labour has destroyed freedom of speech and civil liberties in this country. Children are regularly finger-printed, data is collected and passed around freely by government departments, and only through luck have we managed to avoid a National ID scheme. Labour’s approach to civil life is to treat everyone as suspicious. It was Labour who proposed trials without juries, allowed the transport of victims to be tortured, presided over an explosion of cameras and official monitoring, allowed councils to tap phones for evasion of tax!!!

How anyone Christian could vote for a government of deceit, a prime minister who lied to the Chilcott enquiry, a minister who was never elected and resigned from government twice then ennobled, a speaker who refused to deal with the expenses scandal and actively campaigned to prevent it going public, and much much more? We appreciate politicians might lie – but to this extent.

Sorry Kevin – but I get very hot under the collar when I think of all the lies that Labour has told and people still believe in them.

8 05 2010
Kevin

Ooh, a can of worms… of course, the phrase “how anyone Christian could…” will also get a few people hot under the collar!

I appreciate many of the things both c2drl and Chris have said, I really do. There are many aspects of this government that have been unsavoury. I myself didn’t vote for them this week. What I am asking for is that we don’t just write everything off with a broad sweep as all being totally wrong, evil and rubbish.

I say again: minimum wage, International Development, support for low-income families, NHS waiting lists… these may not “rescue” an otherwise dark picture, but surely they are something good? I only ask that those things are also remembered. Otherwise we end up like the Daily Mail (to mention it again), who probably blame the Labour government for causing cancer…

8 05 2010
c2drl

Well, now you mention it, whilst I don’t think we can blame labour (or anybody else) for actually causing cancer I do want to hold them to account for the mishandling of the allocation of drugs to treat it, the impoverished funding of University and other research to develop cures, and a lack of funds for hospice and other care work.

However on a slightly different tack, the thing that really bothers me about many politicians but particularly Mr Brown is their dishonesty and to me it is their ethical and moral principles that are more important than individual acts. We have got caught up in the spirit of the age expecting politicians to fix everything. What I want to know about our leaders is who they are, what spirit and morality and faith drives and motivates them, and then do they have the skills to do the job.

The best thing that can come out of the present situation is if wqe get a government that is honest and I think with Clegg and Cameron we migt, if their parties let them.

8 05 2010
edgsoni

The one thing these assorted comments demonstrate to me is that we will all allow our political prejudices to frame and justify our views of morality and good and Christianity. Biased? I should say so. Objective? Hardly. Constructive? Doesn’t look much like it.
It is easy to be against something, but what we are for should define us. This election was an exercise in people voting against individuals, not for policies. Very sad. And sadly typical. We get the governments we deserve.

Oh, and by the way, weren’t ID cards Mrs Thatcher’s idea?

8 05 2010
Kevin

I think Edgsoni has a point, one that I was already thinking… this blog is meant to be about faith and life our responses and our quest for wisdom – how easily I get sidetracked into giving opinion on things I don’t really know enough about! Mind you, we are all empowered to vote on things most of us don’t know enough about – and neither do BBC’s pundits, I thought as I saw Ben Kingsley and Bruce Forsyth interviewed on a celebrity boat by Andrew Neil. What on earth…

One thing I have realised – the Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition could be called the ConDemNation Party… seeing as the vote seems to have turned into a condemnation of all the parties…

Thanks Edgsoni for bringing us back to thinking about what we are for… to do justly, love mercy and walk humbly with our God.

8 05 2010
Chris Cook

A can of worms indeed …

I’ll take issue with the idea that minimum wage is necessarily a good thing. Take that idea of earning £1 an hour for a job … because thats all the employer was prepared to offer. In a free market the employees should be able to take the job that they can do for the most they can get – but like all markets sometimes those without scruples can take people for a ride. The trouble with a minimum wage is that that same employer could have been employing five people for that rate. It would then be the job of the state to ensure that those employees had sufficient to support their families through some form of benefit.

The advantages of such a system are many. The employer gains because he can make a better profit. The employee gains because their daytime is filled – albeit with a job that doesn’t pay very well. The government gains because they get increased taxes from the employer and they pay less in benefits to the employees. And everyone still has a choice: to offer more work for whatever the market will bear; or to take the job or not.

All minimum wage does is discourage the employer from taking on more staff, leave people claiming benefits with nothing to gainfully fill their time, and a government trying to fill the gap. And no one has a choice – the employer can’t afford the staff, the claimant has to claim benefits.

Maybe my grasp of economics is flawed but I find it difficult to believe that we have actually gained from having a minimum wage.

This of course is against the background that over 1,700,000 jobs created since Labour came to power went to foreign nationals – less than 100,000 to British citizens. British jobs for British workers indeed. And who would dispute that behind these figures is an immense black market that has been created in low-paid jobs to immigrants.

I don’t want to come over all jingoistic but I think the rosy picture you want to paint of 13 years of a disastrous government is way too naive.

Maybe we should debate this over a glass of Ouzo in a Greek Taverna …

8 05 2010
Chris Cook

and Edgsoni is quite right … I let myself get carried away … probably right about Mrs Thatcher too …

8 05 2010
Kevin

For me, I am glad that the lowest-paid have been protected from the ‘free’ market, so-called. The last couple of years have shown how reliable the market is in terms of rewarding the wealthy and over-looking the poor when the going gets tough; and I don’t think that slave-wages are a good thing just to fill people’s time… it is exactly that sort of thing that Jesus came to liberate people from. Working a whole day for a wage that doesn’t cover the cost of living? No thank you.

Living off benefits is also a bad thing; jobs for migrants who are perfectly entitled to move here, as we are to move there… annoying, yes, aggravating, yes… but the Tory’s won’t change that anyway. Our own businesses choose to out-source jobs abroad. Maybe it’s them that need some imagination.

I think that as followers of Jesus we are called to support living jobs for a living wage, across the country and the world; we are called to support the growth and development of communities, which means bridging gaps between different migrant communities and the problems that brings, as well as the benefits. And we are called to help to share the wealth fairly, not allow the rich to make the money and see the poor as dispensable.

Whatever the party, whatever the politics, we are called to be salt and light, the yeast that leavens the dough, whatever metaphor you choose! To preach good news to the poor, sight for the blind, freedom for the captives… and it is ok to get carried away sometimes!

9 05 2010
Chris Cook

I agree with everything you’ve said here. I just feel the methodology of how this is achieved by governments is perhaps where we differ … but as an individual I would fully support your manifesto here.

8 05 2010
c2drl

Yes, of course Egdsoni is right about prejudice. I wonder why this is though. Of course some of it is that we are tribal at heart and have inherited prejudices, although some of us discover that we have sadly failed to pass these on to our children.

However I think another reason is that nobody was prepared to say what they were for, for fear of alienating those who were not for the same thing. So we got a combination of personality politics and bland statements, plus a bit about what they werte not for. Identity cards for instance.

I keep coming back to the point that what we need is political parties who have and set out, principles. Just having a manifesto is no use because there is wriggle room and things change over five years. We need people who say and will stick to what they believe in. Women and men of integrity, who will listen to debate and reason but stand by the principles for which they have been elected. Then, we as Christians and anybody else as well will have a yardstick against which to measure them and choose who we want. At the moment we are a million miles from there.

And Kevin you were right to raise this. We need to get to grips with it and to get involved, and we won’t do that without starting, however faltering those steps are. This is too important to leave to the politicians who say vote for me I am a really nice guy who can go 36 hours without sleep.

8 05 2010
edgsoni

One of the things that puzzles and frustrates me is how apolitical our church services are. I don’t want my vicar telling me how to vote (especially because I won’t agree with his party politics!), but I also don’t want Sunday mornings to be so disconnected from the real world that we never address (or even discuss) the big political themes and issues of the day. Jesus never said that church leaders should stick to theology. Arguably, He was as much a political activist as he was a religious leader. So since when did we agree to conspire with the secular media that the church should stay out of politics?
Most elections are not fought or won or lost on issues such as immigration or education or health (or even wars), but on the economy. Yet it’s probably easier to land a helicopter on a lecturn than it is to get a vicar to stand up and preach coherently on economic issues in such a way that their congregation may be both better informed and constructively challenged about how they might then work their faith out via the ballot box choice.
And when I say that elections turn on economic issues, I doubt that most voters are thinking in terms of the differing Labour / Conservative / Liberal Democrat party approaches to debt management or stimulating GDP. They are more likely thinking in personal terms about how much better or worse off they will be as individuals in tax terms. We are a selfish nation.
Is Britain broken? I can’t see it, personally. In fact, it all looks pretty healthy to me. Some scabs and sores and strains and aches and pains, I grant you. But broken? Nowhere near. Most of us probably never have had it so good.
But is the church emasculated? Err…

10 05 2010
c2drl

If we have a referendum on Proportional Representation will it be a first past the post referendum? In other words will those of us who voted against it have wasted our vote, or will we be allowed to continue , with first past the post ?

I think we need to reform the system but it seems to me that as a minority party the LibDems are exemplifying the problem of proportional representation. They have a small vote and no mandate, most of us voted for parties that are not in favour of PR, but it is being forced upon us in the name of democracy. Now run that past me again, please!

10 05 2010
carol

If we want people to engage in politics, then they must be given a voting system whereby their vote counts.

For the last few years I have voted Lib/Dem and frankly I am fed up that I live in an constituency where my vote counts not at all.

Jesus values us, and our ability to make choices….Its a pity the political system we call democratic does not put any value on my vote!

10 05 2010
Kevin

I really like the way the last 3 posts, c2drl, and Carol, say exact opposite things! c2drl thinks the way a minority party might be able to include bringing in PR as undemocratic, whereas Carol thinks it is undemocratic that her vote doesn’t count because we don’t have PR…

10 05 2010
c2drl

Well done carol, this is exactly the sort of debate that needs to be undertaken in the country.

I can imagine how you feel disenfranchised when your vote appears to count for nothing time after time. But can you imagine how others feel when they see a party that only got a relatively small percentage of the votes now calling the shots? Neither seems right and I think neither is right. Your opinion and vote is indeed as valuable as anybody else’s and we need a system that recognises that. However it seems to me that PR would not do that, it could in circumstances like today, give your vote more weight. And don’t forget PR would probably have given us BNP MPs and possibly have given them influence too. And of course at the end of the day it is only those parties who get in a position to influence a coalition that get heard, the others just fall off the map until the coalition breaks up, which it frequently does.

We need something different and I don’t think just changing the voting mechanism is sufficient. the Bible shows us that people matter, families matter and communities matter as well as nations. All of these need to be given power to make decisions on areas that affect their lives. The politicians call this subsidiarity and most of them hate it. I think one of the problems is that we have allowed central government, of what ever colour, to get massively too big. We need a system that rows back and puts power in the hands of the people. Voting twice a decade is not enough, even if our vote counts. the world moves on too quickly.

Central Government should only address the big things that truly cannot be done at a lower level- perhaps foreign policy, justice and national laws and some fiscal matters. Why should central government interfere in how I educate my child? If the local authority is prepared to have a grammar school and the people want it, why not? Why should central government define a curriculum for nursery schools and child minders – am I not able to decide what is good for my child? Why should central government interfere in local planning issues – they belong to the local community. Why should the bulk of the local authority council tax actually be set by central government. Why should my local hospital be controlled by central government and act against the wishes of the local community, who pay for it? etc. etc.

If we did that then families and local communities would be able to make real decisions that affect their lives and we would see people involved and taking a much more informed line about matters. I was really hoping that Cameron’s small government/big community idea would be along these lines, but alas it was all smoke and mirrors.

It would also mean that who was Prime Minister etc would matter less because we would have taken back a lot of the power that has been subsumed by them. It would still be important but because of our involvement in the subsidiary matters we would be better able to vote and I think politics would be transformed.

One big problem is that the rest of Europe is run on the big interfering government basis and is moving dangerously further in that direction. The European Commissioner for Children was bemoaning the other day that in Britain people are NOT YET ready to accept the government managing their family matters. Too right we are not.

Where does the Parliament of Great Britain sit in the structure of a massive central bureaucracy in Brussels and local Government in the UK? The answer is probably that in another decade it won’t so why all the fuss? Because “Over my dead Body…”

With respect to the Lib Dems and PR, I think these are the real issues that need to be discussed when we consider reforming Government. I really think there is a head of steam looking for change and we have a responsibility as Christians to enter into the debate and help it. We won’t all agree all the time and actually that is great, perhaps we can show people how to disagree without falling out.. but then again? Let’s pray and debate and help drive change forward.

10 05 2010
Kevin

Ok, a few things. The ‘relatively small percentage of the vote’ that the Lib Dems got… Let’s see:
Con 10.7m votes = 36%
Lab 8.6m votes = 26%
Lib Dem 6.8m = 23%
That seems a fairly significant percentage, and one that doesn’t really relate to 308, 256 and 57 seats? By the way, the BNP got 0.5m votes, 1.7% (source: BBC News).
Surely PR is putting power back in the hands of the people in some way? I confess I don’t fully understand it, and I am sure it still has problems, but it seems a fairer representation of the votes? Of course the 2 main parties don’t want it, because it will interfere with their monopoly, and being good capitalists they want to ensure competition remains unfair to their advantage…!

11 05 2010
c2drl

Kevin, have you stopped to think what democratic actually means. It means, according to my dictionary Government by all the people, usually through elected representatives. The minute you have votes and elected representatives there are loosers as well as winners. So what seems to be important is that all the people have their say, through the vote and that the elected representatives heed the will of the people.

I am not sure how allowing a party with less than 25% of the vote to foist on the rest of us something that we didn’t want and didn’t vote for is democratic. It seems to me to be an example of how PR works, allowing smaller parties to bargain above thoer strength and insist on things that are not the will of the majority. You will see it now as the Scots and Welsh seek to protect theor parts of the United? Kingdom from spending cuts at the expense of the English. (I say that as a Welshman).

There has to be a better way.

11 05 2010
Kevin

I do see that there are problems – but is it fair to ‘blame’ the Lib Dems for foisting electoral reform on (some) who didn’t vote for it, to blame them for being a minor irritance punching above their weight; or to ‘blame’ the 2 big parties for failing to gain a majority needed, because of the faith that has been lost in both of them.

Neither of them won the election, so the only way to deal with that is to form coalitions. Coalitions mean deals, deals mean winners and losers. No-one really believes (do they?) that the Tory’s or Labour will listen to the Lib Dems once whatever coalition government has started, so of course they must fight for the voting system that will allow for a fairer distribution of the votes.

This does mean, especially now, that minority parties with vested interests will have more influence. That is worrying. But it is how our constitution works. Anyway, the Tories only got 36% of the vote, so whatever policies they would implement are hardly representative of the people – certainly not 63% of them.

For me, a key thing to look out for is promises, and broken promises. Because as we have said, whoever is in charge it is up to us to hold them to account. Of course each party wants to achieve the best deal to ensure they have the most power, which they will couch in terms of being ‘safe, stable government’ but actually means we want to be in charge. We have to look at what they promise, hold them to it, and challenge them when they don’t.

By the way, what percentage of you is Welsh? And is that a FPTP, AV or PR system you are using…?!

11 05 2010
c2drl

OK, my last word, I don’t want to monopolise this. How would anybody who exoects people to keep their promises ever vote Labour, or go into a coalition with them?

I still think we are concentrating on the wrong things. The system isn’t perfect and there probably isn’t a perfect system, but changing it won’t fix Britains problems. We need proper adult and informed debate about what type of country and society we want this to be, then we need politicians we can trust who will propose their principles and policies to get there. Where is the debate about what type of country we want? Nowhere it has all been about personality. Where are the policies and principles? Nowhere, all the talk has been about whats in it for me.

Remember when we used to be Great Britain, respected by the world. Now we are the United Kingdom, and even that is a lie. We really need to work on the basics not the system if we are to fix the broken society and reduce poverty and ill health.

I think that’s why nobody one. Nobody had the guts to talk about what matters.

11 05 2010
carol

Would not a ‘rainbow coalition’ be the most democratic outcome, given that
Scotland would then receive a voice, something that they certainly will not have with a Con/Deb coalition?. Democracy can be messy, but that doesn’t make it wrong.
It is great in my book that the three main leaders in this story, have had to eat humble pie and listen to each other!
Better late than never!!!

11 05 2010
Dai Adem

We Socts and Welsh Nationalists are really looking forward to this Rainbow Coalition. First we will demand, as a price of keeping them in office a complete insulation of Scotland and Wales from any budget cuts, so England cops the lot.

Then we shall wreck any bill that doesn’t suit us, and that means any bill that doesn’t advance our cause of independence. And at any time we can force an election.

I’m getting quite keen on this hung parliament malarkey. Much better than Europe where the MPs don’t represent anybody and don’t have any say anyway. Here’s to that nice Mr Clegg and his pals – cheers.

11 05 2010
edgsoni

Systems, systems, systems… my kingdom for a system…
Shouldn’t we be thinking about using the Duckworth-Lewis method to work out who should be declared the winner? Whatever that is.
Personally, I’m very unhappy that Chelsea have just been declared winners of the Premier League on the old fashioned and arbitrary grounds that they ended up with more match points than Man Utd. I don’t see why the teams who have ended up in meaningless mid-table positions shouldn’t be allowed to re-distribute their points to other teams in the league. Like Birmingham, for instance. Maybe they could have given most of their superfluous points to Burnley in the hope that Midlands rivals Wolves got relegated and donated a couple of spare points to Man Utd so that they might have pipped Chelsea on a re-count. An alternative voting system would get my vote.
Or, alternatively, Man Utd have bigger average attendance figures than all the other teams, so shouldn’t those votes mean that they always win every game? Maybe that’s a good system too – the one with the most popular votes wins?
Or maybe just something that means that the team that plays in reds always finishes in front of a team in blue?

11 05 2010
Kevin

And so it changes again… they system has finally given us a Conservative Prime Minister, buffed and shiny and without notes. This may well be the best for the country, depending on how the coalition works; only time will tell. I am just glad that the “winner “couldn’t be triumphalistic and victorious, but needed to be calm and measured. The former would have been unbearable. Onwards we go… let’s see if coalition lasts longer than England in the World Cup…

12 05 2010
c2drl

Wello said Edgsoni, couldn’t have said it better myself.

What are you thinking?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s




%d bloggers like this: