Interesting to read the CUK forum at the moment. We have moved from frivolous subjects to serious rants about taxation, government inefficiency etc. I guess when people are being hit deep into their wallets, then the anger gets through.
In a typical British way, though, the anger is restricted to just whinges, moans and vague empty threat of some sort of 'action'. Usually some people end up talking angry citizens off taking any action, telling them "not to be silly", "the government is doing what it can", "it's not their fault", "nothing will be achieved by violent protests, or blockades", and, my favourite, "you and your family will be at risk of police prosecution if you take any part in unlawful demonstrations"
Finally, the government promises to "look into the problem", "is aware of ordinary Britons concerns" and "will set up a commission to produce a report that will suggest possible courses of action".
Great. I don't think the supposedly cheese-eating surrender monkeys across the channel have the patience, or indeed the trust in their government to be satisfied with such a process. They know the only way to make the high civil servants and government ministers listen is through proper action, which usually achieves the target that whatever they want is usually delivered by the government, even if as a way of saving face, the government claims that it was something "they had considered doing all along".
There is an apathy and an unchallenged respect for orderly behaviour in this country which is good most of the time but very unsuited in times of disconnection between government and the people it is supposed to serve. Maybe it is because the British, in their history, and compared to other countries, have traditionally had politicians and a civil service that has been fair and understanding and had its people interests at heart. This discourages them to take drastic action as it is not in their nature and they never have needed to so far. Also the political class in the UK reacts very badly to protests that are outside what it sees as lawful and through "proper channels". Witness Thatcher's government reactions to the violent riots - I think other countries would have been more sympathetic to the plight of the protesters and - for good or bad - would have yielded a bit more and maybe kept the mines going a bit longer (again, it would not necessarily have been a good thing, but that's not the point).
So in summary, I think we can expect lost more whinging and little acts of disobedience here and there but nothing major - and Gordon "Fair" Brown and Tony "Compassion" Blair will carry on ignoring the voice of the street.
But hey, after all, why should they do any different? They have just been re-elected and will not face any challenge to their power until 2010 - by which time, all this will be forgotten and they will have had other opportunities to demonstrate their fairness and compassion for all.
Jez, it's quite good to have nothing to do on a Wednesday morning and be paid to write nonsense on the internet!
In a typical British way, though, the anger is restricted to just whinges, moans and vague empty threat of some sort of 'action'. Usually some people end up talking angry citizens off taking any action, telling them "not to be silly", "the government is doing what it can", "it's not their fault", "nothing will be achieved by violent protests, or blockades", and, my favourite, "you and your family will be at risk of police prosecution if you take any part in unlawful demonstrations"
Finally, the government promises to "look into the problem", "is aware of ordinary Britons concerns" and "will set up a commission to produce a report that will suggest possible courses of action".
Great. I don't think the supposedly cheese-eating surrender monkeys across the channel have the patience, or indeed the trust in their government to be satisfied with such a process. They know the only way to make the high civil servants and government ministers listen is through proper action, which usually achieves the target that whatever they want is usually delivered by the government, even if as a way of saving face, the government claims that it was something "they had considered doing all along".
There is an apathy and an unchallenged respect for orderly behaviour in this country which is good most of the time but very unsuited in times of disconnection between government and the people it is supposed to serve. Maybe it is because the British, in their history, and compared to other countries, have traditionally had politicians and a civil service that has been fair and understanding and had its people interests at heart. This discourages them to take drastic action as it is not in their nature and they never have needed to so far. Also the political class in the UK reacts very badly to protests that are outside what it sees as lawful and through "proper channels". Witness Thatcher's government reactions to the violent riots - I think other countries would have been more sympathetic to the plight of the protesters and - for good or bad - would have yielded a bit more and maybe kept the mines going a bit longer (again, it would not necessarily have been a good thing, but that's not the point).
So in summary, I think we can expect lost more whinging and little acts of disobedience here and there but nothing major - and Gordon "Fair" Brown and Tony "Compassion" Blair will carry on ignoring the voice of the street.
But hey, after all, why should they do any different? They have just been re-elected and will not face any challenge to their power until 2010 - by which time, all this will be forgotten and they will have had other opportunities to demonstrate their fairness and compassion for all.
Jez, it's quite good to have nothing to do on a Wednesday morning and be paid to write nonsense on the internet!
Comment