An interesting quiz popped into my inbox from those nice people at Unlock Democracy. You have to imagine that you are PM – after all, that job may well be up for grabs in the near future.
You are presented with a series of policy dilemmas – would you rather do x or y? Actually, in some cases, I was a bit “NEITHER” or “NOT QUITE LIKE THAT” or “BOTH” but that is part of the fun.
It has a serious point:
Every day decisions affecting millions are made by a handful of ministers, while the rest of us struggle to have a voice. By taking the quiz and sharing it afterwards, we can spread the word about the need to bring power closer to the people.
So have a look and see how policy decisions change the world.
* Caron Lindsay is Editor of Liberal Democrat Voice and blogs at Caron's Musings
Follow @LibDemVoice on Twitter
Like us on Facebook
Subscribe to our feed
Sign-up for our daily email digest
Tory Leadership dirty tricks?
Mystery at Witchend is Went the Day Well? and Seven White Gates is A Matter of Life and Death
The long role of the Jewish community in Liverpool
Labour's post-election (non-)honeymoon: The Week in Polls
September now
Farron photos
Andrew Tampion
Joe Bourke
Peter Martin
Mick Taylor
Michael BG
11 Comments
Just tried it and found it really thought provoking.
Thanks for highlighting Caron.
If you do ever manage to become PM I wouldn’t mind being in the cabinet.
Secretary of State for Health and Social Care maybe?
Sorry, but I found it really irritating and didn’t complete it. Politics is not a series of binary choices as presented here, nor is it just about deciding on spending priorities. The LibDems in Coalition insisted on high standards of energy efficiency in new build homes: after they won the 2015 election the Tories watered down the regulations. There is not a choice in the real world between crowded prisons and energy efficiency.
Avoid saying “Stalemate” unless you know what it means. Raymond Keene (The Times) would never do that, neither would Nigel Short. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stalemate
Perhaps “Zugzwang” would be more accurate? (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zugzwang)
The difference is in the timing. The Supreme Court ruled that the Commons should have “a meaningful vote”, but when? The government has not been checkmated, yet, but is compelled to make a legal move, perhaps to its disadvantage.
“Bloody difficult woman” Theresa May has not “listened” to the advice of John Major, or maybe she has heard it, but not acted on it. The “bastards”, such as John Redwood and Bill Cash, are like wolves following a sled, from which scraps are being thrown. As Michael Heseltine has said they will take the scraps and, relentlessly, press for more.
As Home Secretary she accepted the decision to reduce expenditure on police, even though she admitted at the time that she did not know how to do it. She invited the whole department to a meeting and asked for ideas. The Permanent Secretary was also there. There was no mention of the fact that increasing spending on police was one of the policies that got Margaret Thatcher into Downing Street.
@Richard Underhill: I may have missed something – but, interesting as they may be, I fail to see how your above comments relate to Caron’s post or the attached quiz … although do correct me if I’m wrong.
The binary nature of the quiz was a little off putting. But I found it to be quite an interesting exercise. There’s a few specific outcomes I would debate,. Mainly the ones about reducing fuel duty, rent caps and increasing spending on energy efficient homes. Weirdly, when I first tried it and for some reason I couldn’t click on either option I accidently changed the face Britain.
I’m with tonyhill here. I couldn’t see how some of the binary choices were really opposite. However, I completed the quiz and re-considered the implications of some of the policies (something governments don’t seem very good at…)
But to get back to the headline ‘If you were PM….’, my answer would be clear about what I, or any other PM should do – withdraw Article 50 forthwith.
Statement: ‘It has emerged over the last 2 and a half years that even for its supporters there is no single realistic acceptable form of Brexit that would satisfy even a majority of those who voted Leave. We have spent 30 months pursuing a group of incompatible Impossible Dreams and won’t be able implement any one of them. It is time to call a halt to this profligate waste of government and parliamentary resources and seek Strength and Stability by continuing to let the EU continue to do those things it does best, with full participation of the UK in its decisions, and to return Whitehall and Westminster to their core taks of solving the numerous neglected issues peculiar to the UK. My government will proceed immediately to bring forward a Bill to withdraw Article 50 and bring a close to this whole frustrating episode.’
I tried the ‘quiz’; but am not sure what it told me about me. I agree that ‘either/or’ aka binary choices can cause problems. Where have we heard that recently?
If I were PM I would calculate the increase in government revenue from the growth of the economy and allocate £6 billion to the NHS and social care and £5.9 billion to increasing the rates of benefits. I would have regional living wages set by the government at 70% of median earnings for that nation or region. I would provide support for councils so 300,000 new council houses could be built each year. This would mean that in the first year of my government other central government expenditure could only increase at the rate of inflation. However thereafter there would be an increasing pool of money to spend on other things. After five years the NHS and social care would have £30 billion a year more and assuming 7 million claimants of benefit they would have on average £81 more a week and there would be £1.6 billion more a year for other government expenditure.
So who reads Liberal Democrat Voice?
Possibly the researchers at “Have I got News for you?” chaired on 14/12/2018 by Gary Lineker, footballer and football pundit, formerly of Spurs and England, recently liking Leicester’s win in and of the Premier League.
He produced the word ‘Zugzwang’ and challenged others to know what it means.
See above.
I didn’t find it very difficult to make the decisions, although if I were a politician, I don’t doubt that it might be difficult to deal with the political consequences. Simply put, when faced with a difficult decision, I ask: which of these choices most benefits the least advantaged and the most powerless? And then I’d choose that over the one that benefits the already advantaged and powerful.
Rees-Mogg is obviously not a chess player, nor a chess historian.
Lasker was a non-smoker. An opponent laid out some cigarettes on the table.
Lasker called the tournament organiser, who said that Lasker’s opponent had not lit any.
Lasker replied that he should know that “The threat is more powerful than the execution”.
https://www.bing.com/search?q=liberal+democrat+voice&form=EDGEAR&qs=HS&cvid=495e05a7fc534303b3464fd5f37cf79f&cc=GB&setlang=en-US