The Blame Game

Just wondering how far back do you think it's wise to go in political debates when it comes to talking about previous governments?

Do you think it's wise to use the past as a reminder of what the party was like or do you prefer to take current policy into account more than their track record?

Or maybe some of each?

I'm just asking because I've been reading a lot of Guardian CIF comments and there always seems to be a case of 'yeah well in 1997 Labour did x' and 'in the 80s Thatcher did that.'

It tends to be a good way of avoiding particular questions.

For example if a Labour MP asks a question to the government about why they are raising tuition fees the Tory/Lib Dem MP can point out that Labour were the party to introduce tuition fees.

It seems to work well in preventing them from being too harmed from the opposition for doing something. The difficulty is for people who just want that question answered, they may not affiliate themselves with any party but they just want to have some straight answers given. It doesn't matter to them whether Labour did this, or the Tories did that, only that the government is doing something and they want to know why.

Alex Salmond in particular is good at deflection. Any time anyone questions him about anything he will find something somewhat related to that party to criticise instead of actually giving an adult and proper response to it.

Anyway, in answer of your question I think it's unwise to go back further than what the government have directly done at the time, as it means party bickering and popularity matters more than the actual policies and points which are being made.

Bring back Thatcher. But re-open the pits and send the dolers down there.