2 ms·

Such is the nature of politics. I don't know what politics are like elsewhere but in Britain it goes something like this.. At Prime Ministers Questions. Oppos

Such is the nature of politics. I don't know what politics are like elsewhere but in Britain it goes something like this.. At Prime Ministers Questions. Opposition: Another bank scandal, not doing enough, blah blah blah PM: ignores question Well the hypocrasy, in 2009 opposition was shaking hands with these people. In 2005 you praised the banks blah blah nonsense blah. In UK politics any position you take today is used as a weapon against you tomorrow. This is my understanding of why things are being deleted. Take the conservatives. Before the banking crisis they wanted to match Labour spending. On crime they wanted to hug a hoodie.. now they believe in Austerity, blame Labour party for the financial problems and are tough on crime. Turns out that the world changes and so do policies and I guess this drastic step is to reduce the ammount of ammunition each other have. I am not sure it matters that they are deleted. Surely the websites of political parties should reflect the policies of today. It is up to historians, archivists and the media to note and store the speeches of yesterday.

dspillett 13y ago
> In UK politics any position you take today is used as a weapon against you tomorrow. As it damn well should be. If I'm voting for a person or party on the basis of some promise they are making about a given policy or a claim that they have an understanding/capability of something, I want to be able to see their history of keeping (or not) said promised and proving (or now) their actual understanding/capability. Someone who has a history of being badly wrong and/or not keeping their word is someone I'm less likely to trust. That'll be the majority of current politicians (ours and those in other countries). I don't consider this position to be at all unreasonable. Someone who actively hides that they were wrong in the past, and/or made promises that have since not been kept, is someone I trust even less. Removing the content from their site to replace it with up-to-date positions I'm OK with, we understand it is a fluffy promotion site rather than a library of meaningful and historically accurate information anyway, but actively working to have the old content removed from other archives is simply not on IMO.

dspillett 13y ago

> In UK politics any position you take today is used as a weapon against you tomorrow. As it damn well should be. If I'm voting for a person or party on the basis of some promise they are making about a given policy or a claim that they have an understanding/capability of something, I want to be able to see their history of keeping (or not) said promised and proving (or now) their actual understanding/capability. Someone who has a history of being badly wrong and/or not keeping their word is someone I'm less likely to trust. That'll be the majority of current politicians (ours and those in other countries). I don't consider this position to be at all unreasonable. Someone who actively hides that they were wrong in the past, and/or made promises that have since not been kept, is someone I trust even less. Removing the content from their site to replace it with up-to-date positions I'm OK with, we understand it is a fluffy promotion site rather than a library of meaningful and historically accurate information anyway, but actively working to have the old content removed from other archives is simply not on IMO.