"Yeah... could we not suggest assassination is a good political tool? Because it's not."
You could say that about freedom of the press, and universal suffrage for that matter.
That isn't intended to be a snide comment. As El Reg has ably pointed out over the last few years, the government's legislative approach has been populist and ignorant, aimed at appeasing the tabloid press and the White House in roughly equal measure. Joe Public is only now seeing some of the consequences; the two coppers being nailed by an Ofsted jobsworth last week for having the temerity to adopt a childcare approach that wasn't government approved is just one example. I haven't noticed the Conservatives declaring that they would repeal many of the laws enacted since 1997.
So how did we get here? Why did so many people vote for such an incompetent shower three times in a row? Particularly after Iraq?
You can, I suggest, get a feel for the answer by looking at the comments posted to mainstream news sites. You see the same themes occurring over and over again – that Paw Broon was unelected, that we should leave the EU and then somehow stand alone against the economic giants, that the Scots are sponging off the English, that the English are sponging off the Scots, that becoming a teenage single mother is a passport to a life of luxury, that the country is being over-run with immigrants, that all teenagers are feral thugs, etc, etc, etc. Whenever elections are discussed, an amazing number of people insist on their democratic right to spoil their ballot papers (which means absolutely sod-all) or not vote at all, which has the sole result of the elected MP making some flatulent noise about listening more to the electorate and then forgetting all about it until the next General Election, whereupon the same thing happens all over again.
The overall picture is of an appalling level of ignorance surrounding the political process. The twaddle spouted in the gutter press becomes many people's view of the world, and they vote accordingly. All the politicians have to do is promise what the rags demand and hey presto – a nice big majority and a job that involves little more that playing the nodding dog to constituents and walking through a doorway to vote every so often when that nice whip says so. Why the hell should they do any more than that? The minority of people who do understand the process are drowned under the flood of mob hysteria, so they can just be sent a letter full of PR piss and wind whenever they dare to object to the government's latest demonstration of idiocy.
As for assassination – consider this, Sarah. Imagine you were listening to the 2005 Labour conference, knowing full well that the speaker would be in power for the next five years. Change the subject a little, so that the subject of their ire was something other than prostitution and far more dangerous – restricting the freedom of the press perhaps, or "restoring the moral breakdown of society" by banning women with children going out to work, or repealing the law on marital rape. Or perhaps the forcible repatriation of anyone without a job who wasn't born in the UK, maybe.
And, after eight years, you would know the government's track record on legislation – ignore the consultation and analysis until the right set of views and figures come up, scribble some legislation on a beer mat and steamroller it through Parliament by ordering the rank and file sycophants to vote with the whip. You might have a different view on offing said speaker. I didn't say it was a good political tool. I said there might be some mileage in it; not quite the same thing.