I guess all politicians need to have at least one crazy policy.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
UK PoliGAF thread of tell me about the rabbits again, Dave.
- Thread starter Chinner
- Start date
I guess all politicians need to have at least one crazy policy.
killer_clank
Member
I don't agree with American style tabloid trials, but there's certain aspects such as verdicts and sentencing, along with main evidence that definitely should be shown on TV in high profile cases, to give people a far better knowledge and understanding about how justice is done and why certain sentences are given out. It'd go a long way to stop the usual anger from people who misunderstand life sentences and the like. The vast majority of people have no knowledge about how the justice system actually works in practice, so I think it would be a good thing to make some of it more public and open.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-17982526
Theresa May got the dates wrong in Abu Qatada's extradition case, but the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear the appeal standing by it's previous judgement.
So there.
Theresa May got the dates wrong in Abu Qatada's extradition case, but the European Court of Human Rights refused to hear the appeal standing by it's previous judgement.
So there.
killer_clank
Member
Another Thatcher death rumour going around, from the French newswires this time.
Probably not true, but you never know...
Probably not true, but you never know...
As we all knew would happen. Hope Phisheep is right about this being a cast-iron judgement.
Also, an interesting piece on Channel 4 News about a government U-turn on the Joint Strike Fighter planes for aircraft carriers. So now, after putting Labour on blast for ordering the jump-jet version of the plane, specifically to order the supposedly superior catapult-launched version in its place, they're going back to the jump-jet version after all, having wasted £250 million on the process of "thinking about it".
Do I get to say "Typical coalition" yet?
I think the coalition need to eat some humble pie over this; they should be used to it by now.
Speedymanic
Banned
Wow, the mind reels over what must be in that paper if they felt the need to do this.
It's definitely to do with patient care/more risk to patients through the changes, Increased wait times, private patients getting preference over others, more resources funneled into catering for private patients, etc.
I haven't been voting long enough to really have a *side*, election before last I voted labour as I thought the country was being successful not realising we were spending our way into shit.
The way I see it is voting for the lesser evil, The lib dems dont have enough backbone to lead and iam personally quite pro military and nuclear power putting me at odds with their policies. I dont see any strength at all in the current labour leadership and wouldn't trust 'ed' to not wet himself at a big summit leaving the UK vulnerable to international kerb stomping on the political stage.
cameron may be a douchebag who seems hell bent on destroying what I think is the finest idea of the last century (the NHS) but labour don't seem to have any real ideas about how to deal with the debt other then copying obamas taglines (the party for change lolololol) while the lib dems are self destructing and the greens are as pathetic as always.
UKIP feel far too focused on one set of policies and are very vague on things out side of that focus.
Iam no fan of the conservatives I just feel that they would have the best handle on dealing with the current issues out of the less then ideal candidates, if labour put someone with a spine in charge then I may go back there. If cameron dropped his attempts to start the precedent for selling the NHS to china then I will prob stick with con for next election without much issue.
The health care and social bill contains so many contradictions that it doesnt even achieve what the Conservatives wanted from it in the first place. Honestly, it's a disaster of a bill.
Speedymanic
Banned
I miss Metro and their sensationalist headlines. What was it this time?
A front-page ad spoofing the PM resigning over a scandal around Sacha Baron Cohen's new Dictator character's movie.
Below the fold you see a picture of the Dictator, but above the fold it really looks like a genuine story.
Speedymanic
Banned
That's actually pretty cool. lol.
broadwayrock
Member
I know you can't see this because you're banned, but you have my gratitude for your honesty and respectful answer.
I agree, Red Ed is a real issue for Labour, and he does have to be replaced. But who will fit the bill? David Milliband is the obvious choice, but only if you're okay with Blair 2.0, and having another Dave in power. Harman? Abbott? Chuckie Egg? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.
Other than that, I just don't know too many others except Dennis Skinner, who'd be amusing in a Micheal Foot sort of way, or Tom Watson, who's supposed to be a cunt, but fuck it, I'd vote for him. Only if Louise Mensch is the Tory Leader as well, mind.
Anyone else in the frame to replace Ed?
killer_clank
Member
Ed has issues he'll need to address before the next GE certainly, but after last week's results his position shouldn't be in any doubt at all. He did really well, and has been pushing the political agenda for quite a while now.
PJV3
Member
I know you can't see this because you're banned, but you have my gratitude for your honesty and respectful answer.
I agree, Red Ed is a real issue for Labour, and he does have to be replaced. But who will fit the bill? David Milliband is the obvious choice, but only if you're okay with Blair 2.0, and having another Dave in power. Harman? Abbott? Chuckie Egg? BWAAAAHAHAHAHAHA.
Other than that, I just don't know too many others except Dennis Skinner, who'd be amusing in a Micheal Foot sort of way, or Tom Watson, who's supposed to be a cunt, but fuck it, I'd vote for him. Only if Louise Mensch is the Tory Leader as well, mind.
Anyone else in the frame to replace Ed?
Rachel Reeves is supposed to be very able, also Yvette Cooper is a future possibility.
Besides that, most people are identikit politicians. I doubt you will see many Tony Benn's or Dennis Skinner's in the future.
Ah, yes, you make some good points here. But, while I'm a firm believer in the maxim "Good men are born, great men are made", I can still understand where dalin80 is coming from - right now, Ed feels too soft, too half-boiled, like he couldn't hold his own in a fight when it counts.
Say whatever you want about Maggie Thatcher (and believe me, I have a lot to say about her), you still got the sense that, in her prime, she could scratch your eyes out if you tried anything. Not so much Blair, but he still had an edge to him, and you just know Auld Gordon has had a few scraps in his time. None of the current crop of leaders - Cameron, Clegg or Milliband - feel anything like authoritative enough to lead the country in tough times.
My question is, can Ed gain some of that sense of refined toughness before the election comes in 2015?
If he can't, he needs to be replaced, or Labour will lose.
PJV3
Member
Replacing Ed would be a disaster, firstly because it would be a gamble as Ed has improved and his calm(boring) approach rattles Cameron. It takes time to settle into the role and work out your opponent. In the end what will decide the election is Europe and the economy, Milliband doesn't have to do anything.
The tories themselves don't expect to win outright in 2015, 80% of cuts remain to be implemented and they and the LibDem's don't have an exit strategy worked out. Replace Ed and the focus shifts to internal Labour problems.
Also Coulson seems to suffer similar recall issues as everybody else at NI, and nobody seems to have any influence or ego.
The tories themselves don't expect to win outright in 2015, 80% of cuts remain to be implemented and they and the LibDem's don't have an exit strategy worked out. Replace Ed and the focus shifts to internal Labour problems.
Also Coulson seems to suffer similar recall issues as everybody else at NI, and nobody seems to have any influence or ego.
Jezbollah
Member
I just dont think Ed has (or at least has shown) backbone, resolve to be a true leader. Half the time I struggle to think he has full support of his whole party (same happened to Brown).
I think the recent elections were people voting for the party, not the leader. And if Cameron nails down a message putting people off the person, rather than party in the next GE, Labour may struggle.
I think the recent elections were people voting for the party, not the leader. And if Cameron nails down a message putting people off the person, rather than party in the next GE, Labour may struggle.
blazinglord
Member
He knifed his brother in the back to win the Labour leadership. I would say that demonstrates a fair bit of backbone in that he put his ambition ahead of his family.
I think Ed Miliband is doing alright at the moment. There's room for improvement of course, but the contrast of him with David Cameron makes Ed Miliband look like a good alternative. David Cameron is really going to struggle to get a majority in the next election. Speaking as someone who voted for the Tories in the last election, while I don't regret ejecting the tired and purposeless Gordon Brown administration, I won't be voting for the Tories again while Cameron remains party leader.
I dont think Ed lacks backbone but that doesnt matter. If you go out and ask people whether he looks and sounds like a PM most people will say no. 2010 was the most personality-driven election we've ever had and I can't see him doing well. He has to rely on the strength of the party behind him.
Psychotext
Member
I know loads of people who like Labour at the moment but can't stand Ed. In fairness he really is a bit of a drip, even though I don't personally go in for image politics I can sort of see their point.
Only worse (likely) choice would be Boris representing us on a world stage.
Only worse (likely) choice would be Boris representing us on a world stage.
PJV3
Member
"Defence officials said the MoD had already spent £40m-£50m to convert one of the carriers. They predicted the total cost of putting "cats and traps" on both of the new ships would total £5bn – 10 times the amount estimated in 2005".
What goes on in the MoD, It doesn't matter who's in government they are just fucking awful. Cameron has added his own brand of fuckwittery to the mix this time, but the department is just like the Home Office, beyond repair.
What goes on in the MoD, It doesn't matter who's in government they are just fucking awful. Cameron has added his own brand of fuckwittery to the mix this time, but the department is just like the Home Office, beyond repair.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
The MOD is trapped trying to budget between a spendthrift past labour government/admiralty that wanted the latest toys for it's myriad wars.
And now a conservative government that's trying scrape everyone to the bone regardless of the damage it does to the military/country. The SVOTL variant of the f-35 is a worthless aircraft, so by trying to save a few billion we're now gonna end up with a shitty fighter squadron for decades.
The entire project has been bent over a table and repeatedly scuttled in the arse by BAE, Tory, labour.
And now a conservative government that's trying scrape everyone to the bone regardless of the damage it does to the military/country. The SVOTL variant of the f-35 is a worthless aircraft, so by trying to save a few billion we're now gonna end up with a shitty fighter squadron for decades.
The entire project has been bent over a table and repeatedly scuttled in the arse by BAE, Tory, labour.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
EDIT: Sorry, double post because of 500 error.
Guerrillas in the Mist
Member
The MOD's incompetence truly knows no bounds, and when combined with general government incompetence...
I mean, look at the Voyager program, £10 or so billion spent on planes we won't even fucking own.
I mean, look at the Voyager program, £10 or so billion spent on planes we won't even fucking own.
fizzelopeguss
Banned
it means a redesign. It's a non nuclear powered ship so standard cats won't work...they decided to use an american electro-magnetic system which would take up less space and maintenance than a conventional steam power-plant but that's running over budget.
Jezbollah
Member
Fair point re Ed & David - although I think that does show backbone it doesnt display it positively. Unscrupulous certainly. I just struggle to take Ed seriously as he seems to lack venom in his delivery - to me he still gives the air of being out of depth. I'd like him to show some bloody ANGER. That front bench still has remnants of the Brown/Blair establishment - especially Ed Balls. I fucking hate that man.
Little Old Man
Member
Why on earth weren't the new carriers designed to be powered by nuclear generators? They were put forth by Labour in the 'good years', so surely money wasn't an issue there. Is there an operational aspect to it I'm missing?
fizzelopeguss
Banned
@Little Old Man
Because the planes they originally chose (SVOTL F-35B) didn't need catapults. Budget cuts in the Tory defense review forced the MOD to choose the more Conventional, "less" expensive (and better performing) Catapult based F-35C variant...but they've been a clusterfuck so far, the yanks struggled to get them to "trap" with carrier decks.
Now we're back on the F-35B because the royal navy are facing a potential 10-15 years of having no planes at all.
The whole thing has been a perfect storm.
Ship's that are expensive at the best of time being made more expensive because gordon brown wanted them to be built in scotland in his constituency (requiring a complete refit of the facilities there to be capable of building modern capital ships)
The Planes being a complete mess. Potentially underperforming and stratospherically over budget that's making even the USAF/NAVY sweat.
And plagued with technical and design faults with the EM catapult (understandable as it's new tech), and trying to retrofit and redesign supercarriers for planes they didn't intend to fly.
Because the planes they originally chose (SVOTL F-35B) didn't need catapults. Budget cuts in the Tory defense review forced the MOD to choose the more Conventional, "less" expensive (and better performing) Catapult based F-35C variant...but they've been a clusterfuck so far, the yanks struggled to get them to "trap" with carrier decks.
Now we're back on the F-35B because the royal navy are facing a potential 10-15 years of having no planes at all.
The whole thing has been a perfect storm.
Ship's that are expensive at the best of time being made more expensive because gordon brown wanted them to be built in scotland in his constituency (requiring a complete refit of the facilities there to be capable of building modern capital ships)
The Planes being a complete mess. Potentially underperforming and stratospherically over budget that's making even the USAF/NAVY sweat.
And plagued with technical and design faults with the EM catapult (understandable as it's new tech), and trying to retrofit and redesign supercarriers for planes they didn't intend to fly.
Cost. There's other stuff around the infrastructure required to support a nuclear carrier and political will for it but ultimately it was down to cost (it was considered early on but then discounted)
BBC: Cameron sent commiserations to Brooks
Cameron just can't catch a break.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/f35_u_turn_idiocy/
BAE would lose money if we had a catapult fitted carrier.
BAE is the company that sets the price of fitting the catapult.
Cameron just can't catch a break.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/10/f35_u_turn_idiocy/
BAE would lose money if we had a catapult fitted carrier.
BAE is the company that sets the price of fitting the catapult.
Vivalaraza
Member
Cameron used to finish his texts to Rebekah Brooks with "LOL" thinking it meant "lots of love".
I don't even...
I don't even...
PJV3
Member
I struggle to blame politicians for this, in the end what the fuck do they know about these things. But there must be somebody in the MoD who knew BAE were bullshitting.
Brooks isn't coming over very well at Leveson, Jay is obviously annoyed by her.
Nobody at NI can remember anything from the general election onwards, except that Brown was a psycho.
Brooks: I don't think anybody could have predicted that a member of the public would mistake a paediatrician for a paedophile.
BBC: Jeremy Hunt "sought News Corp guidance"
Another nail in Hunt's coffin. I am looking forward to his apperance at the inquiry.
Another nail in Hunt's coffin. I am looking forward to his apperance at the inquiry.
PJV3
Member
http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2012/may/11/rebekah-brooks-missing-blackberry-message
Computer experts are puzzled how Rebekah Brooks's messages could have been deleted in the copying process, as she testified at the Leveson inquiry.
Rebekah Brooks's BlackBerry puzzled a number of experts on Friday. Specifically, they couldn't understand how a process that is carried out routinely creating a copy of all the files on the device, or "imaging" could have led to any loss of data. "Rubbish" was one of the printable reactions from computer forensics specialists consulted by the Guardian.
Asked by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether there were any emails or texts from Cameron or George Osborne on the device when she left News International, she replied: "No. Although when we got the image back, there was one from Mr Cameron that was compressed, so [it was] in June, but there's no content in it."
"So it's a complete mystery what if anything it might contain?" asked Jay.
"Yes," replied Brooks.
But the mystery to computer forensics experts was what could possibly have gone wrong in "imaging" the device's files. That is a standard process used when computer equipment and now smartphones are seized in which an exact bit-for-bit copy is made of the contents of any storage on the device.
Computer experts are puzzled how Rebekah Brooks's messages could have been deleted in the copying process, as she testified at the Leveson inquiry.
Rebekah Brooks's BlackBerry puzzled a number of experts on Friday. Specifically, they couldn't understand how a process that is carried out routinely creating a copy of all the files on the device, or "imaging" could have led to any loss of data. "Rubbish" was one of the printable reactions from computer forensics specialists consulted by the Guardian.
Asked by Robert Jay QC, counsel to the inquiry, whether there were any emails or texts from Cameron or George Osborne on the device when she left News International, she replied: "No. Although when we got the image back, there was one from Mr Cameron that was compressed, so [it was] in June, but there's no content in it."
"So it's a complete mystery what if anything it might contain?" asked Jay.
"Yes," replied Brooks.
But the mystery to computer forensics experts was what could possibly have gone wrong in "imaging" the device's files. That is a standard process used when computer equipment and now smartphones are seized in which an exact bit-for-bit copy is made of the contents of any storage on the device.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
They 'lost' emails around the time the phone hacking scandal came to light.
Our Prime Minister knows nothing about the Internet - confirmed.
To remind everyone, this man is currently installed in the highest office in Her Majesty's Government, in one of the richest and still* most prosperous countries in the world, and the birthplace of the modern computer, no less. Think on that.
Psychotext
Member
Yup. Catastrophic hard drive failures... possibly from sledgehammer impact.
N
NinjaFridge
Unconfirmed Member
I know the kind of system they used, you cannot accidentally delete files. It backs everything up automatically and even if some of the HDDs failed, it is easy to restore.