• 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.

War Peaceman

You're a big guy.
Cameron is right if that's in relation to the current libel reform bill that Labour are paying politics with. As things stand, much needed libel reform is about to be scrapped because of shitty additions from labour peers trying to squeeze in Leveson recommendations where they're not needed.

Definitely. Labour were also being silly with their mansion tax proposal: by tying it to their own 10p income tax plan they gave the Lib Dems an excuse to vote against it. Silly politics - better to keep it simple and vote on principle rather than getting too clever about it.
 

PJV3

Member
So, nobody cares about this anymore, then. You'd all rather laugh at the nutter MP who started another pub fight.

No wonder Cameron and cronies get away with so much shit.

He had a meeting with the newspaper editors and pulled out of cross party talks, it's pretty clear cut. The cross party talks were coming to an agreement, but Cameron cannot afford to upset his press supporters more than he already has.
 
Meh, I dislike "cross party" anything as a rule. I don't like it when parties get together and agree things, usually behind closed doors, and then tell the electorate what's going to happen. If you don't like it, vote for UKIP/The Greens/Plaid etc. Maybe if Labour want a say on press regulation, they should have either a) done it when they were in power and when most of this stuff actually happened or b) won the election. Since they didn't do either of those things, I really couldn't care less what Ed Miliband's opinion on press regulation is.
 
Meh, I dislike "cross party" anything as a rule. I don't like it when parties get together and agree things, usually behind closed doors, and then tell the electorate what's going to happen. If you don't like it, vote for UKIP/The Greens/Plaid etc. Maybe if Labour want a say on press regulation, they should have either a) done it when they were in power and when most of this stuff actually happened or b) won the election. Since they didn't do either of those things, I really couldn't care less what Ed Miliband's opinion on press regulation is.

To be fair, the tories didn't win the elction either.
 
What is there to say?

This is just a sample of what's coming based on the figures I've seen at work. It's going to hit adults with disability the hardest. So hard that a sharp increase in homelessness of disabled adults is something we should all prepare for.

I don't really understand what that has to do with the article, though? Unless they weren't meant to be connected. I was just asking whether people thought that certain taxes, levies, whatever, should be put off on the grounds of sensitivity. Personally, I don't think they should. Aside from anything, that would more or less invalidate inheritance tax as a legitimate means of accruing revenue, but aside from that, I don't want my government services to have a heart. I don't want whether or not someone pays a tax or have some payment removed from them to be at the whims of a civil servant or local council worker. If we, as a society, think there should be a grace period for things like this, or a slow phasing in, then it should be legislated. As such, the article here just seems a bit pointless. The tragedy is that their son died choking on a sweet - the fact they now have to pay for having a house larger than their ability to occupy it is neither here nor there.
 
To be fair, the tories didn't win the elction either.

They didn't win the election, but it's up to Dave what happens, so I'd say that's effectively "winning" in any practical sense. In the less practical, more mathsy sense, the Tories got a higher vote share in 2010 than Labour did in 2005, so it's not really about a mandate either imo. Eitherway, Labour had their 11.5 years in bed with the press. It's much easier to moan about it when you're on the other side of the fence.
 
It's up for parliament to decide, not Cameron. If he can't command a majority for his proposals, the ones that can go through. So cross party talks made sense and now that they've collapsed parliament will decide. If Labour can command a majority on that, so be it.
 

PJV3

Member
They didn't win the election, but it's up to Dave what happens, so I'd say that's effectively "winning" in any practical sense. In the less practical, more mathsy sense, the Tories got a higher vote share in 2010 than Labour did in 2005, so it's not really about a mandate either imo. Eitherway, Labour had their 11.5 years in bed with the press. It's much easier to moan about it when you're on the other side of the fence.

The issue is the press corrupting the police and other public officials, breaking the law (hacking) and trampling over people's personal lives, Combined with politicians of both large parties toadying to the owners and editors. Ed Miliband is doing the right thing, so is Nick Clegg, but Cameron has consistently dragged his feet, and he doesn't need to. Labour and the LibDems have swallowed his royal charter, he has moved the goalposts far enough.
 
It's up for parliament to decide, not Cameron. If he can't command a majority for his proposals, the ones that can go through. So cross party talks made sense and now that they've collapsed parliament will decide. If Labour can command a majority on that, so be it.

Well, that's true of every bit of legislation passed since 2010. But he's in coalition with the Lib Dems, not the Lib Dems and Labour. It's not that I specifically care about Labour not having a say, but I don't understand why this issue, rather than any other, requires cross-party talks that engender behaviour described "calling a halt" to asking the opposition what they want to happen.
 
The issue is the press corrupting the police and other public officials, breaking the law (hacking) and trampling over people's personal lives, Combined with politicians of both large parties toadying to the owners and editors. Ed Miliband is doing the right thing, so is Nick Clegg, but Cameron has consistently dragged his feet, and he doesn't need to. Labour and the LibDems have swallowed his royal charter, he has moved the goalposts far enough.

I think it's odd that you're referring to it so objectively as "the right thing". I don't think it's logical to look at the press "corrupting" police, politicians and other public officials and then blame the press rather than the police, politicians or public officials. Any kind of regulation "underpinned by legislation" is terrifying to me, because in a country where our anti-terrorism laws are used to snoop on tax evaders and people that don't pick up their dog's shit, the idea that a body under pinned by legislation will be left alone by those that legislated it into existence is laughable. A body being "independent" from direct government control doesn't make it actually independent from the government, any more than the relationship between politicians and the press doesn't exist because it's unofficial - it's still there. You really think politicians wouldn't be tempted, in exactly the same way the press is now, to use its influence to quash a story that they don't deem to be "in the public interest" (those heroes) because it would be embarrassing to them? You don't think Rennard wouldn't have given the head of this new independent body a call and asked him if his son's managed to get the Scholarship to Harrow yet? Or Huhne? The number of times that government or politicians in general have had their lives made incredibly uncomfortable (or their careers ruined) by the press - and quite rightly so, in most cases - makes me want to drive further space between them, not less. They've proven themselves even less trustworthy than the press - whom, for all their evil deeds and miscarriages, require us to buy their newspapers for them to have any reach.
 

kmag

Member
I think it's odd that you're referring to it so objectively as "the right thing". I don't think it's logical to look at the press "corrupting" police, politicians and other public officials and then blame the press rather than the police, politicians or public officials. Any kind of regulation "underpinned by legislation" is terrifying to me, because in a country where our anti-terrorism laws are used to snoop on tax evaders and people that don't pick up their dog's shit, the idea that a body under pinned by legislation will be left alone by those that legislated it into existence is laughable. A body being "independent" from direct government control doesn't make it actually independent from the government, any more than the relationship between politicians and the press doesn't exist because it's unofficial - it's still there. You really think politicians wouldn't be tempted, in exactly the same way the press is now, to use its influence to quash a story that they don't deem to be "in the public interest" (those heroes) because it would be embarrassing to them? You don't think Rennard wouldn't have given the head of this new independent body a call and asked him if his son's managed to get the Scholarship to Harrow yet? Or Huhne? The number of times that government or politicians in general have had their lives made incredibly uncomfortable (or their careers ruined) by the press - and quite rightly so, in most cases - makes me want to drive further space between them, not less. They've proven themselves even less trustworthy than the press - whom, for all their evil deeds and miscarriages, require us to buy their newspapers for them to have any reach.

A Royal charter (which is a completely undemocratic use of power btw) can simply be amended at any time by the Government at hand without recourse to parliament. It's the statute which provides parliamentary oversight. The Danish system is back by legislation and isn't voluntary (like Cameron's scheme) and their society hasn't collapsed in on itself in a fit of facism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20466987
 
A Royal charter (which is a completely undemocratic use of power btw) can simply be amended at any time by the Government at hand without recourse to parliament. It's the statute which provides parliamentary oversight. The Danish system is back by legislation and isn't voluntary (like Cameron's scheme) and their society hasn't collapsed in on itself in a fit of facism.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-20466987

I don't think we'd be in a fit of fascism if Chris Huhne hadn't be caught either, but something doesn't have to be fascism before it's undesirable. As for the Royal Charter, yeah there's no legislative oversight - that's precisely why I do like it. If it were non-voluntary I'd have a problem with it (because of the two going hand in hand) but as long as newspapers are free to leave if they feel their ability to act independently is being buggered, I'm fine with it.

Which does sort of lead to the point that most of this is totally irrelevant anyway, given the internet.
 

phisheep

NeoGAF's Chief Barrister
The issue is the press corrupting the police and other public officials, breaking the law (hacking) and trampling over people's personal lives, Combined with politicians of both large parties toadying to the owners and editors. Ed Miliband is doing the right thing, so is Nick Clegg, but Cameron has consistently dragged his feet, and he doesn't need to. Labour and the LibDems have swallowed his royal charter, he has moved the goalposts far enough.

Reminds me of this little rhyme from way back:

"One cannot hope to bribe or twist
(thank God) the British Journalist.
But seeing what the man will do
unbribed, there's no occasion to"
 

kmag

Member
I don't think we'd be in a fit of fascism if Chris Huhne hadn't be caught either, but something doesn't have to be fascism before it's undesirable. As for the Royal Charter, yeah there's no legislative oversight - that's precisely why I do like it. If it were non-voluntary I'd have a problem with it (because of the two going hand in hand) but as long as newspapers are free to leave if they feel their ability to act independently is being buggered, I'm fine with it.

Which does sort of lead to the point that most of this is totally irrelevant anyway, given the internet.

So you want the press to continue on exactly they way they have previously done? With a toothless regulator (who they choose themselves) which they can ignore if they don't like? Because that's worked SO well. Why change from the Press Complaints Commission at all if all you're going to do is tinker with the edges.

We don't have a free press in the UK not since 1912 and the implementation of the D(A) notice. Which while voluntary are almost never ignored.
 
No political appointments to any organisation or body that oversees and regulates the press. I heard that's why Dave pulled out of the talks, Clegg and Miliband wanted political appointments to the board of whatever new regulatory body is going to be created, Dave said no thank you.

I'm not a big fan of Dave (as many of you know), but I can support him on this. The can be absolutely zero, I mean literally zero political influence on the press via regulations. Allowing political appointments to the regulatory body that oversees regulation of the press is an absolute disaster area.
 

SteveWD40

Member
No political appointments to any organisation or body that oversees and regulates the press. I heard that's why Dave pulled out of the talks, Clegg and Miliband wanted political appointments to the board of whatever new regulatory body is going to be created, Dave said no thank you.

I'm not a big fan of Dave (as many of you know), but I can support him on this. The can be absolutely zero, I mean literally zero political influence on the press via regulations. Allowing political appointments to the regulatory body that oversees regulation of the press is an absolute disaster area.

How do you feel about Boris out of interest?
 

SteveWD40

Member
Awesome guy. Needs to be Tory leader and PM. Calls a spade a spade. We desperately need someone like that at the top of politics. None of these mealy mouth cunts that we have now with Dave, Ed and Nick.

So you are aware that he called for political appointments to the press, the head of the BBC in fact, he feels it should be a Tory to eb away at the "bias".

so unless he was kidding...
 
So you are aware that he called for political appointments to the press, the head of the BBC in fact, he feels it should be a Tory to eb away at the "bias".

so unless he was kidding...

Meh, I am of the opinion that the BBC needs to be privatised anyway. Too much guff, not enough quality programming. The news output is dire as well. Also, there already is a "Tory" in charge, Chris Patten is nominally conservative.
 

SteveWD40

Member
Meh, I am of the opinion that the BBC needs to be privatised anyway.

s0Pfi.gif


And since my GF works there, double no.

The news may not be great, but it's by far the best of a bad bunch.
 
So you want the press to continue on exactly they way they have previously done. Ok.

No. I think a new voluntary body with powers to enforce fines and whose leaders are chosen by the government is the best. But I also don't think it's wise to take the logical path of "there's a problem, therefore any change is good" is a faulty one. You assumed that I "want the press to continue on exactly they way they have previously done" just because I don't like your solution to the problem. It is possible to have situations where you option you already have, even if it has problems, is the least worst. I don't think this is one of those, incidentally.
 
http://i.imgur.com/s0Pfi.gif[/ IMG]

And since my GF works there, double no.

The news may not be great, but it's by far the best of a bad bunch.[/QUOTE]

I would keep BBC2, BBC4 and Radio 4 in public ownership. The rest could easily be spun off into a private company. The UK has fallen so far behind the US in terms of quality programming it's just sad. The BBC have a lot to answer for in that respect, they have guaranteed multi-billion budgets and we get possibly one decent show a year from them.
 

SteveWD40

Member
I would keep BBC2, BBC4 and Radio 4 in public ownership. The rest could easily be spun off into a private company. The UK has fallen so far behind the US in terms of quality programming it's just sad. The BBC have a lot to answer for in that respect, they have guaranteed multi-billion budgets and we get possibly one decent show a year from them.

For you to say that in light of the BBC producing the only UK show to make top lists in the US (Sherlock) is pretty funny. They managed to re-launch Dr Who to international audiences as well.

The Olympic coverage also got worldwide plaudits.

The US will always have a lead in TV, they have all the Hollywood talent to call on (Sorkin, Abrahms etc...).
 
s0Pfi.gif


And since my GF works there, double no.

The news may not be great, but it's by far the best of a bad bunch.

I love Sherlock, but I don't think it's the kind of programming they should be making. The only reason - and I don't really agree with this, but I see the argument - that the government should be in the business of making entertainment is because there is a small niche that would otherwise go uncatered for in the private sector because it would be financially unviable to do so. It's why I actually don't mind if they put on documentaries about crabs that get viewing figures of 5 digits, or some weird sport. But why did they spend so long entering bidding wars for F1 coverage with ITV? People get to see it, for free, eitherway! But if the BBC get it, not only do they spend millions of license fee payers money which could be spent on something that otherwise wouldn't have been able to be produced (and that ITV would never do), but also it means ITV end up paying more too. If the BBC wanted to, they could put 3 hours of the TV card girl on during the F1 races and it would make no difference. ITV don't have that luxury, because they aren't underpinned by a Royal Charter and allowed to run up enormous debts like the BBC can.
 

nib95

Banned
Meh, I am of the opinion that the BBC needs to be privatised anyway. Too much guff, not enough quality programming. The news output is dire as well. Also, there already is a "Tory" in charge, Chris Patten is nominally conservative.

Holy shit no. BBC is one of the best things this country has ever produced. Internationally renowned and responsible for some of the best TV ever made.
 
For you to say that in light of the BBC producing the only UK show to make top lists in the US (Sherlock) is pretty funny. They managed to re-launch Dr Who to international audiences as well.

The Olympic coverage also got worldwide plaudits.

The US will always have a lead in TV, they have all the Hollywood talent to call on (Sorkin, Abrahms etc...).

So, Sherlock, Dr Who and the Olympic coverage?

Personally I think Sherlock is shit, my gf tries to get me to watch it but I'm a purist and hate the characterisation, Holmes wasn't a cunt, the character in that show is a cunt.

Anyway, what I was getting at is that Britain used to be a powerhouse of entertainment shows and now we're down to Top Gear, Sherlock and Downton Abbey.
 

8bit

Knows the Score
Not sure many care about the Scottish independence vote but there's a fairly bleak breakdown of the consequences of a No vote on Stuart Campbell's politics site :

This is what you’re voting for if you vote No.

1. The end of the NHS
2. The end of universal health care free at the point of use
3. Privatisation of the police
4. Thousands made homeless by the Bedroom Tax
5. The rich getting richer
6. The highest child poverty in the Western world
7. Another 300,000 public-sector job losses
8. No votes for the unemployed
9. The continuing persecution of the disabled
10. The poor driven to suicide
11. The income of nurses, teachers and soldiers slashed
12. Scotland to keep subsidising the Treasury
13. More collusion in torture
14. £100bn spent on Trident
15. The continuing mass exodus of Scotland’s youth

...

Admittedly some of these aren't exclusively Scottish concerns but it's not a pretty picture.

http://wingsoverscotland.com/the-no-future
 

Walshicus

Member
Just wish more Scottish people had the confidence to see they'd be better off on their own without the shackles of Westminster and the constant threat of Toryism.
 

nib95

Banned
So, Sherlock, Dr Who and the Olympic coverage?

Personally I think Sherlock is shit, my gf tries to get me to watch it but I'm a purist and hate the characterisation, Holmes wasn't a cunt, the character in that show is a cunt.

Anyway, what I was getting at is that Britain used to be a powerhouse of entertainment shows and now we're down to Top Gear, Sherlock and Downton Abbey.

All the Planet Earth, Africa, Human Planet type programmes, Top Gear, Friday Night with Jonathan Ross, MasterChef and many more. And whilst not to my tastes, Easternders, Strictly Come Dancing etc. I also still prefer BBC's F1 (and general sports) coverage even though I have the dedicated Sky F1 channel.
 
Awesome guy. Needs to be Tory leader and PM. Calls a spade a spade. We desperately need someone like that at the top of politics. None of these mealy mouth cunts that we have now with Dave, Ed and Nick.

You want that clown to be the PM of GB? You must be out of your mind.

have you read his article in the spectator a few years ago about liverpool in general?

Seriously a clown with a nasty streak in him. Not fit for a PM role
 

nib95

Banned
You want that clown to be the PM of GB? You must be out of your mind.

have you read his article in the spectator a few years ago about liverpool in general?

Seriously a clown with a nasty streak in him. Not fit for a PM role

Awful that people out there actually think this guy should lead. Jesus....
 

Jackpot

Banned
Can't believe people fall for such a crudely-concocted persona. Looks like Waldo wasn't far off.

And the BBC is internationally acknowledge as one of the best broadcast services in the world, whilst our unregulated tabloids are some of the worst.
 
You want that clown to be the PM of GB? You must be out of your mind.

have you read his article in the spectator a few years ago about liverpool in general?

Seriously a clown with a nasty streak in him. Not fit for a PM role

Or you could actually look it up for yourself rather than believe everything the Guardian says about him. Boris didn't write anything about Liverpool, it was Simon Heffer who wrote the article at the Speccie while Boris was the editor. Boris fired Heffer eventually for his role in the affair.
 
I don't really think that whether or not the BBC should continue to exist should be based upon the quality of its output, really. It's about whether or not the people of the UK should be forced to pay for a channel and service they don't want to watch. This isn't like opting out of healthcare or protection from the military - there are ways of having the BBC continue to exist without forcing everyone to pay for it. And the people that make all them great shows aren't tied to the fact that the BBC is publicly funded. They wouldn't disappear into the ether with its Royal Charter. I think saying "but I love Jonathan Ross!" is a bit of a strawman.
 

SteveWD40

Member
Anyway, what I was getting at is that Britain used to be a powerhouse of entertainment shows and now we're down to Top Gear, Sherlock and Downton Abbey.

Oh as opposed to Sky and ITV? if that's what privatization has in store then fuck it frankly.

Britain used to be the top military power as well, things change. US TV will always be better, Britain can't compete with the writers, directors actors and producers that they have in droves in LA and NY. The fact we can produce even one show they like is pretty solid (well 3 now if you count Downton and Who), up until a few years ago the US still held The Bennie Hill Show as our only export. I would also question we were ever a "powerhouse", what shows are you referring to?
 

operon

Member
Awesome guy. Needs to be Tory leader and PM. Calls a spade a spade. We desperately need someone like that at the top of politics. None of these mealy mouth cunts that we have now with Dave, Ed and Nick.

Meh, I am of the opinion that the BBC needs to be privatised anyway. Too much guff, not enough quality programming. The news output is dire as well. Also, there already is a "Tory" in charge, Chris Patten is nominally conservative.

These here, smh Boris shouldn't be anywhere near number 10, I wouldn't even think he'd be fit for the job as pm in Spitting image. And as for privatising the BBC, one of the few things British that is genuinely world class and we want to piss it away, for what to let Murdoch control the airwaves
 
Some choice Boris quotes and opinions,

Boris on Mrs T:
'There is no need here to rehearse the steps of the matricide. Howe pounced. Heseltine did his stuff. After it was all over, my wife, Marina, claimed that she came upon me, stumbling down a street in Brussels, tears in my eyes, and claiming that it was as if someone had shot Nanny.' (Lend me your ears p13)

On the left:
‘Lefties are fundamentally interested in coercion and control, and across British society you can see the huge progress they are now making in achieving their objectives: in the erosions of free speech and civil liberties that are taking place under this government, in the ever more elaborate regulation of the workplace, the ban on hunting, smacking, smoking.’ (Have I got views for you p153)

Pro-hunting:
‘All the warning we had was a crackling of the alder branches that bend over the Exe, and the stag was upon us. I can see it now, stepping high in the water, eyes rolling, tongue protruding, foaming, antlers streaming bracken and leaves like the hat of some demented old woman, and behind it the sexual, high pitched yipping of the dogs. You never saw such a piteous or terrible sight…

‘I remember the guts streaming, and the stag turds spilling out onto the grass from within the ventral cavity. Then they cut out the heart and gave it to my six-year-old brother, still beating, he claimed ever afterwards, or still twitching, and he went home singing “We’ve got the heart! We’ve got the heart!” so we cooked it up with a bit of flour and the German au pair left the next day.

‘No you don’t need to tell me that hunting with hounds is cruel! We don’t need some report by scientists to show that the animals suffer “stress”. No one looking at that deer could deny that this was a sentient being in the extremity of suffering. This wasn’t the stopping of some Cartesian clock. This was savagery…

‘When the 80,000 or so marchers for the preservation of country sports arrive in Hyde Park tomorrow, they will have my support…

‘the strongest argument for protecting the Devon and Somerset stag-hounds – and I pick the staghounds because those are the ones I have observed the closest and which are, in the popular imagination, even more brutal than the fox-hounds. The best argument in favour of keeping them is that hunting is the best for the deer.’ (Lend me your ears p413)

'I will never vote to ban hunting. It is a piece of spite that has nothing to do with animal welfare, and everything to do with Blair's manipulation of rank-and-file Labour chippiness and class hatred.' (Friends, voters, countrymen p146)

On China:
‘Chinese cultural influence is virtually nil, and unlikely to increase… Indeed, high Chinese culture and art are almost all imitative of western forms: Chinese concert pianists are technically brilliant, but brilliant at Schubert and Rachmaninov. Chinese ballerinas dance to the scores of Diaghilev. The number of Chinese Nobel prizes won on home turf is zero, although there are of course legions of bright Chinese trying to escape to Stanford and Caltech… It is hard to think of a single Chinese sport at the Olympics, compared with umpteen invented by Britain, including ping-pong, I’ll have you know, which originated at upper-class dinner tables and was first called whiff-whaff. The Chinese have a script so fiendishly complicated that they cannot produce a proper keyboard for it.’ (Have I got views for you p277)

On Mandela:
‘Mandela never accepted the Swiss-style constitution he [de Klerk] proposed; and last year, fed up with being marginalized, de Klerk quit the government. He must have known that this would happen, that the minority tyranny of apartheid would be followed by the majority tyranny of black rule.’ (Lend me your ears p464)

On race relations:
'When I shamble around the park in my running gear late at night, and I come across that bunch of black kids, shrieking in the spooky corner by the disused gents, I would love to pretend that I don't turn a hair.

'Now you might tell me not to be such a wuss. You might see that I am no more at risk than if I had come across a bunch of winos. But somehow or other a little beeper goes off in my brain. I'm not sure what triggers it (the sayings of Sir Paul Condon? The Evening Standard?), but I put on a pathetic turn of speed. You might tell me that when they shout their cheery catcalls, I should smile and wave. And, you know, maybe a big girl's blouse like me would break into an equally rapid lollop if it were a gang of white kids.

'Quite possibly. The trouble is I am not sure. I cannot rule out that I have suffered from a tiny fit of prejudice. I have prejudged this group on the basis of press reports, possibly in the right-wing newspapers, about the greater likelihood of being mugged by young black males than by any other group. And if that is racial prejudice, then I am guilty.
'And so are you, baby. So are we all. If there is anyone reading this who has never experienced the same disgraceful reflex, then – well I just don't believe you. It is common ground among both right-wingers and left-wingers that racism is “natural”, in that it seems to arise organically, in all civilisations.' (Lend me your ears p210)

‘It is said that the Queen has come to love the Commonwealth, partly because it supplies her with regular cheering crowds of flag-waving piccaninnies; and one can imagine that Blair, twice victor abroad but enmired at home, is similarly seduced by foreign politeness.'
‘They say he [Blair] is shortly off to the Congo. No doubt the AK47s will fall silent, and the pangas will stop their hacking of human flesh, and the tribal warriors will all break out in watermelon smiles to see the big white chief touch down in his big white British taxpayer-funded bird.’ (Daily Telegraph, 10/01/02)

On the MacPherson Report:
'it is as if the PC brigade, having punched this whole in the Metropolitan Police, having forced this admission, is swarming through to take over the entire system. There has been a whiff of the witch-hunt as the Lawrence road-show tours the country, demanding confessions of racism from senior officers, and excoriating those, like Sir Paul [Condon] who are not prepared to defame their entire force. If, in a few years' time, you were to ask a member of the public: “Who killed Stephen Lawrence?”, the answer would probably be “The Police.” Am I alone is wondering whether a sensible attempt to find justice for the family of Stephen Lawrence has given way to hysteria?' (Lend me your Ears p426)

'Heaven knows why Macpherson made his weird recommendation, that the law might be changed so as to allow prosecution for racist language or behaviour “other than in a public place”. I can't understand how this sober old buzzard was prevailed upon to say that a racist incident might be so defined in the view of the victim “or any other person”. This is Orwellian stuff.
'Not even under the law of Ceaucescu's Romania, could you be prosecuted for what you said in your own kitchen. No wonder the police are already whingeing that they cannot make any arrests in London. No wonder the CPS groans with anti-discrimination units, while making a balls-up of so many cases.' (Lend me your ears p211)

'What about the Ceaucescu-ish recommendation that it should be possible to legislate against racism even in a private place.’ (Lend me your ears p216)

'As for his [Macpherson's] suggestions that there should be more race awareness sessions for the police, and possible adjustments to the national curriculum to stamp out racist attitudes, he [Macpherson] is vehement that this should not be exaggerated.' (Lend me your ears p217)

‘we could probably achieve the same results, if not better, if we axed large chunks of the anti-racism industry, stopping taxing so many people with the threat of legal action, and left a bit more of the struggle against racism to tolerance and good manners.' (Lend me your ears p212)

On affordable housing:
'the solution actually being deployed, which is to build some affordable housing, and designate it specifically for the use of local people. For instance, South Oxfordshire District Council can require that, if there is a new development, it should contain a proportion of “starter homes”, and it can ensure that exceptions are made to normal planning rules to build social housing. You can see the problems already. How can you tell who is “local”? How can you stop the market from asserting itself, as it always will, and tempting the owners eventually to achieve the real value of the property? And what, above all, do you do with the Nimbies.' (Friends, voters, countrymen p74)

On gay marriage:
'if gay marriage was OK – and I was uncertain on the issue – then I saw no reason in principle why a union should not be consecrated between three men, as well as two men; or indeed three men and a dog.' (Friends, voters, countrymen p96)

On the welfare state:
'With £90 billion circulating through the tax and benefit system, and with one in three households receiving a major benefit, Beveridge's plan has become like the Common Agricultural Policy. People feel silly, indeed irresponsible towards their families, if they pass up their chance to take a slice of the enormous communal pie, especially while everyone else is doing the same. The logical answer might be to apply free market principles, and attack this irrational system of subsidy, the excessive disbursements that warp honest people.' (Lend me your ears p412)

On inequality:
Conservatives 'accept that material inequality is inevitable, and that trouble comes from too zealous an attempt to change this.' (Lend me your ears p126)

On his concerns about a Labour win in 1997:
'Golly it occurs to you: no more minimum wage. The polls had been so confidently predicting a Labour victory that you had already made provision to pay your workers at lease £4.10 an hour, putting up your costs and greatly reducing your ability to re-invest. Your mood lifts a notch higher at the thought…You close your eyes, and then you remember that the Social Chapter won't be coming into force after all. Hmm. None of that mandatory four week holiday for the staff, none of that ridiculously compulsory paid paternity leave, none of those extra non-wage costs.... And then another happy thought strikes you. Your children are at a local grammar school, and you had been dreading that Labour imposed ballot about abolishing selective admissions... It has to be said, you reflect, that you have been spared Labour's windfall tax on utility profits.' (Lend me your ears p104)

These are pretty old too, he's said a lot more in recent times that raise serious concerns about him and anyone who thinks he should run for Prime Minister.
 
I love him. He was on the QT with the two Hitchens and there was a question about giving Salman Rushdie the knighthood. The Lib Dem peer woman said that the timing wasn't right, Christopher Hitchens gave a robust defense of his peerage, Peter Hitchens ummed and ahh'd and Boris chose to answer the questions on literary grounds (as his knighthood was for services to Literature).

People dismiss him, but what's he done that's so bufoonish and terrible in London. I've lived here my whole life, and I've suffered not a jot as a result of his Mayorship, and clearly enough people agree to vote him in again.
 

Jackpot

Banned
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-21796866

So both coalition partners on collision course with each other again. If the Lib Dem's plan is defeated, nothing will happen as clinging on to a government role is all they have going for them. But if Dave's plan is scuppered by the coalition's "minor partner" it'll stir up all the backbenchers again.
 

nib95

Banned
Can't believe people fall for such a crudely-concocted persona. Looks like Waldo wasn't far off.

And the BBC is internationally acknowledge as one of the best broadcast services in the world, whilst our unregulated tabloids are some of the worst.

Exactly. BBC is highly regarded both nationally and internationally, and then compare them to ITV and Sky, awful. Hate this drive to privatise everything by conservatives, and in doing so destroy and dilute some of the few commendable things we have produced.

Also dislike that recently politics seems to be more about personality than ever before. Cameron... Ok... Borris?! No just no. I was talking about this with a few friends the other day, and when quizzed about why, it boiled down to personality or because he says it straight. Who cares if he says it straight when so much of what he says is bullocks, and so many of his ideas and opinions awful.
 
It's a nationalist site, which in combined with being a Scottish site means that the official polity with regards to the Tories is that they're the devil's party led by Satan himself.

Yeah, I'm struggling to disagree with that sentiment. They really are the nasty party in almost everything they do, ATOS and the Bedroom tax being very obvious examples.
 
Top Bottom