|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: And they're off - UK election rant
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
Don't forget Mebyon Kernow.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
alienfromzog
Ship's Alien
# 5327
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
...what next, the breaking news that surgeons are 'trained' for the operations that they do, or that airline pilots have 'learned' how to fly planes?
![[Eek!]](eek.gif)
Shhhh it's a secret. Don't tell anyone!
![[Biased]](wink.gif)
--------------------
Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
[Sen. D.P.Moynihan]
An Alien's View of Earth - my blog (or vanity exercise...)
Posts: 2150 | From: Zog, obviously! Straight past Alpha Centauri, 2nd planet on the left... | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
Don't forget Mebyon Kernow.
Also from Cornwall:
David Cameron is struck by an egg
I bet the Tories go up in the polls as a result!? In this substance-free campaign one egg could make the difference.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Meanwhile, the momentum for the Liberal Democrats following Nick Clegg's perceived win in the 'Prime Ministerial debate' led to this comment by former Sun editor David Yelland. Yelland's point is that parts of the media are personally committed to a Conservative Government; they have cultivated strong connections with Conservatives while ignoring the Lib Dems.
The piece by Yelland was very interesting, not just because it partially confirms media bias against the Lib Dems (at least in terms of the amount of coverage given), but also because it illustrates the blurred line between news reporting and commentary. Personally, I would like to see a much clearer distinction between news and opinion, but I know that's not likely to happen.
As for the Mail on Sunday, I think that article says as much about that paper's jingoistic and xenophobic leanings as anything else. Such petty and small-minded criticism is really stupid because in some ways, Clegg's CV shows that he has a lot of relevant experience for political life, especially since Britain's relationship with Europe is likely to be a big issue in the next decade or so. But no: He speaks foreign languages, had the gall to work in Brussels, gave his kids Spanish names and doesn't prostrate himself in front of St George's cross every morning. Disgraceful.
In other news, senior Conservatives are starting to brief against Cameron, and in particular his 'Big Society' idea. To quote (from the article) a senior Tory: quote:
The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?
Excellent question!
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
brief against Cameron, and in particular his 'Big Society' idea. To quote (from the article) a senior Tory: quote:
The 'big society' is bollocks. It is boiled vegetables that have been cooked for three minutes too long. It tastes of nothing. What is it?
Excellent question!
So let me get this straight:
Historical Conservative leader says there's no such thing as society*, and people still bring it up over twenty years later to criticise them.
Modern Conservative leader says not only that there is such a thing as society, but that it should be bigger and more involved in how the country is run, and people criticise them.
Am I missing something here?
.
*= I'm ignoring the fact that that statement was taken out of context and misinterpreted for the purposes of this post.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
Personally, I'm not making a link between 'Big Society' and anything Thatcher said.
The context of the comment quoted is that 'Big Society' is proving to be a tough sell on the doorstep. It's an idea which sounds appealing, but the lack of meat on the bones of the idea makes it hard to picture what the idea means from a practical point of view. If you watch the video at the top of the report I linked to, you'll see some examples of that*.
So my criticism is not with an apparent departure from something a Tory said 25 years ago (as if parties aren't allowed to change their minds!) but that this idea is mere veneer, fluff, and PR. And now that Cameron is in a fight (who would have predicted that even a few weeks ago?) the veneer is cracking as discontentment rises in the Tory ranks.
* In particular, one lady says that the first thing she would do if she could set up her own school is make it exclusively for white children. That is certainly not what Letwin and Cameron were intending with this idea, but it is a nasty unintended consequence. More mundanely, when the journalist tried to explain the idea to people, the main responses were "I don't have time" and "leave it to the professionals". Both fair comments, really.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Callan
Shipmate
# 525
|
Posted
In the latter instance it appears to be members of the Shadow Cabinet who are criticising Mr Cameron. Having an anonymous pop at the leader one's party and his big idea during a General Election campaign might be regarded as an innovative strategy, but not, I think, one which indicates a great deal of confidence in him.
May 6th is almost upon us. Governments in waiting are not supposed to be getting attacks of the jitters at this stage of the game.
--------------------
How easy it would be to live in England, if only one did not love her. - G.K. Chesterton
Posts: 9757 | From: Citizen of the World | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Imaginary Friend:
More mundanely, when the journalist tried to explain the idea to people, the main responses were "I don't have time" and "leave it to the professionals". Both fair comments, really.
It is very much fair comment. Put it like this: would you trust your child's schooling to someone who currently has enough free time to engage in all the complexities of starting up a new school?
I'm busy enough as it is, househusbanding, looking after my two kids, writing, building projects I can't afford to pay other people to do, and in what 'spare time' I do have, I do two afternoons a week at my local primary.
Those with the expertise have volunteered - frankly, a lot of us are already over-committed with community and church stuff. 'Big Society' just seems to be an attempt to get public services done on the cheap by people who are running to stand still.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Big Society' just seems to be an attempt to get public services done on the cheap by people who are running to stand still.
You may not have noticed, but the country isn't exactly flush with cash right now. Cuts are inevitable, which means "doing it on the cheap" is inevitable. At least the Conservatives are trying to do something about it that won't require unsustainable tax rises or sums that don't add up.
But part of me thinks that's irrelevant. Part of me thinks that if Labour had come up with exactly the same idea it would have been hailed as a socialist triumph putting vital services back in the hands of the people.
What exactly do you people want? You've spent the last 20 years bitching about the Tories thinking society doesn't exist, then as soon as they ask society to be more prominent it's all "you can't expect society to do that". Make up your bloody minds.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
RadicalWhig
Shipmate
# 13190
|
Posted
The big society idea is championed by Philip Blond's respublica movement, which is trying to act as a bridge between the academic world (in which these ideas have been growing and circulating since the 1980s) and the world of party-politics (where Cameron - I think rather cynically and opportunistically - is trying to get on the band-wagon).
"Big society" has been badly communicated and not properly worked through in policy terms. But as set of basic ideas, values, and principles, it has quite a strong (and to my mind attractive) pedigree.
The gist of it is that neither the individualist / contractarian / market-based system, nor the collectivist / bureaucratic / state-based system, works very well. Both neglect the value of fraternity, and both tend squeeze out the communitarian / mutualist / civic-based realm - the realm in which people are integrated with other people in the common and spontaneous organisation of their mutual affairs. The "Big society" seeks to overcome alienation and atomisation by freeing people up to be together - for example, by making it easier to start a community group to deliver a service which is not provided by either the State or the market. It is linked to the idea of the state not merely as a neutral defender of rights, but as an active promoter of public or common goods - albeit delivered indirectly in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity. Other things coming out of the Tories - such as a renewed emphasis on "character" are all part of the same idea, although I'm not sure whether that is communicated very well to most people.
I started to write a paper on this "Red Tory" phenomenon a few months back. I was trying to analyse it in terms of three more well-known ideological categories: Christian Democratic, Civic Republican, and Traditional Toryism. However, it was overtaken by other more urgent (and more directly relevant) projects. I might get back to it after the election, if by then we have some more concrete indications of how it will all pan out. For now, this article sums it up much better than I can.
--------------------
Radical Whiggery for Beginners: "Trampling on the Common Prayer Book, talking against the Scriptures, commending Commonwealths, justifying the murder of King Charles I, railing against priests in general." (Sir Arthur Charlett on John Toland, 1695)
Posts: 3193 | From: Scotland | Registered: Nov 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight:
Historical Conservative leader says there's no such thing as society*, and people still bring it up over twenty years later to criticise them.
Modern Conservative leader says not only that there is such a thing as society, but that it should be bigger and more involved in how the country is run, and people criticise them.
Am I missing something here?
Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
'Big Society' just seems to be an attempt to get public services done on the cheap by people who are running to stand still.
You may not have noticed, but the country isn't exactly flush with cash right now. Cuts are inevitable, which means "doing it on the cheap" is inevitable.
Yes: cuts are inevitable. However, how is creating more schools a response to this?
Furthermore, society already has a perfectly adequate mechanism for training self-motivated members interested in teaching, nursing, social work etc to a level where they are competent and able to discharge their duties in a professional manner.
Which part of teaching, nursing or social work training do you think should be missed out? Or do you just think semi- or untrained people can do the job of a teacher, nurse or social worker?
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by RadicalWhig:
"Big society" ...[snip]
The gist of it is that neither the individualist / contractarian / market-based system, nor the collectivist / bureaucratic / state-based system, works very well. Both neglect the value of fraternity, and both tend squeeze out the communitarian / mutualist / civic-based realm - the realm in which people are integrated with other people in the common and spontaneous organisation of their mutual affairs.
The starting point of Thatcherism, as I remember it, was that the state should not interfere, and that people should take responsibility for their own affairs. I also recollect that this tended to be more true for economic rather than social matters (Thatcher was quite authoritarian re the latter).
I understand Cameron's 'big society' idea to be that local people in local communities should take responsibility for their own affairs and those of each other. How is this different from classic 'roll back the frontiers of the State' Thatcherism?
My recollection is that Thatcherism held that where the State got out, individuals would fill the vacuum. In fact, I don't recollect this happening at a local / civic level. So I wonder how Cameron has any plan for making such a thing happen.
I recognise this 'big society' far more in NZ than the parts of the UK where I grew up. But it is noteworthy that the Government and local councils are quite heavily involved in organising or subsidising such things, ie, the state has a tradition of offering support whilst being very unprescriptive about how local people should use that help. This sounds far more Lib Dem than Tory and I wonder if Cameron would go that far.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
What exactly do you people want? You've spent the last 20 years bitching about the Tories thinking society doesn't exist, then as soon as they ask society to be more prominent it's all "you can't expect society to do that". Make up your bloody minds.
You seem to be accusing the Conservative's critics of being inconsistent and unfair.
To be fair to David Cameron, he has explained what he means by the Big Society. In his interesting Big Society speech he said:
"I will tell you what I'm going to do, I am going to redouble the positive, I am going to accentuate everything positive we want to bring to this country, I am going to make sure everything we do is about the positive vision we have for the future of our country ..."
Coincidentally, today's Daily Mail headline news:
"Clegg's Nazi slur on Britain"
What was that about being 'consistent' and 'fair'? At least in the US, with its paid-for political TV advertising, when one party goes full-tilt negative, they know that the other side will do the same thing - a kind of Mutually Assured Destruction. Cameron has the right-wing tabloids to go full-tilt negative for him, with no apparent downside.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
If the Daily Mail's attack on Nick Clegg is a "Nazi Slur" then I'm a Dutchman. If you read beyond the two words "Nazi Slur" it's clear that Clegg has stated an outright truth, but an unpalatable one, even an unacceptable one. The ++ABC does the same from time to time.
It's early in a campaign to invoke Godwin's Law - how do you raise the ante from here?
Still, the Tories and their friends in the press are taking Clegg and the Lib Dems seriously now, which will take the heat off Brown and Labour.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Blue Scarf Menace
Apprentice
# 13051
|
Posted
Well if anyone is able to recognise a Nazi it's the Daily Mail. What is unusual is that this time they are not gushing with admiration. Perhaps Clegg needs to grow a moustache - it worked for Thatcher.
And isn't Cameron's Big Society just warmed up left overs from Blair's "Stakeholder Economy"? Could someone explain the difference.
[ 22. April 2010, 08:10: Message edited by: Blue Scarf Menace ]
--------------------
Boomshanka
Posts: 18 | From: Sherwood Forest | Registered: Oct 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
It's pleasing to note that the top-rated comment on that article supports Clegg.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So let me get this straight:
Historical Conservative leader says there's no such thing as society*, and people still bring it up over twenty years later to criticise them.
Modern Conservative leader says not only that there is such a thing as society, but that it should be bigger and more involved in how the country is run, and people criticise them.
Am I missing something here?
Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party.
So no matter what policies they advocate - even if they're exactly the ones you were screaming for earlier - you'll always hate them? Hmm, there's a word for that...
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
Yes: cuts are inevitable. However, how is creating more schools a response to this?
More privately-run schools = less kids in publically-run ones = more money per child in publically-run ones.
Alternatively, less kids in publically-run schools = less money required.
quote:
Furthermore, society already has a perfectly adequate mechanism for training self-motivated members interested in teaching, nursing, social work etc to a level where they are competent and able to discharge their duties in a professional manner.
Which part of teaching, nursing or social work training do you think should be missed out? Or do you just think semi- or untrained people can do the job of a teacher, nurse or social worker?
As far as I can tell, encouraging people to group together to create new schools doesn't mean they become the teachers, it means they become the governors.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
You seem to be accusing the Conservative's critics of being inconsistent and unfair.
Yes, I am. In evidence I offer leo, who has demonstrated amply that such criticism isn't even rooted in policies, but in personal antipathy.
quote:
Cameron has the right-wing tabloids to go full-tilt negative for him, with no apparent downside.
So you're calling Cameron a hypocrite because he says one thing and someone completely unrelated to him does another? Riiight.
Of course, if such comments are to be deemed fair I'll just point out that the Guardian and Mirror do exactly the same thing for Labour.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
The media, completely unrelated to political parties? Come on, Marvin!
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
More privately-run schools = less kids in publically-run ones = more money per child in publically-run ones.
Alternatively, less kids in publically-run schools = less money required.
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I was led to believe 'setting up schools' in this context didn't mean private, fee-paying independent schools - of which there are already plenty around to take your money if you wish. Rather, these were to be state-funded Academy-style schools outside the control of the LEA.
quote:
As far as I can tell, encouraging people to group together to create new schools doesn't mean they become the teachers, it means they become the governors.
Don't all state schools already have to have governors? If someone wants to be a school governor, there are plenty of schools to choose from. Some of them don't even have elections to be a governor as there are vacant spaces.
Cameron is promising us something we already have. Clearly putting the con into conservative.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Cod:
The media, completely unrelated to political parties? Come on, Marvin!
Unless you're suggesting that Cameron has direct control over the editorial policy of the Mail, you can't suggest that he's being hypocritical by saying he'll focus on the positive then letting the Mail do the attacking for him. He is not responsible for what they publish.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Cod
Shipmate
# 2643
|
Posted
I suggest you go away and read Yelland's excellent article in the Grauniad, which confirmed what any intelligent observer has known for years: that political parties do Faustian pacts with the press. It's rather obtuse to assert that the Conservatives, a party that Cameron leads, have no influence over a newspaper's editorial policy.
--------------------
"I fart in your general direction."
M Barnier
Posts: 4229 | From: New Zealand | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I was led to believe 'setting up schools' in this context didn't mean private, fee-paying independent schools - of which there are already plenty around to take your money if you wish. Rather, these were to be state-funded Academy-style schools outside the control of the LEA.
It's perfectly possible that I'm mistaken.
quote:
Cameron is promising us something we already have. Clearly putting the con into conservative.
Let's look at what Cameron has actually said on this subject.
quote:
(From the speech linked to earlier):
We'll only get really good schools when we say to families: you've got to get involved with your school, you've got to help back up the teachers, you've got to make sure you bring up your children properly, and also when we break open the monopoly of education and say to the social enterprises, the charities and the churches and the other organisations: come on in. In our Big Society, everyone's welcome. Come on in and set up a great school in the state system so we can get the competition, the choice, the excellence, the diversity that we have in the private system. That's what the Big Society is all about.
So it's a mix of individuals being more involved in schools (through bringing their kids up right, becoming governors, volunteering, etc) and charities becoming involved in schools (by investing in/setting up their own schools).
So yes, it's partly what we have now but - significantly - we aren't using. And it's partly new stuff. Hardly a con though.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Let's look at what Cameron has actually said on this subject.
quote:
(From the speech linked to earlier):
We'll only get really good schools when we say to families: you've got to get involved with your school, you've got to help back up the teachers, you've got to make sure you bring up your children properly, and also when we break open the monopoly of education and say to the social enterprises, the charities and the churches and the other organisations: come on in. In our Big Society, everyone's welcome. Come on in and set up a great school in the state system so we can get the competition, the choice, the excellence, the diversity that we have in the private system. That's what the Big Society is all about.
So it's a mix of individuals being more involved in schools (through bringing their kids up right, becoming governors, volunteering, etc) and charities becoming involved in schools (by investing in/setting up their own schools).
So yes, it's partly what we have now but - significantly - we aren't using. And it's partly new stuff. Hardly a con though.
So, yes. You are mistaken.
All the opportunities are already there. Those who are committed to these things are already over-committed. Those who couldn't give a toss still won't give a toss.
What would actually make a difference would be for employers to allow employees to use a set number of hours each month to help run community projects, work in schools, visit hospitals and care homes, clear rivers and waste ground - and still receive their wage. Motivated people don't lack commitment. They lack time. Unless Cameron is proposing a 30 hour day in some massive geoengineering project, his proposal is just hot air.
--------------------
Forward the New Republic
Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
More privately-run schools = less kids in publically-run ones = more money per child in publically-run ones.
Alternatively, less kids in publically-run schools = less money required.
I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I was led to believe 'setting up schools' in this context didn't mean private, fee-paying independent schools - of which there are already plenty around to take your money if you wish. Rather, these were to be state-funded Academy-style schools outside the control of the LEA.
quote:
As far as I can tell, encouraging people to group together to create new schools doesn't mean they become the teachers, it means they become the governors.
Don't all state schools already have to have governors? If someone wants to be a school governor, there are plenty of schools to choose from. Some of them don't even have elections to be a governor as there are vacant spaces.
Cameron is promising us something we already have. Clearly putting the con into conservative.
Hmm, Academies and governors: a bit of an issue to put it mildly.
Back in the bad old days before Local Management of Schools, too many governors were appointed by the LEAs. Now there are some staff governors (including the Head), the LEA appoint some, some are elected by parents and there are community governors appointed (or more often cajoled into it) by the existing governors. The proportions maintain a balance although it can cause tensions as no "group" has a majority.
The terms of reference for Governance of Academies for a couple I have looked at appear to emphasise the role of Sponsor Governors and those appointed by the LEA. The role of parents, the community and staff seems to have been reduced and I'll go for almost anything which reverses the corporatist trend that the governance of academies appears to represent.
If there are any teachers out there with experience of academy governance, please let me know: I'm looking from the outside but I don't like it.
[a wee bit of x-posting there . . .]
[ 22. April 2010, 10:39: Message edited by: Sioni Sais ]
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
So, yes. You are mistaken.
It would seem so.
quote:
All the opportunities are already there. Those who are committed to these things are already over-committed. Those who couldn't give a toss still won't give a toss.
Maybe there are a large number of people in the middle of those two categories - it's not just "over committed" or "couldn't give a toss". Maybe there are those who don't know the opportunities are there - I certainly wasn't aware that I could directly influence my local school's policies. Maybe, just maybe, he's trying to get a few of the couldn't-give-a-tossers to start giving a toss after all.
What's so wrong with trying to encourage increased participation by the public? Is it better that they all sit back with their McDonalds and their PlayStations and let the State take care of everything?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
I feel like creating a parallel to the Phelpsian thread for the foaming-at-the-mouth ramblings of the BNP but their unauthorised use of the Marmite and the slug's subsequent statement that it was a "spoof" shows their level of sophisticatication.
It's on a par with their use of a stock photograph of a Spitfire illustrating the BNP "Fighting the Battle for Britain". The plane was part of 303 squadron of the RAF, which was almost entirely Polish.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Unless you're suggesting that Cameron has direct control over the editorial policy of the Mail, you can't suggest that he's being hypocritical by saying he'll focus on the positive then letting the Mail do the attacking for him. He is not responsible for what they publish.
You have a point. You're right, I imagine, that Cameron didn't personally write today's Mail headline.
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So you're calling Cameron a hypocrite because he says one thing and someone completely unrelated to him does another? Riiight.
However, when you suggested that Cameron is "completely unrelated" to the Mail's attacks on his political opponents, you seem to over-state your case.
Is it accurate to say that Mr Cameron is "completely unrelated" to right-wing journalists? There are strong connections between the Conservatives and the right-wing media - connections that are intentionally fostered by both sides, as David Yelland's piece makes clear. Who knows more about tabloid connections with the Conservatives - you or a former editor of the Sun?
When Mr Cameron became party leader, his office team discussed the idea of hiring someone to "liaise with opinion formers - editors, comment editors and columnists ... Cameron [and others ... ] set about finding a suitable candidate" (source: Francis Elliott & James Hanning "Cameron: The Rise of the New Conservative" (Harper Perennial, 2009) p. 312. Who did Cameron and others ask to work for the Conservatives, liaising with the media? They included Trevor Kavanagh (editor, Sun] and Sarah Sands (who declined the job to take a job with the Daily Mail) (source: Elliott & Hanning 2009, p. 312). Who did they appoint for the role? Andy Coulson (previously editor of the News of the World), whose current job is Mr Cameron's director of communications.
It seems difficult to defend the view that that Mr Cameron is "completely unrelated" to the right-wing tabloid media.
You're probably right that Labour have links to left-wing journalists too. However, my point about fairness was about the Lib Dems. The Conservatives have several tabloids willing to go full-tilt negative for them - the Lib Dems don't.
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
The people on this thread (and there are a few of you) who seem to think that David Cameron personally controls the content of the Daily Mail seem to overlook the fact that Paul Dacre, the Editor of the Daily Mail, has been very chummy with Gordon Brown of late. Indeed he said in 2007 that the Conservatives cannot be guaranteed the paper's support in the 2010 election. Not sure if that is quite still the case.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Is it accurate to say that Mr Cameron is "completely unrelated" to right-wing journalists? There are strong connections between the Conservatives and the right-wing media - connections that are intentionally fostered by both sides, as David Yelland's piece makes clear. Who knows more about tabloid connections with the Conservatives - you or a former editor of the Sun?
That piece makes it emphatically clear that the papers court the parties in order to gain an influence. What it does not say is that the parties court the papers in the same way.
So the Mail (and others) may well be going on the offensive because they want Cameron to win, and to feel a sense of gratitude towards them for helping him to do so. But that still doesn't make Cameron himself, or the Conservative party, liable for anything they print.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
St. Punk the Pious
Biblical™ Punk
# 683
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.
There are many Jews who criticise the State of Israel. Are they Nazis too?
Among other things, Clegg talks of Israel "imprisoning" the Palestinians. That rubbish goes beyond criticism.
Someone needs to tell him he's not the BNP leader.
--------------------
The Society of St. Pius *
Wannabe Anglican, Reader
My reely gud book.
Posts: 4161 | From: Choral Evensong | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by St. Punk the Pious:
Clegg is such an Israel-bashing anti-semite prat, he deserves to be called a Nazi.
I think Nick Clegg may have suggested that the Merkava tank (70 tons plus, 100mm gun, 2 machine guns and room for a six man snatch squad) is a rather excessive police car. He may also have had something to say about land grabs and restricting the water supply to one of the most crowded places on earth.
btw, most Arabs are Semites too, but don't let that worry you.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party. [/qb][/QUOTE]So no matter what policies they advocate - even if they're exactly the ones you were screaming for earlier - you'll always hate them? Hmm, there's a word for that... [/QB][/QUOTE]
Yes - the word is insight.
Whatever they say about their new idea, they are going to allow people to take over schools without any prior experience - so fundamentalist creationists can indoctrinate children.
They want to encourage local volunteering with no conception of the cost of CRB checks for all of them
They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.
They want to make swinging cuts which will lead us back to thatcher's 198s with high unemployment and double-dip recession.
They claim to be enlightened about lesbians and gays yet some of their senior spokespeople have said that the age of consent is too low, that gays spread HIV and that their lives are more dangerous than those on the front line in the army, that B&Bs should be allowed to discriminate. There is a brilliant videoclip of Cameron asking people to stop filming during an interview because he was completely flawed and unable to discuss this issue.
They are misleading people over the availability of cancer drugs.
They support Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.
They want to build more roads instead of investigating in public transport.
Despite claiming to be green, they never mention wind turbines and the like: vote blue, screw green.
When they were campaigning against the Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer, they were repeatedly told to emphasize she was an “outsider” and a “foreigner.” Horne asked what it meant, and he was told: “She’s a Jewess, but we aren’t allowed to say that… So all we can say is that she got off the train from Hungary.”
Ian Oakley, who was selected to be Tory candidate for Watford, bragged: “Last year it was all green this, and all green that… all that bollocks. People just want lots and lots and lots of cheap petrol. And we are going to give it to them.” He then boasted that he planned to make many trips to Israel where he would take a machine gun and a flame-thrower to destroy Palestinian villages.
When Joanne Cash – a pregnant woman – was imposed on the constituency of Westminster North, there was a rebellion by the local party that forced Cash to resign. They said she wouldn’t be able to have a child and work at the same time. The local party agent Jonathan Fraser-Howells was reported as having commented: "It makes me sick seeing pregnant stomachs around".
If all that isn't nasty, what is?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Carys
Ship's Celticist
# 78
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
May I point out that Northern Ireland, to a greater extent than Wales or Scotland, has a distinct political identity. Should the leaders of the dominant Unionist and Nationalist political parties be included, along with the leaders of Plaid Cymru and the SNP?
Note that at the moment those parties are the DUP (Democratic Unionists) and Sinn Fein.
No, because the situation in NI is so different that the debate is basically completely irrelevant there. There are no LibDems or Labour candidates in Northern Ireland and the Tories are only there by being in an electoral pact with the UUP.
The danger is that Plaid's exclusion from the debate will cost seats -- specifically Ceredigion. LibDems took it in 2005 with a 219 majority. Currently spike of LibDem support following the ITV debate gives them an unfair advantage in that constituency.
Added to which the UK debates are in many ways English debates. The ITV one had the theme of domestic affairs, many of which are devolved, but unfortunately most non-anoraks don't know this. But liking the LibDems manifesto promises on education is fine for a Welsh person, but they don't actually apply to schools in Wales.
Carys
[ 22. April 2010, 14:59: Message edited by: Carys ]
--------------------
O Lord, you have searched me and know me
You know when I sit and when I rise
Posts: 6896 | From: Bryste mwy na thebyg | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
They want to encourage local volunteering with no conception of the cost of CRB checks for all of them
So the most expensive part of setting up a school or community organisation is complying with CRB checks? I wouldn't have thought so.
quote:
They want to give 3 per week to married/civilly partnered couples, thus penalising unmarried mothers/fathers.
The unmarried won't be penalised - they will be no worse off than they are now.
quote:
They want to make swinging cuts which will lead us back to thatcher's 198s with high unemployment and double-dip recession.
It may have escaped your attention, but all three parties are talking about massive cuts. (It was Clegg, I think, who used the word 'swingeing').
quote:
They claim to be enlightened about lesbians and gays yet some of their senior spokespeople have said that the age of consent is too low, that gays spread HIV and that their lives are more dangerous than those on the front line in the army, that B&Bs should be allowed to discriminate. There is a brilliant videoclip of Cameron asking people to stop filming during an interview because he was completely flawed and unable to discuss this issue.
If the Tories are returned to power at the next election with a small majority, they will have the largest number of openly gay and lesbian MPs in a single UK parliamentary party, ever.
In the Gay Times interview, to which you refer, Mr Cameron asked for filming to be stopped because he was giving a print interview and a TV interview at the same time. As I understand it, the two really progress in different ways and doing both at the same time is difficult.
His stumbling came when he was asked about a Lithuanian law on teaching in schools. I would suggest that this measure isn't really at the top of any British voter's agenda.
quote:
They are misleading people over the availability of cancer drugs.
Are they? In any event, not as bad as the 'vote Labour or you'll die of cancer' leaflet I got through my letterbox.
quote:
They support Israeli expansion into Palestinian territory.
I think the Kool Aid is really working now.
quote:
They want to build more roads instead of investigating in public transport.
Is building roads an intrinsically bad thing?
quote:
Despite claiming to be green, they never mention wind turbines and the like: vote blue, screw green.
Aren't a lot of turbines useless? I would've thought a good way to reduce carbon would be to build a couple of nuclear power stations, although I have to say I don't know whether the Tories plan to do this.
quote:
When they were campaigning against the Liberal Democrat Susan Kramer, they were repeatedly told to emphasize she was an “outsider” and a “foreigner.” Horne asked what it meant, and he was told: “She’s a Jewess, but we aren’t allowed to say that… So all we can say is that she got off the train from Hungary.”
You seem to be quoting some grass-roots activists here. Some nutters can be found in the grass-roots of all parties.
At least the Tory candidates in Richmond Park haven't launched a 'Save Our Hospital' campaign for a hospital that isn't under the threat of closure, unlike, er, Susan Kramer.
quote:
Ian Oakley, who was selected to be Tory candidate for Watford, bragged: “Last year it was all green this, and all green that… all that bollocks. People just want lots and lots and lots of cheap petrol. And we are going to give it to them.” He then boasted that he planned to make many trips to Israel where he would take a machine gun and a flame-thrower to destroy Palestinian villages.
Ian Oakley isn't the candidate for Watford any more. He is, admittedly, a very odd and twisted guy.
quote:
When Joanne Cash – a pregnant woman – was imposed on the constituency of Westminster North, there was a rebellion by the local party that forced Cash to resign. They said she wouldn’t be able to have a child and work at the same time. The local party agent Jonathan Fraser-Howells was reported as having commented: "It makes me sick seeing pregnant stomachs around".
Again, one person's view doesn't represent the entire Westminster North Conservative Association's view.
quote:
If all that isn't nasty, what is?
To be honest, none of this beats the Rose Addis story.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
However, when you suggested that Cameron is "completely unrelated" to the Mail's attacks on his political opponents, you seem to over-state your case.
No Marvin the Martian is entirely correct. Of course, there are relationships between the parties and the press - formal and informal. These cut across political divides. The idea that the headlines in the Daily Mail and the Telegraph today had anything to do with the Tory party is ridiculous though. If anyone found out that the Tories had commissioned/suggested such attacks they'd be finished. But the default relationship between politicians and journalists is edgy and difficult. Furthermore, there is a real divide on the right between the old guard and the modernisers - relationships between the Cameron/Osborne axis and the Mail/Express/Telegraph are not currently at their best.
It strikes me that right-wing newspapers are independently dismayed about the lib-dem surge. They would rather a Tory government than any other, even a Cameron one. So they've gone on the attack.
Furthermore, Clegg was due such a campaign. Every other prominent politician is scrutinised in the same way with remarks from the past revisited and they've had their expenses and career examined in much detail. The Telegraph story was quite legitimate and routine - I haven't seen the Express, or Daily Mail.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Alwyn
Shipmate
# 4380
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
... If anyone found out that the Tories had commissioned/suggested such attacks they'd be finished.
Really? When Alastair Campbell explained how he manipulated the media for New Labour in The Blair Years, the Labour Party weren't 'finished.'
Wouldn't the Conservatives just say that they were 'shocked, shocked to find that there was spin-doctoring going on in this election!' Or they might say that sowing good news for your side and bad news for the other side is part of a spin-doctor's job description.
Surely Mr Cameron understands that. As a rising star at Conservative Central Office, he told a reporter from the Sunday Telegraph that he was "in charge of stories" at Conservative Central Office (Elliott & Hanning 2009, p. 91)
--------------------
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc
Posts: 849 | From: UK | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Really? When Alastair Campbell explained how he manipulated the media for New Labour in The Blair Years, the Labour Party weren't 'finished.'
You really are naive aren't you? You pick up only one of the points I made (and probably the weakest) and come back to me on that basis. The fact is that Alistair Campbell didn't do a very good job of manipulating the media because we all knew about it - the newspapers openly complained and bitched about him ad nauseam for years. This sort of point is elementary. Anyway who tries to manipulate gets their hands burned.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Spawn:
quote:
Originally posted by Alwyn:
Really? When Alastair Campbell explained how he manipulated the media for New Labour in The Blair Years, the Labour Party weren't 'finished.'
You really are naive aren't you? You pick up only one of the points I made (and probably the weakest) and come back to me on that basis. The fact is that Alistair Campbell didn't do a very good job of manipulating the media because we all knew about it - the newspapers openly complained and bitched about him ad nauseam for years. This sort of point is elementary. Anyway who tries to manipulate gets their hands burned.
Quite. How true. One must learn to persuade, or influence.
--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"
(Paul Sinha, BBC)
Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
As an interested lurker on this thread, I have skimmed the replies looking for trends and hoping I might see things that were opposite of the US campaign charges, counter-charges and nastiness.
So far, I havent seen much that would suggest reasonableness so I must apologise for having let our colonial attitudes infect the UK.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Spawn
Shipmate
# 4867
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
As an interested lurker on this thread, I have skimmed the replies looking for trends and hoping I might see things that were opposite of the US campaign charges, counter-charges and nastiness.
So far, I havent seen much that would suggest reasonableness so I must apologise for having let our colonial attitudes infect the UK.
Oh yeah, the US invented politics? You might be able to take responsibility for some things, but the Old World gave you bloody-minded, violent, boring and pathetic politics.
Posts: 3447 | From: North Devon | Registered: Aug 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
In the Gay Times interview, to which you refer, Mr Cameron asked for filming to be stopped because he was giving a print interview and a TV interview at the same time. .....You seem to be quoting some grass-roots activists here. Some nutters can be found in the grass-roots of all parties.
1. Have you seen the video clip or read the interview? He was, still on camera, completely ignorant of some of the issues raised in the questions and that is why he stopped - he said he was stopping in order to get more info., not because of any other engagement.
As for 'nutters' - they are the people who are the backbone of the party, who do all the work. Theirs are the attitudes held by most Tory supporters, regardless of how far Cameron tries to whitewash them out.
That is why I believe the Tories are the nasty party.
If they get into power, I shall be proved right. However, I sincerely pray - yes pray - that they won't be returned to form a government. That way will lie disaster for this country and, more imporantly, for Christian values.
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
FreeJack
Shipmate
# 10612
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
]Yes - the Tories are still the nasty party.
But with a lot more votes than five years ago.
Posts: 3588 | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Sleepwalker
Shipmate
# 15343
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
That is why I believe the Tories are the nasty party.
I don't understand why you think the Tories are the 'nasty party'. Is it something to do with gay people? (I base that on what you refer to in the post I've quoted from)
As for Cameron's ideas on education: I rather like them. I'm not sure there would be many third sector organisations able to turn back the clock and establish schools but if the opportunity for them to do so is there then that is a good thing IMO.
Posts: 267 | From: somewhere other than here | Registered: Dec 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
1. Have you seen the video clip or read the interview? He was, still on camera, completely ignorant of some of the issues raised in the questions and that is why he stopped - he said he was stopping in order to get more info., not because of any other engagement.
Yes, I have seen the video. I didn't say that he had another engagement. What I mean to say is that the way in which one behaves in a print interview is not the same way in which one behaves in a TV interview. DC was being asked to do both at the same time and he was uncomfortable with that. I don't think that was entirely unreasonable.
He struggled to answer a question about free votes, because he wanted to craft a precise answer, and he struggled to answer a question about some Lithuanian legislation because he didn't have the information / facts to hand. As I've said before, I don't really think that the internal politics of Lithuania should be a priority for HM Leader of the Opposition or is a priority for any British voters.
quote:
As for 'nutters' - they are the people who are the backbone of the party, who do all the work. Theirs are the attitudes held by most Tory supporters, regardless of how far Cameron tries to whitewash them out.
The grassroots of all parties contain the occasional nutter but I don't think that you can say that they are representative or will in any influence how a government behaves. It's like saying that a Liberal Democrat administration would result in compulsory sandal-wearing, pornography for 16 year olds and marijuana for all.
quote:
However, I sincerely pray - yes pray - that they won't be returned to form a government. That way will lie disaster for this country and, more imporantly, for Christian values.
Wow. I don't know to respond to this silly bile.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
he struggled to answer a question about some Lithuanian legislation because he didn't have the information / facts to hand.
That's absolutely not true! He struggled to answer that question because it involved directly contradicting something that he had just said! His pretend policy in Westminster was in direct opposition to his actual policy in Strasbourg. When the interviewer showed this, Cameron was unable to get out of the hole he'd dug himself and terminated the interview.
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
