So, doing a little research onto this... (look here for what I looked at).
Initially, Murdoch's right wing rags 'switch' allegiance from Labour, giving their support (and thus the vote of the million of mouth breathers who read such tat) to Cameron's Tories. Meanwhile, it's also been campaigning heavily to have the BBC's License Fee scrapped or reduced, and the pay of the Broadcaster's biggest starts made public. (Murdoch of course owns Fox, Sky and varoius other commercial broadcasters). Oh, and the papers also campaigned most vehmently to avoid a 'hung parliament', citing Rioting in utterly unrelated countries in a childish scaremongering.
THEN, having got Cameron elected (but thankfully not avoiding a Coalition Government) guess who comes a-knock-knock-knocking on Cameron's door? WHY, it's his old chum Rupert Murdoch. For 'secret' meetings.
Following on, Cameron announces that his government, as part of the wider slashing of public service spending, is going to cut the BBC's license fee. Not to mention scrapping Ofcom, something else Murdoch's droogs have campaigned for on his behalf.
Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....
Surely no Prime Minister of Britain should ever be allowed to keep secret the subject of meetings with a non-Citizen Industry Leader? Especially when said non-Citizen backed his campaign so solidly? And is it not a tad suspicious that suddenly, everything the git ever wished for has come true?
Following on, Cameron announces that his government, as part of the wider slashing of public service spending, is going to cut the BBC's license fee.
How does reducing the license fee and at the same time curbing waste at the BBC add up to a BAD thing? This is nothing new - the Tories have been talking about it for the last few years.
Not to mention scrapping Ofcom, something else Murdoch's droogs have campaigned for on his behalf.
He's not scrapping Ofcom, only trimming the fat. Quite right, although if he did scrap it I doubt we'd miss it. It'd be money well saved, and one less group of New Labour-created undemocratically-elected bureaucrats who get to direct and administer government policy without being accountable to the people of this country. The head of Ofcom earns more than the Prime Minister.
Mr Mystery wrote:Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....
In the lead up to the Iraq every Murdoch paper in Australia, the UK and the US came to the independant decision all by themselves to support the invasion. All 170 odd of them. Following the invasion, in all three countries attempted or successfully passed legislation reducing media ownership rules.
The saddest thing is that Murdoch has all this power, he could be using it to advance political causes or build a one world government ruled by his cold and bony hand. But he's using all that political influence to make more money. It's so... petty.
Mr Mystery wrote: Now, perhaps I'm being paranoid, perhaps I'm reading too much into this, and perhaps I'm being just a little bit too left wing for some....BUT....
And is it not a tad suspicious that suddenly, everything the git ever wished for has come true?
Pointless personal attack that contained no actual argument removed. Debate the point don't slag off the poster.
Far as I'm concerned Murdoch can go rot. He makes comments that in the resession it's wrong that you should be forced to pay for the TV licence fee... but happy for the low income masses and unemployed to pay for his services.
He forgets to mention that:
a. The BBC has a royal charter and by law has to cater to a broad spectrum of viewers
b. Is supposed to be balanced (don't even go there as start the usual crap about them not being so, as there is a least a system in place to review any complainants that they are failing in this).
c. Make their own stuff or commission it. Sky has made a handful of original shows, all the rest is imported. How many Sky shows have been taken up by other countries? None I would imagine.
Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.
We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.
Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?
This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.
The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.
mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum. .
No it wouldn't have been.
Yelling "class warrior" and insulting the other poster is not in any way an attempt to debate.
Do better.
The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.
mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.
We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.
Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?
This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.
The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.
I've heard rumours from a mate who's ex 29 Commando, that they are looking at screwing over the Marines again. Will he still not be a "git" then? If I remember correctly the last times the Tories did this sort of thing the Falklands got invaded. By the way this isn't a round about way of supporting Labour, but just pointing out I'd trust Dave as much as I'd trust any politician.
mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.
We had 13 years of labour, 3 of the 4 MPs facing criminal charges are labour, and they were just as (or more) sickeningly corrupt, arrogant, incompetent and allergic to referendums as any administration we have ever had.
Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git? And why is he one? He seems a fair minded enough bloke to me, he just seems like he is trying to balance the books which is going to annoy everybody, but why do you have such a hatred for him where you will sit and effectivelly call him names? Due to the fact he had a good education? Is that an acceptable reason to loathe somebody?
This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.
The simple fact of the matter is that this nation is bleeding money and its needs to be addressed urgently. The childlike name calling of the guy you didnt like winning achieves nothing.
He didn't insult Cameron, he was calling Murdoch a "git", not Cameron.
He also didn't complain in the post about the balancing of the books, merely commented that immediately after Murdoch's papers changed their votes and possibly won the election, the changes that Murdoch would wish to happen, look to be happening.
And surely it is slightly wrong that shortly after an undisclosed meeting in the Aegean sea in the med, hundreds of miles from Britain, changes in favour of one of the Tories' largest/most influential backers, are set to occur.
mattyrm wrote:Yes you are being too left wing for some, not the mods though, and Im sure that my extremely limp wristed "personal attack" would have been allowed if it was directed at a conservative voter and not the labour party that is so beloved by so many on this forum.
I didn't see the comment before it was banned but gnashing your teeth over left wing bias on dakka is very, very funny.
Where do you get off calling David Cameron a git?
He called Murdoch a git. Learn to read.
This sort of ridiculous vitriolic dislike for anybody who is fortunate enough to be wealthy or is assosciated with the conservative party by a fair size of Britains society is genuinelly embarrassing to me as it is without foundation. Cameron is not a nazi, a bigot, or a vampire, rich people dont eat babies, and the Conservatives are as centrist as they have ever been.
That you've confused a genuine concern about the power of media moguls to offer support to politicians in exchange for favourable legislation for vitriolic dislike of anyone fortunate enough to be wealthy is a sad reflection of the state of political debate. There is a real issue of political corruption here, and as I've pointed out above Blair's Labour govt did it too, and it deserves more than some tired old factional crap.
By Git, I was referring to Murdoch, not Cameron. Didn't vote this time, so I don't get a chance to whinge about who's who in Government at the moment.
My entire point is that he is having 'secret' meetings with a non-UK Citizen, that is not part of a foreign political party. So what right does this meeting have to secrecy, especially given how many things have been ticked off Murdoch's wishlist?
Bit of clarity please or we're back to New Labour.
Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?
No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.
My entire point is that he is having 'secret' meetings with a non-UK Citizen,
Do you not think Prime Ministers, indeed all politicians in any position of power, meet a considerable number of people where they discuss all manner of things ? It's not going to be especially practical to list them all.
And, to be blunt, this has come as no surprise whatsoever if you've paid the slightest attention to anything that has happened in UK politics for about 20+ years.
And it's not really unique to the current administratiuon either. Granted it might wind up being a bit ..err..."stronger" ( ? ) in overall affect than in the past thsi time however.
I dislike almost all politicians, to be sure, but my point is, i dont see what he personally has done to provoke the vitriol against him by all the class warrior types.
Of course ill be dismayed if they screw the Royal Marines, but the fact of the matter is, the cupboards bare. Did you see that slimeball Milliband saying Cameron "disrespected" the troops? The bloke doubled the OA within a week of taking power, there is a reason that many military people vote conservative.
And dont even get me started on Liam Byrne. He left a note on Osbournes desk saying "THERES NO MONEY! LOLZ!" and then marched out to slag the conservatives off for not paying for some community projects. Effectively playing politics with the hopes of communities, promising things he KNEW he wouldnt be able to deliver and upending the monopoly board for the new guys. The mans a snake.
Theres no money. Its that simple. If the marines get screwed then ill be pissed, but ill crack on. I think its fair to say that the blame can be laid at the feet of the anti military labour party that got us so far in debt we need to pay the piper now.
Borrowing this month is half what it was a year ago. Who do you really think is to blame if our armed forces runs out of cash? The two blokes who took over a few months back or the guys in charge for 13 years who ran us into two wars badly equipped, with no body armour for regular army grunts on the ground while they spent like desperate gamblers and their own kids got sent to private school in America?
The labour party were just as bad as the conservatives, but they are worse, because they pretended they were all "hip" and "down with the poor people" while they did all the same things the Tories were famous for. As i said, 3 of the 4 due in court are labour, i dont like getting fisted by anyone, but i prefer it off some posh gakker ive got nothing in common with that by some geezer who pretends he is "working class" like me and then sticks his face in the trough with gusto.
The Tories tell lies, the Labour party tell lies whilst being staggeringly hypocritical. And as a result its not hard for me to decide which of a bad lot i prefered to vote for.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Yeah alb, 29 commando are army ranks who do the all arms commando course and then work with the RM, they have a battery attached to each commando unit to provide our artillery support. I was at 42 commando when we had 79 battery attached to us during OIF, and Its similar to 59 commando (army engineers) as some jobs are needed for the commando units but arent in the Royal Marines remit. Needless to say we dont have any artillery guns of our own.
reds8n wrote:Do you not think Prime Ministers, indeed all politicians in any position of power, meet a considerable number of people where they discuss all manner of things ? It's not going to be especially practical to list them all.
Some are of greater interest than others. The difference is normally pretty clear.
Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?
No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.
You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!
ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.
Mattrym matey...this isn't about the various Parties, but the potentially very shady dealings between our now Prime Minister, and a man who has no business mucking around in UK Politics, not being a Citizen like.
Flip it on it's head. What if Brown had pulled this one? Or Clegg?
mattyrm wrote:The Tories tell lies, the Labour party tell lies whilst being staggeringly hypocritical. And as a result its not hard for me to decide which of a bad lot i prefered to vote for.
What the sweet moogly googly has any of that got to do with Murdoch dealing with Cameron? Yes, Labour were also dodgy. Yes, there are class warriors out there ready to attack the tories for whatever.
It doesn't matter if its your Conservatives or his Labour, the matter is political rewards for favourable media. God save us all from the true believers.
Mr Mystery wrote:Mattrym matey...this isn't about the various Parties, but the potentially very shady dealings between our now Prime Minister, and a man who has no business mucking around in UK Politics, not being a Citizen like.
Flip it on it's head. What if Brown had pulled this one? Or Clegg?
Stoking the fire even more... What about the Blair - Ecclestone met? Remember that one? Not long after F1 became exempt from the tobacco ban. So in fairness it goes on and people are right to ask questions about such meetings.
Tory scum bag meets right wing media scum bag shock!
Now the new Tory scum bag PM meets right wing scum bag shock!
Where I think Mr Mystery does have a valid case for complaint is that a non national media tycoon is allowed to (potentially) have undue influence on the Goverment.
Personally I don't like any party having Murdoch as a bed fellow as a pox will fall upon all their houses.
Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?
No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.
You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!
ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.
Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.
In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.
Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.
Ugh.. alright alright, so yes it goes on, Blair did it plenty, everyone does it..
What then is the point in the question?
All the politicians take the piss and look after their buddies and they always have done, so if we arent going to have a good old fashioned argument about politics, i dont see the issue?
Yes its probably a bit shady, but lots is when you get into politics, this stuff goes on, it always has done, people ask a few questions, and it continues. Seems a bit of a dull conversation to me, i mean, whats to debate here?
Cant we have a good old fashioned "my party is better than yours" talk now?
Automatically Appended Next Post: Ah Chibi turned up, we can get down to business now.
Indeed. It seem the Big Three in the UK aren't above shady dealings.
Is it not time we as the electorate held them accountable for this? I mean seriously, when it becomes pretty obvious that private interests are playing such a major hand in Policy, it's up to us 'little people' to let them know it just isn't on. Look at the Expenses debacle. They were pretty much all on the rob, and that's just from the few years we know about, leading to suspicion from pretty much any sane person that the ones we did learn of are pretty standard fare for all expenses for the past however long! We got that changed when we caught them with their hand in the till, now it's time we did the same on such things.
Be it Cameron/Murdoch, Blair/Ecclestone, we need to let them know that 'It's secret' is simply NOT acceptable. You represent us in Parliament, we own you. NOT the other way around.
Albatross wrote:
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron.
Actually Murdoch's personal political convictions are supposed to be much more left wing than people think -- it's well known he loathes Bill Reilly and several/most of the Fox News guys -- but he always puts his business interests ahead of all other considerations. Hence why he'll come out in favour of Obama one year, and then donate $1 million dollars to the Republicans this year. Whilst kissing the ass of the Chinese govt. at the same time.
Most political commentators actually say that Cameron and Murdoch don't get on personally at all. Cameron dislikes pandering to the lower end spectrum of Murdoch's media empire and thinks he asserts too much influence already, whilst Murdoch, allegedly views Cameron as a bit of a lightweight. He was especially scathing at the pretty poor way they stumbled through the election campaign, despite the massive help given to him by Murdoch's empire.
I was reading the story about the fact that the IFS are saying that the emergency budget will hit the low income families the worst. Suprise, suprise the Treasury has refutted this.
It just makes me realise that we are our own worse enemies at letting them get away with this sort of thing. We let Labour do it to us and we now let the Tories do it.
They screw us over, the papers raise a storm, we moan, time passes and we forget about it. Expenses was a classic, they all managed to duck the core problem and it's faded away. I'm amazed that they can take the same facts & figures and come up with different answers to suit their point of view.
Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?
No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.
You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!
ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.
Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.
In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.
Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen. Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.
Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though. Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.
Albatross wrote:So any meeting by a private citizen with another private citizen requires complete transparency?
No, any meeting by the Prime Minister with a foreign private citizen, who isn't a politician, who also happens to be a major supporter of the Conservatives, and who's wishlist of legislation comes through shortly after.
You are of course aware that de-regulation and tax-cuts are a major plank of Tory policy, aren't you? I support those things too - does that mean that I have some shady agreement with the PM? Wait - the Tory party conference was in Manchester! I was in Manchester at the time!
ITS ALL FALLING INTO PLACE!
Seriously, Murdoch is a high-profile supporter of the Conservative Party and friend of David Cameron. That they would meet up is hardly shocking. The policies mentioned have been discussed for several years and are broadly supported by the Tory party membership.
Again... all 170 odd newspapers owned by NewsCorp in Australia, the UK and the US each supported the war on Iraq. Every one of them apparently came to that decision based on the independent decision making of their editorial teams. Huge coincidence.
In the wake of the Iraq war the governments of Australia, the UK and the US all drafted and attempted to pass media ownership laws that would free up assets, laws that Murdoch was expressly in favour of. Which is something of another huge coincidence.
Trying to claim that Murdoch doesn't try to leverage favourable political coverage for favourable legislation is delusional. Simply ridiculously wrong.
I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen. Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.
Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though. Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.
I like albatross...
Yeah so, i dont want to make this a "personal" attack. So ill just say that a fair number (6 spring to mind with no thought at all) of people on dakka are screaming class warriors. Im a son of a welder from Middlesbrough who joined the military, so i have no alligience to either party, i just decided i dislike the Labour party because i am more right wing than left wing, and the labour party are more left wing than the conservative party. Thats logical right?
But the screaming liberals with their utter foaming hatred for Cameron... where is the logic? They hate the Conservative party for no good reason. They hate them because they have been raised to think that anyone who went to a good school or is born into wealth is worthy of scorn and loathing. I can only assume this is jelousy?
Lets debate this seeing as the whole thread is a moot point in theat politicians scratch peoples backs and always will do (see above)
Name me some good reasons for this inbuilt hatred.
What do you personally dislike about Mr Cameron? What large differences do you think exist between the two parties, and most importantly, after the last 13 years of labour, where the gap between rich and poor increased, MPs fiddled their expenses as much as ever, the national debt tripled, Labour MPs got sneaky peerages and "Lord" souless dirtbag Mandelson was honoured, a generation of doleys and chavs boomed, two gak wars, criminals got looked after better than victims (and another few hundred things i cant be arsed to type) why do you still like them so much?
Would things REALLY have been any different under the much maligned conservatives?
i just decided i dislike the Labour party because i am more right wing than left wing, and the labour party are more left wing than the conservative party. Thats logical right?
back in the 70's definitely.
and through the 80's.
Since the Thatcher regime and the makeover to New labour the distinctions are very much more blurred imho Matty.
There are policies on both sides that appear to contradict expectations. Sorry I can't think of any right now, but there have been staements by the Tories that sound more left of centre than Labour's take on the issue.
Don't forget the old industrial working class communities have broken down since the 1980's and the social structures and allegiences are no longer applicable.
The concept of a Working Class is probably no longer valid.
In any case popular support for right wing movements tends to come from what were the working classes.
I think any nation that, without any hint of irony, can happily take a sheep's intestine, stuff it with crap and then ingest said offal, is just fundamentally wrong...
Albatross wrote: Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.
It's not really a conspiracy if it's one person, who does control all of those media outlets, controlling it is it now ?
They hate the Conservative party for no good reason
That's a massive assumption and underscores the flaw in your logic.
Firstly you have no idea if these people, whomever they are, have any reason for what they feel, or perhaps even think, with regards to any political party.
If it is, apparently, fine and logical for you to dislike the Labour Party as they are more left wing than the tories, why is it less logical for people to dislike the tories as they are more right wing than the Labour party ?
That's blatant double standards... are you an MP ?!
Would things REALLY have been any different under the much maligned conservatives?
I can't see how they would have been any better : they wanted even more deregulation of the banking system -- well that would ahve worked well -- and tehy were just as for the war(s) as the actual govt. was.
I agree there are swathes of the country where people vote for party X, pretty much regardless of suitability, but that's not in any way purely a Labour Party exclusive situation. There's just as many areas of the country where people always vote Tory as well.
..We generally call it Kent. Alas.
What large differences do you think exist between the two parties
I don't really think there or have been for quite some time, thus why I find the somewhat triumphant cries of the Tory Right baffling : just as New labour only got into power by ditching some of their more leftist policies, the tories only managed to get where they've got -- in a coalition with a party to the left of New labour despite having out spent all the other political parties combined and once having ahd a poll lead that leaders in other countries would kill for -- by ditching many of their more rightwing policies.
And, for various reasons, they're dropping or altering their stance on them, more and more by the day. That's the realities of politics, yelling about "class warriors" contributes nothing to any attempted discussion, anymore so than people calling you a kiss ass sycophant would.
Nah, not really, it IS just the OT board on a wargaming forum, where the main gist of the thread is a yongster's apparent amazement that rich business men have an affect upon govt. policy.
It's just I expect better arguments from the British posters,
... I mean you septics just don't know any better, and, bless , you do your best... but...
Regardless of murdoch/cameron shenanigans the fact is the BBC IS a huge waste of money. They employ news correspondents in god knows how many countries just laying on the beach drinking pina coladas until something newsworthy happens. Yeh sure we can get up to the minute updates but for the sake of waiting a few hours for a news crew to fly there. It's pointless waste.
mattyrm wrote:Yes its probably a bit shady, but lots is when you get into politics, this stuff goes on, it always has done, people ask a few questions, and it continues. Seems a bit of a dull conversation to me, i mean, whats to debate here?
You can debate the legislation that's going to go before parliament. You can contact your local member and tell him that you're very worried about the legislation that is being discussed.
Cant we have a good old fashioned "my party is better than yours" talk now? )
Except the differences between the parties are pretty meaningless. They throw out the odd bone to the old faithful every so often but all that matters is good governance. Ignoring something because it's coming from your side is a really impractical way of going about politics.
reds8n wrote:Actually Murdoch's personal political convictions are supposed to be much more left wing than people think -- it's well known he loathes Bill Reilly and several/most of the Fox News guys -- but he always puts his business interests ahead of all other considerations. Hence why he'll come out in favour of Obama one year, and then donate $1 million dollars to the Republicans this year. Whilst kissing the ass of the Chinese govt. at the same time.
Yeah, like I said earlier Murdoch wields all this power and could do anything with it... and he uses it to make more money. The man has a really boring outlook on life.
Albatross wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen.
Yes, it does happen. It is bad when it happens. To have a better standard of government, it is good to recognise it when it happens and talk about ways to stop it happening. These are things that are not complicated.
Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.
You could look at it as an attack on your favourite, bestest political party. Or you could think about how this actually relates to the governance and politics of your country.
Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though.
Never doubted it. If it bothers you when I point out that you don't get an issue, put in more work to understand the issue.
Seriously, calling people delusional because they don't agree with some rabid left-wing conspiracy? Nice work.
That's a really weak claim and you know it. This isn't a rabid left-wing conspiracy, you said yourself that powerful people exert influence over politicians. People have said that's bad, and especially bad when it is a very powerful media company, and a couple of posters have spouted a lot of drivel to avoid accepting that basic fact.
I honestly don't think there is any greater institution than the BBC.
Look at the original content it churns out year on year, and I don't just mean stuff like Dr Who. Panorama, Newsnight, Have I Got News For You, Nature Documentaries, all sorts of everything, all for a pretty damned nominal sum a year from each household in the country. Or we could be forced to line the pockets of the like of Murdoch, a man whose own shocking self interest is palpable. I really don't think he could care less how inaccuracy or blatant scaremongering escapes from his Media outlets, as long as the green keeps on rolling.
Is Auntie flawed? I suppose so, but I would rather have their flaws than Murdoch's idea of perfection. Some 'stars' are quite blatantly overpaid, but don't look at the bad, as it is very much the minority. Look at the positives of the Beeb.
Mr Mystery wrote:I honestly don't think there is any greater institution than the BBC.
Look at the original content it churns out year on year, and I don't just mean stuff like Dr Who. Panorama, Newsnight, Have I Got News For You, Nature Documentaries, all sorts of everything, all for a pretty damned nominal sum a year from each household in the country. Or we could be forced to line the pockets of the like of Murdoch, a man whose own shocking self interest is palpable. I really don't think he could care less how inaccuracy or blatant scaremongering escapes from his Media outlets, as long as the green keeps on rolling.
Is Auntie flawed? I suppose so, but I would rather have their flaws than Murdoch's idea of perfection. Some 'stars' are quite blatantly overpaid, but don't look at the bad, as it is very much the minority. Look at the positives of the Beeb.
Translation: I like it so everyone has to subsidize me liking it...
It's a condition of owning a Telly in the UK, you need to have a license. The money goes to funding the BBC, with it's charter of Educate, Entertain and Inform.
It's still very much doing this, able to make niche or fringe programming to a very high standard, whilst still chucking out mainstream stuff at a higher level than many commerical competitors.
Albatross wrote:I'm not saying that. I'm saying it's not a massive deal or part of some sinister conspiracy. It's politics. That powerful businessmen have influence over politicians is not shocking. It has happened in this country (and pretty much every other country) for years and years, and will continue to happen.
Yes, it does happen. It is bad when it happens. To have a better standard of government, it is good to recognise it when it happens and talk about ways to stop it happening. These are things that are not complicated.
I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?
Seeking to point out the sins of one end of the political spectrum whilst ignoring the sins of your own isn't incisive political commentary, it's myopic. This thread is just a partisan attack on the Conservative party, nothing more. Let's treat it as such.
You could look at it as an attack on your favourite, bestest political party. Or you could think about how this actually relates to the governance and politics of your country.
What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug. I'm not the first person to point this out, and whilst you can continue to tell yourself that people who take issue with you are just stupid, eventually it's going to hit home that there are people who consider you needlessly pompous. Know yourself.
Glad to see your status as an an arrogant tit is secure, though.
Never doubted it. If it bothers you when I point out that you don't get an issue, put in more work to understand the issue.
Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.
Albatross wrote:
What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug. I'm not the first person to point this out, and whilst you can continue to tell yourself that people who take issue with you are just stupid, eventually it's going to hit home that there are people who consider you needlessly pompous. Know yourself.
Yeah, being as i come on here for a smile or a chuckle i havent read one of Sebs posts for months now, i like to read Shuma's posts because he is generally as well informed as Seb, but he is actually genuinelly amusing when he is being smug. Sebster is about as equally informed but is like one of those bad teachers that recites everything from the handbook but has the personality of a sack of cabbages.
Just skip his stuff mate, read Dogmas or Shumas, you get almost the same information but none of the souless grey "learn to read" yawn inducing stuff.
If you want to know my opinions on the issue, recite Sebsters posts and constantly punch yourself in the face.
It's basically what I would be doing to you. Sebster tries to teach you, I just want you to know that you're wrong.
I despise murdoch and I value the BBC as one of the last free and impartial non corporate news entities on the planet. I would rather see Murdoch have his skin torn off then see a single BBC employee fired so that he can feth up the ideals of journalism more. I don't care about Cameron, but I view him to be as big a pandering tool as your last few leaders.
ShumaGorath wrote:If you want to know my opinions on the issue, recite Sebsters posts and constantly punch yourself in the face.
It's basically what I would be doing to you. Sebster tries to teach you, I just want you to know that you're wrong.
And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.
I despise murdoch and I value the BBC as one of the last free and impartial non corporate news entities on the planet.
I agree.
I would rather see Murdoch have his skin torn off then see a single BBC employee fired so that he can feth up the ideals of journalism more.
Again, I agree. However that's not the same as saying that I don't think that there are people who work for the BBC who should lose their jobs, only that the agenda for the BBC shouldn't be set by James Murdoch or his father. Not that that's happening, or is ever going to happen.
I don't care about Cameron, but I view him to be as big a pandering tool as your last few leaders.
...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?
This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.
Better then the man with a worldview akin to that of a coma patient who just woke up after getting hit by a lorry in Thatchers england.
I agree.
Saywhat?
Again, I agree. However that's not the same as saying that I don't think that there are people who work for the BBC who should lose their jobs, only that the agenda for the BBC shouldn't be set by James Murdoch or his father. Not that that's happening, or is ever going to happen.
Murdochs got an awful lot of money, and you have an awful spineless leader. I wouldn't put it beyond possibility.
...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?
You used prejudice wrong, and about as much as any odiously smug mouthpiece with massively overinflated opinons of themselves. That being everything about him including banal information like the exact number of hairs on his head at any given time. It's fething magic is what is it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
whatwhat wrote:This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
whatwhat wrote:This thread needs dropping. Not only for the constant personal bs which has gone on from the start but also because Shuma's ego is far too big already without you inflating it.
Im not seeing Cameron as spineless at all myself like. He seems to tell it straight to people, he came right out and said it like it is about Pakistan, can you give an example?
mattyrm wrote:Im not seeing Cameron as spineless at all myself like. He seems to tell it straight to people, he came right out and said it like it is about Pakistan, can you give an example?
He hasn't had enough time to wrap himself around something in the way only an invertebrate can, most of my opinions are derived from his campaign and persona affectations. Calling pakistan names is quite easy when there are no ramifications for such statements (not that I disagree with them) however his re-characterization of the mission in afghanistan as well as his love of PR beauty rubs me in a similar way that Edwards rubbed me back when Kerry was trying to dethrone Bush. He reminds me of the Smiler if anyone here has read transmetropolitan (A great work by an englishman!).
Albatross wrote:And you're both odiously smug mouthpieces with massively overinflated opinions of yourselves. You just have different (but equally tiresome) approaches.
Better then the man with a worldview akin to that of a coma patient who just woke up after getting hit by a lorry in Thatchers england.
Explain my worldview to me. I presume you have an intimate knowledge of it.
Murdochs got an awful lot of money, and you have an awful spineless leader.
Explain to me how David Cameron is a spineless leader. And don't just say 'I don't have time to educate you etc.' - that, as far as I'm concerned, IS actually an innovation: An intellectually 'macho' cop-out. I can't remember seeing that before, but maybe it's the circles I move in.
...Because of your anti-British prejudice. Do you actually KNOW anything about him?
You used prejudice wrong,
How? You have displayed, time and again, anti-British sentiment - this will naturally inform any prejudgements you make on related topics, especially ones which you know little about.
and about as much as any odiously smug mouthpiece with massively overinflated opinons of themselves. That being everything about him including banal information like the exact number of hairs on his head at any given time. It's fething magic is what is it.
Ah. The 'humourous deflection'. So now you're taking tips on arguing from Frazzled? Why didn't you just post a picture of a dachshund?
Or better yet, just admit that you know nothing about the guy aprt from the fact that he's the British PM, and that that's enough for you to base your snideness on. Seriously, I wouldn't mind.
Explain to me how he's not. Hows your budget reformation going?
How?
If you want full and absolute honesty I read that as anti "Bush" prejudice, which fits within the conversation, but isn't what you wrote. I typed that up very quickly, I was trying to get to the gym before six.
You have displayed, time and again, anti-British sentiment - this will naturally inform any prejudgements you make on related topics, especially ones which you know little about.
I rib on england because they are the majority non american group on the board. I also rib on conservatives and IGURBAN. It's rarely very real as I have explained (to you) previously. I explained my reasoning to Mattyrm concerning the spineless issue. I also thought Taro Aso was pretty spineless before he got in. Gordon Brown too. I'm generally not bad with personal evaluations based on campaign behavior and it's pretty clear that I'm voicing an opinion.
Ah. The 'humourous deflection'. So now you're taking tips on arguing from Frazzled? Why didn't you just post a picture of a dachshund?
I'm a cat person, and I'm ten times as funny as frazzled.
Or better yet, just admit that you know nothing about the guy aprt from the fact that he's the British PM, and that that's enough for you to base your snideness on. Seriously, I wouldn't mind.
Albatross wrote:I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?
These kinds of dealings are common in politics. I have no idea why that makes them acceptable.
Just to repeat, you have a media group giving positive media coverage to a political party in exchange for favourable legislation. It is bad when media organisations decide to give more favourable coverage to one political party, and it is bad when parties draft favourable legislation to repay favours.
What IS that? Seriously? Why do you constantly act like you are talking to a child? It's a really unattractive trait, one which makes you look self-congratulatory and smug.
My first post on the subject didn't treat anyone as a child. I tried for a couple of posts to get people to look at the issue of trading favourable media for favourable legislation and didn't use any dismissive language. I only made a dismissive comment on your post when you made a snippy and particularly weak post in reply to Goliath.
Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.
You're trying to play both sides here, that this sort of thing goes on all the time and that this is some kind of crazy leftist conspiracy theory. You need to pick one.
mattyrm wrote:Just skip his stuff mate, read Dogmas or Shumas, you get almost the same information but none of the souless grey "learn to read" yawn inducing stuff.
Whereas I'm drawn to your stuff like a moth to a flame, because your posts are always hilarious, especially when you're not telling jokes.
No one is debating stuff like this has been going on for as long as we've had a Government. What I am debating is why should we stand for it?
Why should a few powerful, already filthy rich people make even more money and wield even more power at the expense of the Governments Electorate? This is NOT about the various individual Political Parties, but those who seek to use them for their own ends, particularly when, like Rupert Murdoch, they aren't even a Citizen of the country they are meddling in. And I'm sorry but 'that's the way it is' is categorically not a good enough answer. We are the electorate, we have the power to not only effect change, but to turf out incumbent Governments, forcing a fresh election.
Britain is not alone in this problem either. To quote V for Vendetta 'Governments should be afraid of their people, not the other way around'
Albatross wrote:I didn't say they were - I'm arguing the exact opposite: That they are crushingly mundane. Certainly not deserving of the seeming shock the OP displayed. Is that not obvious?
These kinds of dealings are common in politics. I have no idea why that makes them acceptable.
Just to repeat, you have a media group giving positive media coverage to a political party in exchange for favourable legislation. It is bad when media organisations decide to give more favourable coverage to one political party, and it is bad when parties draft favourable legislation to repay favours.
It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
Exactly what is it that I'm not getting? That wealthy and powerful people are wealthy and powerful? Did you think that was some secret knowledge that only you had? Well, SURPRISE! Welcome to the party! The rest of us have been here for a while but I'm sure there's still some booze left... Somewhere. I'm not denying that some backscratching might well have gone on that may have benefitted both parties - it makes sense for Cameron to court a powerful media magnate, and vice versa. Maybe I'm just an irredeemable pragmatist. It's hardly a great scandal, in my opinion - even if this 'pact with the devil' has a shred of truth to it.
You're trying to play both sides here, that this sort of thing goes on all the time and that this is some kind of crazy leftist conspiracy theory. You need to pick one.
There are elements of both in what I'm saying - politicians and wealthy, powerful businessmen have influence over each other. Crazy leftist conspiracy theorists get all hot under the collar when they 'uncover' things like this, things which all political parties everywhere do. It's really not a big deal.
Cameron slated Pakistan whilst in India begging for business. Make of that what you will. Me? I think he's an opportunistic slimeball... which lets be fair sums up most of our politicians
Do you not think it was, if perhaps somewhat crass or obvious I'll grant you, a good move to use tensions atwixt India and Pakistan to our advantage ? It certainly didn't hurt "our" cause in India, and from the loud THANK YOU the Uk has been getting from disaster agencies this week (and the meetings not long after the comments between Cameron and his Pakistani counterpart) we seem to be on alright terms with Pakistan as well.
And we live in the soundbite era, like it or not. Blair was great at that, Brown awful.. and its too early really to judge Cameron either way ( we'll chalk the twitter incident up to inexperience and no real harm done there). I'd rather have a leader who understands this and can use it effectively than not.
I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over. He is more right wing than the last lot. I just hope he gets down to business and starts hammering the dole scum back into work and thats the next election in the bag. Better than Tony "lets give them all special brew, while Matty grafts to feed their ugly fething kids" Blair.
mattyrm wrote:I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over.
So.. you're in agreement with all the election "promises" they made that they've since dropped then ? YU're seriously claiming that the appointments of Fox hasn't been one long disaster after another ? And let's not get started on "Fatty" Soames. How about the david Rowland farce then ? That's not sleazy and corrupt ? Really ?
Osbourne looks horrendously worried every time he has to speak in public, and has done huge damage to the coalition by both his treatment of Clegg and Tories such as Ken Clarke and IDS, and still has all those rumours about his past hanging over him to do with his past associations. Cameron can, and should, get away with his "youthful indiscretions", Osbourne has no such luxury.
He is more right wing than the last lot.
Not read Blair's new book then ? It's the best defense of G.W. Bush and his policies outiside of a Republican conference ever.
Rubbish, he's more right wing than Brown I agree, but he's pretty much Blair MK II in pretty much every way.
But, if you mean he'd have been just as enthusiastic to follow America to war and suck up to the neo cons.. well.. maybe.
I just hope he gets down to business and starts hammering the dole scum back into work
Doesn't look like it's going to happen as... A. The economy. B. The actual budget was so piss poorly written and devised it might well in fact be rendered illegal after a legal challenge from members of its' own party. C. The proposals that IDS wants to make -- and fair play to him, I don't agree with all of his thougts but at least he's genuine in his intent and has looked at the issue and spent time thinking about the issue rather than following dogma. It makes him Frank Fields Mk II , but.. hey.. at least he's trying ! -- don't look like they'll get through and if they do will be watered down considerably.
and thats the next election in the bag. Better than Tony "lets give them all special brew, while Matty grafts to feed their ugly fething kids" Blair.
Seeing as he couldn't win the recent election that seems very unlikely.
mattyrm wrote:I think i have agreed with almost everything Cameron has done since he took over.
So.. you're in agreement with all the election "promises" they made that they've since dropped then ?
Well... Ok, but to be fair, he wasn't exactly planning sharing a platform with Clegg's lot, was he? S'all about 'national interest', dontchaknow...
He is more right wing than the last lot.
Not read Blair's new book then ? It's the best defense of G.W. Bush and his policies outiside of a Republican conference ever.
Rubbish, he's more right wing than Brown I agree, but he's pretty much Blair MK II in pretty much every way.
Pft. It's just an easy comparison because Blair is a closet Thatcherite! Cameron was Cameron before Blair became Blair - He hasn't had to change, as he's never been to the far right of the party. 'New' Labour was all about moving closer to Tory financial policy in order to be electable. They even changed the party constitution. The difference was that New Labour was still ostensibly socially liberal. Times moved on, the people moved on and now the Tory party has had to become more socially liberal under Cameron's stewardship in order to be electable. I would never have voted Tory whilst the right wing of the party (Widdecombe, Howard etc.) still had the reins on social policy. It's good that people like that are more at the margins of the party now - sure, throw them an IDS to make them feel like they're represented in the cabinet, but that's about it. I think SuperDave is close to striking the right balance, but as with anything it's a learning process.
But, if you mean he'd have been just as enthusiastic to follow America to war and suck up to the neo cons.. well.. maybe.
Possibly. I actually anticipate a thaw. I can't see Hague and Clinton being bezzie pals either, to be honest. He's earthy and plain-speaking whereas she's an ambitious egotist. I also don't think much of the Obameron relationship. Maybe he'll get on better with the next president...
Albatross wrote:It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
No, it isn't like that. Good thing that played a part in them being kicked out of government. It also isn't as bad as last time this happened, when Murdoch supported the invasion of Iraq in exchange for media liberalisation. Because there's two issues here, misleading media coverage and favours for the rich and powerful.
I think it's disappointing that people are willing to overlook it because it helps get their side into government. Will you be as philosophical when Labour strikes a deal next time around?
There are elements of both in what I'm saying - politicians and wealthy, powerful businessmen have influence over each other. Crazy leftist conspiracy theorists get all hot under the collar when they 'uncover' things like this, things which all political parties everywhere do. It's really not a big deal.
I think you'd have a point if anyone was claiming this is a sudden, once in a lifetime event. I think people acknowledge that this is something both parties do.
Albatross wrote:
Well... Ok, but to be fair, he wasn't exactly planning sharing a platform with Clegg's lot, was he?
Indeed, but severla of the changes -- Europe, prisons etc etc have nothing to do with their coalition partners.
Pft. It's just an easy comparison because Blair is a closet Thatcherite!
I wouldn't go quite that far, but I more or less agree.
Cameron was Cameron before Blair became Blair - He hasn't had to change, as he's never been to the far right of the party. 'New' Labour was all about moving closer to Tory financial policy in order to be electable. They even changed the party constitution. The difference was that New Labour was still ostensibly socially liberal. Times moved on, the people moved on and now the Tory party has had to become more socially liberal under Cameron's stewardship in order to be electable. I would never have voted Tory whilst the right wing of the party (Widdecombe, Howard etc.) still had the reins on social policy. It's good that people like that are more at the margins of the party now - sure, throw them an IDS to make them feel like they're represented in the cabinet, but that's about it. I think SuperDave is close to striking the right balance, but as with anything it's a learning process.
I think perhaps you;re underestimating quite how to the right Cameron was in his younger days, to be fair I think that was largely due to upbringing and the company he kept.
I think many, many people would never have voted tory , especially under the people you listed. That said... Michael Howard came to a dinner at work one time... and he was absolutely charming, couldn't have been nicer, he was nothing like his public persona at all. During breaks in the meal he'd pop into the little staff area where we had a telly to watch the footie with us -- Liverpool were palying in the champions league that night -- and he was a good laugh.
Widdecombe came another time and was generally absolutely as ghastly as you'd imagine she'd be. I believe she's shortly to go on "strictly come dancing" so , maybe, karma exists.
Possibly. I actually anticipate a thaw. I can't see Hague and Clinton being bezzie pals either, to be honest. He's earthy and plain-speaking whereas she's an ambitious egotist. I also don't think much of the Obameron relationship. Maybe he'll get on better with the next president...
Albatross wrote:It hasn't exactly played out like that though, has it? Both the policy to neuter Ofcom and the possible reduction in license fee have been discussed for at least 3 years and are in keeping with party philosphy. It doesn't exactly add up to the 'Cameron destroy BBC for make Murdoch more richer!'-type opinions I've been hearing. I'm not exactly over the moon about the PM getting into bed with people like that but as far as I'm concerned, getting Labour out of power was vital and the Tories needed a massive swing to make that happen. Favourable media coverage is indispensable when attempting such a huge task. It's a back-scratch. It's not like say, agreeing not to oppose the release of a convicted terrorist in order to secure drilling rights in a rogue state.
No, it isn't like that. Good thing that played a part in them being kicked out of government. It also isn't as bad as last time this happened, when Murdoch supported the invasion of Iraq in exchange for media liberalisation. Because there's two issues here, misleading media coverage and favours for the rich and powerful.
I think it's disappointing that people are willing to overlook it because it helps get their side into government. Will you be as philosophical when Labour strikes a deal next time around
Well, Murdoch's papers switched their support to Labour shortly before the 1997 election... You see where I'm going with this?
RedS8n wrote:
Indeed, but severla of the changes -- Europe, prisons etc etc have nothing to do with their coalition partners.
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe? Clegg sleeps with baguette under his pillow every night!
Albatross wrote:Well, Murdoch's papers switched their support to Labour shortly before the 1997 election... You see where I'm going with this?
You still seem to be treating this as an attack on the conservatives. Have you been reading my posts in this thread? My first post pointed out the deal between Labour and NewsCorp over the Iraq war. Whichever political party is involved doesn't matter, what matters is honest journalism and politicians not trading favourable policy for favours.
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe?
They had nothing to do with the Govt. deciding, despite earlier opposition, that in fact the European Investigation Order is a great thing and signing us up to it. And Cameron's blatant fudging and dancinga round the issue of the Lisbon treaty -- dangling the prospect of a referendum despite knowing that it would mean nothing if the act was passed elsewhere .. and, oh look.. no referendum. All of which started last year, well before any coalition or dealings with the Lib Dems. at all.
Wait, the Lib Dems have nothing to do with Europe?
They had nothing to do with the Govt. deciding, despite earlier opposition, that in fact the European Investigation Order is a great thing and signing us up to it. And Cameron's blatant fudging and dancinga round the issue of the Lisbon treaty -- dangling the prospect of a referendum despite knowing that it would mean nothing if the act was passed elsewhere .. and, oh look.. no referendum. All of which started last year, well before any coalition or dealings with the Lib Dems. at all.
Well he can't exactly just come out and offer a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty now it's law, can he? He was pretty careful not to guarentee one, as I recall. As far as the EIO (Old Macdonald had a farm... ) goes, I refuse to believe that isn't the result of some backroom deal between the Tories and Lib Dems. We knew there where going to be concessions made, and although I'm admittedly not thrilled about it I can see it's potential uses. I'm thinking it might provide for better co-ordination between forces when dealing with human trafficking organisations which span several countries, and of course the narcotics trade.
The truth is that all of us in the House promised a referendum. We have the courage of our convictions and are sticking to that promise. The Prime Minister has lost his courage..
14th of May 2008, David Cameron...
[Gordon Brown] does not believe in giving people genuine choice and control over their lives. If he did, he would give the country a referendum on the EU constitution..
His interview with the Sun after their infamous Churhcill/2fingers to Brown picture...
"On Monday The Sun's image of Gordon Brown sticking two fingers up to the British public was provocative. But it was right.
What a difference to Churchill. When he made that salute, it inspired this country to wipe the scourge of fascism from Europe...
"...Today, I will give this cast-iron guarantee: if I become PM a Conservative government will hold a referendum on any EU treaty that emerges from these negotiations
swing to Novermber 2009...
"I said we would have a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty and if it hadn't been ratified we would have had that referendum.
"But I did not promise a referendum come what may because once the Lisbon Treaty is the law, there's nothing anyone can do about it and I'm not going to treat people like fools and offer a referendum that has no effect
Now I agree that it's pointless to hold a ref. if the result isn't going to have any affect, but you're not actually going to claim that when he made the intital statements he didn't think the treaty would have been passed anyway ?
And more importantly, what was the point of the use of the word "guarantee" if he knew it was no such thing ? Not just cheap lies and propaganda to those who have their political decisions "informed" ( term may not conform to accepted defintion of the word) by The Sun...
And the statements coming out from the Cabinet haven't exactly been in line with the Euro bashing we were promised during the election, oh well, la plus ca change.
I'm thinking it might provide for better co-ordination between forces when dealing with human trafficking organisations which span several countries, and of course the narcotics trade.
I'm not sure it counts as an election promise if he clarified his position that far in advance of the actual election. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him take a firmer stance on Europe - I'm not just a blind follower of the guy. I remember those particular episodes, and he DID word his statements like that as a sop to the more hardline euroskeptic elements of Conservative support. I recognise that.
Albatross wrote:I'm not sure it counts as an election promise if he clarified his position that far in advance of the actual election. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see him take a firmer stance on Europe - I'm not just a blind follower of the guy. I remember those particular episodes, and he DID word his statements like that as a sop to the more hardline euroskeptic elements of Conservative support. I recognise that.
Isn't that the core of the problem? None of them stand by what they actually believe in. He should say yes or no to Europe, them his party can either keep him of get rid of him. That also applies to any party. If you believe in something you say so, if you lose the position of party leader, then so be it, at least the public know what your party stands for. In the case of europe, if your stands for a no vote and you get kicked at the election, then you know the British public aren't behind you. If you don't, then great you have a mandate from the people to say no. The subject of Europe is a big thing in the UK and therefore we should know what a party really thinks, not try to use smoke & mirrors on your own MP's so that you or your party can stay in power.
But believe it or not, I'm fairly happy otherwise with how the Government is doing. The £10,000 Tax Bracket ought to help me personally, which is a good thing. Plus since I don't claim a penny in benefits, I'm only gaining.
But it still amuses me that Cameron has already renegged on something, when it was pretty obvious just a soundbite at the time.
Mr Mystery wrote:We all are. It's called having an opinion.
Yes, but your opinion is that Cameron is a wash-out based on a piece of politick. He made it sound like he would offer a referendum to reverse the Lisbon Treaty in order to placate some of the more rabid euroskeptics in his party. He was still in a period when he felt he needed to 'take the party with him' at that time. It's probably his biggest failing - he shouldn't have cared, he should have just continued to broaden the party's appeal and tried not to worry about the fringe. But he DID clarify his position prior to the election, so what's the big deal? Let me ask you a question - did you still vote Labour at the last election? Even after the dodgy circumstances surrounding the Iraq war, suggestions of complicity in torture, extraordinary rendition, cash for peerages, massive immigration problems...? Blair and Brown were involved in some pretty serious deceptions - did you consider them 'wash-outs' too? Or did you just vote along tribal lines?
