If we're talking about electoral reform, for my part I'd be happy with us just starting out by stopping Scottish MP's voting on issues that only affect England and (sometimes) Wales, i.e. education, health, etc. I'm happy for them to keep MP's from Scotland in Parliament as their funding is, afterall, assigned in Whitehall, along with issues such as defence and security, and so they need representation, but it really pushes my button that they can vote on issues that just don't affect their constituents (the top-up fees vote comes to mind, as it only passed thanks to the support of Scottish MP's whose constituents all get free Uni education anyway!).
The fact that would cripple Labour as Scotland has a disproportionate amount of MP's compared to the population is just a rather happy side effect! :laugh:
General Election 2010: What the would-be chancellors haven’t said
You can’t have a prosperous economy in which an overindebted government is twinned with an overindebted private sector, argues Edmund Conway.
By Edmund Conway
Published: 6:39PM BST 21 Apr 2010
Alamy Piggy Bank
Let's face it: Britain has run out of money Photo: Alamy
You know the quality of British economic discourse has hit a new low when the most interesting thing to come out of a television debate between prospective Chancellors is George Osborne's new hairstyle. But sure enough, it was the Shadow Chancellor's Brylcreemed barnet that demanded the most attention when the prospective finance ministers took each other on in the BBC studios yesterday.
Actually, that's unfair: the comprehensive demolition of St Vince Cable at the hands of his rivals was similarly diverting. But accusing the Lib Dems of having a flaky economic manifesto is a bit rich, when it comes from Osborne and Alistair Darling. In terms of economics, this has been a shamefully vacuous election. One where unemployment figures showing that the labour market is flat become evidence either of grand government failure or that Labour's jobs strategy is working, depending on whom you listened to. Where Darling is rolled out to claim that all the major economic experts – the Item Club and OECD included – back his plans, when they do nothing of the sort. And where, yesterday, the carnival reached a new pitch of preposterousness as Ken Clarke claimed that a hung parliament would guarantee an International Monetary Fund bail-out of Britain's economy.
Amusing as the farce is, it ignores a far more important issue. Although more attention was given over this week to its plan for two new taxes to be levied on the banking system, the IMF has spent more of this week quietly and methodically laying out the state of the world economy. And, for Britain at least, the omens are not good.
As we all know, one of the main reasons Britain suffered so sharp a recession was because it was dangerously overburdened with debt. Everyone – households, banks, businesses and the state – borrowed too much over the past decade or so, meaning that when the recession arrived, none of these sectors was able to take the strain and support the wider economy. The same happened elsewhere, but the problem, according to the IMF, is that Britain's debt hangover is vastly greater than any other major economy.
The figures are simple enough. Add together the combined debts of businesses and households and the figure is somewhere north of two times gross domestic product. This is pretty much the highest in any developed nation. The fact that much of this debt is set against assets might seem reassuring until you realise that most of those assets are houses, which are as liable to fall in price as to rise in the coming years.
In fact, according to Jamie Dannhauser of Lombard Street Research, although the past quarter-century saw a "long upward march in house prices", the factors propelling property – easy mortgage availability, low inflation and interest rates – are no longer around. In other words, the next decade may well bring with it a steady decline in real (inflation-adjusted) house prices.
But the IMF's more worrying point – one that will impinge far more on the next Government's first term than anything you might hear the politicians discuss – concerns the way that debt will continue to cast a dark shadow over the economy. The chances are that you haven't heard of a "financing gap" before. I hadn't until the IMF pointed out that Britain has the biggest one in the world, both this year and next.
The gap is the difference between what people need to borrow and what they actually can lay their hands on. This year, the IMF says, that debt overhang and the impact of the financial crisis mean that British banks and investors will only be willing to lend around £50 billion. This comes nowhere near to fulfilling the demand for borrowing – some £200 billion. Since neither the borrower or the lender can get what they want (and cross-border lending has collapsed in the wake of the financial crisis), the only solution is that, in the IMF's words, "either borrowing needs to be scaled back to equalise the lower supply, or… market interest rates will need to rise."
Now, when I tell you that the person responsible for that £200 billion of borrowing this year is none other than Gordon Brown, you might start to understand the problem. The British economy – both government and private sector – only has a limited capacity to lend money. It has reached that maximum, and yet the Government is still trying to borrow more. The upshot is that either the private sector must be prevented from borrowing so the money can be channelled towards the Government, or the Government will have to seek out overseas investors, and offer them a higher interest rate in exchange.
All of which is a long-winded way of saying: there is no money left. You can't have a prosperous economy in which an overindebted government is twinned with an overindebted private sector. While the US, which has no such problem, is already starting to boom again, Britain simply does not have the capacity for anything other than a tepid slouch back towards growth. Yesterday, in recognition of this debt hangover, the IMF cut its forecast for UK economic growth next year. Beneath their bravado, the three would-be Chancellors are squabbling over a thoroughly toxic legacy.
that is the BIS and the IMF one after the other, we need cuts and massive reform of the pension system, and they need to be brutal!
I still cringe when I remember what happened on the school bus. The shame of it still lingers.
We were all travelling together - a class of 17-year-olds from my school and our German "exchange" partners - on an excursion to the Bavarian mountains. The German teenagers had already endured a month at our school in central London. Now it was our turn to spend a month in Munich, living with our "exchange" families and attending the local school.
A boy called Adrian started it. He shouted from the back of the coach, "we own your country, we won the war". Other boys tittered. One put a finger to his upper lip - the traditional British schoolyard designation for Hitler's moustache - threw his arm out in a Nazi salute, and goose-stepped down the bus aisle. Soon there was a cascade of sneering jokes, most delivered in 'Allo 'Allo German accents.
I remember two things vividly. First, none of the girls in my class joined in. It seemed to be a male thing. Second, the German schoolchildren did not appear angry, or even offended. That was what was so heart wrenching. They just looked confused, utterly bewildered. To a generation of young Germans, raised under the crushing, introspective guilt of postwar Germany, the sight of such facile antics was simply incomprehensible.
I looked nervously to Bernhard, my German exchange partner sitting next to me in the bus. I could see he wanted to turn and face the commotion. Instead, he sat rigid, staring silently ahead. The next day, as we were walking to school, I lamely apologised to him for what had happened. I was miserable that I had not had the courage to protest in the bus on his behalf. Such is the power of teenage peer pressure. He stopped, and explained. He said he felt he had no right to react himself. It was part of the shame he was obliged to bear on behalf of his parents and grand parents. Such is the power of collective guilt.
All this came to mind last week when I read of the plight of Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki, two Germans employed at Motorola's international call centre in Swindon. They were so upset by the barrage of anti German jokes from their British colleagues - "they used to call us :daisy:Germans and sing songs about Hitler", said Mr Sawartzki - that they were forced to leave their jobs. But at least they didn't take it lying down. They have decided to take their employers to an industrial tribunal. Good on them.
It is easy enough to explain the mixture of arrogance and insecurity that fuels this peculiar British obsession. Watching Germany rise from its knees after the war and become a vastly more prosperous nation has not been easy on the febrile British psyche. John Cleese struck a chord in the Fawlty Towers episode The Germans, in which a concussed Basil Fawlty bombards his earnest German guests with a volley of jokes about the war.
But humour on telly is one thing. Hounding Germans out of work half a century after the last war is altogether different.
Even worse, a warped view of Germany also seems to prevail in Britain's top boardrooms. In an oafish article published last week in the Financial Times, Martin Taylor, the chairman of WH Smith, declared that Germany, in cahoots with France, remains one of our principal rivals. He dismisses the idea that Germany is a partner, "a weasel word", and concludes - as if he were Jeremy Clarkson - "France is for holidays, Germany is for cars". His view of the EU is that of a schoolboy's military board game. I'm surprised he didn't suggest that we should settle it all in a game of conkers.
The latest twist to this anti-German mania is a gloating satisfaction at Germany's recent economic woes. With tedious predictability, one British pundit after another occupies acres of newspaper space to tell us that the German economy is a busted flush, that only a vigorous dose of Anglo Saxon reforms will do the trick, that German economic weakness spells the end of the euro. And so on. Even New Labour ministers, Gordon Brown in particular, crow about comparative British economic success with more than a hint of condescension towards Germany and the rest of the EU.
They all blithely overlook that Germany's wealth per head remains a full 6% higher than in the UK. That German workers are 29% more productive than their British counterparts. That German trade with other EU countries has shot up in recent years, while Britain's trade with the euro zone stagnates. That Germany has engineered one of the world's most ambitious economic transformations in the former East Germany. Not even the most blinkered British visitor to Germany's prosperous towns and cities, to its schools, hospitals and its transport system, could pretend that our quality of life is comparable to German standards. All nations have a cross to bear, and none more so than Germany with its memories of Nazism. But the British cross is more insidious still. A misplaced sense of superiority, sustained by delusions of grandeur and a tenacious obsession with the last war, is much harder to shake off. I wish Mr Puhle and Mr Sawartzki well. We need to be put back in our place.
I agree completely.
04-22-2010, 09:30
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
you might, i don't, and i don't think it will play too well with floating voters either.
04-22-2010, 10:31
tibilicus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worrying and feel that Dave needs saving.
04-22-2010, 11:34
InsaneApache
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Do a bit of research. The guy flip flops more than a landed flounder. :fishing:
you might, i don't, and i don't think it will play too well with floating voters either.
Germany has been racked by guilt for the Second World War for several generations, and it's always going to be a stain on Germany's history. Yet Germany has moved on. Business links with Russia, America, France, America etc. are all extremely strong. Britain is no longer the "Perfidious Albion" of pre-1945 German media, but recognised as an equal partner on the world stage.
And yet, a juvenile, ignorant and totally repulsive attitude exists in Britain of a feeling of superiority over Germany and Germans as a whole. Despite the fact that there is hardly anyone alive who actually fought against Fascism, apparently every British citizen alive today was a contributor to "winning the war", as if it finished last week. I don't need to give any examples because it such a common phenomenon in British society. The numerous contributions that Germany has made to science, the arts, engineering and pre-1914/post-1945 history go totally ignored. It is insulting to Germany and the German people, and Clegg was entirely in the right to speak out against this rot that infests Britain.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worry and feel that Dave needs saving.
It can only be a good sign :beam:
04-22-2010, 12:13
Louis VI the Fat
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by tibilicus
Well It seems the Conservative supporting papers are out in force against Clegg today. Looks like they're finally worry and feel that Dave needs saving.
:yes:
The Murdoch papers are not about providing news. They are about political campaigning.
At first, the Murdoch press was quite content to simply ignore the LibDems as a strategy. Then Clegg won the debate, the Cons got worried, and presto, the Murdoch press changes strategy in perfect unison with the Cons. With reporting, with press, this has got nothing to do. Activist rags they are.
Also, 'Britain's cross' is not Britain's past. It is not the history of Britain that is compared with the history of Germany. It is the dealing with history that is compared. Germany's cross to wear is simply guilt, that of Britain is more insiduous still, namely misplaced superiority, sometimes resulting in outright insulting behaviour.
Never mind the European constitution, what about the British one? Evidence of the wretched state of our own arrangements is all around us.
The House of Commons is quite useless at scrutinising legislation and amending it accordingly.
My experience on one "standing committee", covering the criminal justice bill, was enough to convince me of this. Whole clauses were not even debated because time was too short. Changes of huge significance, such as storing DNA from anyone who is taken to a police station, were introduced at the last minute and discussed for less than an hour.
Down the corridor in the House of Lords the government may face a more challenging time, but as the upper house is now almost entirely made up of appointed peers it lacks genuine legitimacy.
The Conservative party is always in danger of letting its reverence for our institutions translate into a dignified silence about constitutional reform. It is time we spoke out.
Don't get me wrong. Two years into this job I have not lost faith with the British way of doing things. Much of its job, parliament does very well. Our one-member, one-constituency system ensures excellent representation for every part of the country. The Commons is a great place for raising concerns, questioning ministers, discovering information and debating important issues.
But there is a lot that is seriously wrong. The failure to scrutinise laws. The power of the whips and patronage. The illegitimate second chamber. And the unchecked growth of government from both Whitehall and Brussels.
What would a package of Conservative constitutional reform look like? Here goes: 1. Lords' reform
A botched job that we didn't start, but we must finish. Legitimacy flows from elections and we must restate our commitment to a majority elected house. Conflict between the houses could be limited by making the second chamber a senate, rather than a mirror. Taking out all the ministers, insisting on a single term of 15-year duration and setting out down the powers to reject, delay and question in clear detail would be a pretty good start.
But the real problem is not the Lords, but the Commons. After all, they actually scrutinise legislation, we just pass it. 2. Independence for the Commons
The central problem is the government's complete control of the Commons timetable. There is no balance between the government's right to get its way and the Commons right to scrutinise. Labour's routine timetabling of all bills, the reform of the hours and abolition of all late sittings has made this far worse. Time and again the Speaker is asked for more time, yet all he can say is "these are not matters for me".
Why not have an all-party committee, elected by MPs, to adjudicate? If the whips kept control those elected would effectively be "named and shamed" for not doing their job properly. 3. Voting by secret ballot on standing committees.
Sounds insignificant, but goes to the heart of the problem. We debate laws line by line, but votes are then whipped. During the criminal justice bill Labour MPs would make valiant speeches about why a clause was wrong-headed, only to vote for it as soon as a division was called. Even if amendments were overturned in the chamber, the government would have to explain why it was going against the considered opinion of MPs. 4. Election of select committee members
Everyone agrees that select committees do a great job and should be nurtured. They ought to provide an alternative career path to the greasy pole of ministerial office. But members are chosen by an opaque process owing more to patronage than performance. The fiercely independent and effective Chris Mullin has just left the home affairs select committee to become a minister. Heaven knows who we will be sent in his place. Why not guarantee places for all parties, including the minor ones and then let backbenchers vote for their colleagues? 5. Referendum provision
I am no fan of what can be the "dictator's weapon", and referendums should have a very limited place in a representative democracy. But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first.
At least the wretched Maastricht treaty was clearly set out in the Conservatives' 1992 manifesto; the new constitution was never mentioned in Labour's effort for 2001. 6. Fixed-term parliaments
If we are looking for ways to redress the balance between a weak legislature and an over-mighty executive, five-year fixed-term parliaments could play a role. A government that lost the confidence of the house could still be forced to dissolve parliament through a vote of confidence. 7. Limits on ministers, bills and taxes.
We may not scrutinise it, but we sure as hell pass enough of it. The Home Office is the most incontinent department, having produced some 10 criminal justice bills since 1997 - and to what end?
Budgets get thicker, taxes get heavier, lists of ministers and their advisers get ever longer. A proper, more independent House of Commons would get to grips with this, but why not set down some limits so that ministers are suitably embarrassed if they have to come back and ask permission to break them? 8. War powers act
The Iraq debate set a precedent: it is hard to imagine any government going to war now without a vote in the Commons. But the fact remains that it does not need to seek one. It should. 9. A written constitution
What! Isn't it sacrilege for a Conservative to question our age-old, time-proven "unwritten" constitution that has evolved and adapted so superbly down the ages?
I am beginning to think not. How do we know that freedoms won through the Magna Carta, the bill of rights or anywhere else are under threat? Because we know what they say. Our constitution is being assaulted by an overweening government on the one hand, and a burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy on the other. Is it such a revolutionary concept to suggest that it could, just possibly, be time to write the thing down on a piece of paper?
04-22-2010, 12:35
InsaneApache
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Just watched Brillo grill Simon Hughes on Cleggovers comments about the British. Hughes was all over the place. :laugh4:
04-22-2010, 12:45
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
Germany has been racked by guilt for the Second World War for several generations, and it's always going to be a stain on Germany's history. Yet Germany has moved on. Business links with Russia, America, France, America etc. are all extremely strong. Britain is no longer the "Perfidious Albion" of pre-1945 German media, but recognised as an equal partner on the world stage.
And yet, a juvenile, ignorant and totally repulsive attitude exists in Britain of a feeling of superiority over Germany and Germans as a whole. Despite the fact that there is hardly anyone alive who actually fought against Fascism, apparently every British citizen alive today was a contributor to "winning the war", as if it finished last week. I don't need to give any examples because it such a common phenomenon in British society. The numerous contributions that Germany has made to science, the arts, engineering and pre-1914/post-1945 history go totally ignored. It is insulting to Germany and the German people, and Clegg was entirely in the right to speak out against this rot that infests Britain.
straw-man, and absolute bobbins!
there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.
clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
:yes:
Also, 'Britain's cross' is not Britain's past. It is not the history of Britain that is compared with the history of Germany. It is the dealing with history that is compared. Germany's cross to wear is simply guilt, that of Britain is more insiduous still, namely misplaced superiority, sometimes resulting in outright insulting behaviour.
more bobbins, i'll be the judge of the intellectual strait-jacket through which I grapple with british history, thank you very much.
Never mind the European constitution, what about the British one? Evidence of the wretched state of our own arrangements is all around us.
The House of Commons is quite useless at scrutinising legislation and amending it accordingly.
My experience on one "standing committee", covering the criminal justice bill, was enough to convince me of this. Whole clauses were not even debated because time was too short. Changes of huge significance, such as storing DNA from anyone who is taken to a police station, were introduced at the last minute and discussed for less than an hour.
Down the corridor in the House of Lords the government may face a more challenging time, but as the upper house is now almost entirely made up of appointed peers it lacks genuine legitimacy.
The Conservative party is always in danger of letting its reverence for our institutions translate into a dignified silence about constitutional reform. It is time we spoke out.
Don't get me wrong. Two years into this job I have not lost faith with the British way of doing things. Much of its job, parliament does very well. Our one-member, one-constituency system ensures excellent representation for every part of the country. The Commons is a great place for raising concerns, questioning ministers, discovering information and debating important issues.
But there is a lot that is seriously wrong. The failure to scrutinise laws. The power of the whips and patronage. The illegitimate second chamber. And the unchecked growth of government from both Whitehall and Brussels.
What would a package of Conservative constitutional reform look like? Here goes: 1. Lords' reform
A botched job that we didn't start, but we must finish. Legitimacy flows from elections and we must restate our commitment to a majority elected house. Conflict between the houses could be limited by making the second chamber a senate, rather than a mirror. Taking out all the ministers, insisting on a single term of 15-year duration and setting out down the powers to reject, delay and question in clear detail would be a pretty good start.
But the real problem is not the Lords, but the Commons. After all, they actually scrutinise legislation, we just pass it. 2. Independence for the Commons
The central problem is the government's complete control of the Commons timetable. There is no balance between the government's right to get its way and the Commons right to scrutinise. Labour's routine timetabling of all bills, the reform of the hours and abolition of all late sittings has made this far worse. Time and again the Speaker is asked for more time, yet all he can say is "these are not matters for me".
Why not have an all-party committee, elected by MPs, to adjudicate? If the whips kept control those elected would effectively be "named and shamed" for not doing their job properly. 3. Voting by secret ballot on standing committees.
Sounds insignificant, but goes to the heart of the problem. We debate laws line by line, but votes are then whipped. During the criminal justice bill Labour MPs would make valiant speeches about why a clause was wrong-headed, only to vote for it as soon as a division was called. Even if amendments were overturned in the chamber, the government would have to explain why it was going against the considered opinion of MPs. 4. Election of select committee members
Everyone agrees that select committees do a great job and should be nurtured. They ought to provide an alternative career path to the greasy pole of ministerial office. But members are chosen by an opaque process owing more to patronage than performance. The fiercely independent and effective Chris Mullin has just left the home affairs select committee to become a minister. Heaven knows who we will be sent in his place. Why not guarantee places for all parties, including the minor ones and then let backbenchers vote for their colleagues? 5. Referendum provision
I am no fan of what can be the "dictator's weapon", and referendums should have a very limited place in a representative democracy. But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first.
At least the wretched Maastricht treaty was clearly set out in the Conservatives' 1992 manifesto; the new constitution was never mentioned in Labour's effort for 2001. 6. Fixed-term parliaments
If we are looking for ways to redress the balance between a weak legislature and an over-mighty executive, five-year fixed-term parliaments could play a role. A government that lost the confidence of the house could still be forced to dissolve parliament through a vote of confidence. 7. Limits on ministers, bills and taxes.
We may not scrutinise it, but we sure as hell pass enough of it. The Home Office is the most incontinent department, having produced some 10 criminal justice bills since 1997 - and to what end?
Budgets get thicker, taxes get heavier, lists of ministers and their advisers get ever longer. A proper, more independent House of Commons would get to grips with this, but why not set down some limits so that ministers are suitably embarrassed if they have to come back and ask permission to break them? 8. War powers act
The Iraq debate set a precedent: it is hard to imagine any government going to war now without a vote in the Commons. But the fact remains that it does not need to seek one. It should. 9. A written constitution
What! Isn't it sacrilege for a Conservative to question our age-old, time-proven "unwritten" constitution that has evolved and adapted so superbly down the ages?
I am beginning to think not. How do we know that freedoms won through the Magna Carta, the bill of rights or anywhere else are under threat? Because we know what they say. Our constitution is being assaulted by an overweening government on the one hand, and a burgeoning Brussels bureaucracy on the other. Is it such a revolutionary concept to suggest that it could, just possibly, be time to write the thing down on a piece of paper?
you are surprised by this why?
and most interestingly, something i have been saying on this forum for years: "But it seems to me a pretty good principle that elected representatives should not give up the powers they were elected to wield without asking the people who elected them first."
When I saw this comment I thought you were referring to some news, but no, the comments were made seven years ago, and the telegraph is twisting those words from the headline onwards. I know the telegraph is partisan, but this is pretty low for a paper that at least pretends to be about reporting the news.
I'm unconvinced of the Lib Dem policies, but this mud slinging does nothing to anyone's reputation other than of the torygraph.
Quote:
that is the BIS and the IMF one after the other, we need cuts and massive reform of the pension system, and they need to be brutal!
I suppose we also need to lower taxes, in order to reduce the deficit. But it's ok, we can budget for this by relying on billions of pounds of waste savings.
04-22-2010, 13:41
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
straw-man, and absolute bobbins!
there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.
clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.
more bobbins, i'll be the judge of the intellectual strait-jacket through which I grapple with british history, thank you very much.
Not exactly, it is pretty true. What is even more funny, the English keep going "1966!!!" to the Germans, and the Germans are like "What? Who cares?"
04-22-2010, 13:42
Subotan
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Furunculus
straw-man, and absolute bobbins!
there are always nut-cases, they they always shout loud, should I tar germany with the visible presence of their neo-nazi groups...........? no, because it doesn't reflect germany as a whole.
clegg is talking utter guff, and repellent guff at that. i do not want him representing me.
The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.
80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.
A shame. I heard a couple of his points which I agreed with, and he has apparently reversed them elsewhere. :sad: On the otherhand, some of his comments do have a middle-ground, because ruling something out in one situation and then saying you will do it in a different situation is not flip-flopping.
For example ranting about going to the beach in Winter, is a stupid idea, then a few months later in late spring/early summer saying going to the Beach is a good idea, doesn't mean he flip-flopped on it.
04-22-2010, 14:01
Myrddraal
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Might also be worth watching the unedited version on iPlayer. That was posted by guidofawkes
04-22-2010, 14:02
InsaneApache
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
For example ranting about going to the beach in Winter, is a stupid idea, then a few months later in late spring/early summer saying going to the Beach is a good idea, doesn't mean he flip-flopped on it.
Desperate stuff mate, desperate stuff. :laugh4:
04-22-2010, 14:06
Beskar
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Desperate stuff mate, desperate stuff. :laugh4:
Not a "desperate" attempt by me, I have nothing to gain by defending him. Just saying what it is.
04-22-2010, 14:10
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.
80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.
This is something pressed by the government, almost the entire history curriculum from GCSE onwards is either 1914-46, with a focus on Germany, or is more generally about Israel!
no wonder we have anti-German prejudice ingrained in the school children.
04-22-2010, 14:15
Boohugh
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War
I don't quite see why you are surprised or shocked by that statistic? The biggest single contribution (if it can be called that) Germany has made to history is World War Two, that event has shaped everything that has happened in the last 60 years. That doesn't mean they haven't made other contributions, and it doesn't mean we can't recognise those other contributions to science, literature, etc, but it also doesn't mean we should ignore or forget what happened.
There is an important difference between understanding and recognising history (which should be encouraged) and trying to continually blame people for it (which should be discouraged). Obviously when you have people randomly insulting German tourists then there is a problem, but pointing out those people and saying they represent everyone in England is just as bad a stereotype and, as explained above, using a statistic that says schoolchildren associate Germany with WW2 does not prove that they all then hold a negative view because of that.
Looking at the (largely Murdoch owned) newspaper front pages in the shop at lunch time was hilarious and instructive about where the power lies. All of them were desperately attacking Clegg for anything and everything. Murdoch has got the willies thinking that his preferred candidate might not get elected. How very dare they! Free and fair press? Not a chance.
Sky are hosting the debate tonight - I wonder if Murdoch is pulling some strings and making it known to the production team that they are to show Clegg in the worst possible light.
And all you Tories are quite happy with it, because, like all right wingers, your belief in a true democratic process is just a thin layer of paint over your desire to maintain your own priviledge and status.
Still - I couldn't give a toss about Clegg, as he is no different to the others. I just think Murdoch's control of the media is an afront to a modern society.
04-22-2010, 15:10
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Myrddraal
When I saw this comment I thought you were referring to some news, but no, the comments were made seven years ago, and the telegraph is twisting those words from the headline onwards. I know the telegraph is partisan, but this is pretty low for a paper that at least pretends to be about reporting the news.
I suppose we also need to lower taxes, in order to reduce the deficit. But it's ok, we can budget for this by relying on billions of pounds of waste savings.
yes indeed we do, because we need to encourage economic growth to pay for those unfunded pension trillions.
04-22-2010, 15:12
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beskar
Not exactly, it is pretty true. What is even more funny, the English keep going "1966!!!" to the Germans, and the Germans are like "What? Who cares?"
still utter bobbins, please define 'the english'?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Subotan
The phenomenon which I and Clegg are talking about has nothing in common with the far-right. The far-right is a minority group of mentally challenged extrremists. Anti-German sentiment in the UK is something which is far deeper and more insitutionalised.
80 per cent of British schoolchildren, when asked what they associated with Germany, mentioned the Second World War, and 50 per cent mentioned Hitler. Even John Cleese hates it, saying at a competition at the German Embassy ""I’m delighted to help with trying to break down the ridiculous anti-German prejudices of the tabloids and clowns like Basil Fawlty, who are pathetically stuck in a world view that’s more than half a century out of date...I think the German contribution to literature and philosophy is extraordinary, and to music and science is enormous.". To say that this a "strawman" argument is to say that we live in a nation of scarecrows.
yes, some people are idiots, but obey the laws of the land and you can think whatever you want as i have no truck with the thought police mentality, and the last time i checked aggressive english nationalism has not caused any atrocities genocides or invasions.
i am always happy to see Defence hit the headlines.
what must be realised here is that four, only four, retired generals are having palpitations because they know that defence is going to be truncated to live within its budget, rather than the unfunded ambitions of SDR98, and they are terrified that Liam Foxes pro-navy comments mean that the army is going to bear the brunt of that truncation.
04-22-2010, 15:30
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
Looking at the (largely Murdoch owned) newspaper front pages in the shop at lunch time was hilarious and instructive about where the power lies. All of them were desperately attacking Clegg for anything and everything. Murdoch has got the willies thinking that his preferred candidate might not get elected. How very dare they! Free and fair press? Not a chance.
And all you Tories are quite happy with it, because, like all right wingers, your belief in a true democratic process is just a thin layer of paint over your desire to maintain your own privilege and status.
d00d, that class-war chippiness is SOOOOOO twentieth century, why don't you bury alongside Marx for crying out loud!
You are a wealthy young man, living at the peak of a wealthy time for this country. Your knowledge and experience of the world are limited. You mistake what you have through luck as what you deserve and what you believe with what suits your circumstances.
Some of us have seen these cycles come and go. And we are about to see it happen again.
04-22-2010, 16:57
Vladimir
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
When I saw Jeremy Clarkson's name on this page it reminded me of a Top Gear episode. The guys were competing against a German trio and arrived, late, of course, in a trio of Spitfires. This and the occasional jab at the U.S. seem to be more in the British "sporting" tradition rather than anything malevolent. Clarkson even make a 1966 reference in the episode.
Any kind of guilt felt by the Germans is theirs to bear. They were beat twice in the same century and it will take *another* 50 years to move on. The Soviet Union bears as much responsibility as Germany for this. Much of Europe leads to the left and the USSR no longer exists as political entity so Germany gets the majority of the flack (pun intended).
Over here I don't see much official bias against Germany by the UK. The former will always be a competitor to the latter so things will never entirely normalize.
04-22-2010, 17:17
Furunculus
Re: The United Kingdom Elections 2010
Quote:
Originally Posted by Idaho
You are a wealthy young man, living at the peak of a wealthy time for this country. Your knowledge and experience of the world are limited. You mistake what you have through luck as what you deserve and what you believe with what suits your circumstances.
Some of us have seen these cycles come and go. And we are about to see it happen again.
as i consider the approach of my mid thirties, looking back at the times when i have been an executive director, unemployed, self-employed and more, currently living in a deprived part of britain, previously having lived in africa, as well as quite some time in rural poland, i fail to recognise in myself that silver-spoon attitude that makes me impervious to the needs of others......?
