The Politics Thread

[Bruce Rioja]

And you're saying they were knobs for doing so right? Which presumably makes the Tories knobs now. One bunch of shithouses replace another bunch of shithouses with the same excuses and this is a good thing?

No. Where do I say that? Read things properly before piping up eh, Sonny? My point is made directly at BWFCI and his claim that the current government blaming the previous one "ain't going to wash".

[Prufrock]

So it washed with you when Labour blamed any of their failings on the previous Tory government?

[Lord Kangana]

It would wash a bit better if they weren't all basically doing the same thing and pretending its different.

[Prufrock]

Quite.

(Government Politicians()Shithouses() Opposition Politicians)*

*Inspired by Verbal. Created by Prufrock.

[William the White]

It would wash a bit better if they weren't all basically doing the same thing and pretending its different.

I think the Tories are well on the way to proving how different they are...

but it'll be fine for Old Etonians...

[Lord Kangana]

Am I not right in saying that the previous cabinet was dominated by the denizens of our esteemed public schools system?

[Lord Kangana]

I found this interesting reading:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/are-publ ... ng-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[William the White]

I found this interesting reading:

http://www.democraticaudit.com/are-publ ... ng-britain" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

which, in response to your previous post, shows tory reliance on public schoolboys much more than Labour's - the article also does an interesting conflation with Oxbridge - which looks like a fudge to me...

[Lord Kangana]

But still, 30-odd percent versus 50 percent. Its hardly like theres been a seachange.

And zero to one Old Etonian may seem like an exponentially infinite increase, but its only by one, whichever way you cut it.

If there was one concern I have, its the number of members of the cabinet who are millionaires from family inheritence. Or millionaires "in their own right" when they started off from millionaire backgrounds.

Even Thatcher and Major were most definitely not that.

[Verbal]

some politician demographic stats in here if you're interested. Though I wrote it before the last election.

http://www.parliament.uk/documents/comm ... 09-069.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[/self promotion]

[BWFC_Insane]

Is this going to be the Tory argument for years?

It ain't going to wash I'm afraid.

Yeah, because the previous government didn't blame "18 years of Tory misrule" for its entire 13 years worth did it, Insaney? No. Not at all.

Aye but the previous government didn't come in and instantly manage to raise unemployment whilst lowering growth did they?

Neutral economic experts question what the Tories are doing. And certainly don't agree with the argument of "we have no choice it was them that forced us to do it". Folk will accept that Labour had to make cuts were they in power. They will accept that there was a deficit that needed reducing. What they won't accept is the Tories cutting at such a fast rate that the economy is suffering and that unemployment is rising and blaming that on the Labour government last in. Its their policy its been criticised folk don't like it, but they're not stupid enough to not realise that the Tories are desperately trying to use the "deficit" as a scapegoat for their policy of hammering Britians public services with a rather large and ugly wrecking ball. Folk won't be fooled and won't forget this.

That is all.

[Bruce Rioja]

So it washed with you when Labour blamed any of their failings on the previous Tory government?

Again - where have I said that any of it 'washes with me'? Try a little less presumption.

[Horza]

This is pretty fantastic. It has cause me to actually admire Hugh Grant.

[thebish]

again - I see no basis at all for even mentioning the previous government in the context of debating the current tits-upness of the £9000 university fees blunder - something that even the current govt is not blaming the last government for...

perhaps someone could explain to me how the last govt comes into this particular cock-up?

[Prufrock]

So it washed with you when Labour blamed any of their failings on the previous Tory government?

Again - where have I said that any of it 'washes with me'? Try a little less presumption.

Well either it does, or it doesn't. So either you were fine with New Labour using it all the time, blaming their failings on the previous government, and it's still fine, or it was bollocks and weak then, and it's still bollocks and weak now. It's one or the other. I don't presume to know which it is for you, though I know which it is for me.

[Bruce Rioja]

Well either it does, or it doesn't. So either you were fine with New Labour using it all the time, blaming their failings on the previous government, and it's still fine, or it was bollocks and weak then, and it's still bollocks and weak now. It's one or the other.

Dear God, you're becoming painful now so I'll try to spell this out in simplistic terms.

The current government blaming the one that it's just ousted is time honoured. BWFCI claimed that for the current government, a government of which he doesn't approve, to blame the last government, a government of which he did approve, simply won't wash.
I pointed out that the previous government spent 13 years decrying and blaming the one that went before it for 18 year.
Is this making any sense to you yet?
So, your "So either you were fine with X using it all the time, blaming their failings on the previous government, and it's still fine, or it was bollocks and weak then, and it's still bollocks and weak now". should actually be directed at BWFCI.

If you can't get your head around that then there's nothing further that I can add.

[thebish]

hmmmm...

but - the current govt is manifestly NOT blaming the previous govt for the £9000 tuition fee cock-up, so either way - a total irrelevance.

[Prufrock]

Well either it does, or it doesn't. So either you were fine with New Labour using it all the time, blaming their failings on the previous government, and it's still fine, or it was bollocks and weak then, and it's still bollocks and weak now. It's one or the other.

Dear God, you're becoming painful now so I'll try to spell this out in simplistic terms.

The current government blaming the one that it's just ousted is time honoured. BWFCI claimed that for the current government, a government of which he doesn't approve, to blame the last government, a government of which he did approve, simply won't wash.
I pointed out that the previous government spent 13 years decrying and blaming the one that went before it for 18 year.
Is this making any sense to you yet?
So, your "So either you were fine with X using it all the time, blaming their failings on the previous government, and it's still fine, or it was bollocks and weak then, and it's still bollocks and weak now". should actually be directed at BWFCI.

If you can't get your head around that then there's nothing further that I can add.

Overcoming my shock at being greeted with condescension from someone whose initial argument was essentially 'I know you are you said you are, so what am I?' ...

I get what you were saying to BWFCi, although I think it is unfair to saddle him with that, since he isn't actually the human manifestation of the Labour Party. However, I was wondering which way you think on it? Your initial response, countering BWFCi led me to presume, perhaps falsely, that you think it's a fair enough cop on account of everyone else has done it so it doesn't matter? Governments blame previous governments and there's nowt worth bothering about. Personally I think the fact Labour did it too doesn't count a jot, and is absolutely no defence. It does certainly make any criticism on that front from Labour themselves seem like a big crock of shite though, granted, especially from those directly involved with that government.

[Bruce Rioja]

Then I apologise if clarity is the issue here. Each government blames the one before and it pisses me off in that if everything was rosey in the prior government's garden then whichever the current government, it wouldn't have been voted in in the first place. I must say though, it did irk me a little that BWFCi seemed to suggest that this is something brand new and, as he said "It won't wash" like everything was, well, rosey in the last government's garden.

Aside - I'm quite amazed that no-one's mention DC's immigration speech and Cable's response on here today. Has Ed had owt to say on it or is he standing back and allowing it to kick-off amongst the coalition? (the smartest move, I'd say)

[Prufrock]

Then I apologise if clarity is the issue here. Each government blames the one before and it pisses me off in that if everything was rosey in the prior government's garden then whichever the current government, it wouldn't have been voted in in the first place. I must say though, it did irk me a little that BWFCi seemed to suggest that this is something brand new and, as he said "It won't wash" like everything was, well, rosey in the last government's garden.

Aside - I'm quite amazed that no-one's mention DC's immigration speech and Cable's response on here today. Has Ed had owt to say on it or is he standing back and allowing it to kick-off amongst the coalition? (the smartest move, I'd say)

Fair enough. I still think it is a weak excuse though, coz, like you say, if there is a new government, everything clearly wasn't rosey in the previous governments garden. That's why you're there, so stop hiding behind it and start explaining what you are going to do in the future.

DC makes me very uneasy on immigration, as all Tories seem to do, there always seems to be an aggressive undercurrent to it. I only saw a brief clip but even then he was tub thumping. Briefly on the issue itself, it seems a rallying call to Daily Mail readers. I really don't like to mention the Eton boy Bullingdon thing, because, I think most of the time it is irrelevant, however this talk of communities not bothering to learn languages or mix is just shite. He has no idea what it is like living amongst immigrant communities. This integration thing is a load of rubbish. Both in Bolton and London I've found people of different ethnicities to be like everyone else, IE some of them are utter cnuts, but most of them are all right. I think in the main, the people whose problem with immigration is 'integration' are the racists. The ones whose idea of 'integration' is giving up any sense of their own culture or religion, converting to CofE and Fish and Chips and if at all possible slapping on a bit of white face paint. These are the ones DC is pandering to here. The majority of sensible peoples' problems with immigration are frankly economic, and secondarily, the preservation of an English or British 'identity' which is a different thing.

As for the Labour party, Ed has said the government needs to 'get a grip' and figure out their policy amongst themselves. Sooner or later he is going to find a subject where he may care to tell us what he bloody well things. Obvs I don't think this particular issue is the right one for that, but it would be nice.