In a fit of typical liberal hysteria, the BBC are going mental about the comments US Vice President Dick Cheney has made relating to the methods of interrogation used by the Americans in Camp Delta, Guantanemo Bay, Cuba.
He apparently conceded to a caller on an American conservative right wing radio station in North Dakota that the US was engaged in 'water boarding' as interrogation techniques for detainees at Guantanemo. For those who are not accustomed to the concept of water boarding, it is apparently the blindfolding and chaining of a prisoner followed by pouring buckets of water slowly over their face, simulating the effects of drowning in a waterfall. This, so I am reliably informed, brings a rush of claustrophobia to even the hardest of hard bastards (I had something similar happen to me at uni, but it involved Jim Bean whisky and I definitely had my mouth wide open!).
In short, if it would make John Rambo crack then a few skinny, bearded Islamic extremists wouldn't stand a chance.
Cheney didn't actually say that this was a common practice amongst the intelligence services; he merely agreed that next to ramming planes into skyscrapers this would pale by comparison. However, even if he had gone on the record to say that both he and President Bush were aware such techniques were being used I would have to ask: so what?!
I am really very interested by the entire concept of extraordinary rendition of suspects to Guantanemo, their treatment when incarcerated and the duration of their imprisonment. This country should be grateful America are taking a lead in interning (forcibly in most cases) suspected terrorists or Al-Qaeda operatives. We are fighting a war on terror, not playing a round of doctors and nurses. Evil bastards need to be apprehended, and when they are caught they need to provide intelligence to catch more terrorists.
We can never know just how many innocent lives have been saved by the intelligence gathered by the US at Guantanemo. We all hear the sickening BBC news about how many 'Brits' are incarcerated there, but given a choice of having the shoe bomber in an all orange jumpsuit having water poured all over him or sat next to me on a trans-Atlantic flight I think I know which option I prefer!
Interrogation happens, that is a fact of life. If the US are using original, even semi-torturous means of getting information out of dangerous scum who despise everything the western world stands for, then I am all in favour of it.
Saturday, October 28, 2006
Wednesday, October 25, 2006
Could we really be 14% ahead of Labour?
Well I almost choked on my Crunchy Nut Cornflakes this morning; the Tories had pulled into a 10-point lead in the latest ICM opinion poll. Closer examination of the statistics showed that the actual lead is nearer 14%, but the pollsters revised the figures downwards by 4% to take into account the shy Labour voters who are just too embarrassed to admit to supporting the government.
But are we really so far ahead?? I don't believe so. It is obvious that we are more popular than Labour; Pol Pot was more popular at the UN than Blair and Prescott et al are with the country at the moment. The reason why Labour won't be too pissed with this news is that we are in classic mid term blues territory. Governments have always been used to seeing the opposition surge into mid term leads, only for the electorate to come crawling back to them at election time. The same is true here.
The first two Blair terms were freaks of political nature. Not only was this country totally hoodwinked by the most incompetent and immoral bunch of charlatans British politics has ever seen but the opinion polls continued to show big leads for the Labour government. We are now settling down into more reliable political territory.
The big question is how long this lead can be sustained. If we see a similar lead running beyond the next local elections in May it is entirely likely that Davey C could actually be onto something good. Until then the jury is still definately out!
But are we really so far ahead?? I don't believe so. It is obvious that we are more popular than Labour; Pol Pot was more popular at the UN than Blair and Prescott et al are with the country at the moment. The reason why Labour won't be too pissed with this news is that we are in classic mid term blues territory. Governments have always been used to seeing the opposition surge into mid term leads, only for the electorate to come crawling back to them at election time. The same is true here.
The first two Blair terms were freaks of political nature. Not only was this country totally hoodwinked by the most incompetent and immoral bunch of charlatans British politics has ever seen but the opinion polls continued to show big leads for the Labour government. We are now settling down into more reliable political territory.
The big question is how long this lead can be sustained. If we see a similar lead running beyond the next local elections in May it is entirely likely that Davey C could actually be onto something good. Until then the jury is still definately out!
Monday, October 23, 2006
Why we should be backing a Democrat win next month
The Republicans are in trouble over the pond. They are projected to get hammered in the House of Representatives and potentially lose control of the Senate to the Democrats. Silly individual errors of campaigning judgement, like that of George "Macaca" Allen and Rick "blatant lies" Santorum mean that the Republicans are just all over the place. Elizabeth Dole, in her role as chairman of the Republican's Selection Committee for the senatoral elections, has dropped all manner of clangers by selecting campaigning illiterates to fight key seats (look at Katherine Harris). And this is just the Senate!
It is increasingly likely that the American liberals are back on the march, and that should terrify countries like ours. If the origin of the war on terror are ready to back a bunch of lilly livered defeatists then, surely, anything is possible in places like Britain. Thankfully the US Democratic party has 'done a Blair' and totally reconfigured their outlook and personell. With the exception of the Lieberman situation in Conneticut the majority of Democrat candidates for the Senate and House are fiscal conservatives, attacking President Bush from the right of the economic scale.
Unthinkable, surely? Well no... Bush has spent a hell of a lot of money. In fact he has splashed out so extravagantly that the US are having to borrow money from, wait for it... China! Despite the relative strength of the US economy the one big hole it has found itself in is with the amount of debt it has got into. On the face of it, however, the Republican administration has been thoroughly competent. They have reduced taxes, taken proactive measures to improve and increase homeland security. Any incoming Democratic administration would have to water their anti-business and competitiveness Bills down to ensure the President signed them off, so there shouldn't be too much damage done.
The big advantage of having the Senate and/or House go Democrat at this time is the sort of people the US will be putting into power. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is one Howard Dean! We all know what happened to him when he last got a sniff of power! YYYYEEEAAAHHH!!
The Democrats are choc full of freaks and sweaty wierdos. It would do any prospective Republican presidential candidate the power of good having 2 years of liberal namby pamby crap governing the country. At the moment the Democrats can blame the Republicans for just about anything; they have been out of power for so long. If they were part of the decision making process such accusations would fall on even the most liberal of ears in 2007.
I hope the Democrats win something in November. The Republican future of the White House could be at stake!
It is increasingly likely that the American liberals are back on the march, and that should terrify countries like ours. If the origin of the war on terror are ready to back a bunch of lilly livered defeatists then, surely, anything is possible in places like Britain. Thankfully the US Democratic party has 'done a Blair' and totally reconfigured their outlook and personell. With the exception of the Lieberman situation in Conneticut the majority of Democrat candidates for the Senate and House are fiscal conservatives, attacking President Bush from the right of the economic scale.
Unthinkable, surely? Well no... Bush has spent a hell of a lot of money. In fact he has splashed out so extravagantly that the US are having to borrow money from, wait for it... China! Despite the relative strength of the US economy the one big hole it has found itself in is with the amount of debt it has got into. On the face of it, however, the Republican administration has been thoroughly competent. They have reduced taxes, taken proactive measures to improve and increase homeland security. Any incoming Democratic administration would have to water their anti-business and competitiveness Bills down to ensure the President signed them off, so there shouldn't be too much damage done.
The big advantage of having the Senate and/or House go Democrat at this time is the sort of people the US will be putting into power. The Chairman of the Democratic Party is one Howard Dean! We all know what happened to him when he last got a sniff of power! YYYYEEEAAAHHH!!
The Democrats are choc full of freaks and sweaty wierdos. It would do any prospective Republican presidential candidate the power of good having 2 years of liberal namby pamby crap governing the country. At the moment the Democrats can blame the Republicans for just about anything; they have been out of power for so long. If they were part of the decision making process such accusations would fall on even the most liberal of ears in 2007.
I hope the Democrats win something in November. The Republican future of the White House could be at stake!
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Cutting taxes is Right!
How do you know when you've hit upon a really good idea? Simple, when Labour wheel out the most indistinguishable minister in the history of government, Ed Balls, to savage it. Today, whilst surfing the internet (hasn't he got a job to do?) the Economic Secretary to the Treasury stumbled upon the Conservative Party's tax commission proposals.
These plans call for numerous cuts in taxation to reverse the horrendous damage Labour have done to our wallets in the last 10 years. All in all £21billion is due to be given back to us, the taxpayer, if the Tories win the next election. Income tax will be cut by two percent to 20% (basic rate). The lower 10% rate will be abolished and a swathe of corporate and business taxes will be reduced.
This is my kind of document!
Over the last 10 years or so the amount of money removed forcibly by Gordon Brown from us has shot up. We are the most taxed and regulated in this country than we have ever been. The billions poured into the public sector has made hardly a jot of difference; so why carry on with the huge tax levy?
Lord Forsyth was a relatively good minister when he was an MP, but he has shot up in my estimations by leading the commission that has authored this report. Now David Cameron has some key decisions to make. Does he cow to the liberal media and Labour ministers like the cretinous Ed Balls, or does he show some steely determination and adopt these proposals?
The choice, Mr Cameron, is yours.
These plans call for numerous cuts in taxation to reverse the horrendous damage Labour have done to our wallets in the last 10 years. All in all £21billion is due to be given back to us, the taxpayer, if the Tories win the next election. Income tax will be cut by two percent to 20% (basic rate). The lower 10% rate will be abolished and a swathe of corporate and business taxes will be reduced.
This is my kind of document!
Over the last 10 years or so the amount of money removed forcibly by Gordon Brown from us has shot up. We are the most taxed and regulated in this country than we have ever been. The billions poured into the public sector has made hardly a jot of difference; so why carry on with the huge tax levy?
Lord Forsyth was a relatively good minister when he was an MP, but he has shot up in my estimations by leading the commission that has authored this report. Now David Cameron has some key decisions to make. Does he cow to the liberal media and Labour ministers like the cretinous Ed Balls, or does he show some steely determination and adopt these proposals?
The choice, Mr Cameron, is yours.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
The General is wrong
The British army are working absolute wonders in Iraq. I have to start by saying that. Compared to the useless Americans patrolling the majority of Iraq's hotspots we are providing the acceptable face of the Allied powers. Brits patrolling Basra and other areas of the south in Iraq are helping rebuild schools and hospitals and stub out the rampant crime lords who have sought to profit out of Saddam's fall.
We are aiding, indeed leading, the re-civilisation of Iraq.
This week the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, suggested that we should remove our troops from Iraq. He cited the enhanced level of potential violence to British property and subjects by radical wings of Islamic fundamentalism as a result of our continued presence in Iraq and suggested that we should remove our troops as soon as possible.
I totally disagree with him.
We have made our own bed in Iraq and are making huge strides in stabilising the part of the country we are charged with patrolling and defending. Blair and his cronies blatantly disregarded the preparations for a post-Saddam State. They also forgot to plan a proper exit strategy and counter insurgency measures. This is the fault of a government that has no practical experience in fighting global conflicts. Merely withdrawing our forces would be an insult to the noble principle of freeing an oppressed people from the shackles of their dictatorial masters. It would also be a grotesque admission that those brave servicemen and women killed in action died in vain. Iraq would descend into utter, utter anarchy.
Britain's reputation used to be one built on fear. The Empire was an exporter of civilisation and when the globe featured British influence in over a fifth of it's surface no-one even considered crossing the might of the Crown. These days our (diminishing) hold over a once proud reputation lays with the economic might Maggie Thatcher built up in the 80's. Our standing in the world bears little practical relation to our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor does it have any real connection to the close relationship we have with the American administration; this is a popular myth that exists merely to lampoon President Bush and excuse our domestic weakness with the 'multicultural' experiment.
With every day we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism suffers. Each day a former terrorist state re-civilises itself is a nail in the coffin of those murdering bastards who believe they can dictate world events by murdering as many people as they can cram into a passenger plane.
I passionately believe in the neo-conservative US foreign policy. We have spent far too long appeasing those who have not a peaceful bone in their bodies. We keep trying to buy ourselves time with North Korea, Iran and Syria. They are taking absolutely no notice of the UN, the EU, the French foreign ministry or any other hand-wringing apologists. They are just laughing at us.
The only rhetoric these extremists and despots understand is that of the sword. To retreat now would be reprehensible. The General should stay and fight.
We are aiding, indeed leading, the re-civilisation of Iraq.
This week the Chief of the General Staff, Sir Richard Dannatt, suggested that we should remove our troops from Iraq. He cited the enhanced level of potential violence to British property and subjects by radical wings of Islamic fundamentalism as a result of our continued presence in Iraq and suggested that we should remove our troops as soon as possible.
I totally disagree with him.
We have made our own bed in Iraq and are making huge strides in stabilising the part of the country we are charged with patrolling and defending. Blair and his cronies blatantly disregarded the preparations for a post-Saddam State. They also forgot to plan a proper exit strategy and counter insurgency measures. This is the fault of a government that has no practical experience in fighting global conflicts. Merely withdrawing our forces would be an insult to the noble principle of freeing an oppressed people from the shackles of their dictatorial masters. It would also be a grotesque admission that those brave servicemen and women killed in action died in vain. Iraq would descend into utter, utter anarchy.
Britain's reputation used to be one built on fear. The Empire was an exporter of civilisation and when the globe featured British influence in over a fifth of it's surface no-one even considered crossing the might of the Crown. These days our (diminishing) hold over a once proud reputation lays with the economic might Maggie Thatcher built up in the 80's. Our standing in the world bears little practical relation to our involvement in Iraq or Afghanistan. Nor does it have any real connection to the close relationship we have with the American administration; this is a popular myth that exists merely to lampoon President Bush and excuse our domestic weakness with the 'multicultural' experiment.
With every day we stay in Iraq and Afghanistan terrorism suffers. Each day a former terrorist state re-civilises itself is a nail in the coffin of those murdering bastards who believe they can dictate world events by murdering as many people as they can cram into a passenger plane.
I passionately believe in the neo-conservative US foreign policy. We have spent far too long appeasing those who have not a peaceful bone in their bodies. We keep trying to buy ourselves time with North Korea, Iran and Syria. They are taking absolutely no notice of the UN, the EU, the French foreign ministry or any other hand-wringing apologists. They are just laughing at us.
The only rhetoric these extremists and despots understand is that of the sword. To retreat now would be reprehensible. The General should stay and fight.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Humourless prick
As far as satire goes it was hardly 'Yes Minister'. Labour MP for Birmingham Erdington Sion Simon's attempted piss take of David Cameron's rather novel (and at times totally crap) 'webcameron' idea has backfired in a truly remarkable fashion. If you have not already seen this cretinous effort then click here, but be prepared to wince (it is that bad!).
This guy is a little turd of a man who's face makes me want to physically slap him. He is the typical example of what is bad in politics today. What on earth was this guy trying to prove? What must ordinary voters think their representatives do with their hefty wages paid by them?
I remember reading Sion Simon when he used to write for the News of the World. I actually sighed with relief when the twat told his grateful audience that he was leaving to pursue a political career. My only hope back in 2001 was that he wouldn't try to get into the Conservative Party; I hated the nob that much and couldn't stand the prospect of having to actually defend him if he mad a prat of himself.
This is one really good reason why I'm not too sharp on the premise of the Tories having an 'A' list of visually pleasing, or semi-famous candidates. If Labour can let this little runt slip through the net it is entirely possible the same could happen to us.
This guy is a little turd of a man who's face makes me want to physically slap him. He is the typical example of what is bad in politics today. What on earth was this guy trying to prove? What must ordinary voters think their representatives do with their hefty wages paid by them?
I remember reading Sion Simon when he used to write for the News of the World. I actually sighed with relief when the twat told his grateful audience that he was leaving to pursue a political career. My only hope back in 2001 was that he wouldn't try to get into the Conservative Party; I hated the nob that much and couldn't stand the prospect of having to actually defend him if he mad a prat of himself.
This is one really good reason why I'm not too sharp on the premise of the Tories having an 'A' list of visually pleasing, or semi-famous candidates. If Labour can let this little runt slip through the net it is entirely possible the same could happen to us.
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Another Clinton legacy
North Korea have exploded a small plutonium device 800 meters below the surface of a remote forest region in the north west of the country. The region is now beset with panic as the Japs threaten to start investing in a nuclear arms programme of their own. Diplomacy, and the United Nations, has once again utterly and miserably failed. Even China are slowly admitting that they were horribly wrong to support the tyrannical regime in Pyongyang. The world is in near crisis.
Another legacy of President Clinton's disastrous tenure as the leader of the free world.
I can remember seeing the pictures of mad Madeline Albright sipping drinks with the North Korean dictators when she visited as Clinton's Secretary of State. Those pictures made me revile that woman. Whilst she was getting cosy with the top brass in ornately furnished government houses, millions of ordinary Korean peasants were starving to death.
Whilst Clinton was content to prop up this repressive dictatorship President Bush has attempted to take measures to get rid of it. As soon as he entered the White House diplomatic niceties with North Korea ended. The shutters came down.
Some sections of the media, including some scrote-like apologist for these commies I heard on BBC News 24, are accusing the Bush administration of being in some way responsible for North Korea's sabre rattling because they ratcheted up the condemnation of this vile regime. What utter bollocks!
The argument that Kim Jong-Il would somehow cancel his nuclear ambitions indefinitely because Albright gave him a basketball signed by Michael Jordan is, quite honestly, laughable. Bush has decided, to his huge credit, that ordinary people deserve to live with a modocum of human dignity. He should be applauded for drastically altering US foreign policy towards North Korea.
Now we will see a real test of Bush's mettle. My belief is that we should have forcibly removed Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il before we even considered taking of Saddam. With US military resources stretched the armed option is no longer viable. The UN and international community are so weak that their participation in any military adventure would be counterproductive (remember Srebrenica?) so it falls to the economic route of action.
Sanctions will devastate this country's population. An impoverished people will become totally destitute. China will doubtless see a huge influx of North Koreans over their border. But in the long run this might, just might force the leadership into a corner.
Thanks to Clinton-ian policies of the mid 90's any option is likely to be painful. For the evil communist regime in charge, however, difficult days lay ahead. Bush is on their case!
Another legacy of President Clinton's disastrous tenure as the leader of the free world.
I can remember seeing the pictures of mad Madeline Albright sipping drinks with the North Korean dictators when she visited as Clinton's Secretary of State. Those pictures made me revile that woman. Whilst she was getting cosy with the top brass in ornately furnished government houses, millions of ordinary Korean peasants were starving to death.
Whilst Clinton was content to prop up this repressive dictatorship President Bush has attempted to take measures to get rid of it. As soon as he entered the White House diplomatic niceties with North Korea ended. The shutters came down.
Some sections of the media, including some scrote-like apologist for these commies I heard on BBC News 24, are accusing the Bush administration of being in some way responsible for North Korea's sabre rattling because they ratcheted up the condemnation of this vile regime. What utter bollocks!
The argument that Kim Jong-Il would somehow cancel his nuclear ambitions indefinitely because Albright gave him a basketball signed by Michael Jordan is, quite honestly, laughable. Bush has decided, to his huge credit, that ordinary people deserve to live with a modocum of human dignity. He should be applauded for drastically altering US foreign policy towards North Korea.
Now we will see a real test of Bush's mettle. My belief is that we should have forcibly removed Mugabe and Kim Jong-Il before we even considered taking of Saddam. With US military resources stretched the armed option is no longer viable. The UN and international community are so weak that their participation in any military adventure would be counterproductive (remember Srebrenica?) so it falls to the economic route of action.
Sanctions will devastate this country's population. An impoverished people will become totally destitute. China will doubtless see a huge influx of North Koreans over their border. But in the long run this might, just might force the leadership into a corner.
Thanks to Clinton-ian policies of the mid 90's any option is likely to be painful. For the evil communist regime in charge, however, difficult days lay ahead. Bush is on their case!
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Paul Hunter
I'm sure most people would have heard about snooker star Paul Hunter's battle with cancer by now. Sadly this brave and talented Yorkshireman lost this battle yesterday. I am gutted at the news and by the sheer unfairness of it all.
Here we have a successful sportsman with a young, glamerous wife and lovely baby daughter; the classic young family unit. The guy worked hard, practiced relentlessly and paid his taxes. He hardly had a bad word to say about anyone and was a genuinely good guy.
It riles me that cancer has struck him down in his prime when we have such scum walking our streets in perfect health. Why can paedophiles and muggers live to 80 without doing a stitch of work or paying any taxes? Why can the killers of Damilola Taylor happily draw breath after what they have done? Why can these mad clerics grow old and grey spouting inciteful hatred?
I'm not a religious bloke, though I would like to think there is something omnipitant out there. I cannot, however, believe that religion can be particularly well marketed to those who don't believe in God after this. If I were considering adopting a religion I would have serious second thoughts after considering this news. Can God possibly exist when evil bastards intent on being idle and workshy whilst at the same time raping and mugging can walk the streets until old age when people like Paul Hunter only get to 27?
Depressing, very depressing.
Here we have a successful sportsman with a young, glamerous wife and lovely baby daughter; the classic young family unit. The guy worked hard, practiced relentlessly and paid his taxes. He hardly had a bad word to say about anyone and was a genuinely good guy.
It riles me that cancer has struck him down in his prime when we have such scum walking our streets in perfect health. Why can paedophiles and muggers live to 80 without doing a stitch of work or paying any taxes? Why can the killers of Damilola Taylor happily draw breath after what they have done? Why can these mad clerics grow old and grey spouting inciteful hatred?
I'm not a religious bloke, though I would like to think there is something omnipitant out there. I cannot, however, believe that religion can be particularly well marketed to those who don't believe in God after this. If I were considering adopting a religion I would have serious second thoughts after considering this news. Can God possibly exist when evil bastards intent on being idle and workshy whilst at the same time raping and mugging can walk the streets until old age when people like Paul Hunter only get to 27?
Depressing, very depressing.
Sunday, October 08, 2006
Prisoners.. who cares about them??
Listening to John Reid bleat on about the imminent reaching of our prison capacity really fills me with rage. When the last decent Home Secretary, Michael Howard, was advocating building more prisons under the mantra 'Prison Works' the Labour Party whined that this was counter productive and that society should work to keep criminals out of the klink.
Now, after 10 years of trying to pander to every liberal instinct they could find, John Reid has discovered that liberal law enforcement does not work. Halle-fucking-luiah. Maybe the government should charge the emergency costs of building new prisons to Polly Toynbee and her freakish mates in the Guardian?
It's obvious that the stupid 'solutions' of the Left and their 'intellectuals' is totally discredited. Prison does work, it must do on a practical level! If they are in prison they are, errr, not on the streets offending! If there are 100,000 people in the UK with a criminal intent then there should be a prison capacity of 100,000.
I live in a city with a pretty big prison, and no-one really likes it being there (well you wouldn't, would you?!). Nimbyism is always going to be a political problem for any government looking to build new prisons. So why not find a remote hebridean island to build a US style super-prison? Those committing serious crimes who need to be in a high category prison shouldn't be afforded any benefit of being near their families or whatever their excuse is for being moved around the UK. Get them on a windy, rainy and thoroughly isolated hole and keep them there.
It would solve the crisis in our prison capacity and could also send out a stronger signal of deterrence to those who choose to take themselves out of civil society.
Now, after 10 years of trying to pander to every liberal instinct they could find, John Reid has discovered that liberal law enforcement does not work. Halle-fucking-luiah. Maybe the government should charge the emergency costs of building new prisons to Polly Toynbee and her freakish mates in the Guardian?
It's obvious that the stupid 'solutions' of the Left and their 'intellectuals' is totally discredited. Prison does work, it must do on a practical level! If they are in prison they are, errr, not on the streets offending! If there are 100,000 people in the UK with a criminal intent then there should be a prison capacity of 100,000.
I live in a city with a pretty big prison, and no-one really likes it being there (well you wouldn't, would you?!). Nimbyism is always going to be a political problem for any government looking to build new prisons. So why not find a remote hebridean island to build a US style super-prison? Those committing serious crimes who need to be in a high category prison shouldn't be afforded any benefit of being near their families or whatever their excuse is for being moved around the UK. Get them on a windy, rainy and thoroughly isolated hole and keep them there.
It would solve the crisis in our prison capacity and could also send out a stronger signal of deterrence to those who choose to take themselves out of civil society.
Here's something I never thought I'd say...
... but I actually agree with what is written in The Independent today. They correctly observe the odd phenomenon of a traditional Tory press that doesn't seem to be able to cotton onto what their readers are thinking. It is a time-honoured tradition that newspapers mould public opinion in order to influence policy.
For the last week the traditional Tory press has been cool to the verge of cold in its coverage of the Conservative conference in Bournemouth. Everything from the new logo to tax cuts has been criticised. The non-Tory press, much smaller in circulation, have been fairly neutral or, in the Independent's case, rather supportive. Years ago, before the advent of 24 hour news media, the public would only have the printed press to go by when it came to coverage of these conferences. Today this is totally different and a working class, 9-5 conservative inclined voter would be able to watch coverage of the conference on freeview, the internet or even (if they were that interested) podcasts. Times have changed and so has the power of the newspaper.
In my rather humble opinion, twats like Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens are trumped up little turds with a vastly over inflated opinions of themselves. However, what they used to be were influential journalists whose articles could provoke a flurry of replies to the letters page. Those days have seemingly gone. Politicians read newspapers just like you and I, sometimes pandering to their demands. This conference was different to the last two. Each of these gatherings was followed by hugely supportive coverage from the right wing media. Both times we saw a negligable shift in poll ratings.
In fact that has been the case after each of the last 5 or 6 conferences. I can only think of the IDS conference of 2003 when we had a poll bounce, and that one was after a string of extremely negative headlines from the right wing press.
Could it be that the old power the Tory press has had over Conservative Party policy making and intellectual thinking is at an end? If this is the case then David Cameron's policy-light long game is surely working wonders.
For the last week the traditional Tory press has been cool to the verge of cold in its coverage of the Conservative conference in Bournemouth. Everything from the new logo to tax cuts has been criticised. The non-Tory press, much smaller in circulation, have been fairly neutral or, in the Independent's case, rather supportive. Years ago, before the advent of 24 hour news media, the public would only have the printed press to go by when it came to coverage of these conferences. Today this is totally different and a working class, 9-5 conservative inclined voter would be able to watch coverage of the conference on freeview, the internet or even (if they were that interested) podcasts. Times have changed and so has the power of the newspaper.
In my rather humble opinion, twats like Simon Heffer and Peter Hitchens are trumped up little turds with a vastly over inflated opinions of themselves. However, what they used to be were influential journalists whose articles could provoke a flurry of replies to the letters page. Those days have seemingly gone. Politicians read newspapers just like you and I, sometimes pandering to their demands. This conference was different to the last two. Each of these gatherings was followed by hugely supportive coverage from the right wing media. Both times we saw a negligable shift in poll ratings.
In fact that has been the case after each of the last 5 or 6 conferences. I can only think of the IDS conference of 2003 when we had a poll bounce, and that one was after a string of extremely negative headlines from the right wing press.
Could it be that the old power the Tory press has had over Conservative Party policy making and intellectual thinking is at an end? If this is the case then David Cameron's policy-light long game is surely working wonders.
Saturday, October 07, 2006
Jack Straw... a lefty with balls?
I'm interested by what Jack Straw has had to say about muslims and headscarves. Is it just mere co-incidence that at a time where tensions are so high between ethnic groups in this country, and social conservatism is almost a thing of the past in the Conservative Party, Jack Straw makes these comments?
Today's newspapers are full of the story. The level of reporting and language used by the national press is verging on the inciteful. People read and believe newspapers. For most it is their only view of the world outside their busy lives. They believe what they read as being gospel and when they read an adjacent story in the biggest selling newspaper in the country that proud ex-servicemen are being victimised by muslims people can get very resentful very quickly.
Jack Straw is playing a very clever game; as are the Labour Party. They know that the Tory party are presenting the sort of image traditional supporters find hard to stomach and see a populist opportunity. I have just voted on an online poll (very unscientific, but a barometer of populist opinion nonetheless) for my local commercial radio station. 93% of people agree with Straw.
My parents went balistic last night watching a news item about what is in the Sun newspaper today. People react to statements like Jack Straw's and they get even angrier when they read supporting articles in mass read newspapers.
I must confess that I actually agree with Straw. I had a councillor surgery this morning and I would be hugely discouraged if I were approached by a Niqab wearing constituent. Actually, scrub that last statement, I actually think my reaction would be more intimidated. It pisses me off that you can't walk into a bank or post office with a motorbike helmet on yet you can with a burka. It just isn't fair but we are becoming almost petrified to say so. The reason for this reticence is due entirely to the culture of left wing liberal crap which we have been associated with for the last 10 years.
Is it little wonder I am increasingly hating this country. If people like Jack Straw and Rebekah Wade get their way I'm going to be hating it for a lot longer.
Today's newspapers are full of the story. The level of reporting and language used by the national press is verging on the inciteful. People read and believe newspapers. For most it is their only view of the world outside their busy lives. They believe what they read as being gospel and when they read an adjacent story in the biggest selling newspaper in the country that proud ex-servicemen are being victimised by muslims people can get very resentful very quickly.
Jack Straw is playing a very clever game; as are the Labour Party. They know that the Tory party are presenting the sort of image traditional supporters find hard to stomach and see a populist opportunity. I have just voted on an online poll (very unscientific, but a barometer of populist opinion nonetheless) for my local commercial radio station. 93% of people agree with Straw.
My parents went balistic last night watching a news item about what is in the Sun newspaper today. People react to statements like Jack Straw's and they get even angrier when they read supporting articles in mass read newspapers.
I must confess that I actually agree with Straw. I had a councillor surgery this morning and I would be hugely discouraged if I were approached by a Niqab wearing constituent. Actually, scrub that last statement, I actually think my reaction would be more intimidated. It pisses me off that you can't walk into a bank or post office with a motorbike helmet on yet you can with a burka. It just isn't fair but we are becoming almost petrified to say so. The reason for this reticence is due entirely to the culture of left wing liberal crap which we have been associated with for the last 10 years.
Is it little wonder I am increasingly hating this country. If people like Jack Straw and Rebekah Wade get their way I'm going to be hating it for a lot longer.
Friday, October 06, 2006
There's a first time for everything.....
Right this is the first blog posting and, as no-one in their right mind will be reading this today, the first blog entry will probably be seen in the archives.
Just to introduce myself... I'm 28 years old, a councillor in a northern District, and totally pissed off with this country. Unfortunately I am a representative of the Conservative Party and, as such, can't really say what I really think in this age of political correctness for risk of having various unpleasant things happening to me and any future career I may or may not have with the party. Unbelievably the worst protagonists for this PC culture are those within our own party. People are scared shitless of saying anything that could be construed as being 'offensive'.
I've just got back from the Tory conference in Bournemouth. It was pretty good, but nowhere near as good as last year in Blackpool. I didn't see David Cameron's speech, which didn't overly concern me. You don't ever go to conferences for the speeches, though. Getting pissed and shmoozing with people you only usually get to see on the telly is infinitely more important a task.
The problem with conferences is that you keep on bumping into people who you invariably hate. That happened so often this last week it is untrue. There were people going around who have only known opposition and who spent their time backbiting against the leadership. I fucking hate those people. Why do they do it?? Blair is totally ruining this country and Maggie ain't coming back! Get used to it and back the leader.
Just to introduce myself... I'm 28 years old, a councillor in a northern District, and totally pissed off with this country. Unfortunately I am a representative of the Conservative Party and, as such, can't really say what I really think in this age of political correctness for risk of having various unpleasant things happening to me and any future career I may or may not have with the party. Unbelievably the worst protagonists for this PC culture are those within our own party. People are scared shitless of saying anything that could be construed as being 'offensive'.
I've just got back from the Tory conference in Bournemouth. It was pretty good, but nowhere near as good as last year in Blackpool. I didn't see David Cameron's speech, which didn't overly concern me. You don't ever go to conferences for the speeches, though. Getting pissed and shmoozing with people you only usually get to see on the telly is infinitely more important a task.
The problem with conferences is that you keep on bumping into people who you invariably hate. That happened so often this last week it is untrue. There were people going around who have only known opposition and who spent their time backbiting against the leadership. I fucking hate those people. Why do they do it?? Blair is totally ruining this country and Maggie ain't coming back! Get used to it and back the leader.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)