Self Destruct

Gentlemen, gentlemen, bitching will get you's nowhere, but it's nice innit. Now
these guys are real Poltical hero's as far as I'm concerned
http://rorypecktrust.org/ I expect you're both aware of the hype ? Democracy and
all that, I personally woted for Kennedy in my last electoral right (Now I'm not
allowed to cos ov my European Status) but remeber silence & peace are seperate
entities (twisting away).
Tschuß, Fritz (Durin the War)

Just avin a bit of unplugged ERic "Layla" ee ain't complainin.

Graham Ricketts

I must admit though Bhoyo, I do actually agree with Tom, I'm afraid you're slightly out of your league on this one, and Paul with respect you must think
before you type innit, I don't.
Cheers, Fritz

Graham Ricketts

quote:

---

Originally posted by Berlin Fritz:
I must admit though Bhoyo, I do actually agree with Tom, I'm afraid you're slightly out of your league on this one

---

Eh? I must have missed where Tom said that.

quote:

---

the debate was about spin.

---

And I was suggesting that the Conservatives need a few more catchy slogans. It's better if they have an element of truth (Labour isn't working) rather than being plain wrong (removed the automatic right to silence) and your assertion that the government put 2000000 people out of work in the early 80s.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by garyi:
So IDS is out.

Quite a dignified exit, he should be appluaded for that.

Have the tories insured they won't win the next election?

---

Missed all this whilst away. Returning to the original post...I could not see the tories winning the next election with IDS. So it appears that Howard will become leader of the tories - I still do not see the tories winning the next election unless he (Howard) has had a massive charisma insertion operation.

Looks like a third term for Blair - God help us all as he continues to dismember this country.

Cheers

Mike

Paul said "rather than being plain wrong (removed the automatic right to silence)"

Ok, to be more accurate, I should have said Howard was the home secretary who effectively removed the right to silence by allowing the prosecution to make negative inferences from a defendents refusal to speak rather than proving their case.

If he had remained in power he also had plans to introduce compulsory ID cards and to curtail the right to jury trials. Who knows given enough time he might well have got around to allowing detention without trial on unspecified charges.

My point was really that your original claim that Howard refused to pass populist measures becuase he feared an erosion of civil liberites was absurd given how his record shows precisely the opposite. To claim he is anything other than extremely illiberal is just "plain wrong".


Matthew

I'd like to see a more liberal/libertarian government. I voted for Blair in 1997 because I believed that their closer allegiance to all things Europen would make them more liberal and respectful to individuals' rights to privacy and justice.

How I was wrong. I think the current government leans ever closer to totalitarianism.

Howard set an authoritarian trend, and the Blair govenment has only followed his example.

I also hoped that they would operate in a more transparent fashion given their desire to combat "sleaze."

The opposite has happened. They cynically manipulate the right-wing media as their glove puppets to enable them to push through policies that really stink (by allowing leaks that the above pounce upon, only to announce a more relatively watered-down version to Parliament later that is so palatable by comparison with the speculation that went before that it is unopposed at the crucial parliamentary level) and they make use of the same media to dish dirt on anyone who doesn't tow their line, or anyone, including ordinary individuals with a grievance (Hatfield.)

If I genuinely believed that they had the nation's interests at heart, and not just those of the Inner Party then I'd be happy.

For this reason, I have an enormous amount of respect for the likes of Tony Benn and Clare Short - I don't agree entirely with their socio-political views, but I respect their honesty and integrity.

The Blair/Brown/Prescott axis has not a shed of these requisite qualites, imho - they are the epitome of vulgar Champagne Socialism.

And then there is the forked-tongue approach to immigration issues - say they'll tackle the problem and at the same time increase their electoral base for the future by letting anyone and everyone in, and later offer them citizenship (plus trinkets and ceremonies) when they've evaded every possible channel of deportation.

Regards,

Steve.

[This message was edited by Steven Toy on SUNDAY 02 November 2003 at 06:37.]

quote:

---

My point was really that your original claim that Howard refused to pass populist measures becuase he feared an erosion of civil liberites was absurd given how his record shows precisely the opposite.

---

It was just once, heard in a radio interview, many years ago.

I think your interpretation of the 'right to silence', then and now, is wrong. I found http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2000-May/010002.html quite interesting.

Paul

quote:

---

Originally posted by Paul Ranson:
And I was suggesting that the Conservatives need a few more catchy slogans

---

They seem to have lost the knack. Saatchi & Thaatchi mastered the black art of political propaganda in 1979. But Th**cher quickly became the most unpopular prime minister in British history (that's what the polls said in 1981-82), largely because of high unemployment. She didn't need catchy slogans to get re-elected. Instead, a vote-grabbing problem in the South Atlantic landed in her lap. Pure coincidence, of course.