They are back, in fact, they have never been away, the Tory backwoodsmen the 'disgusted of Tunbridge Wells' have been hiding under rocks and now they are resurfacing.
I know that most people won't be shocked to hear that I don't like the Tory party, strangely as I get older I have mellowed toward individual Tories and I find myself talking to some of them and, in fact getting along OK with some of them, I won't name them to protect their reputations.
The 'Cameron bounce' of the last month is fading and the dinosaurs are back, predictably it's Europe and the 'Johnny Foreigner' who is stealing our sovereignty and our traditions and, also that old favourite from the nasty party, 'the race card' yes there we were this morning listening to some shadow cabinet nonentity telling us that the Tories will be making immigration an issue all the way to the election, if it looks like a rat and smells like a rat it's probably a rat as Nye Bevan might have said.
If this doesn't do the trick we can expect a 'bring back hanging' campaign and if this doesn't do the trick, what about 'National Service' that will sort out the cheeky young pups eh ? Is it not time for the decent people in the 'nasty party' to stand up and be counted ?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
69 comments:
Could you post a link to the interview with the "Shadow Cabinet nonentity" (or at least name them? I haven't heard about it.
Terry:
You wwere right to protect your Conservative friends- they would be hounded out of the party for this. Heh.
Actually, it is nice to know that you can be civilised around some of your political opponents. You have gone up in my estimation.
Terry
I've just watched a Labour Minister (KIm Howells) say that 'UK and Saudi have shared values.'
Given the Saudis track record in any field you care to mention, I do not share any values with them -do you?
Cameron bounce Fading eh?
Goodness me! A mention of Immigration, and you're a Nazi? Pathetic.
Do you ever read what is reported or only choose the bits that suit your bilious viewpoint.
The fact of the matter is that the Labour Party have allowed immigration to get our of control. They have no idea how many immigrants are here at all.
Let's also differentiate between people who come here as refugees, illegal immigrants and economic migrants.
Refugees: If a person comes to Britain fleeing a repressive socialist regime, then we should welcome them with open arms. There does need to be controls in place to ensure that the person is indeed being persecuted and would be in danger of his/her life if he/she returned to his her country. Agreed?
Illegal immigrants: Often victims of unscrupulous traffickers in human misery. 21st version of slave traders. Illegal immigrants are often kept out of the "system" and used in the sex trade/low paid jobs (agency workers)/cockle pickers etc. This trade in human misery must be stopped and the people behind it prosecuted to the full extent of the law.
Economic migrants: Now here we have hard working people coming to Britain to do jobs that people are either unable, unwilling or just too bone idle to do. Which is fine. However, it seems and Permatan Peter doesn't even know how many there are, we have approx 1.1m people in this country who are classed economic migrants. That doesn't include their families or dependents. Now assuming that each of the 1.1m migrants has brought a partner and 1 child (average for sake of argument), that's an additional 2.2m people. So we have 3.3m people for which we have to find housing, schooling, health services etc. Surely even you will agree that this will put a strain on social services and social service budgets.
It's not about not allowing people to come to Britain. It's about ensuring that there is adequate provision in terms of housing, scholls, health care. Currently we are unable to provide these services for our own residents let alon an additional 3.3m others. So it is reasonable to set a limit on the number of people coming to live and work in the UK.
The sad thing is that these people are coming here and prepared to work, some for below minimum wage yet still they come. And we still have feckless, bone idle wasters on benefit who could do the jobs these people are coming here to do but won't because they earn far more in benefits than if they were doing an honest day's work.
I'm not going to argue with your comments about Cameron. He is after all just another in a long line of suits filling in until they can perfect the cloning process and grow another Baroness.
I would however like to discuss National Service. I know a lot of people (granted, of your generation and older) of all political persuasions who do view National Service with a "that will sort out the cheeky young pups" attitude.
Most people (again regardless of political affiliation) agree that there is something of a moral and ethical malaise affecting the country. Stemming, many believe, from a lack of clear discipline and boundaries in childhood and teenage years.
Surely, in this regard, something which instills discipline and social responsibility in people whilst they are not totally set in their ways is a good idea?
That said, I don't necessarily agree that taking someone whose voice only broke two years ago and putting a gun in his hand will make him "a better man".
So if we strip out all the crap that you have projected onto the Tories in your last paragraph what is the problem?
That Cameron has asked, for the nth time, to have a reasoned debate in "calm language" about immigration. And what do you do? You reach into your pocket and pull out "the race card". Why are you afraid of the debate?
Now your first error. This is not about Europe per se. It is about people coming from outside the EU nations to work here.
Personally I don't have a problem with folks coming to this country to work with a couple of provisos.
One is that there is a genuine need for the skills the migrant brings. We have enough people in this country already who can clean toilets. This needs to be implemented on a points basis similar to Australia (where I would be welcomed immediately with a qualifying score of about 169 or something like that).
Second is that the person, once in this country, pays their tax.
Of course Terry your nonsense post here would have carried a little more weight if your party had not admitted today that it is not sure how many immigrant workers are in the country.
There is of course the other point that of all the language used here the one spouting the really nasty vile stuff is you.
Anon - Damien Green it was on TV yesterday morning.
Byeck - Howells is a figure of fun and derision he famously told Arthur Scargill when he was a Miner's union leader to give up the fight.
Anyway I can't think of any shared values that I have with the Saudis, the guys I seen in today's papers seem to be every bit as ridiculous as our own Royals.
Jackart - as opaque as ever, or is it stupidity ?
You are suggesting in your article that Tory immigration policies are a "dog whistle" and "racist" rather than adressing the concerns of the electorate who consistently put it in the top issues.
Secondly you suggest that the Cameron bounce is fading - with the words "The 'Cameron bounce' of the last month is fading" and I counter with a link to probably the most influential political website in the UK which suggests they may have their largest poll lead since Maggie was in No 10.
Follow the links - there's evidence at the end of them.
Tell me terry, does your tongue stick out when you type?
Yes, but at least they can count.
Wouldn't it be great if Nu-labour could actually tell the truth about its statistics for a change ?
Susan Greenblatt - You are exactly the type of ignorant bigot that Cameron was aiming at.
Are you really Alf Garnett ?
PA - " Given the moral and ethical malaise our country has descended into," nonsense, this country has been in a moral and ethical malaise for hundreds of years it's called capitalism.
"surely something that instills discipline and social responsibility in people, whilst they are young enough to learn would not be such a bad idea?"
National Service was a sham, a joke. Military forces everywhere, including here don't instil discipline or responsibility if they did we wouldn't be dealing with Soldiers murdering, torturing and raping would we ?
PA - See previous comment.
Cameron is not asking for a reasonable debate he is yet again, predictably playing the 'race card' just as they did before, Smethwick by election 1964 victorious Tory Peter Griffiths, slogan ! 'If you want a ni---r for a neighbour vote labour' on to Enoch Powell ' rivers of blood' and now Cameron, racism is never far beneath the surface when you people get worried.
You ought be ashamed but I doubt if you will be.
RFS - Accuses me of using nasty language.
But do you not see the problem here Terry?
The request was for a calm discussion and already you are using "Rivers of Blood". Another era best left in the past. Is something someone said many decades ago a good enough reason not to discuss something today?
The simple fact is that nothing Cameron has said so far is racist. If you had the courage of your convictions you would join the debate in reasoned tones sticking to the here and now and see if he descends into race baiting. But I doubt you would do that because then you risk having to actually find out of a preconception you hold is based on reality or just another thing you made up in your head.
Jackart - You can get to the top of the pole by playing on people's fears it's all been done before and that's what they are doing, something similar happened in Germany only it was the Jews who were scapegoated then, I have absolutely no doubt you would have joined in with great enthusiasm then too.
Roge - "Yes, but at least they can count.Wouldn't it be gr... Yes, but at least they can count."
I would guess that they could also get the trains to run on time, what do you think ?
"Jackart - You can get to the top of the pole by playing on people's fears it's all been done before and that's what they are doing, something similar happened in Germany only it was the Jews who were scapegoated then, I have absolutely no doubt you would have joined in with great enthusiasm then too."
No, I suspect it would be you dancing round the books on Kristallnacht, spying on your neighbours and calling the Gestapo to help weed out the unclean Jew.
You are despicable and your labour party membership does your party a great disservice.
Terry - couldn't care less about the tories. They aren't in government.
I do care about the ministers misleading the house (and the electorate) because the sums were too "complicated".
Pathetic ... and no, yet another apology doesn't make it OK.
RFS - I brought up Smethwick and Powell to illustrate how the Tories have not changed.
Cameron hasn't used racist language, he has brought up a racist subject which he knows will play well for him. Perhaps he himself isn't a racist, which makes him even worse than evil thugs like Powell.
I've been here too many times, I know what it is you can smell it a mile off.
If immigrants come here to work they are stealing our jobs, if they are not working, they are scroungers. It's a completely dishonest and racist position for you and the others who push it.
Jackart - and you are a racist bigot.
***National Service was a sham, a joke. Military forces everywhere, including here don't instil discipline or responsibility if they did we wouldn't be dealing with Soldiers murdering, torturing and raping would we ?***
I did say "I don't necessarily agree that taking someone whose voice only broke two years ago and putting a gun in his hand will make him "a better man"."
Okay, so we can take it that we agree "Military" National Service as was practiced was not ideal. However, surely the notion of citizens "serving" their nation, ie, putting something back in is a good idea?
Thank you for making my point for me terry.
Several times over. While people like you use language like this all it does is convince the vast majority of people that their concerns are not mainstream and that they must be racists themselves. How does it feel to be a recruiting sergeant for the BNP?
And FYI, we have been here before and if memory serves correctly we agreed that immigrants are a socio-economic group and you are therefor unable to be racist about them. Unless you happen to think that all immigrants have brown skin.
Terry
I dont know how to tell you this, but the 'figure of fun' (Howells) was put up by the government to welcome the Saudis, as stand in for the Foreign Sec. the boy Milliband.
I'm genuinely thrilled to hear you say you have zilch in common with the Saudis, despite your lot inviting them over - I feel you and I are finally bonding.
So, to continue in this same vein of mutual respect and admiration, would you be having any views on Mr Blair pulling the plug on the Saudi Eurofighter corruption investigation?
PA - Absolutely but not through national Service.
RFS - I've made my view quite clear it's the Tories playing the race card.
" I've made my view quite clear it's the Tories playing the race card."
No, they called for a debate on immigration, you played the race card by typing "Rivers of Blood".
Talking about immigartion doesn't mean that person is rascist.
The two words *aren't* interchangeable.
Surely, the aim is an immigration system that is firm but fair, that delivers secure borders whilst meeting the needs of the nation’s economy.
Managed migration is good for Britain.
Byeck - I know all about Howells - The British Govt. Invited them over, just as it did with Pinochet.
My views were clear at the time it should have been pursued but it's hardly unique for British Govt's to be involved in this kind of thing, is it ? or is it only labour Govt's ?
Byeck - I've already warned you about lying.
"Cllr. Kelly says let them all come" is a lie which you will have to retract or it's goodbye.
RFS we've done this.
I am a racist bigot?
Hahhahahhahahahahahahahah.
No really. What have I said that is racist? Quote me somewhere, saying something racist. Or is it just support for the Tories. If so, you've lost the debate according to Godwin's Law.
Do you dribble?
"Jackart - You can get to the top of the pole by playing on people's fears it's all been done before and that's what they are doing, something similar happened in Germany only it was the Jews who were scapegoated then, I have absolutely no doubt you would have joined in with great enthusiasm then too."
Woah! This comment means:
1. you are accusing Jackart, who I assume you have never met, of being a Holacaust sympathiser/Nazi.
2. David Cameron's comments about immigration are on a par with Hitler and Goebbles' Anti-Semite rhetoric?
What planet do you come from?
Even Trevor Phillips thinks Cameron is being "responsible" over immigration. Face it, Terry, you're wrong.
jackart - when was the last time that you said anything new, showed any initiative ?
I have given my opinion of you often enough.
Anon - "1. you are accusing Jackart, who I assume you have never met, of being a Holacaust sympathiser/Nazi" - No.
"2. David Cameron's comments about immigration are on a par with Hitler and Goebbles' Anti-Semite rhetoric?" - No.
You seem a bit jumpy though, does the cap fit ?
Jackart - 'Trevor Phillips' ? anyone who can't see that this is exactly what cameron set out to do is a fool.
"You seem a bit jumpy, does the cap fit?"
Well, you may not be a Nazi, but you have the "my party/country/religion right or wrong" thing down to a tee.
You are diseased.
Anon - explain, if you can.
"Byeck - I've already warned you about lying. "Cllr. Kelly says let them all come" is a lie which you will have to retract or it's goodbye."
Terry - I monitor your censorship with interest, but I can't find Byeck's offending post? Where is it?
Isn't the customary way of doing things in this country for someone to have their say and for you to respond, correcting them if necessary?
Who censors the censors?
"jackart - when was the last time that you said anything new, showed any initiative?"
Well Terry, I've built my own business from scratch, how's that?
I have given my opinion of you often enough.
Yes Terry, but the point is, you have never backed it up with evidence. Shouting it a bit louder doesn't make it so.
On a different subject: Your sweaty dewflaps and flabby folds revolt me. According to one of your ministers, people like you are as big a problem as Climate change. Have you considered donating some of your blubber to solve the winter fuel crisis?
Guthrie - I print 99 % of what is sent to me no matter how puerile you should certainly know that.
I've said this before - I will not print lies that are told about me and I will not print language which I consider to be unsuitable.
Byeck not for the first time has told deliberate lies about me, he knows all this.
Jackart - "Well Terry, I've built my own business from scratch, how's that?"
Are you one of Thatcher's entrepreneurs then, Tony Soprano built his business up from scratch as well.
I'm sorry if this hurts your obviously delicate feelings but, I don't feel obliged to explain anything to someone like you. Do you have to practice to be this tough ?
"Are you one of Thatcher's entrepreneurs then, Tony Soprano built his business up from scratch as well."
The difference is, of course that I am both within the law, indeed tightly regulated and (I'm sorry if this is beyond you) not fictional.
"I'm sorry if this hurts your obviously delicate feelings but, I don't feel obliged to explain anything to someone like you."
No, because when you attempt it, your logic is so childish and vague it's all too easy for me to shoot it down in flames. This is an example of the most pathetic ad-hominem. You've failed to answer a single point I've made and merely screamed "racist"
"Do you have to practice to be this tough ?"
No. I find playing a bit of sport and going to the gym once in a while is enough.
Jackart - What a guy, business man, brilliant debater, tough guy and fit as well.
I feel quite humble, do you wear your underpants over your trousers, do you do autographs ?
Is describing someone's logic as childish and vague 'ad - hominem' ?
"Is describing someone's logic as childish and vague 'ad - hominem' ?"
Um, yes.
"Is describing someone's logic as childish and vague 'ad - hominem' ?"
Nope - he was describing your logic, not you.
If he described you personally as childish and vague and therefore inferring your logic is invalid, then that would be ad-hominem.
PA _ So if I were to describe the logic behind this comment as pathetic and 5th. form semantics it would be OK.
You are a bad loser.
"Byeck not for the first time has told deliberate lies about me"
I can understand why you might not be happy if someone tells lies about you.
If I or anyone else tells deliberate lies why not just respond by saying so and allowing the viewing public to make up their own minds? If we claim you said something on your blog, and if you plainly haven't, we'll look a fool. You win.
I seem to recall someone once saying words to the effect that you applaud suicide bombers. You protested, and corrected them. Fair enough.
You are very quick to call people racists and apologists for apartheid. This is far worse than someone telling porkies about you.
I'm sure your shoulders are broad enough to take this kind of thing.
"PA _ So if I were to describe the logic behind this comment as pathetic and 5th. form semantics it would be OK."
As long as you describing the logic and not me, then yes it would be OK.
However, the thought that "pathetic" logic causes or evokes pity, sympathetic sadness or sorrow in you is quite enlightening. You are obviously have hidden depths.
"You are a bad loser"
Terry, when you get as many hidings as I do on the rugby pitch, you take losing in your stride and become a bad winner:>
"PA ....
You are a bad loser."
Whereas you a just a loser.
Guthrie - I don't usually take this step but Byeck is a serial offender and he clearly thinks he can get away with it. I'm not getting into an argument with him about what I did and didn't say, I'm far too busy.
There are two ways to deal with it-- I can engage in sterile debate about whether he lied or he can withdraw I've chosen the latter this time.
PA - 5th. Form semantics does not in this case hide the fact that you are a bad loser.
Socialist Loiterer - Thank you comrade for those fraternal remarks.
Who needs Capitalists ?
Three comments stick out to me:
First of all, when you reply to Susan Greenblatt, you write "Are you really Alf Garnett?" In reponse to a sober, reasoned statement about terminology. Whether or not you agree, comparing her to Alf Garnett is just plain stupid. It is a playground retort, and does beg the question do you know that Alf Garnett is not real?
Secondly, when you write "Are you one of Thatcher's entrepreneurs then, Tony Soprano built his business up from scratch as well" to Jackart. Again, fundamental but important point, you do know Tony Soprano is fictional, don't you? Your arguments and your retorts are so weak that you have to reply on comparing people to fictional characters.
And you reveal your true colours in this comment: "There are two ways to deal with it-- I can engage in sterile debate about whether he lied or he can withdraw I've chosen the latter this time."
You do realise that if you have chosen for him to withdraw then he hasn't withdrawn at all, don't you?
This is the typical attitude of the left. You cannot cope with debate, you cannot cope with even entertaining another viewpoint. Faced with opposition, you retreat into childish insults and then into censorship. You are so afraid that someone might be sharp enough to pick away at one of your deeply held political beliefs and prove you are wrong.
I'll probably never agree with you, Terry, but I'll still come back to this website to see what you say and get the viewpoint from the extreme left. The difference between you and me is I am intrigued by viewpoints that do not concur with my own. You are terrified by them.
(The Nameless One) 12/11/07 - The 'Alf Garnett' taunt seems to have upset you OK. likewise Tony Soprano, you've got me there though I thought they were both real.
'withdraw' ? Is it grammar you're on about, don't you understand what I meant ?
"You cannot cope with debate" this exchange clearly shows different.
I'm always interested in viewpoints which don't concur with my own as well - what you really mean is ' you are a good guy and I'm a bad guy' that's about your level.
Actually, I thought that the Tony Soprano gag was quite original and a lot better than the standard retort of “Alf Garnett”. However wouldn’t your retorts be much more effective if you used a real person? A real racist? A real crooked entrepreneur? There are enough of them out there. What is more effective? Comparing someone to a Dalek, or comparing them to Hitler?
And your response, whilst prompt, was not an example of debating. It is a curious mix of the faintly insulting, a wee bit of sarcasm, and a really simple restatement of your argument. That is not debating, except at the level of the playground.
So since you haven’t really given me any evidence to the contrary, I am going to reassert my argument. I think whilst you have your beliefs, you do not have the evidence to back those beliefs in. Hence your “debating” style, which seems to constitute insults, sweeping statements and blocking people if they commit the terrible sin of consistently disagreeing with you. If you have the arguments to back up what you say, you should use them.
And I don’t subscribe to the view of me good, you bad. For the record, I’m not good, and you’re not bad. Equally, you’re not good and I’m not bad. Life is a little more complicated than that. I think we have radically different political ideas, and it is a shame that, from your end, we can’t debate them intelligently or rationally.
(The Nameless One) 13/11/07 -
"I think we have radically different political ideas, and it is a shame that, from your end, we can't debate them intelligently or rationally."
I regard that as you saying that you can't win. It's highly subjective and we could all say the same about opponents but, it doesn't make it so.
Just a thought, try shortening it, this isn't debating it's typing.
"I think we have radically different political ideas, and it is a shame that, from your end, we can't debate them intelligently or rationally." I regard that as you saying that you can't win. It's highly subjective and we could all say the same about opponents but, it doesn't make it so.
Actually, what I was saying, Terry, is that from your end we can’t debate our political ideas rationally or intelligently. From your end, not mine.
And I notice that you still fail to back up anything you believe in, or even try to counter my argument, instead resorting to such juvenile tactics as “I win, you lose.”
"Just a thought, try shortening it, this isn't debating it's typing
Yeah, fair point, I do type too much. But since we don’t know each other from Adam, typing is how we communicate, Terry. And typing allows us to communicate. And only through communicating can we debate. So it is both typing and debating.
I’m open to what you believe in. Try arguing for it, rather than closing down every comment you get on your blog with an ignorant comment.
(The Nameless One) 14/11/07 " Actually, what I was saying, Terry, is that from your end we can't debate our political ideas rationally or intelligently. From your end, not mine." Oh no it isn't, it's from your end, not mine. You're not getting this are you ?
"And I notice that you still fail to back up anything you believe in, or even try to counter my argument, instead resorting to such juvenile tactics as "I win, you lose." It's you who fails to back up - resorts to juvenile etc. etc.
"rather than closing down every comment you get on your blog with an ignorant comment." Is accusing me of using 'ignorant comments' not a rather 'ignorant' thing to say ?
Still too long.
There is an old playground taunt of "no I'm not, you are." Unfortunately, Terry, that is the level of your debate.
Still too long?
(The Nameless One) 18/11/07 - Well spotted I'm pointing out the level that this debate has sunk to, yours as well.
Good length, well done.
Absolutely agree with Terry on this one.
Next thing they'll be using that BNP slogan "British jobs for British people"
What do you mean someone said it already.
(Darren Wood) 24/11/2007 Nationalists whether they are the Scottish or British variety see the saying ‘British jobs for British people’ in their own rather sinister way don’t they.
Post a Comment