A comment from Tim yesterday:
- no one’s tax-free income falls below half national median earnings;
- abolition of prescription charges, and restoration of free eye and dental treatment;
- employment rights to begin on day one of employment and apply regardless of the number of hours worked, as promised by John Smith;
- saving council housing, and bringing all council services back in house;
- renationalisation of the utilities and the railways;
- a national network of public transport free at the point of use;
- removal of all nuclear, radiological, chemical and biological weapons from British soil and waters;
- restoration of the supremacy of British over EU law;
Lightening rods for Labour backbenchers.
- restoration of the supremacy of British over EU law;
- a return to preventative policing based on foot patrols;
- each offence to carry a minimum sentence of one third of its maximum sentence, or 15 years for life;
- restoration of grammar schools, restoration of O-levels, restoration of excellent Secondary Modern schools, and defence and restoration of Special Needs Education;
- a legal presumption of equal parenting;
- restoration of the tax allowance for fathers;
- allowing paternity leave to be taken at any time in the first 18 years of the child’s life;
- help for farmers and small businesses through a windfall tax on the supermarkets;
- defence of village services;
- saving shooting and fishing;
- repeal of the hunting ban;
- making Gypsies and Travellers obey the same planning laws as the rest of us;
- preservation of the historic regimental system;
- rebuilding of the Royal Navy;
- saving the Royal Air Force;
Lightening rods for Tory backbenchers. [He wrote "Labour", but I know what he meant, and he is of course free to correct me if I am wrong.]
- nuclear power and clean coal technology;
- restoration of British overall control of our defence capability;
- Ministers to have their pay docked if either spending or outcomes are lower in the North East [and other regions] than in Scotland or the South East;
- immediate and unconditional withdrawal from Afghanistan and Iraq;
- total opposition to lap-dancing clubs;
Lightening rods across the House.
David will have no shortage of allies on the floor of the House of Commons.
To which I replied:
"[and other regions]"
Of course.
And, of course, several of things in either of the first two lists have very considerable cross-party appeal, but within and beyond Labour and the Tories.
Remember, this Election is going to be tight. The next Parliament offers enormous possibilities.
Quite so.
But imagine if, even in this Parliament, an amendment had been put down rejecting the renewal of Trident while proposing the diversion of at least some of the funds to the proper equipment of the Armed Forces. Or rejecting the Lisbon Treaty without mentioning a referendum but simply because it transferred yet more power to a legislative body which met in secret and published no Official Report, while doing nothing to restore the United Kingdom's historic fishing rights in accordance with international law.
How could any Labour or Tory backbencher (at least), or any of the smaller parties, have been seen not to sign or vote for such an amendment? How could anyone from either front bench have come on the Today programme, or written in any of the papers, against it?
There are many other potential examples, and there always will be. There needs to someone in the Commons to get this sort of ball rolling, since no party, to the shame of each and all of them, is prepared to do so. I wish that there were such a candidate in every constituency next time. But I know that there will be at least one.
"How could any Labour or Tory backbencher (at least), or any of the smaller parties, have been seen not to sign or vote for such an amendment? How could anyone from either front bench have come on the Today programme, or written in any of the papers, against it? There are many other potential examples, and there always will be. There needs to someone in the Commons to get this sort of ball rolling, since no party, to the shame of each and all of them, is prepared to do so"
ReplyDeleteThis is logically inconsistent. If such a policy or amendment was such a good idea, to the extent that no one on the front benches or backbenches could oppose it, then why wouldn't someone have, you know, done it?
Labour MPs were already voting against trident - there were 95 rebels. What makes you think they're sitting around waiting for you to save them from themselves?
ReplyDeleteEr, might it be because it is very plausible to argue against some of these things? As in fact people have done on Today, in the newspapers, and elsewhere?
ReplyDeleteYou do have a slight habit of confusing "things I believe in" with "things which are utterly unarguable and cannot be opposed". Don't worry, it's quite a common fallacy for the average person.
Oh, Bul what a dear, sweet, simple soul you are.
ReplyDeleteDirac, they didn't vote for some of the money to go on equipping the Forces instead. How could the Tories have voted against that?
Cout, no one has ever argued against either of these specific things that I mentioned, because no such amendment has ever been tabled in either case.
Now get back to work. We pay your wages. And very generous wages they are, too. I hope that some ex-girlfriend of all three of you enjoys defeat when she is the New Labour candidate here.
"Oh, Bul what a dear, sweet, simple soul you are."
ReplyDeleteWe were all young once.
Why aren't you at work David? I pay your wages. Get back to work!
ReplyDeleteDavid (right about my Tory-Labour thing) wasn't. And get that "logically inconsistent". We are being governed by Sixth Formers and freshers.
ReplyDeleteOh no you don't, Toraff. You only ahve to look at how these people write and it is even possible to picture them, since they all alike anyway.
ReplyDeleteTim, not even good Sixth Formers or freshers.
Cout has not only never heard the Today programme, he has never heard of it.
ReplyDeleteHis safe seat is in the bag, then.
ReplyDeleteUnless someone does something to stop him...
I have sympathy that it must be a source of an immense of bitterness to you David, that despite everyone commenting on your blog who disagrees with you being patently less intelligent, they all appear to also be younger, better paid and in more prosperous and succesful jobs (clearly through no talent of their own, but still).
ReplyDeleteI do wish it didn't infect your writing to quite such an extent though. Malice and jealousy so rarely win over floating voters.
Objecting to these people does one no harm at all among those who paid for them to attend either much better state schools than everyone else (see today's Hitchens post) or VAT-free private schools, then paid them through university, and now pay them to sit around waiting to be parachuted into safe seats.
ReplyDeleteIf they are not who you say they are then which are they? Marxists, Nazis, Islamists, neocons, people who want to lower the age of consent to 14 or below, or partial birth abortionists?
ReplyDeleteI told you, I'm a carpet fitter!
ReplyDeleteNot all mutually exclusive, Tim. And none incompatible with being who I say that these people are. Quite the reverse in certain cases.
ReplyDeleteDavid, is it possible for a reasonable person to disagree with you?
ReplyDeleteGood for you, Pualii.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I seem to have deleted your bad Lower Sixth piece on how you remember politicians on the radio talking about whether the cost of Trident may have been better spent elsewhere.
I know that I am probably wasting my time, but I'll try again: no amendment proposing that that money be transferred at least in part to equipping the Amerned Forces was ever tabled. But imagine if it had been. How could the Tories have voted against it, or even abstained?
Good for you, Pualii.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I seem to have deleted your bad Lower Sixth piece on how you remember politicians on the radio talking about whether the cost of Trident may have been better spent elsewhere.
I know that I am probably wasting my time, but I'll try again: no amendment proposing that that money be transferred at least in part to equipping the Amerned Forces was ever tabled. But imagine if it had been. How could the Tories have voted against it, or even abstained?
Feynman, none has yet tried on this thread.
ReplyDeleteThey are to be pitied rather than despised. They have only ever been exposed to one set of opinions, and they honestly don't know taht there are any others.
Well, I'm sorry if I don't have the education you want from your posters David. I do try.
ReplyDeleteBut I think the Tories could easily have voted against that amendment - and then said they'd increase spending on the military as well. Their always banging on about savings from waste etc.
You ahve really riled them with this. They are crawling out of the woodwork. If you won in NW Durham, then where would that leave every other plum seat for life in 2014 or 2015.
ReplyDeleteWhen they might be old enough to read.
ReplyDeleteIf you really were a carpet-fitter, you'd be fine.
ReplyDeleteDavid, I don't think I've ever seen you respond to even the mildest criticism without labelling your opponent a time-serving politico or a fringe-dwelling lunatic. If you're out husting and someone tells you they don't like one of your policies, will you tell them to get back to work? Or that they must be an Islamist or a paedophile?
ReplyDeleteThis is not the hustings.
ReplyDeleteNow you're calling me a liar? I've got friends in NW Durham you know - I'll have a word with them about this, bet on it.
ReplyDeleteOh, I know you have, and I know you will.
ReplyDeleteI feel that my point is proved.