3,251 comments posted · 14 followers · following 0
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Sarah Ingham: Corbyn a... · 0 replies · +1 points
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Adam Afriyie: Self-int... · 1 reply · +1 points
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Adam Afriyie: Self-int... · 0 replies · +1 points
(In passing, Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf aka Comical Ali is still alive and celebrated his 80th birthday last July.)
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - John Bald: Handing the... · 7 replies · +1 points
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Caroline ffiske: How n... · 0 replies · +1 points
This is, of course, where that bane of modern day life, the professional offence taker, comes into sharp focus. Is it really a sensible use of police time and resources to appease busybodies where no actual crime has been committed?
"Twenty years on, the Conservatives could go full circle – and simply do away with the concept of Hate Crime altogether."
Bring it on - this is one element of Blair's toxic legacy that his distant heirs would do well to disclaim.
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Paul Howell and Heathe... · 0 replies · +1 points
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Paul Howell and Heathe... · 4 replies · +1 points
In the above article, I have just counted 15 instances of "invest" and its derivatives. We all know very well that when a politician uses the term "invest", it will usually mean "spend", "subsidise" or "squander". To paraphrase Gary Barlow, any politicians who think they have the capability of convincing the electorate of the benefits of HS2 are going to have to work really, really hard. The authors of this piece have fallen well short. Unless they seriously believe that "investment" in a monumental folly - in the sense of a costly ornamental structure with no practical purpose - is beneficial in its own right, they ought perhaps to consider likely footfall, the cost of a return ticket in today's money, and the number of years it would take before the "investment" was recouped.
There were also two instances of the grating "build back better", but that's another story.
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Ryan Bourne: The lifti... · 0 replies · +1 points
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - Stephen McPartland and... · 0 replies · +1 points
Covid has caused individuals to become ill. Some have recovered quickly, some slowly, and regrettably some have not recovered and remain ill or have died.
In itself this has not caused damage or destruction to infrastructure that calls for a "building back" project, better or otherwise. Admittedly the absence of the ill from the workplace can cause damage in a different sense, but this would not need a reconstruction project.
It is only government action, in this pandemic, that has caused such damage or destruction. Arguably some of it may have been necessary, but in many cases the principle - similar to the fabled village in the Vietnam War - is "we had to destroy it in order to save it, so now we'll have to rebuild it."
In that last sentence, "it" may reasonably be described in many instances as "quality of life". Are they capable of saving it, and will its rebuilding be "better" or not?
2 years ago @ http://www.conservativ... - WATCH: WHO won't rule ... · 0 replies · +1 points