gdp's Comments

And another thing... : The absurdity of Yasmin Alibhai-Brown

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:54:47 +0000

"...the unwise Twitter threat against her." Unwise, certainly. Threat, not so much. We live in a country where people are not put to death therefore we can joke, unwisely, about having people put to death and no reasonable person could ever see that as intimidating or threatening. Which is kinda the basis of law...

And another thing... : A battle of wits between two unarmed combatants

Sun, 14 Nov 2010 13:49:16 +0000

"an extra hour of sunlight in Sussex" Ignorance at this level should have the member thrown out and a new election held. There will be the same amount of sunlight regardless of where the member's watch is!

And another thing... : Believe me, I'm just as surprised as you are

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 02:13:35 +0000

Economic Left/Right: 1.38 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.56 Tom, your voting record does not put you below the middle line. You are an authoritarian, police state, anti-civil liberties, new labour, anti-terrorism fascist. Okay, that might be hyperbolic, but your voting record suggests that you are much more comfortable in the authoritarian side, you and the previous 5 or so home secretaries...

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 03:08:58 +0000

It's so weird to approve of your comment to such an extent that I actually gave you a thumbs up and yet know where your thinking leads and would actually violently protest against it... Your reasoning is right, but I know how quickly you deviate from logic when it comes to something you're emotionally invested in. NB. When was our Monarchy-ruled country ever sovereign to the people?

And another thing... : Behold! The perfect argument against votes for prisoners

Thu, 4 Nov 2010 03:04:12 +0000

Ah, well, here we come to the point I was getting towards. All parties who claim to be hard on crime are not going to be popular amongst this particular constituency. Given that the tories and labour have traded our rights over the past 50 years in exchange for looking tough on crime then it is no surprise neither wants to look 'weak' on crime. I'd thank you to look at my apolitical view (Tom, you too) before declaring me a nitwit. I may be, but a reason why would not be too much to ask. I am more than aware that tories are against this. And, as I point out in another comment, I don't actually care too much. I can make an argument either way, but what I really want is consistency, logic and fairness. Exactly what we don't have, not helped by Tom Harris' posting of such an emotive video.

And another thing... : The case for the defence

Tue, 26 Oct 2010 00:13:19 +0000

The survival of humanity is infinitely more important than the survival of any given country. Nuclear weapons, via MAD, threaten that existence in order to preserve nation states. To deny that is not immoral, simply stupid. Besides, your idea that MAD worked is somewhat in opposition to Tom's reasoning for invading Iraq. Your reasoning suggests we should arm every country with nuclear weapons to make war a no-win scenario for all countries. But that's not what you want, is it?

And another thing... : It's not easy being blue

Fri, 1 Oct 2010 06:52:31 +0000

"as someone who doesn’t have to worry about getting re-elected to anything" Whose fault is that? You had over a decade to sort out unelected people in power and failed. And we need less [Muslim, Christian etc.] MPs who believe in things without evidence, not more. Maybe then we can shut down the homeopathic drain on the NHS (which should increase its effect, no?) And reduce the number of policies that go against the available evidence (drug laws, morality based crimes etc.)

And another thing... : The eejit

Sat, 18 Sep 2010 09:46:01 +0000

Tom, where do you and your fellow MPs get off thinking you should have any say on how long your term should be? We, the people you ostensibly represent, should be having a say in how long we want our elected representatives to serve. Never mind AV, where's the referendum on this? Otherwise, what's to stop David (either of them), if he gets a majority next time deciding Parliament should be for life, like the Lords. And don't get me started on the Lords... In what other profession in the world do people get to decide not only how long their contract is but how much they're paid? (IPSA not withstanding.)

And another thing... : The New Politics, Part 24

Wed, 15 Sep 2010 01:00:01 +0000

Grrrr... How dare any of you think that it is within your remit to decide how long (or short) the term you serve is without our explicit agreement? Once the parliamentarians get in it is no longer the people that have a say, they no longer feel obligated to their principles (as will have been pointed out by many commentators) so the idea that a coalition restricting the reactionary wing of their respective parties seems like a good thing. Maybe, just maybe, we can have a document that says what the government can and can't do, what rights of the people are inalienable and exactly how the governors do the governing. Imagine that...

And another thing... : When is a commitment no longer a commitment?

Thu, 9 Sep 2010 08:32:43 +0000

And here's my fake result for London South: LAB: 16,000 LIB: 15,000 CON: 15,500 GRN: 4,000 BNP: 16,500 Now, do you think the BNP should be elected? If you asked the 50,000 people who didn't vote for the BNP who they would least like to be represented by I dare say 90+% would say the BNP. Hence my support for a reverse AV, a negative alternate vote: Here's who I DON'T want in most, then them, then them, and finally, if I must have someone, then he's least worst.

And another thing... : Can anyone spare Ipsa the cost of a stamp?

Thu, 2 Sep 2010 07:05:21 +0000

He was up until very recently. I now have the honor of being represented by Tessa Jowell MP. Out the frying pan into the fire.

And another thing... : For Labour's sake, no more 'leaders-in-waiting'!

Tue, 31 Aug 2010 01:50:17 +0000

For how long, Tom? What is the term of a Labour leader duly elected by his own party? When is it fitting for a candidate, previously rejected, to decide (s)he could do a better job for the party/country than the person in the role? Or when can a fresh voice be heard? If a young pup gets elected can he stand up to the leader? Would the best person leading not be better than some fake unity behind a second rate leader (sound familiar?)

And another thing... : Only in Britain

Sun, 29 Aug 2010 10:33:41 +0000

"However, there was clear evidence that Saddam had a programme in place for WMDs." Which he didn't. "Saddam was given twelve years to fulfill UN resolutions regarding WMD, which he refused, and finally threw out the weapons inspectors. " I think the UN withdrew the inspectors prior to a US-led invasion of the country. I am willing to re-think this position should any evidence be forthcoming, are you?

And another thing... : The Walking Dead

Thu, 26 Aug 2010 00:30:05 +0000

Ignoring my evil internet piracy (surely mitigated by buying US series on DVD when finally released on DVD...) it is no wonder many people have no idea what we're on about. Cut short when the story was getting really interesting and/because the characters had been bedded in.

And another thing... : Measuring the success of Asbos

Tue, 24 Aug 2010 22:42:22 +0000

"the government’s political priority was to enhance and protect the quality of life of those who play by the rules" Due process be damned. 15 years ago this would have been a Tory line and Labour would have been defending civil liberties, the rights of an individual to a fair trial and all that other jazz that New Labour have abandoned. Still, if you disagree they can pretend they think you're a terrorist and try to lock you up for 90 days without charge. Or ask their nice local thugs/police to stop and search you and if they find anything wrong they can take your home and possessions under the Proceeds Of Crime Bill. Why is it New Labour found the need to try to make things that were already criminal offenses, but not being enforced, into new criminal offenses? And why did they find the need to make victimless and harmless activities criminal? Were New Labour (post 2001) really bad people, or were they so comfortable in charge they thought they knew what was best for everyone else? And how long will this new lot take to get the same feeling?

And another thing... : Don't put the clocks back

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:52:59 +0000

100% agree. We live on the GMT, it would be nice to know the real time.

And another thing... : Only in Britain

Tue, 17 Aug 2010 23:50:03 +0000

I appreciate this sacrifice. People we may know are suffering and someone wants to help, what's not to like? However, I'm not having the deification of Blair, he made the (Iraq) decision and he was wrong. Never, ever, forget that. Rightly praise everything he does to promote peace in the Middle east, to help injured soldiers here (heck, he is a better man than me at present) but never forget what he got us into, and never forget the reasons.