gdp's Comments

http://www.oldholborn.net/ : the Children

Thu, 30 Dec 2010 12:00:21 +0000

The Fabians are a bit like the Young Conservatives. The Young Fabians are exactly like the Young Conservatives.

And another thing... : Person the barricades!

Mon, 29 Nov 2010 10:16:33 +0000

I'm quite surprised this comment hasn't been allowed: 'Yes, you are right, Tom, they should have listened when Labour told them not to trust the LibDems.' The students had already learned not to trust Labour. Why would they have listened? It's ironic (or maybe inevitable) that when there are good reasons to view the Lib-Dems as shallow opportunists, they're criticised for facing the uncomfortable truth. The students aren't campaigning against a ConDem coalition, the students are campaiging against the inevitable.

And another thing... : Person the barricades!

Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:05:00 +0000

'Yes, you are right, Tom, they should have listened when Labour told them not to trust the LibDems.' The students had already learned not to trust Labour. Why would they have listened? It's ironic (or maybe inevitable) that when there are good reasons to view the Lib-Dems as shallow opportunists, they're criticised for facing the uncomfortable truth. The students aren't campaigning against a ConDem coalition, the students are campaiging aganist the inevitable.

And another thing... : Person the barricades!

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 20:33:41 +0000

OK, not lauded by Garth Ennis, but Warren Ellis. Is it forgivable to get the authors of 'Preacher' and 'The Authority' mixed up?

And another thing... : Person the barricades!

Tue, 16 Nov 2010 19:51:22 +0000

Would it be in appropriate to suggest that Ms Penny get a boyfriend, or perhaps buy a cream cake or something? Well, yes. Penny Red bats for the other team. But she quotes Billy Bragg songs and is lauded by Garth Ennis. How can you not love her?

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

Tue, 9 Nov 2010 09:17:37 +0000

Unless one approaches this quiz as a complete political naif, the results are loaded according one's view of one's politics, Tom's surprise notwithstanding. It's probably not quite as obvious as those a/b/c quizzes that are (were?) so beloved of women's mags, but that doesn't help either. If you don't really understand the question, how can you be sure you gave an answer that accurately reflects your view? I wonder how Melanie Philips would score on this? Rightwing, I suppose, but only because the quizmakers had moved to the left...

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

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:58:51 +0000

Slight correction; 'murderers, rapists, paedophiles' (though not necessarily 'all of them') already have the vote, as long as they haven't been caught, convicted and sent to prison. Even being caught, it seems, is not necessarily a bar, and neither is being an ex-con, though, again, not necessarily an ex-offender, past tense. Someone has decided that people languishing in prison are not to fit to cast a vote. Why, they might vote for a criminal party, and then where would we be?

And another thing... : No room for fudge in the fight against terror

Mon, 8 Nov 2010 09:42:38 +0000

There's always room for fudge!

And another thing... : Iraq rears its head again

Mon, 25 Oct 2010 12:28:15 +0000

That 'argument', that some people would oppose an invasion regardless of whatever justifications were offered, was used by Blair as an excuse to side-step the UN Security Council. It's a logical fallacy, not to say cop-out, to say that the dogmatism of *some* people justifies ignoring everyone else.

And another thing... : All political careers end in failure, some earlier than others...

Sun, 10 Oct 2010 21:41:20 +0000

If you've got a bit of time on your hands, Tom, you could give this a go. They don't seem to have any Labour MPs on the panel*, and I know you have some interest in climate change. Or perhaps you can encourage someone else from your party to contribute..? http://www.ukyouthparliament.org.uk/climatechange... *possibly because everyone was pre-occupied with the leadership contest and cabinet elections, but that isn't the case now.

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

Sun, 3 Oct 2010 17:56:14 +0000

She did 'come into politics to stand on the sidelines' or she would have stood as a candidate in the last election.

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

Sat, 2 Oct 2010 23:43:32 +0000

The Eumenides are out in force, I see. This 'Red Rag', is that the thing Damien McBride was planning, or something analogous? It seems to fit the description. No end to the unpleasantness of the writer, and strangely, no opportunity to respond, considering he (or she?) complains, on the 12 of September, about getting a comment pulled by Conservative Home. It must be nice getting to use all those swear words and not be called out on it...

And another thing... : Protesting too much?

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 17:52:30 +0000

Completely by the by, but from that angle, does Bogie remind anyone of Ryan Reynolds?

And another thing... : Protesting too much?

Wed, 29 Sep 2010 09:23:13 +0000

We can debate whether 'shocked' is quite the best way to describe his reaction, but 'angry'? Yeppers. Capt Renault, on he other hand, was clearly telling a falsehood. Hence, the implication of hypocrisy suggested by the selected clip has no validity, unless you're suggesting, Tom, that Fox has been involved with such leaks himself. I suppose that may be true, but it doesn't mean he can't still be genuinely 'shocked and angry', especially now he's a minister.

And another thing... : Let's hear it for the autocue

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:02:25 +0000

Autocues have their pros and cons. Haven't heard the speech. But 'Red-Ed' is dead. Long live 'Redward', complete with Photoshopped hair.

And another thing... : Scare tactics

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 13:21:07 +0000

Ah nurtz, cheap TV is coming to Sy Fy. Well, cheaper than that straight to video film stuff... Thank gahhhd for 'Eureka'.

And another thing... : Reflections on Ed (and David)

Tue, 28 Sep 2010 09:01:35 +0000

While I'm sure Labour's critics would have mocked whoever won, I don't think it's realistic to claim that Ed Miliband's win isn't a bigger gift to them than David's would have been.

And another thing... : In denial

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 22:36:26 +0000

If I had a free muffin for every time I've heard that use of the word 'denier' is deliberately intended to conflate AGW sceptics with Nazis, I'd be one fat bunny. Is the word 'denial' going to become off limits because someone said the holocaust death toll was hyped? Supposing, just for one moment, that it was exaggerated, would it not be a terrible irony that two separate groups of people were calumnied with the term, one for allegedly being 'deniers' ,the other for using an English word that had been made unusable by the earlier (exaggerating?) critics. Still, I use 'contrarian' these days, so they don't get their knickers in a bunch. I also don't burn korans, just to cover all the bases. 'Cheek-by-jowell', is that a Freudian slip..?

And another thing... : They work for themselves

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:30:09 +0000

I guess it depends on whether you agree with Julian Long above, that Bills are dealt with in an arcane fashion, and divining precisely what MPs have and haven't voted for is more of an art than a science. If that amendment hadn't been proposed, and voted against, Tom's record might have looked very different, but that could apply to any bill, and probably does in many cases. With the amount of planning that goes into a bill, any amendment is likely to be mischievous, but if it supposedly strengthens the bill, and an MP rejects it, his record gets clobbered. The obvious answer is that MPs either don't try to amend bills, or there is a specific understanding of when an amendment is 'vexatious', so that The Public Whip can discard it. In practise, this is how MPs prefer it, so that's how it is. My quick take on the 'gerrymandering' issue is that 'gerrymandering' is a phrase without a clear meaning, but definite negative connotations. It therefore suits your argument above, but again, if Parliament weren't so abstruse, people wouldn't have to guess at the motivation behind a vote.

And another thing... : They work for themselves

Fri, 10 Sep 2010 10:29:59 +0000

Thanks, David. I took the Superannuation Bill as an example to examine, because it seemed more straightforward on the face of it. I'm not really sure why now, but I'm not really sure of anything, after several attempts to fathom it. Because the Bill seems to be about addressing redundancy packages for civil servants, on the grounds that the current system needs revision, I'm guessing that you're drawing a parallel with the way Tom's voting record on climate change was described by The Public Whip, by suggesting that you might just as well equate arguably reasonable budgeting decisions with 'sacking and impoverishing civil servants'. Touche. <continues>