Tom Pride (he of Pride's Purge) has started a Change.org petition, thus:
https://www.change.org/p/death-bring-ba ... -pratchettPetitioning Death: Reinstate Terry Pratchett
I've signed.
https://www.change.org/p/death-bring-ba ... -pratchettPetitioning Death: Reinstate Terry Pratchett
Tbh I don't give a flying fig about this squirrel room. I'm more interested in the lack of build up in the media to the final budget of this parliament.yahyah wrote:I see the right wing media, and the Guardian are carrying on the Ed kitchen attacks.
Turns out the kitchen he & Justine were pictured in is a small side room to their sitting room which is used to make tea & coffee.
So...Sarah Vine's attack is shown up to be even more bollocks but now the Telegraph are pushing 'how can he talk about the poor when he has two kitchens' twollop.
StephenDolan wrote:Tbh I don't give a flying fig about this squirrel room. I'm more interested in the lack of build up in the media to the final budget of this parliament.yahyah wrote:I see the right wing media, and the Guardian are carrying on the Ed kitchen attacks.
Turns out the kitchen he & Justine were pictured in is a small side room to their sitting room which is used to make tea & coffee.
So...Sarah Vine's attack is shown up to be even more bollocks but now the Telegraph are pushing 'how can he talk about the poor when he has two kitchens' twollop.
I'm actually enjoying the kitchen thing, though, because it's so lame. Ed said something on the Ask Ed show on BBC3 that stood out for me. He used the word decency. He's used it before -yahyah wrote:StephenDolan wrote:Tbh I don't give a flying fig about this squirrel room. I'm more interested in the lack of build up in the media to the final budget of this parliament.yahyah wrote:I see the right wing media, and the Guardian are carrying on the Ed kitchen attacks.
Turns out the kitchen he & Justine were pictured in is a small side room to their sitting room which is used to make tea & coffee.
So...Sarah Vine's attack is shown up to be even more bollocks but now the Telegraph are pushing 'how can he talk about the poor when he has two kitchens' twollop.
I agree about the budget being largely ignored.
But the way Ed's kitchen is being headlines just proves what Justine said.
Also, fully expect to see snide digs about Orthodox Jewish kosher kitchens, some have separate sinks/pans etc to avoid milk and meat contamination but some people if they have room/money have separate kitchens.
There were definitely anti-semitic overtones from some on social media about the bacon sandwich - asking if he'd got permission from his rabbi was re-tweeted.
Crosby's foot soldiers will be using every dog whistle they can to show Ed 'isn't one of us'.
Ed's genuine integrity as a decent human being is his greatest strength. The expenses scandal showed this - among all the snout in the trough New Labourites he came out of the whole thing with his integrity intact and clean expenses. The same with Syria. He stuck to the rules, insisted on going through the UN. The Tories can't sling mud at him if there is no mud to sling. They're going to have to fight him on policies and that's why I'm feeling quite cheerful today, because the Tories clearly don't have any policies, just kitchens and tax cuts.Ed Miliband has insisted that he has the strength of character to be prime minister, arguing that decency should not be mistaken for weakness, as the Labour party prepares to launch a rearguard action against attacks on his character.
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... r-weakness
Quite...(and thanks - hadn't seen the Dalai Lama and Marxism before) but - we are repeatedly told Marx isn't relevant to the modern world...by politicians and journalists who haven't read (or if they have read, haven't understood) Marx - for me it comes down to the (perceived by me) difference between the Communist Manifesto and Das Kapital...one explains the nature of capital versus labour and the other describes how society (for want of a better word) could be organised in relation to that nature(?) - which is where it falls down - the inherent nature of power....'power corrupts' etc.yahyah wrote:@ Wolfie
The Dalai Lama has said: “as far as sociopolitical beliefs are concerned, I consider myself a Marxist.”
In 'Beyond Dogma: Dialogues and Discourses'
''Of all the modern economic theories, the economic system of Marxism is founded on moral principles, while capitalism is concerned with only with gain and profitability. Marxism is concerned with the distribution of wealth on an equal basis and the equitable utilization of the means of production
It is also concerned with the fate of the working classes—that is the majority—as well as with the fate of those who are underprivileged and in need, and Marxism cares about the victims of minority-imposed exploitation. For those reasons the system appeals to me, and it seems fair…
The failure of the regime in the Soviet Union was, for me not the failure of Marxism but the failure of totalitarianism. For this reason I think of myself as half-Marxist, half-Buddhist.''
Elsewhere he has said, I paraphrase somewhat, that revolutions based on hatred and aggression will be doomed to fail and that has often been the problem with Marxism so far when applied.
http://www.tricycle.com/web-exclusive/occupy-buddhism" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Thanks for alerting me to that. Mark Steel's got David Cameron's attitude to a "T".StephenDolan wrote:From Mark Steel's fine piece at the independent.
' if Ed Miliband’s question was even more ridiculous, such as, “Having remarked that he has no time to discuss television programmes, does the Prime Minister have any plans to go straight to a TV studio to defend the presenter of Top Gear?” '
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/com ... 04861.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Here's a link to said article -How dare anyone ask David Cameron to take part in TV debates – don't they know who he is?
The PM says he's done his best to ensure the debates take place, but all the other leaders keep getting in the way by agreeing to everything (Independent)
Quick Stephen! Post anything!! 666 posts - it's him!StephenDolan wrote:After a quick scan of the Scottish polling figures, Labour 2010 voters VI make interesting reading to me.
For the GE
C8, L48, Lib1, SNP41
For the Holyrood election
C8, L87, Lib1, SNP3
I only managed to catch the tail end of it but was impressed by most of what I saw and heard. I thought his answer on the cannabis question was a bit all over the place - although I appreciate that it's a "careful where you tread and don't get caught out" area. And the questioner was rather over-strident and perhaps rather subjective in her choice of facts.ErnstRemarx wrote:Saw the Ask Ed programme last night, and he was exactly what I thought he'd be - witty, quick thinking, principled and engaging. What's the betting the meeja won't be reporting that. Oh, and props to the majority of the audience - on the whole a good bunch.
He's posted 3 times! and stuck in rusbridger hell!ErnstRemarx wrote:Quick Stephen! Post anything!! 666 posts - it's him!StephenDolan wrote:After a quick scan of the Scottish polling figures, Labour 2010 voters VI make interesting reading to me.
For the GE
C8, L48, Lib1, SNP41
For the Holyrood election
C8, L87, Lib1, SNP3
When David Cameron ran for the leadership of my party he did so, and I supported him, because he defined himself as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
Throughout the last five years David Cameron has governed, and I have been privileged to support him, as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
And now David Cameron is campaigning, and I am proud to support him, to secure a majority for a modern, compassionate Conservative Government.
Right from the start of his David’s leadership we have outlined a vision of Government consistent with the principles Tim and Stephan have outlined - making the State both the guarantor of security and the emancipator of all.
David has argued consistently and passionately that this country benefits from a secure and well-resourced National Health Service funded from general taxation and available to all at the point of need. He has made clear that no part of that commitment will be diluted. David insisted educational opportunity should be extended and inequalities reduced - and demanded the comprehensive system be modernised to make it work, not overlooked in favour of alternatives. David also liberalised the party’s attitude towards development and ensured it was in favour of more housebuilding. And David inaugurated a programme of welfare reform designed to tackle poverty at source.
These early signals of intent demonstrated that David understood that in Government we would have to be reformers - with a specific mission to make opportunity more equal.
And that is what we have done.
Hmmm, from that it's obvious that folk are turning to UKIP because they are angry about Ed's kitchen and Jezza's suspension.ohsocynical wrote:Populus @PopulusPolls 18 mins18 minutes ago
Latest Populus VI: Lab 32 (-1), Con 29 (-3), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 18 (+3), Greens 6 (-), Others 7 (+1). Tables here:
http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/Voting-Intention-170/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
WelshIan wrote:Michael Gove's speech to the Legatum Institute this week, launching the Good Right initiative:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... bout-right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is he positioning himself for the leadership race after the election?
It's a long read, unfortunately I didn't finish it as I couldn't get past this bit.
When David Cameron ran for the leadership of my party he did so, and I supported him, because he defined himself as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
Throughout the last five years David Cameron has governed, and I have been privileged to support him, as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
And now David Cameron is campaigning, and I am proud to support him, to secure a majority for a modern, compassionate Conservative Government.
Right from the start of his David’s leadership we have outlined a vision of Government consistent with the principles Tim and Stephan have outlined - making the State both the guarantor of security and the emancipator of all.
David has argued consistently and passionately that this country benefits from a secure and well-resourced National Health Service funded from general taxation and available to all at the point of need. He has made clear that no part of that commitment will be diluted. David insisted educational opportunity should be extended and inequalities reduced - and demanded the comprehensive system be modernised to make it work, not overlooked in favour of alternatives. David also liberalised the party’s attitude towards development and ensured it was in favour of more housebuilding. And David inaugurated a programme of welfare reform designed to tackle poverty at source.
These early signals of intent demonstrated that David understood that in Government we would have to be reformers - with a specific mission to make opportunity more equal.
And that is what we have done.
And far too many 'Davids'.....WelshIan wrote:Michael Gove's speech to the Legatum Institute this week, launching the Good Right initiative:
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/20 ... bout-right" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Is he positioning himself for the leadership race after the election?
It's a long read, unfortunately I didn't finish it as I couldn't get past this bit.
When David Cameron ran for the leadership of my party he did so, and I supported him, because he defined himself as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
Throughout the last five years David Cameron has governed, and I have been privileged to support him, as a modern, compassionate Conservative.
And now David Cameron is campaigning, and I am proud to support him, to secure a majority for a modern, compassionate Conservative Government.
Right from the start of his David’s leadership we have outlined a vision of Government consistent with the principles Tim and Stephan have outlined - making the State both the guarantor of security and the emancipator of all.
David has argued consistently and passionately that this country benefits from a secure and well-resourced National Health Service funded from general taxation and available to all at the point of need. He has made clear that no part of that commitment will be diluted. David insisted educational opportunity should be extended and inequalities reduced - and demanded the comprehensive system be modernised to make it work, not overlooked in favour of alternatives. David also liberalised the party’s attitude towards development and ensured it was in favour of more housebuilding. And David inaugurated a programme of welfare reform designed to tackle poverty at source.
These early signals of intent demonstrated that David understood that in Government we would have to be reformers - with a specific mission to make opportunity more equal.
And that is what we have done.
Not this time. He's had the dreaded face at least three times....PaulfromYorkshire wrote:No it changes all your icons in all your posts. Post quick Stephen.
I notice in NicholArse Twatts piece on Gove in the Guardian he claims the Tories are finally pulling ahead of Labour in the polls. It is like they create a narrative and fail to notice when the facts don't follow it.frightful_oik wrote:Hmmm, from that it's obvious that folk are turning to UKIP because they are angry about Ed's kitchen and Jezza's suspension.ohsocynical wrote:Populus @PopulusPolls 18 mins18 minutes ago
Latest Populus VI: Lab 32 (-1), Con 29 (-3), LD 8 (-1), UKIP 18 (+3), Greens 6 (-), Others 7 (+1). Tables here:
http://www.populus.co.uk/Poll/Voting-Intention-170/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; …
Probably because that's what it isohsocynical wrote: It's like reading badly written fiction...
It was a bit messy, wasn't it? I'm not sure it did him any harm though. Despite clearly being thrown by the question and not particularly prepared, he still showed a willingness to engage and be open and honest in his response. If anything, he came across as having never really given the subject of cannabis much thought, which is probably better from the young person's perspective than someone with a hardline attitude to it!PorFavor wrote:I only managed to catch the tail end of it but was impressed by most of what I saw and heard. I thought his answer on the cannabis question was a bit all over the place - although I appreciate that it's a "careful where you tread and don't get caught out" area. And the questioner was rather over-strident and perhaps rather subjective in her choice of facts.ErnstRemarx wrote:Saw the Ask Ed programme last night, and he was exactly what I thought he'd be - witty, quick thinking, principled and engaging. What's the betting the meeja won't be reporting that. Oh, and props to the majority of the audience - on the whole a good bunch.
It is one of those questions you probably need to avoid answering.Willow904 wrote:It was a bit messy, wasn't it? I'm not sure it did him any harm though. Despite clearly being thrown by the question and not particularly prepared, he still showed a willingness to engage and be open and honest in his response. If anything, he came across as having never really given the subject of cannabis much thought, which is probably better from the young person's perspective than someone with a hardline attitude to it!PorFavor wrote:I only managed to catch the tail end of it but was impressed by most of what I saw and heard. I thought his answer on the cannabis question was a bit all over the place - although I appreciate that it's a "careful where you tread and don't get caught out" area. And the questioner was rather over-strident and perhaps rather subjective in her choice of facts.ErnstRemarx wrote:Saw the Ask Ed programme last night, and he was exactly what I thought he'd be - witty, quick thinking, principled and engaging. What's the betting the meeja won't be reporting that. Oh, and props to the majority of the audience - on the whole a good bunch.
No, I don't think it did him any harm, either. It's probably an issue that isn't at the top of his (or a lot of people's) list of priorities and is more something which needs to be, and may may well be, addressed in due course but not as a matter of great urgency.Willow904 wrote:It was a bit messy, wasn't it? I'm not sure it did him any harm though. Despite clearly being thrown by the question and not particularly prepared, he still showed a willingness to engage and be open and honest in his response. If anything, he came across as having never really given the subject of cannabis much thought, which is probably better from the young person's perspective than someone with a hardline attitude to it!PorFavor wrote:I only managed to catch the tail end of it but was impressed by most of what I saw and heard. I thought his answer on the cannabis question was a bit all over the place - although I appreciate that it's a "careful where you tread and don't get caught out" area. And the questioner was rather over-strident and perhaps rather subjective in her choice of facts.ErnstRemarx wrote:Saw the Ask Ed programme last night, and he was exactly what I thought he'd be - witty, quick thinking, principled and engaging. What's the betting the meeja won't be reporting that. Oh, and props to the majority of the audience - on the whole a good bunch.
PorFavor wrote:No, I don't think it did him any harm, either. It's probably an issue that isn't at the top of his (or a lot of people's) list of priorities and is more something which needs to be, and may may well be, addressed in due course but not as a matter of great urgency.Willow904 wrote:It was a bit messy, wasn't it? I'm not sure it did him any harm though. Despite clearly being thrown by the question and not particularly prepared, he still showed a willingness to engage and be open and honest in his response. If anything, he came across as having never really given the subject of cannabis much thought, which is probably better from the young person's perspective than someone with a hardline attitude to it!PorFavor wrote: I only managed to catch the tail end of it but was impressed by most of what I saw and heard. I thought his answer on the cannabis question was a bit all over the place - although I appreciate that it's a "careful where you tread and don't get caught out" area. And the questioner was rather over-strident and perhaps rather subjective in her choice of facts.
PorFavor wrote:
Edited to add a "be"
But how old are you? Get to my and Mr Ohso's age, and you find friends who've been a wee bit heavy handed since their teens have fried their brains. Not all of them, but enough to make us glad we didn't dabble.mikems wrote:'doing large amounts of the stuff makes you stupid.'
ahem...not in my experience.