Your are viewing a read-only archive of the old DiS boards. Please hit the Community button above to engage with the DiS !
I found it interesting anyway.
So I'm not going to read it.
i cant read it. work bans blogs. and i cant read.
but once in a while he makes an interesting argument. This is one.
but i dont get involved in politics threads
Mostly because you don't have to see his stupid pantomime-esque gestures, and the way... he delivers... the end of every piece....
(That was my Nick Robinson impression. Thanks)
I read this earlier though, it is pretty interesting. 'British Jobs for British People' is certainly not the most centre-left sounding phrase ever.
There was a specific and valid reason. I've forgotten though.
It's simpler than that. Crude demagogery on issues like this, fills up the day's papers with soundbytes and shallow statements. Meanwhile the government can get on with the job of actually running the country (i.e. just maintaining systems and processes that already work).
A year from now, one columnist will ask what happened to the thing about forcing immigrants to speak English and there'll be a week of fighting before someone realises that immigrants generally go about learning English from the moment they step off the boat.
You can repeat that for everything else you read from any politician.
The only real contribution any opposition party can make nowadays is to use the awesome power of PR to pursuade voters that voting for them will make any positive difference in how the country is actually run.
'A year from now, one columnist will ask what happened to the thing about forcing immigrants to speak English and there'll be a week of fighting before someone realises that immigrants generally go about learning English from the moment they step off the boat.'
Yup. And people generally forget that Gordon's way of achieving his aim is to... end free English lessons for immigrants?
It is all hot air, and populist hot air at that.
made the same point a good 3 hours before Nick Robinson's blog was posted. It's not that 'in depth' a comment really.
It's 3 short paragraphs so how in-depth could it be?
But, whether he was the first person to say it or not, it does identify a hypocritical approach which maybe many of us are guilty of to an extent.
and he's bang on.
This is what happens when two parties fight for identical ground - political comment defaults to 'traditional' views of each party. Labour DID have problems with hardline policies under previous Home Secretaries, but mainly because of Tony Blair's inherent dishonesty and inconsistency as a leader - nobody knew whether Labour wanted to take an inclusive approach to immigration or a hard-line one, with David Blunkett and Charles Clarke both being accused of 'lurching to the right' on immigration on several occasions.
Now that David Cameron is Blair's replacement in terms of inconsistency and dishonesty, and that Gordon Brown is generally thought to be more down-to-earth in his approach to Government than Blair ever was (with Jacqui Smith also perceived as having made a solid start in the Home Office), we have the focus, and the snipers, shifting to Cameron.
It's a pretty simple argument and makes a very good case for spin-free, policy-driven government - as opposed to charismatic, power-tripping idiots who don't know their arse from their elbow, which is what Britain has had to suffer for the past 10 years. If you don't have any policies to start with, the press are going to be sensitive to any move you make.
Lurch to the right
here i am
stuck in the middle with you