Frankly, the political establishment too often conducts debate in a way that insults the intelligence of the public.Yes, Ed said that yesterday. And he is spot on. He also said this:
We must change this for the good of the country.
Let's be honest, politics isn't working.Right again, Ed. Reward yourself with a garibaldi.
People have lost faith in politicians and politics.
And trust is gone.
Politics is basically broken.
Its practice, its reputation and its institutions.
Earlier, unfortunately, he had said this:
[...] we must be on the side of those who are dismayed by the undermining of the local pub with cut-price alcohol from supermarkets.OK, I'll wait a few seconds while you explete away.
Finished? Great. My turn, then.
Miliband, you hideous, self-promoting, shallow, hypocritical, business-hating, Marxist boggle-brained cunt, are you seriously insulting our intelligence (your words) by dismissing all other causes for the destruction of pubs in this country? You accept that Labour were wrong to go into Iraq; you accept that Labour were wrong in closing post offices; you accept that Labour were wrong to make policy on the back of swivel-eyed focus groups; you even accept that your party fucked up by overspending.
Yet you are quite incapable of admitting that your party's policies - exclusively - have destroyed pubs in this country, so instead try to shift the blame onto companies which have been doing exactly what they have always done ... offer value to your working class voters.
Even the most pro-smoking ban advocate in the hospitality industry will admit that the Health Act 2006 - which you and your stroppy fuckwitted poor loser of a brother voted for - has had an impact on pub closures. But you ignore all of that and blame someone else?
YOU were part of the problem, sunshine. In fact, it was on your party's watch that it happened wholescale. You weren't just not on the side of pubs, you were actively placing barriers in front of them.
Now you want to be their friend? Now you claim that you are the pub champion? You jest, surely.
See, the thing is, Ed, that the reason 'politics is broken'; why we have 'lost faith in politicians and politics'; why 'the trust is gone' in 'its practice, its reputation and its institutions' is precisely because of disgusting, two-faced, irresponsible, righteous-entranced gobshites such as you.
Fuck you, Ed, and the disgusting, ungrateful, commie shit you were spawned from.
12 comments:
Nail hit firmly on head there, Mr P.
And it just echoes the hypocritical shite his brother came out with.
“Politics is basically broken.”
Politics is fundamentally broken, Edmundo. That's why it should only be used as the very last resort.
But I don't expect the likes of you to understand that. So no doubt you'll try to “repair” it, giving us yet more desperate attempts to jury-rig some kind of societal Universal Machine out of it with those economic equivalents of gaffer tape and string, taxation and spending. As per usual.
Wouldn't it be nice if, just once, one of these political low-lives said they were going to do things differently and actually did?
I take it you're no fan of the new labour leader then Dick.
Oh so boring isn't it, the same nonsense pours forth from each and every one of them.
Well said.
“”[...] we must be on the side of those who are dismayed by the undermining of the local pub with cut-price alcohol from supermarkets.””
Unfortunately, DP, you do not say when and where Ed M said the above – you simply say ‘earlier’. What is ‘earlier’? Without knowing in what circumstances he said the above, it is hard to make a sensible comment. For example, the statement may have been specifically about the idea of a minimum price per unit of alcohol. If that were the case, then the above might be reasonable – apart from the fact that it is wrong and illogical.
I read EM’s speech in full (courtesy of your link). What struck me about it was that there was loads and loads of EMOTIONAL stuff and very little INTELLECTUAL stuff. But what do we expect? Is not politics all about emotion? How can it be otherwise? Politicians know next to nothing, in detail, about the matters on which they vote, and so their decisions must be based upon ‘like’ or ‘dislike’.
What has been terrifically revealing about the smoking ban has been the disconnection between REALITY (the minuscule effect of passive smoking) and the PERCEPTION propagandised by various bodies and people, and the willingness of many of The People to accept the propaganda. That is very frightening. The good thing about the ban (along with Climategate) is that more and more people, even non-smokers, are beginning to wake up. Emotional political speeches and emotional statements from local authority councillors are beginning to be queried.
It is unfortunately true that the MSM is also EMOTIONALLY based. The ‘Red Tops’ are all sex and violence and celebrity. Even the ‘quality’ papers cannot resist publicising extraordinary claims about medical breakthroughs. Emotion, emotion, emotion.
My personal opinion is that the smoking ban will be brought down only by THE SCIENCE. The science needs to concentrate on:
1. The MINUSCULE EFFECTS OF SECOND-HAND SMOKE (IF ANY).
2. THE LACK OF HARD EVIDENCE OF HARM FROM SECOND-HAND SMOKE.
As regards ‘first hand’ harm from smoking, it must be emphasised that people can decide for themselves.
Couple these objectives with the sheer stupidity of anti-smokers thinking (“Oh, the stink on my clothes!”), then there is the possibility of success in the reasonable short term.
Junican: He said it earlier in the same speech
Glorious stuff.
Anything to advance an agenda, eh Ed?
I agree with Junican. The AGW myth wasn't turned into a minority view amongst the public because the eco-tards are actually sociopathic, boggle-eyed communists who want to take your car and deny you foreign holidays. It was the shoddiness of the science AND that shoddiness being exposed in public. We have exactly the same evidence against the anti-loons - (appalling studies that make the AGW stuff look like the Theory of Relativity) as well as minutes of meetings where they "decide" that smoking must be made to look harmful (then they do), that it's "bad science" etc. The only difference is, this stuff is ignored by the mainstream media.
That's why I find FOREST so frustrating. It's all well and good saying that the latest anti-madness is "unfair" or "over the top." That's not good enough. The science is key in this fight.
Also, good points Dick. It shows how deeply ingrained the anti ideology is in mainstream politics. It seems bizarre that he is happy to accept the blame for a trillion pound deficit and is fine with taking the blame for an illegal war that has cost billions in cash and hundreds of thousands in lives. Yet even mentioning the smoking ban, when people were happily smoking in pubs only 36 months ago (and poll after poll still shows that more people want it repealed than kept), is utterly taboo.
Yet more fuel for my feeling that there is something far more to this ban than just smoking in pubs.
Mr A - I share your frustration. Simon is best placed to publicise that the science is shit, yet never does. I've asked why he doesn't but haven't received an answer.
Jay
Junican wrote: "My personal opinion is that the smoking ban will be brought down only by THE SCIENCE."
The science, such as it is, is perfectly clear: secondhand smoke poses no significant risk. But that's not reported. It "sends the wrong message". It's about managing perception, rather than honestly reporting the science. It's what George Godber wanted to do: to create the perception that SHS posed a health threat. These people are prepared to tell lies in order to further their aim, which is to make everybody stop smoking by hook or by crook.
And everybody (or anybody who is anybody) goes along with this lie. It's believed that it's a "good lie" or a "white lie". It's the same with Global Warming. The science there might not be much good either, but it's felt to be in a good cause, of reducing consumption in our consumer society. Just last week I was talking to someone about global warming's dodgy science, and she said exactly this.
Increasingly I think that it's the "good causes" that need to be questioned. In the case of global warming, the good cause is cutting consumption, because we're all too greedy and acquisitive. This is unquestioned dogma for many people. But if consumption is cut, the economy must go into recession, if not outright depression. And nobody wants that. And yet what else can be the result of strangling the economy with bans and restrictions and limits? With one hand these people are causing what their other hand is trying to avert.
The same applies to smoking and drinking and pubs. Ban smoking, and restrict alcohol, and pubs and clubs start closing. That adds to the recessional pressures, of course.
Is it any wonder that we're now in the longest and deepest recession for over 50 years? But, y'know, It's All In A Good Cause.
It's the underlying values that need to be addressed.
Dick,
I thought you were a bit on the
easy side with Eddy boy.
I'lle just have to look through
my Sacred College(Inquisition)
handbook (1494-1546)for a more concise defamation of this
Anti Christ.
Something gritty one might add.
A silent street
Post a Comment