Bob Crow is brilliant. One of the best union leaders out there.
He gets the better of Paxo all the time as well. Chews him up.
He gets the better of Paxo all the time as well. Chews him up.
Politics at Westminster | BREAKING: UKIP
- Thread starter Team Brian GB
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
My word, David Starkey v George Galloway is pure gold.
Starkey: 'You could replace tube drivers with dummies."
Starkey: 'You could replace tube drivers with dummies."
I'm more than familiar with Starkey through his (frequently excellent) historical work but, really, they only have him on programmes like this because of his outspokenness, not because of any political expertise.
Starkey AND Galloway. Either one would be enough to give the programme a wide berth.
Apart from his history books, him in a political debate is horrible. He really borders on beyond retard when he speaks on tv.
I thought he'd been ditched after his "the whites have become black" bollocks during the riots. I suppose there's only a finite number of contrarians to cycle through.
If Paterson won't sack Lord Smith then the PM should step in damn well do it for him, the man must have some remarkable connections to still be in post at this point.
I don't even like calling him outspoken, what comes out of his mouth on things like Question Time is just drivel, its like he is only really on there for his drivelling messes that he comes out with. That whole whites have become black should have ended his tv career, can't believe we let people like him get away with it. Also as someone who loves history, and is currently doing a degree, people like him and Niall Ferguson are an embarrassment (even if Starkey is a much better historian than Ferguson).
Starkey's very interesting actually - he does occasionally go off on one, but he does make some original, well thought out points. The problem is that he's too intelligent for some people's taste. Last night, for example, he was speaking eloquently about the dangers of the blanket term of rape and the legal implications of it(a really important issue seldom raised) and the response to it was 'rape is rape, everyone knows that.' Great.
Even the white and black comments were massively misconstrued and taken out of context. He probably shouldn't have gone there though on a ten minute debate on Newsnight.
He's far from an 'embarrassment.' He's a fantastic historian and someone who actually thinks about things. I also love how he slags off the audience at any given opportunity, but then that's just me.
Even the white and black comments were massively misconstrued and taken out of context. He probably shouldn't have gone there though on a ten minute debate on Newsnight.
He's far from an 'embarrassment.' He's a fantastic historian and someone who actually thinks about things. I also love how he slags off the audience at any given opportunity, but then that's just me.
How was that taken out of context, he was basically saying street violence, crime etc is a black thing that has somehow influenced poor white folk into doing it.
No he wasn't. He was saying(according to my interpretation) that there was a perception among white people that there was a link between rap and black crime that seemed in some way to be something to which some white people aspired.
I mean, it's a tenuous point, but I don't think it was intended as a racist one.
He didn't. There is no link between rap and black crime, as there is no link between black crime and white crime. He is not talking about a perception, he is pushing that notion. He did not analyse it, he did not say he did not agree with it, he said it as a fact. When it is flat out not the case at all.
I'm going to rewatch it at some point - I've seen it twice and that was my perception.
Nevertheless, one bad interview probably doesn't undo years of great achievement.
It was completely and utterly stupid and racist. His 'thesis' was that white kids want to be gangsta like black kids and hence we have the riots.
I'm pretty sure it wasn't since it's out of keeping with literally everything else Starkey has said about society.
He's just a bit dramatic. Starting a sentence with 'Enoch Powell was right about one thing...' is never going to turn out well even if the following point is sensible.
Some particularly undignified refusals to accept any responsibility for the floods/government response on Fivelive tonight. From Labour's cessation of dredging and locally governed maintenance schemes, to the near indifference and lethargy of the coalition.
Miliband and his shadow minister for the environment might consider making an appearance when it is fo no immediate use apparently.
The communities dwon there have been failed by Westminster and the EA brass to a staggering degree.
The Chair of the select committee for EFRA hopes to establish a fund for public donations, perhaps with the assistance of the Bishop for Bath and Wells.
Miliband and his shadow minister for the environment might consider making an appearance when it is fo no immediate use apparently.
The communities dwon there have been failed by Westminster and the EA brass to a staggering degree.
The Chair of the select committee for EFRA hopes to establish a fund for public donations, perhaps with the assistance of the Bishop for Bath and Wells.
Blame soundly at Patterson's door surely? #deadduck.
If labour's policy of not dredging was wrong why didn't the new govt reverse the decision, what was the reason for stopping in the first place?
It doesn't take three years to dredge a river does it?
You have to feel for people who have been flooded out for weeks and weeks but if the rain keeps coming and it looks like it going to and you live on a flood plain what realistically can anyone do about it.
It doesn't take three years to dredge a river does it?
You have to feel for people who have been flooded out for weeks and weeks but if the rain keeps coming and it looks like it going to and you live on a flood plain what realistically can anyone do about it.
Throwing Lord Smith to the wolves would buy Paterson time although he hasn't been all that willing to pursue take such a step [he's been asking for it too]. The Secretary of State for DEFRA is a fairly recent appointee IIRC so i can't see Cameron rushing to oblige [the last reshuffle i think]
I strongly suspect that the present government chose to maintain the easier and more importantly cheaper option of leaving matters as they found them. It has been noted that the EA has increasingly placed an emphasis upon such concerns as biodiversity when determining policy, certainly that is believed to be the cause of some delay to repairs of flood defences near Dawlish.
We are in all likelihood encountering the results of a systemic failure here, a neglect of routine maintenance/procedures right across the board as opposed to some one-off fix.
It is probable that given such sustained inclement weather that a degree of flooding may well have occurred regardless, however with some areas having been safe for two centuries and obvious flaws in approach being cited, it is also reasonable to wonder at how minro events might have been if decisions had been otherwise.
Flood defences had suffered through underinvestment for many years, though the coalition made a notable increase in the budget in percentage terms the problem must exceed those funds still.
You just couldn't make it up.
I agree that Starkey is an interesting man to listen to, even if he does sometimes say things that are outright wrong (his comments on the riots were embarrassing). He usually puts a great deal of thought behind what he says and he isn't afraid to share an opinion that might upset people, which is rare. And you're right about the points he made on the legal implications of the increasingly vague definition of rape. The blanket and reductive use of words in political discourse is something that has really been bugging me lately, and when we're talking about this happening with legal terms, it's perhaps even more serious. It was refreshing to hear Starkey make his point, even though the braindead response that you mention was infuriating.
'he isn't afraid to share an opinion that might upset people, which is rare.'
No he's a wind-up kunt, a political Adrian Durham
No he's a wind-up kunt, a political Adrian Durham
Yeah that's not rare at all to be honest, plenty of people get their kicks from doing it (on all sides of the political spectrum).
The problem with the rivers is that we spent a lot of time trying to make them flow faster, straightening them out, and getting the water from the hills to the sea as quickly as possible. Only now it's turned out that that's the worst thing you can possibly do, and makes the flooding far worse.
Slowing down the flow in the rivers involves adding back in some of the kinks upstream, replanting trees, allowing the formation of some seasonal lakes upstream. Unfortunately most of that would impact on the subsidies paid to landowners, so it's not politically viable.
Dredging might be a short-term solution, but without sorting the upstream issues, you're just going to be throwing money at it for years and years without getting anywhere.
Correct lynchie, rivers used to have flood plains upstream which held water back after heavy rain. The Ribble still does, fortunately for me. Now a huge amount of farmland has been drained or deep-ploughed so the water goes straight into the rivers, and add a big increase in concreted areas too, that just drain straight off. Half the people complaining on telly have newish houses with lands and roads and shops and schools that drain straight away compared to the fields that were there before, and they are actually part of the problem themselves.
So "money is no object" when dealing with floods according to David Cameron. Would it be an object if the floods were in areas without a high concentration of Tory voters?
And what money anyway? I thought we were skint?
And what money anyway? I thought we were skint?
Yeah, this was pretty weird from Dave. I have no idea why hes bothered to say any of it. Money clearly is an object, and what is the extra money going to achieve that wouldn't be achieved anyway?
What would have been more useful would be to announce something.. like a £2 billion pound fund for those affected by flooding that cant go down the normal insurance route. Maybe he hasn't worked out what the amount will be, maybe he thought "money is no object" would sound better, or maybe he's just blabbing.
Why do the Somerset Levels flood? - Telegraph
Ah, that would explain their oh so rapid and effective response prior to when ministers found themselves getting yelled at by flooded out residents. Or maybe the indifference of Labour given that they would be unlikely to make gains in these constituencies.
It was but a throwaway comment that likely won't amount to much of practical use.
Ah, that would explain their oh so rapid and effective response prior to when ministers found themselves getting yelled at by flooded out residents. Or maybe the indifference of Labour given that they would be unlikely to make gains in these constituencies.
It was but a throwaway comment that likely won't amount to much of practical use.
Last edited:
I don't see how Harman's going to get out of this PIE link. The fact that Shami Chakrabarti has already apologised over the NCCL's involvement with them undermines her attempts to brush it off.
This PIE thing is straight out of TTOI.
I'm surprised the Mail didn't hold it back until closer to the election.
I'm surprised the Mail didn't hold it back until closer to the election.
It's an ongoing process to discredit Labour's hierarchy it started with Miliband s father now Harman no doubt others will follow .
Having said that she should have it was a mistake for her former organization to have anything to do with PIE.
The Mail labour bashing ,nothing to see here.
The Mail don't seem to do self-awareness, do they? The black-shirt supporting paper that brought you the 11-year-old "leggy beauty"...
Anyway, it's clearly a non-story that'll only play well with their existing readers, so it's hardly worthy of an election strategy.
Anyway, it's clearly a non-story that'll only play well with their existing readers, so it's hardly worthy of an election strategy.
I thought Laura Kuenssberg's Newsnight interview with Harman was awful. Regardless of whether Harman was right or wrong, there was no journalistic merit to the discussion at all, Kuenssberg thought she was playing Jenny Paxman to Harman's Michelle Howard, only rather than trying to get to a hidden fact of a story, she was focused on getting a cheap, unfelt on air apology for a portfolio reel money shot.
I don't quite see how forcing people into trite apologies helps anything or anyone but those calling for it? It's a very nuanced matter about a young lawyer working at a civil liberties organisation with an ideologically blanket, but possibly naive admissions policy. It needs discussion, and raises a lot of very interesting and important questions about the nature of civil liberties themselves (and specifically to what extent pedophies who don't act on their sickness deserve them) none of which are addressed by hounding people, Bill O'Reilly, style into making gun-to-the-head mea culpas at the beck and call of newspapers or TV presenters.
I don't quite see how forcing people into trite apologies helps anything or anyone but those calling for it? It's a very nuanced matter about a young lawyer working at a civil liberties organisation with an ideologically blanket, but possibly naive admissions policy. It needs discussion, and raises a lot of very interesting and important questions about the nature of civil liberties themselves (and specifically to what extent pedophies who don't act on their sickness deserve them) none of which are addressed by hounding people, Bill O'Reilly, style into making gun-to-the-head mea culpas at the beck and call of newspapers or TV presenters.
Last edited:
If someone polled pedophiles to see which paper arouses them most, I reckon the mail would win with little to no difficulty.
I do enjoy a well orchestrated smear campaign, paedophiles and Labour really is a match made in heaven for the Mail! I'm quite curious as to whether this will force a resignation, I suspect not at this point.
What does everyone think about the Rigby sentencing?
Having spent a day in the court, I for one am not remotely surprised by the sentences. Those two were completely remorseless.
Having spent a day in the court, I for one am not remotely surprised by the sentences. Those two were completely remorseless.
Think the sentences are appropriate given the violence of the crime and, as you point out, the complete lack of remorse. Aside from punishment for that crime alone, the lack of remorse implies they could easily kill again if set free.
Don't think those two could have expected any less of a sentence. The murder was as bad as it gets. Lack of remorse will have gained them a few extra years plus their danger to society is pretty high.