As in one of your previous posts, it was declared (by himself) that David Cameron has “met a black man”. Shock horror! Put the flags out. He’s probably also once met a ‘member of the working classes’, too. Says it all.

A failing of Aylesbury council…also a failing of the locals to demonstrate that the EDL present a clear and present danger to breaching public safety.

All they had to do was to show recent EDL events lead to violence.

Luton council banned them due to the locals demanding and proving the risks, but I suspect the locals missed a trick here.

http://hotterthanapileofcurry.wordpress.com/

For every example of one party doing something despicable, it seems there’s a counter-example. When will politicians realise that people are fed up with this tit-for-tat criticism, with you pretending that your opponents are monsters?

See, for example, http://iaindale.blogspot.com/2010/04/hideously-white-libdem-candidates.html

“When will politicians realise that people are fed up with this tit-for-tat criticism, with you pretending that your opponents are monsters?”

Rolls eyes.

There’s an election on, and the parties are making as much noise as they can about what’s wrong with their competitors ? Oh my goodness, the monsters ! When will someone bring me my smelling-salts ? Are we irritated by rhetorical questions yet ?

But to answer it anyway – “probably never”.

Julian,

That’s politics.

Someone’s “tit” and another’s “tat”. The question for the citizens and electorate is, not whether one or the other ( i.e. wrongdoing) exists in all the parties – but, whether you approve of the “tit” or the “tat” and that determines and colours your politics.

The quest for power everywhere is not a nice, clean, and smooth path.

Exactly Richard, seems like a case of “do as I say, not as I do”.

Incidentally, I met a black man the other day, he was 50 but served in the Royal Navy for 55 years. Just incredible.

Julian

You have to forgive me. I just returned t the political camp I was brought up in after a brief absence, and I am having to retrain my visceral hatred of tories reflex

Oh come on; that doesn’t show that all Tories are rascists, just that some Tories are rascists. And we knew that.

Big tent part; David Cameron isn’t rascist, Aylesbury Council is. David Cameron isn’t a homophobe, all of his MPs who were in the house at the time Section 28 was passed are. David Cameron is an environmentalist, half his party deny the existence of climate change. David Cameron supports womens’ rights, David Cameron wants to take the abortion limit back to 20 weeks.

Massive tent.

So, the Lib Dem parliamentary party consists of whites only. I guess they should attract a number of Tory voters that way. Seriously, if I were a Tory or Nulab supporter, I would make capital of this. The LDs had better do something about this.

Watching the 2nd debate, did anyone else get the impression that Cameron was scowling disapprovingly at Clegg and Brown as if they were fags who had burnt his toast?

Is a transcript of the debates available? I would like to check my memory that Brown used to excess a rhetorical technique that is not on the whole a widely accepted “British value” – ie praise of himself (aka boasting). Blair also employed New Labour self-attribution of good points (“I’m a regular sort of a guy”) though with more finesse. But then New Labour was from the start Words as Deeds. Brown’s “Jobs, jobs, jobs” does not in itself create or save a single job.

Abe Rene

I am personally completely against discrimination even if disguised as positive. Candidates should be chosen on merit, irrespective of race, sex etc.

Craig,

In this exchange:-

“Abe Rene

I am personally completely against discrimination even if disguised as positive. Candidates should be chosen on merit, irrespective of race, sex etc.”

Here you are speaking to political selection of candidates.

The concept of “positive discrimination” falls within a broader historical context ( and I am sure that as a historian – Craig – you will agree) – that the fact of “candidate’s political selection on the basis of merit” ) should not exclude the other historically based socio-economic aspect of “positive dicrimination”. Therefore does the fact of historically based disadvantage – totally exclude the progressive concept of “positive discrimination”?

@Courtenay Barnett, “the progressive concept of’positive discrimination’”

It’s the same as “post-normal science”, a “progressive distortion” of paradigms and values that have hitherto served us well.

Do you have links for those two claims? Googling doesn’t completely support your presentation of events.