1 Comment May 10th, 2008 by ThunderDragon
The by-election in Crewe and Nantwich to be held on 22nd May is not a referendum on this Labour government or Gordon Brown. By-elections are held in tiny little areas, and to cast them as being any more than extremely vague indicators of national preferences and feelings is way overplaying their significance. If Edward Timpson wins for the Conservatives, or Tamsin Dunwoody wins for Labour, or even if Elizabeth Shenton wins for the Lib Dems it is not a referendum on any sort of real national significance.
Especially when we just had an election on a significantly more national scale. If anything is a referendum on Labour and Brown, that was it - and they lost, badly.
If this by-election to be fought online, then the Conservatives have won, with the Crewe and Nantwich Conservatives by-election website being far superior both in design and content to the Labour and Lib Dem ones.
One thing is certain, though: you don’t have to pay much attention to the by-election in Crewe and Nantwich to see rank hypocrisy in action. Just look at this webpage and then this one. One saying “Don’t be conned by Tory Boy Timpson” and the other proclaiming “She’s a Dunwoody”. Just showing which party is the one with the hereditary, rather than meritocratic, principles.
The class-war approach is old hat, not top hat - and backfiring.
UPDATE: UK Polling Report, Iain Dale, and Guido Fawkes have a poll that reports the Conservatives are on course to win this by-election: Con 43, Lab 39, Lib Dem 16. Iain Dale also says that he has been told that the “election figures were adjusted downwards to take account of large number of Labour don’t knows. If they stayed at home on polling day, the Tories would win by 13 points.” Good times. But will they last?
Hat-tip to Quaequam Blog! for the Tory-toff/hereditary MP hypocrisy.
Add a comment September 19th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
… and another for the rest of us.
Labour deputy leader Harriet Harman yesterday dodged a court appearance to answer speeding charges.
Despite failing to pay a fixed penalty charge in time, she was fined just £60 and given three points on her licence.
In similar cases, magistrates have handed out £1,000 fines and issued three additional points…
[O]utraged motoring groups said there seemed to be one law for politicians and another for ordinary drivers…
Miss Harman was caught on camera driving at 50mph through a temporary 40mph limit at roadworks on the A14 near Ipswich in April. (Daily Mail)
So just because she’s a minister she doesn’t have to obey the law like everyone else? If she has broken the law, she’s broken the law, and should be dealt with in exactly the same way as everyone else!
It is truly disgraceful that she should be allowed to get away with not paying any of the extra fine. The excuse that “she forgot to pay the fine because she was busy campaigning to become Gordon Brown’s deputy at the time” is nowhere near good enough. Everyone has busy periods in their lives, and they get charged the extra fine for not paying within the 28 day time frame.
That she got away with this is truly disgraceful and stinks of hypocrisy. The law must apply to everyone equally, whoever they may be, or there is no point in having it at all.
via Guthrum
Source: Daily Mail
Add a comment August 8th, 2007 by ThunderDragon
So, gambling adverts now to be allowed to be shown on TV. Even though there are various restrictions that are going to be applied to them - such as not before 9pm except during sporting fixtures - surely gambling is worse than, say, junk food, which is banned during children’s shows, on children’s TV channels, and on general entertainment programmes watched by a “higher than average” number of under-16 year olds? It is fair to mention, however, that in return for this, no gambling-related adverts are allowed to be printed children’s replica football shirts.
The new gambling advertising code can be read here. Some of them are simple, such as no adverts before 9pm, but “[a]dverts must not link gambling to seduction, sexual success or enhanced attractiveness”? Does this mean that only ugly people can be used to advertise gambling? The trade-off that James Purnell, the Culture Secretary, “won” between allowing gambling TV ads for the removal of gambling ads from children’s replica football shirts is absurd. Children certainly don’t care about whose advert is on they shirt, and they are far more likely to be affected by a pro-gambling TV ad.
It is hypocritical to ban one type of TV advert because it promotes something that is bad for the individual, and then let another that can ruin entire families be shown. Personally, I think there shouldn’t be all that much restriction on any non-pornographic adverts, or adverts for pornographic services. People aren’t completely stupid. They know that junk food can make you fat if eaten in excess, and that gambling is a mugs game.
Source: The Times
