DEM not gonna CON dis NATION: Rolling UK politics in the short-lived post-Murdoch era

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (5796 of them)

80s revival complete then.

Meanwhile:

A government minister has claimed that opposition to proposed planning law reforms is driven by "left-wingers" within pressure groups "picking a fight with the Government".

Organisations like the National Trust and the Council for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE) have spoken out against the planned changes.

The National Trust has signalled its "grave concerns" over the planning reforms, warning that the proposed changes "could lead to unchecked and damaging development in the undesignated countryside on a scale not seen since the 1930s".

And the CPRE has warned that the planning system is "under attack from the Government's planning reforms", which would lead to the protection of precious countryside being "seriously weakened". The reforms are designed to streamline the rules surrounding new developments, cutting the current 1,300 pages of national planning policy to just 52. Councils will be told there should be a "presumption for development".

The CPRE has warned that the changes represent "the biggest shake-up of planning for over 50 years" and will "place the countryside under increasing threat and leave local communities and planning authorities largely powerless in the face of developer pressure".

Asked about opposition to the changes, planning minister Bob Neill told the Daily Telegraph: "This is a carefully choreographed smear campaign by left-wingers based within the national headquarters of pressure groups. This is more about a small number of interest groups trying to justify their own existence, going out of their way by picking a fight with Government."

First that one dude wants to abolish maternity rights, now this guy thinks the National Trust are Marxist insurgents. Shaping up to be one of the great Tory governments.

i'm sorry for whatever (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 7 August 2011 07:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

lol Nick Cohen

James Mitchell, Sunday, 7 August 2011 07:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

haha yeah

caek, Sunday, 7 August 2011 07:55 (3 years ago) Permalink

events dear boy, events

Neil S, Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:18 (3 years ago) Permalink

lol poor nick cohen, i kind of feel for him (but not that much cuz it was a dumb argument to be making in the first place)

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

like, nothing about this should remotely come as a surprise.

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

not sure this riot is about the_recession tbf

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:28 (3 years ago) Permalink

obvi i can see laurie penny or paul mason saying it is...

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:31 (3 years ago) Permalink

not sure this riot is about the_recession tbf

think we can file this one under broken britain

(oboe interlude) (schlump), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:32 (3 years ago) Permalink

p interested in the backstory about the incident in which the guy got shot; like potentially another roaring PR success for the police?

(oboe interlude) (schlump), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

people are out there fighting to bring about a new socio-political order and you're here quibbling. for shame.

i'm sorry for whatever (Noodle Vague), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:33 (3 years ago) Permalink

i still don't know what it's ~about~, i wasn't there and there seems to be a lot of...agenda projection going on. but it's not a surprise that kids who don't have much, and who don't have much to do, both of which have been exacerbated of late, and who have been seeing rioting and/or protesting become a possible action, an option to vent their anger (whatever this anger is actually based on), will do this.

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:36 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm not shedding too many tears for owners of e.g. PC World, but then on the other hand having your already poverty-stricken neighbourhood trashed by looting doesn't sound much fun. All the predictable Twitter schadenfreude is pretty disgusting too.

Neil S, Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:38 (3 years ago) Permalink

I'm watching the news right now and the BBC just finished interviewing an excellent youth worker called Symon who pointed out the difference between 'remembering long-ago events' eg Broadwater Farm and the 'collective memory' experienced by the locals. He also explained it all kicked off when a 16-year-old girl got truncheoned by the cops at the vigil held by the dead man's family, which media are trying to bump back to 'rumours'.

Also SMH at the media's use of the term 'community leader' as I've never, ever known it to be applied to a white person.

murdoch most foul (suzy), Sunday, 7 August 2011 09:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

Recessions in popular memory mean 3 million or more out of work. Britain's unemployment figures have remained low.

ok this is a pretty fuckin' weird statement from cohen. official unemployment is about two and a half million. that's not low, it's scandalous, probably the biggest standing condemnation of british policy-makers and business elite going.

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 10:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

Can't believe Nick Cohen would write fatuous bullshit....

Matt DC, Sunday, 7 August 2011 10:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

At Wood Green now. Targets were carefully selected for economic value - phones, cosmetics, etc. One exception was Brook Brothers employment agency which had its windows smashed in. Not sure what significance that may have.

Slice Me Nice (ShariVari), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

what dyou mean? by any of that?

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

(they 'carefully selected' a shop beneath where one of my fbook friends lives; she was evacuated and the street is still off-limits.)

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:16 (3 years ago) Permalink

Apologies if it wasn't clear, i was posting via Blackberry earlier. The shops that were targeted for looting / damage were the ones where people could carry away large amounts of high-value goods relatively easily (Carphone Warehouse, Body Shop, Vision Express, etc). The only notable exception i saw that was pure property damage with no obvious financial motive was Brook Brothers. I'm not sure whether that was a deliberate thing (objecting to the lack of suitable jobs in the area and the attitude of the company in question) or whether it was random. Not a lot else looked random.

Slice Me Nice (ShariVari), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

well, just cos it's opportunistic doesn't mean people aren't going to have an eye for the main chance.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:32 (3 years ago) Permalink

acc to a sociological paper i read a while back, the only disturbances where you see properly random property damage are drunken post-sports-victory celebrations.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

it's sort of hard not to hit your 'target' when the target is 'the political and economic system we live under'

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:40 (3 years ago) Permalink

(their data was from US newspapers between the 1960s and 2000s, criteria for 'disturbance' were iirc numbers over a dozen, police presence.)

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:41 (3 years ago) Permalink

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:44 (3 years ago) Permalink

Surprising lack of people wanking themselves into a frenzy about how cool it all is, unlike the Bristol riots a couple of months ago. A bit too close to home for the insurrection tourists, perhaps?

50,000 raspberries with the face of Peter Ndlovu (aldo), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:47 (3 years ago) Permalink

I think past a certain level it's difficult to call what is and isn't a "random" act of destruction - what might at the start be targeted can slip way out of control as a kind of chaotic momentum takes hold.

Matt DC, Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:49 (3 years ago) Permalink

not sure this riot is about the_recession tbf

Pretty sure it doesn't help the situation much. Welcome to Tory Britain, Thatcherkids!

R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:52 (3 years ago) Permalink

Surprising lack of people wanking themselves into a frenzy about how cool it all is, unlike the Bristol riots a couple of months ago. A bit too close to home for the insurrection tourists, perhaps?

― 50,000 raspberries with the face of Peter Ndlovu (aldo), Sunday, August 7, 2011 12:47 PM (6 minutes ago) Bookmark

jodymcintyre Jody McIntyre
Be inspired by the scenes in #tottenham, and rise up in your own neighbourhood. 100 people in every area = the way we can beat the feds.
14 hours ago

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:54 (3 years ago) Permalink

Weirdly, the lead clip Sky was using appeared to show a whole bunch of Orthodox Jewish geezers either running to or from the riot

R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 August 2011 11:55 (3 years ago) Permalink

ugh stfu jody mcintyre

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:08 (3 years ago) Permalink

it's not a surprise that kids who don't have much, and who don't have much to do, both of which have been exacerbated of late, and who have been seeing rioting and/or protesting become a possible action, an option to vent their anger (whatever this anger is actually based on), will do this.

this is otm imo - it may not be 'about' the_recession but we are currently in a situation in which protest-becomes-riot has become an available part of the repertoire, and i do think that's related to the_recession and the current govt's economic/social policies and how people have so far reacted to them.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:10 (3 years ago) Permalink

isn't this riot because the police shot someone?

caek, Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:12 (3 years ago) Permalink

Yes. It's really that simnple. No need to analyse it further. Let's not worry orurselves over it.

R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:13 (3 years ago) Permalink

the protest was because the police shot someone. the fact that is became a riot might have more complex causation.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

the fact that it became a riot, i mean.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:19 (3 years ago) Permalink

well yes. but the more complex causation seems to more to do with how the protest was handled on the ground, rather than s&p downgrading US debt to AA+ or the murdoch stuff.

i'm not watching the uk news at the moment, so this could be bollocks but my impression from reading the papers is this riot would have happened if the shooting was in 2008 or 1997 or whenever. not true?

caek, Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:21 (3 years ago) Permalink

absolutely not saying it's unimportant by the way. the metropolitan police are the most disgusting savages imo.

caek, Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:23 (3 years ago) Permalink

Maybe (xp)

R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:24 (3 years ago) Permalink

i'm not watching the uk news at the moment, so this could be bollocks but my impression from reading the papers is this riot would have happened if the shooting was in 2008 or 1997 or whenever. not true?

no-one has enough facts yet imho. it's not like life on a tottenham estate was rosy in either of those years. but i would maybe venture that the police have become progressive more aggressive and insensitive over time. but so far the only voices i've heard have been from middle-class commentators.

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

but so far the only voices i've heard have been from middle-class commentators.

Uh, just saw a minister from the local area giving not so much an interview as a tub-thumping sermon to a reporter, his voice getting louder as he went on, I think if I'd opened my window I might have heard his voice

R. Stornoway (Tom D.), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:34 (3 years ago) Permalink

Friends and family of the shooting victim (shot by CO19 cops) went to protest peacefully at the station; they also hoped to 'get some answers'. Altercations began after a 16 year old girl who approached the police was truncheoned by an officer. In my opinion, there will always be flare-ups when police are seen to be violent and dismissive of ordinary people's concerns. Whether these incidents spiral out into actual riots depends on a huge set of circumstances, but the fear and insecurity we're all feeling at the moment must be exponentially worse for people who are poor and judged as worthless by leaders who condescend to them.

murdoch most foul (suzy), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:39 (3 years ago) Permalink

that sounds plausible. its the clobbering a teenage girl part -- taking it at face-value -- that has the hallmark of the met.

i don't think it's wise to weigh in on the shooting/demand for answers part.

sarahel hath no fury (history mayne), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:45 (3 years ago) Permalink

hatred of the police is a universal constant so i think caek otm up there

Once Were Moderators (DG), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:57 (3 years ago) Permalink

^^^the shooting details I'm referencing come from reports published in the Guardian papers - the NE London local newspaper group, not the Grauniad - before last night's events.

murdoch most foul (suzy), Sunday, 7 August 2011 12:59 (3 years ago) Permalink

Perfect storm of poisonous factors I think. This could easily have happened under Labour's watch but I'm not sure the conditions were as ripe for something to ignite as they are right now.

Matt DC, Sunday, 7 August 2011 13:02 (3 years ago) Permalink

i think this guardian piece was prescient and important http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/jul/29/gang-violence-rises-as-councils-cut-youth-services

lex pretend, Sunday, 7 August 2011 13:22 (3 years ago) Permalink

my impression from reading the papers is this riot would have happened if the shooting was in 2008 or 1997 or whenever. not true?

have there not been similar police shootings in the past five years? i assumed that there would have been.

those facts at that point were still in the future (c sharp major), Sunday, 7 August 2011 13:27 (3 years ago) Permalink

The narrative has been that the guy was well respected on the estate and not normally associated with violence. How much of that is true, it's difficult to say, but it seems to have added something to the protests and subsequent rioting.

It's difficult to ignore the economic / social backdrop to the events, and they're likely to get worse over the next couple of years, but there's a danger in romanticising the period between 1997 and 2010. There were progressive steps forward in policing and, to a degree, in job creation, but the whole area has always been poverty-stricken and marginalised. As with 1985, if this is an expression of a broader anger, it's not one that started bubbling up when share prices started to fall.

Slice Me Nice (ShariVari), Sunday, 7 August 2011 14:05 (3 years ago) Permalink

The narrative has been that the guy was well respected on the estate and not normally associated with violence.

also (according to tha intarnet) he was arrested then executed on the spot, a claim which i am sceptical of but wonder how widespread it is IRL

Once Were Moderators (DG), Sunday, 7 August 2011 14:13 (3 years ago) Permalink


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.