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

Love this hate-stirring thing on immigrants and benefits in the Telegraph by Damian Green and Chris Grayling. Amazing appearance on Today too.

yeah, john humph was pretty full-on re: actual amount of migrants cheating benefits schemes being 180 people... and all grayling could do was repeat his figures, which only damn him even further.

Grayling is an idiot, I'm surprised he's lasted as long as he has.

the tories mo on the today programme atm is hilariously predictable - do not be interrupted, spout yr bullshit and remember to say "we've only been in power for 18 months" and "we inherited this from the previous govt". marvellous how natural the phrase "we inherited this" comes to these fucks, its as if they've been saying it their whole lives.

Labour picked a brilliant time to decide they were in favour of capping benefits after all, didn't they? Useless cunts.

Labour party's dead man, let it go

christ how has THIS happened?
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/23/david-cameron-soars-in-poll

david cameron sours in pool

Only thing I'm holding on to is the hope that when the consequences of all this Tory bullshit become evident the support will collapse. I'm sure that's going to happen with the supposed 80% in favour of the benefit cuts. I don't think people have clocked yet that these really Tories and so the safety limits of the Labour days are gone.

That's why when I pick fights on Facebook with people going "yes, good stuff, cap those benefit scroungers, how do they even get to 26k anyway?!" you find their support vanishes when you explain what it *actually* means. Stuff like putting 500,000 more kids into poverty; stuff like hammering people who have literally just lost their jobs; stuff that they thought would be so self-evidently bad that they assumed nobody would try to do.

I guess that's the crux of it. 80% are in favour of "cuts in benefit (except the obviously mean and vicious stuff that nobody would do)", not realising that what they're actually getting is "all the mean, vicious and petty stuff we can dream up, and then some."

And I hadn't realised quite how much of a cunt IDS is until his pitiful "you can't ring fence child benefit, if we can't cut that there's no point having a cap at all!" mewling after the Lords defeat.

i have a horrible feeling that most of the families about to be destroyed by benefit cuts don't vote. i'm certain that the kids don't.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a6EYhVwPqCQ

Even the BBC are rippin' the pish out of Ed now

Kind of a shitty move this, if you ask me

eh? why? fuck that guy. Also: he really dug that knighthood.

Fuck knighthoods.

People on Twitter predictably complaining about how it's just a gesture and it's no substitute for tighter regulation, etc. Well obviously, but it's a sad day when you can't enjoy the symbolic humiliation of a prize arsehole.

Not really sure government should be in the business of humiliation, tbh.

they giveth; they must taketh away

http://cdn.stripersonline.com/9/9e/9e30f127_Fredo.jpg

L-R: Goodwin, HM Gov

http://cdn.stripersonline.com/9/9e/9e30f127_Fredo.jpg

Not really sure government should be in the business of humiliation, tbh.

i hate to break character and everything, but if humiliation is good enough for those on welfare........

Not really sure government should be in the business of humiliation, tbh.

Don't see why not. If they're in the business of bestowing honours then they're in the business of removing them.

Yeah, I don't think they should be in the business of bestowing honours either.

Honestly, I could give a shit about Fred Goodwin but I what I really resent is that this non-story, this "symbolic humiliation", ended up dominating the news yesterday, when genuinely newsworthy stuff was happening and getting pushed down the running order, or out of it entirely.

an annual Dishonours list with public noms cd only make this a better nation

suggest nob

flag nob, shurely?

Yeah, I don't think they should be in the business of bestowing honours either.

Of course. And while we're at it let's strip knighthoods from and block future knighthoods for every arsehole involved in the banking crash and not just media bogeyman, Fred the Shred, so no honours for Gordon Brown for a start (I think we can all get behind that one).

OK, so there's Cameron and Osborne, cooling their heels in Switzerland with a bunch of Johnny Foreigners who don't want to talk to them anyway, meanwhile "Red" Ed Miliband is running riot, breaking the habit of a political lifetime, by actually scoring some goals in empty nets: on Hester's bonus; on getting a Parliamentary vote on the bonus. Solution: let's hang out Fred Goodwin to dry - I mean even the proles have heard of him - and kid on that we hate the bankers as much as the Labour Party are kidding on they hate the bankers. That's politics!

What I really resent is that this non-story, this "symbolic humiliation", ended up dominating the news yesterday, when genuinely newsworthy stuff was happening and getting pushed down the running order, or out of it entirely.

But this happens all the time. You could say that about the news on any given day. I'm not sure this incident is as irrelevant as you think and I don't think people are stupid enough to think that this draws a line under the financial crisis and nothing more needs to be done. The fact that the business and banking communities appear genuinely rattled and are wailing about "mob rule" suggests that it does have some impact, however limited and symbolic.

"ant-business hysteria" won't someone please think of the poor businessmen!

Well that's what the Tories usually tell us, they've modified it slightly to 'except this one over here who was knighted by those Labour bastards, mind the straw'

I wonder what the reaction would have been if the committee had decided not to strip him of the knighthood. Would people be applauding them for not distracting the nation with symbolic scapegoating? Or would they be furious that even this small gesture towards censure of the bankers had been resisted?

I'm pretty sure if the committee that no-one knew about and never convenes did not convene and decide anything, no one would have noticed.

You could say that about the news on any given day.

Totally. And I do.

I'm not sure this incident is as irrelevant as you think and I don't think people are stupid enough to think that this draws a line under the financial crisis and nothing more needs to be done.

You're possibly right about the first bit and while I would agree with you that people aren't stupid, I have my doubts that the government would, or that they feel under any pressure to make the systemic changes that people want to see. It's not like there's any political pressure to do so, is there?

I'm sure the last lot were just as bad but it really does seem like this government is obsessed with firing out pitiful, populist policies that are easy to understand and designed to grab media attention but which will ultimately go nowhere and make fuck all difference to anyone.

I wouldn't give a fuck personally, fuck a knighthood either way (xxp) And, yes, this is just grubby populism prompted by Miliband kicking up a stink about Stephen Hester and getting a few good write-ups as a result, it's got Osborne's fingerprints all over it

With this government I would actually prefer a bit of grubby populism to the bullish conservative dogma they run on the rest of the time. Short of them resigning en masse I'm happy to see them bow to public anger every now and then. And I disagree about there not being any political pressure to make systemic changes. Public outrage clearly isn't going away and though I wonder if Will Hutton's being too optimistic when he calls this a "turning point" I don't see this as the end of the process at all.

I don't mind them bowing to public anger every now and again, I would just prefer if they were to do so over things that are actually meaningful rather than tokenistic, with the intention of making a substantive difference rather than just placating the proles.

Public outrage clearly isn't going away

Really? I see angry Guardian columnists and pundits on TV but little evidence of the public being anything but exhausted. Maybe that's the point idk. Anyway, I hope you (and Will Hutton) are right but even I, having spent a lot of time at Occupy, feel a bit defeated.

I've spent a bit of time at Occupy and I'm prepared to admit that I'm drawn towards optimism because the alternative — as I constantly see on Twitter — is grinding impotent rage. There are some very clever, very principled people on the left who depress the fuck out of me because everything short of full-scale reform (or revolution in some cases) strikes them as worthless. I just can't function like that. Doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong.

The party of family values.

I've spent a bit of time at Occupy and I'm prepared to admit that I'm drawn towards optimism because the alternative — as I constantly see on Twitter — is grinding impotent rage. There are some very clever, very principled people on the left who depress the fuck out of me because everything short of full-scale reform (or revolution in some cases) strikes them as worthless. I just can't function like that. Doesn't mean I'm right and they're wrong.

I think you're much more likely to be right than they are, in that it seems like you'd be satisfied with a system even a little fairer than the one we've got. I would too. But the thing is, while I'd be satisfied with modest system improvements they still have to be real, rather than symbolic, making an actual difference rather than a superficial one with a purpose beyond propping up the polls. I'm just not seeing anything even close to that.

I was feeling pretty optimistic about Occupy as well and have attended some great talks and met some really interesting people at the BofI and St Paul's, but step into the real world and no one's interested. Real people are fatigued by life or just pre-occupied with it, while the politicians don't seem to give a fuck. Despite the size of the constituency (in terms of people) they represent, they still seem to be ignorable. Because, it seems, there's no money there. Has Cameron, Clegg, Boris or even EMilli paid them a visit?

I'm not saying it's all futile but I do understand why others would think that it is.

Despite the size of the constituency (in terms of people) they represent, they still seem to be ignorable

What constituency are you talking about it? I'm glad you got something out of Occupy, but I went down there and the first thing I saw has a guy pattering away on some bongoes while another guy blew down a didgeridoo and I thought, "That's it, I'm outta here".

it's not the futility, it's the way the "slight improvements" disguise and protect the relentless destruction carried on by Capital and its fanclub that drags us to despair in the end

^^^^^

Yeah, I completely agree. Whether it's last week's who-gives-a-shit banker bonus or Fred Goodwin's peerage, it all seems to be a grand distraction from the actual things that they're doing that are massively against the public interest. Wouldn't have thought Cameron was a PR man, would you?

I can understand that the hedger/hippie/professional protester aspect of occupy can be a bit off-putting but I've been to some really interesting discussions on things like off-shore banking and corporate interests in politics as well - nothing you can't exactly get out of Private Eye but still. The MO of the whole thing is really straightforward and the constituency, as I see it, is made up of anyone frustrated with the rank unfairness of a political and corporate system that serves the few over the many. The 99% message really resonates with me in that way.

But as prominent as it's been - how much more visible can you get than the steps of St Paul's? - it's still achieved nothing and will, sooner or later go away. Apathy really is just easier.

I can understand that the hedger/hippie/professional protester aspect of occupy can be a bit off-putting

It's not very admirable I know but I kinda hate hippies more than bankers really

Yeah, I get that. I have several friends in banking and none in "campaigning", if that's something you can actually be "in".

When I went to Sussex I absolutely abhorred the whiteboy dreadlock culture that infected the place. This guy, for example, was in my year and commonly known as "Ketamine Dan". http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7520401.stm. He ended up the President of the SU. Maybe Occupy isn't different to that and I've just become a bit more tolerant as a result of reduced exposure, but it does seem like a superior, smarter - cleaner if you like - level of protest. Or maybe just more important idk.

I don't get that at all. Fucking hell, man.

I don't think Occupy has "achieved nothing" - it's prompted a debate, politicians now feel they have to talk about "responsible capitalism", mutual ownership, and so forth, even if they're doing so completely insincerely.

So it has achieved increased level of cynical lip service from politicians? Good job Occupiers.

Insincere discussion is still better than no discussion at all IMO. It's like the environment, it's evidence of attitudes becoming more mainstream. Even if today's politicians are only paying lip service, the next generation may have to take these issues more seriously.

Of course, like the environment it's something that the public in general may be happy to have opinions about until they're actually required to give something up.