大象传媒

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

THE CAMERON BRAND - NOT COALITION CREDIT

I am noticing Dave's name is on all Conservative ministerial lips, regarding initiatives, going forward. This rather sidelines Nicotine Nick does it not? Yet he and Dave are 'like that' surely?

I remember Tony was leaked as requesting 'high profile initiates WITH MY NAME ON. Oh dear, it seems

WE HAVE GOT OURSELVES ANOTHER ONE.

GOVERNANCE IS NOT MANAGEMENT - IT'S A GAME

Limited Ed READ a speech. Who wrote it - no idea. A hall full of people using time badly. Something for the media.

Had the speech been a 'paper' with the identity of the originator(s) clearly stated, distributed to all 'interested' parties, that would be good management.

It's all a game. A party game. SPOILPARTYGAMES.

PS I am reviving my quest for a QUANTIFIED ABSTENTION box, on future General Election voting papers. Just watch our democratic representatives RUN.

anything dire coming down the tracks, bad employment data, a falling pound etc., then make sure our friends the LibDems are in the photo shoot, I mean they look better than the Sheriff of Nottingham and his chancellor (would you buy a used car off this man) the LibDems have nowhere to go and are, by now, well used to ritual abuse and by the May elections will have gone past caring so any flak make sure Vince and his mates are well and truly....centre stage....

Now that the dust is starting to settle on the proposed Welfare reforms it would appear that the ConDem coalition have got got extremely dirty underpants on the particular question of the proposed means testing of ESA paid to severely injured troops. Means testing ESA after the first year is the equivalent of stealing at least 350K ( at current interest rates in a true safe account ) from severely disabled soon to be ex-soldiers. In actual fact it could be said that severely disabled soldiers are in a worse situation financially than they would have been before the compensation was increased a couple of years ago.

The same principle applies to people disabled in accidents who over the past 20 years have received compensation based on the payment of Incapacity benefit for life. Particularly hard hit will be those who managed their finances prudently. I believe that there are already some murmurs about exempting former members of the armed forces, but if its good enough for them its good enough for anyone who has previously worked hard and saved throughout their working life to give them a better standard of living in the event of being forced to effectively retire early.

It would appear that the whole objective is to force all significantly disabled people to submit themselves to be " battery farmed " in new private care homes. Again it would appear that the primary aims of the proposed welfare reforms are to promote false economic growth in the private care home industry. It wouldn't surprise me to find that " they " ( being the stock market parasites like Tory welfare reform architect Freud for example ) had already projected the private sector job creation / investment scam potential. There is no doubt that the current proposals will cost the state more in the longer term, but perhaps not before the next general election.

It just crossed my mind that the proposed new rules dictate that if you have to go into a care home you lose the mobility component of your DLA. This means that you are limited to 20 quid a week spending money, not even enough to smoke properly. I suspect that care homes will welcome the inability to afford to smoke as theoretically you will live longer and therefore make the company owners more overall profit.

Bikes, Buses and Planes

Norman Tebbit said get on your bike to look for work.

Now Iain Duncan Smith says get on the bus to look for work.

Paul Mason should come clean and tell us that it's much more likely to be an aeroplane that you'll need, as the new jobs will be either in countries that protect their industries, or ones that rig their exchange rates to boost their exports at the expense of jobs here.

The level of delusion over growth and jobs that is coming from the ConDems is simply breathtaking - our export markets are stagnant, our public investment is being massively scaled back, industrial output continues to decline and key sectors like construction and defence are being slashed - there is no reasonable scenario that I can see which produces 2.7m new jobs, 拢400 Bn of new industrial investment and boosting our exports by a third - the CBI seem determined to go along with this nonsense - they should recognise the scale of loss of face when it all unravels and they are left looking very silly and completely politically compromised.

The guard has slipped at least once though - a few weeks ago the Scottish CBI spokesman on Sky News just before the Autumn statement was quite clear - the Scottish CBI does not believe the private sector in Scotland can replace even the jobs being lost in the public sector, let alone increase overall employment - so what's different about being south of the border? WHY does the CBI south of the border parrot this nonsense?

The job loses forecast predicts 500k directly employed public sector jobs going - plus a similar number in the private sector through spending cuts.

Add in the trainwreck in social housing construction, the ending of the Olympics construction, the abandonment of the Defence Academy @ St Athan and the tailing off of the "Darling" capital works stimulus package and it is clear there will be a rapid collapse in construction jobs next year, despite the claims for new capital works spending.

FIVE MILLION unemployed by this time next year seems to me to be a racing certainty - why not have the drains up on each major sector of the economy and see what the employment prospects are in each? I'd bet that if you look at them sector by sector, the picture you get bears little or no similarity to the Top-Down predictions for jobs & growth.

Yesterday the Sunday Times was predicting quite sharp falls in house prices coming - we know that once housing dips into significant negative equity that the market stagnates and a critical engine that drives spending and consumer demand for everything from DIY products to furniture shudders to a halt, cutting major retail operations off at the knees.

Mrs Thatcher's government tried very similar policies in the 1980s. There was a bloodbath in companies going to the wall and a rapid spike in unemployment. Thre things turned this around - the Falkland War, council house sales and the "Big Bang" deregulation of the City of London that fired the starting gun for globalisation to take off.

I can't see a war rallying voters behind the ConDems, there aren't any council houses left to sell and I can't see another deregulation splurge happening, can anyone else spot something that is going to pull us out of the impending depression if the growth & jobs don't materialise?

#6 It's ok Richard all will be well, we are finding jobs for workers from India, that will boost the economy.

#2

Isn't it a game that you and your co. Do play??

child labour in uk

/news/uk-11617664

the farmer knew nothing?

the uk is getting the character of 'third world'? Slaves, child labour, corruption , vote rigging, laws only rich can afford etc

#6

Isn't it the case that view the growth in the 'light' of hormones?

To be honest, I'm not entirely sure about some of the specific cuts, but I do know that mr Tusk's government in Poland decided at the beginning of the world financial troubles to be be very stringent with the Polish economy and on the whole their strategy has worked, though perhaps not entirely in every sector. At this moment I do not have the figures to prove my point but might do so on return to the place where I currently live,

mim

#9

Would you like me to become your 'slave' for life
Hiding me away from all light?

ROOKING THE DISABLED (#5)

Hi Bro. Does anyone know what squaddies ACTUALLY 'sign up for' in the way of accepting misfortune? I am all too aware that MoD advertising almost certainly breaks the advertising code, but surely there must be some caveats on the induction form?

Sorry to raise my brother again. But he was seriously injured by a stroke, tricked into a care home by the local hospital and collaborators, and then had to fund the major part of his wait for death. My brother did not look after his health that well, but he did not walk, routinely, into a war zone either.

'Battery farming' is right. Perhaps Crikey Crick might shine a light on fat-cat 'care' home owners.

The Declaration of Human Rights forbids cruel and degrading treatment. Nick sounds like a good chap, maybe he will fix it. The D of HR is also in favour of proper warfare; odd that it doesn't require leaders to fight, physically, in the wars they agree too. Anyone seen Tony?

FUNNY YOU MENTION SLAVES JAUNTY(#9)

They are in the Declaration of Human Rights too! Not to mention the odd British toff's dog kennel. (See my #12)

CLAPTRAP SHRIVELS THE BRAIN (#7 link)

The 'Bomb' has kept us free from war. Immigration enriches Britain. Travel broadens the mind. A lie repeated often enough becomes truth.

Britain has never behaved better than a 'sink estate' household, throughout history. A long way from tranquil at home, we sallied forth to spoil the lives of others who just wanted to be left alone. We robbed, terrorised and abused, worldwide. Then we withdrew to these shores, and took advantage of those we had forced to speak Manglish, importing them as cheap labour.

Now we try to make out it is a Nirvana called 'Multiculturalism' (soothsayer Merkel, was just not news). Meanwhile, Despot Dave says we are to return to 'punching above our weight' (punching below the belt - more like).

Oh - it's all going awfully Dave's way.

THE LIMITS TO GROWTH

On my shelf, is book of that name, published in 1972!!!!! Do politicians have any grasp of the concept? Once again we see the idiocy of PARTY POLITICS where EVERYTHING is a contest. Limited Ed spoke of a 'deregulation contest'; Dave is a key player in the 'growth contest'.

Britain brags about winning the 'aid contest' (but don't mention the armed contest - aka war.)

I could mention the contest between Nick and Dave, but that would be churlish.

Having long promoted the idea that Nn - as well as a few other Corporation programmes - could do with a little 鈥榤ore鈥� GBP input .....

.... last Friday鈥檚 edition held out hope that 鈥� Hey, it鈥檚 happenin鈥� man鈥�.

So the review reads ....

Not a bad effort in total. However there were three things that could have been better ...

The audience, the guest and the mediator!


Nn!

If you want a couple of suggestions for format?

Give me a call!

I鈥檓 pretty sure you could work out a good deal with my Agent ....

If I had one!

Sigh Man! Who鈥檚 making comment on the practicality of getting legislation thru鈥� both houses, saying that they, HMG, will find it difficult because (?) ....

Is this .....

1. A hollow - media-bluff to nullify current dissent from low ranking Lib Dims and the GBP?

2. A statement to the effect that they, the Lib Dims, are still sic capable sic of independent thought sic?

or

3. A prepared Con-alition dodge to modify an under-thought set of policies - so as not to be seen as doing a 鈥楿-turn鈥� - and thereby demonstrating that they, the Big Cons, are willing to listen to the Lib Dims consequently proving that the Con-Alition is actually a successful 鈥榳orking鈥� coalition?

And ...Oh yes!


Question 1.

Why is the media 鈥榮wooping鈥� on the HMG鈥檚 consideration of an 鈥榠dea鈥� for a flat rate pension? It鈥檚 鈥榰nder consideration鈥� .... (Doh!)

Or is HMG trying to divert attention from something else?

Question 2.

Did King Con give away the reality of immigration policy today in part of a reply to a question at the Con-ference when he said that that immigration was allowed to increase because 鈥� .... we hadn鈥檛 reformed labour policies.鈥� ?

(Also it is being reported that 鈥榳e鈥�, the Con-alition. 鈥� wouldn鈥檛 stand in your way鈥�! with regard to business - immigrant - needs! )

Question 3.

Are some aspects of Big Con policy partly actually aimed at destroying the Lib Dims at the next election?

Question 4.

Why is it that I am listening less and less to the Dim Cons are saying and more and more I鈥檓 trying to interpret from what they are not saying?

7. At 4:20pm on 25 Oct 2010, ecolizzy wrote:
#6 It's ok Richard all will be well, we are finding jobs for workers from India, that will boost the economy.

If you wander around shopping centres in the big cities (especially
London) you'll see more and more Commonwealth-origin people eagerly buying toot branded and hyped as designer products. This capitalises on such people not being able to tell the difference between brands, labels and quality goods. Their lives are now largely based on appearance, image, marketing - value-added 'lies'. That's why more and more of them will be imported, and more and more will be reproduced. They make good consumers, and our culture and government is now nearly all about consumption, image, and not much else.


For anyone interested in how liberal culture has been changing, an interesting element to consider. If you do watch it, be sure to study the women closely.

Re ... Tonight's programme ....

The smoking ban was introduced via fraudulent promises, maniacal medics, manipulated science, corrupted statistics, deluded PC politicians and naive public support.

Look at the crowds outside pubs, clubs and restaurants.

Perhaps it's time to ' 'fess up' and go back to the originally intended policy of separate smoking areas in leisure 'arenas'

After all .... How much longer can carry on losing 30 plus pubs a week!

PRIVATE SECTOR SLOWLY DEVOURS THE STATE?

EMPLOYEES
----x 1000s------------- x 1000s
--------Private Sector--Public Sector
1983 --- 18,352 ---------- 6,952
1993 --- 21,686 ---------- 5,477
2003 --- 24,646 ---------- 5,454

A PRICE WORTH PAYING? (#20)

Killing Johnnie Foreigner to preserve our way of life is one thing, but condemning quality indigenes to a slow, debilitated death, from a basket of tobacco-smoke-inhalation-related diseases, just to keep the pubs in business, would seem a bit extreme. Convince me.

THE WAR IS WON - THE AFGHANS HAVE NO FIGHT LET IN THEM

'Deal or No Deal' is reported popular in Kabul. They are done for.

what does fess up mean?

SLOW MOTION FOOT-SHOOTING

The piece on 'masochism in journalism' might well win an award. It edgily announced itself as devoid of content, demonstrated the excruciating art of the slanted/edited vox pop, and delightfully lampooned the fad for bizarre visuals, by including none.

Pretending it was something to do with Clegg's nicotine-user status, pushed the genre to its limit; a tour de farce.

If

If the Government made cigarettes and alcohol much cheaper wouldnt this save money on the pensions...?

is this the big idea

clearly the pension story and clegg and the cigarettes are linked!

seriously we should ban cigarettes and curb alcohol and look at why people need either,

less TV would also help, and less unhealthy food,

and more sport for everyone

I do applaud the Government despite its other horendous measures for protecting the oveseas aid budget, well done for this at least, if not for anything else you are doing

Mr Mouse

#24

You know perfectly well what it means, 'pussy mousey' but for the sake of those bloggers who do not, it's taken from a French song that I often play and twirl to called 'An air stewardess' sung by Jacques Dutronc 'having always dreamt' of becoming one of those and have his buttocks up in the air.

CORDLESS MOUSE (#26)

At a stroke! Spare capacity in cigarette and booze industries (after ban and curb) could be sold abroad, to recipients of 0.7% aid.

Just like old times: Get ipssed, punch above our weight, ave ay fag.

Are you a WHITE mouse, by any chance?

#28

A white mouse indeed, having been turned into a guinea pig himself in fact.

"David Cameron has promised a "forensic, relentless approach" to ensuring the UK's future economic growth."

That's odd. In the clip which you aired tonight what Cameron actually said was the classic anarchistic apologists' line that governments are effectively powerless in the grand scheme of market forces, likening these to ecosystems (presumably to be popular with the Greens?).

RING OF CONFIDENCE OF KNELL OF DEATH?

The 'supremely relaxed' Master of returning from magnificent error - Peter Mandelson - was practising his disarming chuckle rather more frequently than usual, this morning.

Has Limited Ed spotted that being advised by an accident-prone, over confident snake-oil source, is NOT a cunning plan, but a prelude to fratricide?

At least, as with Captain Hook and the crocodile, the chuckle will warn Ed of his approach.

#31

All I can say to Ed Milliband, please watch out. By all means, do talk to the 'chuckling men', there are at least 2 of them, but do take care. For your own, your Party and this Country's sake. Please!!!!

Monika

SMOKING BARRELS - BUT HOW MANY?

When I read this "we'll consider when it becomes acceptable for politicians to fess up to smoking" re yesterdays programme my first thought was WFT. What indefensibly sloppy, misleading, antagonistic journalism. Why is it our business what habit Mr Clegg adheres to - if he breaks the law (ie in a public place) he stands before the courts same as any man.

I would like to know how many of the people working on NN, in front of or behind the scenes should be being similarly lambasted.

Sure, the 'ban'like many others came in ont eh bacl of flawed figures but surely there is no one in any doubt that cigarette smoking and passive 2nd hand smoke can be seriously injurious to health of more than those who make it a personal choice. Some protection is required; some choice. But why not, just as a few (thankfully) hotels and restaurants have 'no children'policies, can't here be pub chains who offer smoke free and others that are not. As long as it is clear and reasonably balanced. Segregation does NOT make as much difference as one might like, unless very expensive extractors and filtration units are installed. Universality is not essential surely.

One of the main criteria for many non smokers is NOT that they risk cancer, but they risk smelling horrible and have stinging eyes and throats. That would have been a better 'value' judgement on which to base restrictions.


Re pubs closing. #20
A bit simplistic to out it all down to smoking ban isn't it. The rot started when drink/drive laws came in. Let's abolish that now shall we??? Then cheap booze in supermarkets, the increase in other cheap eateries and entertainment venues where alcohol is available - the bowling alley/amusements; shopping centres; cinema complexes and many more.

I will state my own view, that smoking is a pretty ghastly habit. Its filthy, smelly, full of chemicals and can and does cause horrible diseases. It's also a pretty stupid way to spend money or try and lok cool. I would rather not be too close to people partaking. But it is still a free country. Prohibition has NEVER worked. The increase in smoke free places for all to enjoy has some benefits for me and like minded. But it has it's down sides too .

I speak as one with one parent still intent on smoking her self to death. The other parent succeeded over 30 years ago. I won't recommend a young family having to nurse a dying parent. I wouldn't wish it on my worst enemies.

I would add for the sake of balance that I also find it pretty unpleasant being too close to people who are unable to use fragrance sparingly.

Sorry, I meant to add.....

Surely we should applaud Nick Clegg. It may be only one instance, but being honest and telling people something they may not want to hear is pretty brave.

With his oldest two offspring approximately 8 and 5, I would find it surprising it at least the oldest one does not know he smokes.

He will now. The playground jungle drums will be working overtime - or is he in luck. Is it half terms darn sarf?

#33

And I thought you were into universal essentials, like bare necessities, for example, no, mr lc2??
As far as I am concerned, I find that smoking can have its beneficial, if not vital, uses. Saddle the fragrancies, by the time I've biked through all the streets and bridges, they would have evaporated quite a bit before getting to my place of destination.

Response to .....

At 11:41pm on 25 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

See....

The Independent. Tuesday 16.11.04. P8 Health Section by Tim Luckhurst.



My post was not to 鈥渃onvince鈥�.

One aim was to remind that 21-25 per cent of the UK GBP smoke. (Myself being one.)

Another intention was to highlight the hypocrisy of the manifesto promise, the medics, the scientists, the statisticians, the politicians and the gullible public.

It should also be considered that the call for the ban was primarily instigated and promoted by one charity.

Query a case of 鈥� I justify my existence - and continued funding - because I shout loud enough!鈥� You decide!


An example of the 鈥榠t鈥檚 ok for them ....鈥� 鈥榓ttitude鈥� ....

One ermine draped luvvie readily admits to having a 鈥榩uff鈥� in his dressing room before going on stage. ......

Smoke in a 鈥楥ompany鈥� vehicle and ......



If 21-25 per cent of the UK GBP were 鈥榦stracised鈥� , say, because of their natural ceratonin levels all hell would break loose and, before you knew it, we鈥檇 have a dozen or more anti-ceratonin-discrimination laws thrust upon us - in the national interest of course.

How long before all the local 鈥榩ublic houses鈥� are 鈥楧es res鈥檚 鈥� worth multi-k鈥檚....

... and we have a fully comprehensive 鈥榩rohibition鈥� law? ....

In the national interest .... of course!



Oops .... Apologies for not doing the appropriate 鈥渨e鈥� in my post at 20.

To avoid litigation ... here鈥檚 another .... by way of compensation ...

鈥� .... we ....鈥�

#36

I do hope, ja, that I'm not included in the equation. There are so many lovely females out there that I don't think you'll have any trouble with finding a gorgeous girl to console you, etc.

#35
"And I thought you were into universal essentials, like bare necessities, for example, no, mr lc2??"

You are fully entitled to your opinion mimproptu, but you are quite simply wrong, in at least two of your assumptions.

And we all know what 'assuming' makes..........

Response to ....

33. At 10:16am on 26 Oct 2010, LC2 wrote:

A sound post. The only statement I would disagree with is when the 鈥榬ot鈥� started. The 鈥楧D鈥� laws did not force people to 鈥榞o outside鈥�.

See my post at 36 above for other 鈥榯houghts鈥� (Written before reading your post at 33.)

By way of explanation ....

My own objection to the SB has little to do with me being a smoker.

It came about when, some years ago before the legislation, I witnessed a very elderly WW1 veteran in a 鈥榥ursing home鈥� - whom had smoked all his life - being refused the 鈥榦pportunity鈥� sic to smoke because.... 鈥榠t was bad for his health鈥� (!)

And ... Oh yes! ....

I also have to ask - IMHO - is it not ludicrous to use the value and success of one piece of legislation i.e. DD to emolliate the hypocrisy of another i.e. SB?

It鈥檚 like advocating that people can go round killing people because there are guns.


And I am sure, as I believe we do do on the SB, .....

..... that we agree on the 鈥榣ogic鈥� of that statement!

#38

I am assuming that I shall be consuming
A very rare stake before the programme tonight.
But will I have time to buy a new rump
And will they have it some in stock?
If not, I shall buy a new sock
Or a pair of them all starry and bright,
Adding a pear to them with utmost delight.

mim

See you all later!!!****

33. At 10:16am on 26 Oct 2010, LC2 wrote:

STRICTLY DON'T DO POLITICS

"Why is it our business what habit Mr Clegg adheres to? "

Don't be silly.

Most people (including the NN demographic these days it would seem) can't/won't/don't tell the difference between politics and personalities. General Elections are now akin to THE P FACTOR, or STRICTLY DON'T DO POLITICS, JUST DO PERSONALITY. Most people these days seem more concerned with who you are and not what you have to say.

What type of underpants (can one ask that equally of Ms Harman without being sexist?) does Mr Cameron prefer?

This is a serious post too!




"Since Saddam Hussein was both Prime Minister and President of Iraq, Aziz often played the role of Iraq's de facto head of government.
Because of security concerns, Hussein rarely left Iraq, so Aziz would often represent Iraq at high-level diplomatic summits. What the United States wanted, he averred, was not "regime change" in Iraq but rather "region change". He summed up the Bush Administration's reasons for war against Iraq tersely: "oil and Israel."

Aziz is currently in prison in Camp Cropper in western Baghdad. He was acquitted of some charges on March 1, 2009 following a trial, but was sentenced to 15 years on March 11, 2009 for his role in the executions of 42 merchants found guilty of profiteering in 1992. It was reported on
17 January 2010 that he had suffered a stroke whilst in prison and had been transferred to hospital. On October 26, he was sentenced to death."

He's (original name Mikhail Yuhanna) a Catholic. As in post war Germany, these nasty statists tend to not be kept available to talk and thus incite others do dastardly deeds. De-Baaathization of Iraq is going awfully well don't you think?

"25. At 00:07am on 26 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:
SLOW MOTION FOOT-SHOOTING

The piece on 'masochism in journalism' might well win an award. It edgily announced itself as devoid of content, demonstrated the excruciating art of the slanted/edited vox pop, and delightfully lampooned the fad for bizarre visuals, by including none.

Pretending it was something to do with Clegg's nicotine-user status, pushed the genre to its limit; a tour de farce."

Astute post. One of your best.

Masochism (in forms few will see) is integral to narcissism. Naughty
(under-socialised) kids push boundaries. It's edgy.

LOVE YOU TOO TABS. (#43)

But election-time rosettes have NO personality, and 'rosette stands' are just whippable ciphers. Neither policy NOR personality decides an election win, it's money, advertising and deals. Personality was the problem with Thatcher, Blair and Brown - it dictated their most bizarre acts.

However you want to characterise 'what they do' we elevate the wrong individuals, to feudal omnipotence, on the back of party politics.

SPOILPARTYGAMES.

44. At 4:35pm on 26 Oct 2010, barriesingleton wrote:

"However you want to characterise 'what they do' we elevate the wrong individuals, to feudal omnipotence, on the back of party politics."

But it's WHAT they DO which needs to be focused upon, not WHY they might do it. So long as WHAT they DO is made clear, there's nothing else to be exposed, as "Nothing is hidden"...

Explication is a slow but revealing process.