« Bombing people into democracy | Main | My three new proteges »

July 12, 2008

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

paulflynn

There has been over 700 comments on this subject over the past two weeks. The item on Bob Humphrys speaks for itself.

Perhaps y0u will read the previous threads.

Dave Atherton

Of course Bob Humphries has my heart felt feelings for his dilemma. However to blame it on SHS is simplistic or simply wrong. Here is an article by Professor Nilsson on SHS and the link to lung cancer. You will no doubt notice that you are 11.5 times more at risk from sunshine.

"While accepting the plausibility of the lung cancer link and the fact that numerous studies appear to show a statistically significant increase in risk, has questioned its epidemiological significance (13). He offered estimates of the annual incidence of cancer in a population of 100,000 resulting from various environmental factors: unknown (177), diet (135), smoking (68), other lifestyle factors (45), sunshine (23)...environmental tobacco smoke (ETS) (2).

http://www.spiked-online.com/Articles/0000000CA7A4.htm

paulflynn

Thanks Will S.

Why I continue to mock David Davis is that he is a true Don Quixote - tilting at the windmill of 42 days that is never going to become law.

The Lords will hammer it and the press-ganged coalition in the Commons will be very difficult to assemble again. It is a dead parrot. I was in the same lobby as David Davis on this issue.

Nor can I see anything heroic in risking a contest at great public expense when you have first persuaded your only serious opposition, the Lib Dems, not to stand. This was virtually a rigged election.

I certainly do not share his views on the valuable DNA and CCTV cameras. They have positive virtues.

As the figures I quoted proved, public opinions has not altered on this subject. So this method is not an effective way of raising an issue. The press are fascinated with the Tories at the moment and he could have had far more influence as a shadow cabinet member rather than talking to audiences in his constituency.


Will S

I think Huw makes a point that many readers of this blog would wish to associate themselves with.

Yet, if I may go over this again, I do believe that some people may be purposefully or not misrepresenting the intentions of David Davis. As I understand it he stood down not so that the law would be changed, he knew that it would not be set in place anyway. He stood down in order to change the majority view in this country that 42 days are necessary or acceptable.

I agree with him on this. It hearkens back to the 'olden days' of politics, where politicians tried to change public opinion instead of responding to it. After all, there is very little sense in changing one or another law, if public opinion does not change accordingly. It is through a debate and by talking about issues that we can both alter views and reforge the link between electors and elected.

David Davis' attempt may have failed and it may have been in part down to his ego, yet the simple fact that he attempted to reconnect the public with the political system is one that I can respect.

paulflynn

Thanks Huw for your frank comment which I greatly appreciate. I will stand at the next election and I will try to get your vote - for me if not for he Prtay. In 1996 I said that we would win the General Election and lose the party.

We have not lost it yet, but it has been hollowed out by bad decisions and retreats from our values. On Friday someone who left the Newport West Party over Iraq, rejoined. The party must be rebuilt. In the next election the choices in Newport West will be between me, a conservative or a protest vote. I am sure you will make the correct decision.

Huw O'Sullivan

As most of what I write to you is critical or argumentative, you may not realise Paul that I do actually admire you and your stances on many issues.
I do believe that you are sincere in them too.
But the problem I have, is that yes you oppose the party line on these things by speaking and voting against them, the trouble is, there are politicians who vote against their party lines at times, when their party will win the vote anyway and are utterly insincere about the stance they take.
They take it because their party is willing to let them go against the party line because it helps to ensure they are popular in their constituency and therefore get reelected next time, hopefully being part of bringing said party to power.
The trouble with that is that your principled position and their unprincipled position, look identical and to all intents and effect are identical.
I imagine you will be re-elected as long as you continue to stand, but to what purpose, to bring another new labour government in, to continue doing what they have been doing, increasing terror laws, a new nuclear deterrent, invasions, occupations and sabre rattling, new nuclear power stations, ever increasing pension age, the ever increasing prison population, no moves to increase and expand democracy in the UK, no demonstration that they admire, believe in or even understand democracy.
You will no doubt say better new labour than the tories, but to be honest, I cannot see a great deal of difference.
I will support neither, the blood on all our hands is unforgivable and while New Labour has done these things, the Tories would have done them too, both are the very bottom of the barrel and I say as I rather tiresomely always say to you Paul, that your party does you no credit. I don't believe it stands for the things you considered it stood for when you joined it and I don't believe it ever will again. It has chosen the road of power over principle and no one ever goes back from that.
It is not the party you joined, it is not the party people used to support and the sooner people realise that and move on from it, the sooner they can have a party that does stand for something, that does believe in something other than the tories would be worse.
Roll on that day.

paulflynn

Thanks Huw. Interesting stuff. You may be in a better position to judge some of these things than I am. from the inside I know that the original 90 day gimmick was intended to paint the Tories as 'soft on terrorism.' My objection then and to 42 days is that it is unnecessary and is likely to incite more terrorists.

David Davis was certain to be Home Secretary if the Tories win. His replacement is much brighter although he lacks charisma. Davis will have a minor role but his chances of holding one of he great offices of state have gone, in my view. There is no great grassroots support in the Tory Party for the 'liberty' line that he championed.

I hope you are right on the public's assessment of MPs. My backing for causes has not been populist on Helmand and drugs. We will see how this works out when I stand for election in future.

Huw O'Sullivan

Quite right on David Davies, an obviously insane ploy that leaves people with the impression that tories are principled and not afraid to put their careers on the line to highlight a government which is constantly at odds with the will of the electorate.
On the other hand it gives the impression that there are two camps in the labour party, those who believe what they are doing on "terror" is right, but daren't stand up for it in any meaningful way, and those who oppose what the party is doing on "terror" but daren't stand up for it in any meaningful way.

Hmmmm, actually maybe he is not so insane after all. There are after all fewer and fewer people who clearly recall exactly how unprincipled the tories are, and more and more people with recent experience of how unprincipled new labour is.
There are after all a lot of voters now who were too young to care about politics when the tories were last in power.

I say again, Paul on this issue you are failing to see that while it may be a silly and foolish gesture to practiced politicians, the general public are impressed after all those years of Tony Blair staking his non existent reputation on issue after failed issue, without ever seeming to feel that there should be a consequence for being wrong, that a politician would oppose something and risk his seat to show how much he opposes it (even if he is only pretending to oppose it)
and leave it to the electorate to decide if they supported him or the government on this one issue.
They did support him and he is now too popular with the people to be kept off the front bench, if Cameron were to try that, it would damage himself and he is not going to do that.

EG How many current tories do you think the average person in the UK knows by name
and how many of those are popular?

The comments to this entry are closed.