is david cameron as much of a wanker as i think he is

I'm going to take a look at Webcameron and see what it's all about. I might find it amusing.

He's terribly good-looking, though. That's the problem with Tories. They're very sexy. Why can't the Labour party get in some better looking blokes?

k8 the only sexy person in politics right now is a LABOUR PERSON! i speak of course of ALASTAIR.

However, I agree with K8 about Tory sexiness - I was once hit on by a total Mrs Robinson who happens to be Conservative to the core.

P.S. This does NOT mean I will voting Conservative, in the next election or ever.

xpost - that's pretty funny, I usually dislike Rowson.

webcam[eron]

web[cameron]

I do kind of fear this. He's the kind of bloke my brother would say was "not Tory *enough*." The only thing worse than a full-on wanker Tory is an insubstantial blur of a Tory, makes me far more suspicious. I want my Tories out in the open. Or in the bushes, rowr.

I do think "webcameron" is bloody clever, though. But I would, it's such a dadjoke pun.

neither has an agenda, priorities, policies to take Britain forward

So OTM about tories being hott. I always go for "My daddy's got a porsche" types.

"Our priorities are promoting social justice, making sure that everyone has access to good schools, good healthcare and decent housing, taking a lead in ending global poverty, helping our country to be competitive in the global economy, protecting our citizens from crime and terrorism, and doing all we can to meet the great environmental threats of our age."

fortunately not all posh people are Tories (or indeed hott) and vice versa.

Dunno what GB will be like, and I guess we won't know till next year's party conference.

David Cameron - marketing driven new tory boy wants to reclaim the centre right

Gordon Brown - as next labour leader? - dour boring New Labour renewal agenda

Ming Campbell AKA Grandad Ming - OAP in waiting, lacks charisma and urgency. Lib dems have chosen the wrong leadership candidate.

Should marketing to children be banned?
are cheap flights a false economy?

well, that's the biggest disappointment of year 2006 out of the way.

In fact, why not make it compulsory for all poiticians to do this in the run up to an election?

if Ianucci and his cronies can cut up Cameron's speech so it's reassembled as the chorus to 'Brand New' i can die a delighted man.

oh i'm not suppsoed to say that.

Now on "Conservatives" : Bolster the internals of the NHS and force them to outsource all the actual work to private health providers.

Your pick.

it's because it's hard to see how one can square being progressive, pro-union, anti-let-the-big-dogs-eat, pro good govt services, etc and vote labour. if the tories are no better, for yer average young nihilist at least the notting hill lot are fresh, and because they haven't served in office they aren't tainted by being corrupt, incompetent, deceitful, or stupid, in contrast to the current cabinet.

both parties are offering pretty much the same kinds of semi-private solutions for health. the unions probably don't like it, but from the voters' pov it's hard to see what positively they're proposing because the sad truth is the big labour cash influx after the 2001 budget did fuck all to fix the nhs, which remains a basket case. lord knows what'd fix it.

some snazzy IT, perhaps.

do you suppose that on a more right-leaning msg board out there other people are saying the same thing about Labour voters? or are they just eating babies and burning the K0ran?

-- The Lex (alex.macpherso...), October 2nd, 2006.

haha he actually used "tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime" in his speech yesterday!

(a bit quick with the nazis there Marcello, I was expecting at least 100 posts before they were invoked)

"It's a great new direction for us!"
"What direction's that then?"
"Er... a great new one!"

"Tony Blair said 'things can only get better' but under David they actually will!"
"How?"
"Because it's a new direction!"

I wonder if they all ate from empty plates at lunchtime.

xpost haha that's spot on!

Where Blair said that things can only get better, Cameron says that the best is yet to come, presumably referring to his defeat at the next General Election.

Um, the police are still investigating all the loans to the tory party, as well as investigating the funding of their new £1.2 meeellion sentient Living Brane HQ (which has a juice bar - hurrah that must mean the tories are nice now)

The Tories will grasp the opportunity and go to town big time, whereas Labour in its heart isn't up for it, but feels powerless to stop Blair lest they let the Tories in on the back of a divided party and government. Instead they try and ameliorate the damage through maintaining T&Cs for workers and the like. The Tories will have no truck with that shit.

these are no doubt a big part of the electorate (the nhs being the biggest employer in europe) but to campaign on it, wouldn't you have to make the case that privatizing is bad for the punters?

I'm not sure I believe this

xpost

In what way, in terms of economic policy, is he on the left of the rest of the Tory party?

won't cut tax.

We'll see

Hollow ROFFLEz

Cameron has strategically bet that the old saw about government's losing, rather than opposition's winning is true, and all he has to do is remove the fear factor from the Tories, and they instantly become more electable. The trouble he has is that after 15 years of Blair, the punters are wise to this. What's the sacrificial act Cameron will make to say 'we mean it man'? I'm not sure he can. He can say all he likes about warm words, but they butter no parsnips. Saying 'we like black and gays' isn't enough. He needs to enshrine that luv in policy. But identity politics issues don't have huge traction in the areas he needs to gain seats. He can't do Europe, as that's also not hugely tractionable, and he knows will split them big time. So he's left with tax, and the NHS as his mainstream policies to repudiate the old Tory legacy, and he's choosing tax as his standard here.

As for health workers, the unions involved in health, education, transport and public service have all campaigned on the basis that the part-privatisation will not deliver for punters. Trouble is, they do deliver in a limited short-term fashion. The argument is about the medium and longer term outcomes, which are far harder to make in a public way. As a result, the concrete campaign in the now has been the T&Cs of staff, but part of the reason why it might seem that this is the case is because the media are - and always have been - fucking awful at engaging with medium-long term political issues, and have been very unwilling to cover Trade Union campaigns with any great sympathy.

Er, Dave, it's not even 10 yet.

I make that 11 years.

therefore

N H S will become .. disease healing fees?

Gordon Brown's approval rating amongst Labour voters: 73%
David Cameron's approval rating amongst Tory voters: 25%

Also this (http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2007_sept_guardian_sept.pdf), taken from PoliticalBetting.com, is definitely of interest. The argument being that the more powerful UKIP get, the better news this is for Labour (or, the further to the right the country leans, the more left-wing a government we get).

Well, the tories have often said "we need to be a bit more racist to attract voters away from the BNP, because obviously we are much nicer than them"

He just said 'this whole health & safty, human rights culture is infecting every aspect of our lives', and naturally received a lot of applause for it from the Tory conference.

Human rights! Infectious!

Gordon Brown's approval rating amongst Labour voters: 73%
David Cameron's approval rating amongst Tory voters: 25%

― Dom Passantino, Friday, 21 September 2007 12:07 (1 year ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

http://www.arttmann.com/artworks/AM_WS_BackInTheDay.jpg

OK, this seems to be the place...

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7884121.stm

At the World Economic Forum in Davos last month Mr Brown said: "I'm reminded of the story of Titian, who's the great painter who reached the age of 90, finished the last of his nearly 100 brilliant paintings, and he said at the end of it, 'I'm finally beginning to learn how to paint,' and that is where we are."

During prime minister's questions Mr Cameron said: "You told us the other day you were like Titian aged 90. The fact is Titian died at 86."

At 1234 GMT, shortly after PMQs ended, the Wikipedia page on Titian was changed by someone registered as being at the Conservative Party's HQ in London.

The artist's date of death was altered from 27 August 1576 to 27 August 1572.

A Conservative spokesman said: "This was an over-eager member of staff putting right an incorrect entry on Wikipedia."

Five minutes earlier, at 1229 GMT, another user - registered as being in Sutton, Surrey - altered Titian's date of birth from c.1485 to c.1490.

This, when combined with the intervention by the Conservative HQ user's intervention, would have made his lifespan 81 or 82 years.

The pages have since been changed a number of times.

From Wiki:

In The News
There is current debate about when he died, due to a debate between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who believed Titian died at 90 and David Cameron who believes he died at 86 during Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 11 February 2008.[15]

No wonder the economies so fucked, banks are going belly up, thousands unemployed and all they can do is argue about how old a painter was when he died over 400 years ago.

It's quite fitting, really: Labour gets things wrong, whilst the Tories just make shit up.

There is current debate about when he died, due to a debate between British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, who believed Titian died at 90 and David Cameron who believes he died at 86 during Prime Minister's Question Time on Wednesday 11 February 2008.[15]

pretty sure it's 'owing to'.

clash of the titians

Mr Cameron hit back by quoting an interview with Mr Brown in The Guardian, in which he said the emphasis on "who said what, when, how and why" was "far too divisive to meet the problems of the country".

"What a complete phoney," added Mr Cameron.

OK, whose read "Catcher in the Rye" then?

it was mine

sorry

Because no one could accuse Cameron of being a phoney, oh no.

David Cameron's opinions on where Central Park ducks go in the winter needed post haste

Wanker status further solidifed

Mr Cameron insisted the biggest cause of the UK's health and safety culture was the "perception" that "behind every accident there is someone who is personally culpable, someone who must pay".

"We see it in those adverts on television, which say that if you've suffered some fall or mishap you can take legal action without much cost.

"We see it in the commercialising of lawyers' incentives to generate litigation, through the system of enhanced success fees and referral fees which has led to a growth in 'ambulance-chasing'."

Man I wish somebody could remind me which Party changed the law to allow these kind of ambulance-chasing firms to spring up and advertise on TV.

Don't see what's supposed to be wrong with any of what he said to be honest.

Vote Tory then. Are ambulance chasers any worse than bandwagon chasers?

haha someones been reading his nietzsche

Don't see what's supposed to be wrong with any of what he said to be honest.

Apart from the bits that weren't true and the bits that were instituted by his own Party and the bit where he wants junior doctors to work when they're half asleep and the bit where he wants to prioritise some peoples' lives over others and the bit where he wants small businesses to be able to endanger the lives of their employees in the interests of saving a bob or two, I agree.

But to be fair to Cameron, we do live in a country where nobody is ever killed or seriously injured at work, especially in the building trade, so maybe it's time to ease up a bit.

ok, I missed those bits

As Bill Shankly said: conkers isn't life or death, it's more important than life or death

Incidentally the main difficulty with organising "risky" activities for kids is insane insurance costs, perhaps the Tories can promise to step in and tackle greedy profiteering insurance companies oh hang on

Tories instinctively against greedy lawyers as well, everyone knows that

Cameron to publically explain how to do a proper Risk Assessment or else stfu imo

Don't mock, it's dangerous work being a PR man, people get hurt

What else do you insure kids' activities for, other than the risk of litigation if it goes wrong?

publically explain how to do a proper Risk Assessment or else stfu

Isn't this pretty much what the Tory policy is?

well, the actual cost of payouts where local authorities have been found at fault was less than £300 a year. bet the insurance is much higher.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2009/oct/02/school-trips-teachers-legal-action

My understanding is that legal protection already exists for people acting in good faith, providing you can demonstrate that you've thought thru what you're doing. Nobody loses a court case, civil or criminal, because they've had a well thought-out safety procedure that's been adhered to. So what does Cameron want to change, actually?

His examples of "Health and Safety gone mad" are absolutely pics or it didn't happen apocryphal.

I've got no doubt that there are individuals in this country who misinterpret guidelines and laws and make stupid decisions. That's about bad training and bad management. Most newspaper reporters and fellow moaners about "Health and Safety culture" don't actually have a fucking clue about what risk assessment entails, or their complaints would be more accurate and more specific.

Stats for fatal accidents at work last year were 180, btw. It was 450-odd in 1992 and I can't Google further back than that at the moment, but guess which way the trend has been going?

Yes, but what about all that extra form filling and red tape small businessmen have to suffer just so some ungrateful workers can avoid losing limbs/lives etc?

Dudes he doesn't want to actually change anything here really, he's just jumping on a populist bandwagon. Which of course makes it infinitely more annoying.

Of course... big government... nanny state... conkers

"We never had floods like this under the Conservatives"

I'm surprised he stoops to conkers.

Matt I know exactly what he's doing, that's why I'm annoyed. Altho never underestimate the Tories' willingness to cut a few quid out of the HSE's budget so's we can reduce the Moat Tax or somethink.

I'm surprised he stoops to conkers.

Genius

"When village fetes are cancelled because residents can't face jumping through all the bureaucratic hoops.

I would attend all this village fete.

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/pictures/pal-cops-fire-jump-01.jpg

"When village fetes are cancelled because residents can't face jumping through all the bureaucratic hoops.

these pussies don't deserve fetes

Village fetes, conkers... the Tory Party has come a long way

Man I am not naming names but I can think of communities in my fair city who, if they can get their shit together long enough to organise a fete, anybody can.

'He cited the death of Jordon Lyon in September 2007 as an example, saying the 10-year-old had "drowned in a pond, having rescued his young sister, because officers were told not to intervene as they hadn't undertaken their 'water rescue' health and safety training a shower of shitebags".

I was going to ask about that - what's the real story? I hate to think that either of those explanations might be true.

Since when has Cameron ever worried about facts?

"Sarg, that young boy is drowning, permission to go and save him?"
"Certainly not, you haven't had the appropriate training."
"Oh fair enough then I will stand here and wait for the coastguard."

Seems credible to me.

"officers were helping an Asian Muslim family across the road" or is that the BNP, or is it hard to tell...?

the jordon lyon case: he was already under the water when the pcsos got there and so they radioed for help. arguably the officers should have dived in immediately, but it wasn't a case of a boy struggling in the water and going straight for him - you'd have to search underwater which isn't a simple task, i don't think.

Oh holy fuck in the course of reading about this I've just discovered the Telegraph's Dating service. There is a major thread coming up once I get organised.

xpost

As far as the PCSOs in that case are concerned it's a fucked-up kinda Lord Jim situation where you like to think that in the same circumstances you'd have acted differently but you can never be honestly sure.

I've seen that story cited many times, I just wondered if there was another explanation that made it less horrific e.g. the kid was dead by the time help arrived, that's why no-one went in.

NV, agreed that 'stupid decisions, bad training and bad management' are the problem - but what else can Cameron do about them? Assuming that you're not in favour of more government intervention here - arguably what leads to the stupid decisions in the first place (meaning that by trying to prescribe everything in detailed rules, people are bound to make bad decisions because they don't have a clue what they're supposed to prioritise)

xp thanks joe, that's what I was getting at

I'm pretty sure that contravening Health & Safety Procedures, Sub-section 3.2, Paragraph 3 wasn't at the foremost of their thoughts

Cameron can't do anything about bad training and bad management, they're a fact of working life and a problem for organisations to deal with. So why is Cameron trying to score political points off of a combo of stating the obvious and lying about stuff he can't influence? Actually no problem I know the answer to that one.

The thing about detailed rules is that if, say, you are responsible for the welfare of children or vulnerable adults and something goes horribly wrong to the point of death or serious injury, you would have to go to an inquest of some description and you would be asked what your plan was to minimize the risk of this horrible thing happening. And if you stood up in court and went "Um, well, I don't know, we didn't want to do a lot of paperwork" then I think quite rightly you would get a supreme public bollocking plus jail if you were a really negligent cock. So, y'know, detailed planning has a place.

Fuck this cunt using a wee boy dying to further his fucking bollocks attempt at looking like he has policies.

It's that "Election coming up and not as certain to win" thing.

On another tack, did you know you can't buy christmas crackers now if you are under 18, thanks to the 'explosives' legislation?

Hey, there's one for the DExpress to get worked up about. Or Cameron. Or, indeed, both! You can buy smack when yr 12, but not crackers. It's broken Britain gone politically correct mad!

You can buy smack in Tesco's?

Outside in the car park...

If my 12 year-old was desperate to buy a box of Christmas crackers I would have deeper worries than their explosive content tbh

I'm surprised he stoops to conkers.
Yes well done, but on a serious note, is he actually concerned that power is slipping from his grasp, 'cos this kind of crap surely only plays to the people who are already going to vote for him. Or is just because he has to say something everyday or people might forget his name, and obviously he hasn't got any actual policies to talk about?

this kind of crap surely only plays to the people who are already going to vote for him

Dunno about that, but in general "health and safety" isn't exactly the sort of issue that swings elections.

obviously he hasn't got any actual policies to talk about?

I am beginning to think Tory Central Office have been sitting with their feet up on the desk for the last 3 years

Mr Cameron announced that former Conservative Trade Secretary Lord Young would lead a review

Sorry, I missed this bit - he HAS got a policy. Let some 80 year old Thatcherite have a look at "what can be done".

Think it's more a case of "We are going to fuck what's left of the country's infrastructure long and hard in order to give some tax breaks to the very rich" not playing as well in the 09 as it did in the 79.

So best say nowt, I mean.

I really think they've been following that strategy of not coming up with any policies if they don't have to for so long - and they've been allowed to get away with it for so long - that they're beginning to panic and startted having to ring round various right-of-centre thinktanks for any spare ideas they might have lying around

Looking forward to "Privatise Social Services", "Legalise Kiddie Porn" and "Nuke Iran" coming soon then.

the idea that they haven't got any policies is a routine lazy jibe against all opposition parties and it's never true. in a way it lets them off any real scrutiny. from a quick survey of just the summary of their policy docs (there's way more than this):

* fund not-for-profit companies to open new schools
* put more people in prison and scrap early release
* scrap free training programme for people in work in favour of more apprenticeships
* crack down on incapacity benefit and force people into welfare-to-work schemes
* scrap stop-and-search forms and allow more routine police surveillance
* reintroduce marriage tax benefits
* allow couples 12 months’ parental leave to split between them as they choose (er, that’s actually a good one imo)

It's not lazy jibing tho so much as "why isn't Cameron proudly trumpeting this awesome package of reforms long and hard as they will surely win him the next election?"

* scrap free training programme for people in work in favour of more apprenticeships

'Apprenticeships in what?' one wonders...

Would like to see Britain become the PR capital of the world, obv.

xxpost well, he does talk about those things but political coverage is about personalities and insider bullshit, which probably does reflect the fact that voting isn't based on a careful analysis of policy papers: i for one will be tossing a coin between rage and despair on the day.

but it doesn't change the fact that "they don't have any policies" is nonsense, and i don't see how committing themselves to weakening health and safety legislation isn't a policy position either.

I'm sure they have policy documents coming out of their ears, and policy reviews and policy review committees and policy proposals, but they're not giving me much of an impression that they've actually put that much effort into working out that exactly it is they're going to do

... because they haven't had to: the media is all on their side, Brown is shite, election is a cakewalk

Blair said exactly the same about his time in government incidentally, that he spent so much time working out how he was going to achieve power that he didn't devote enough to working out what he was going to do with it, and the last two Labour terms bear that out.

In a sense, Cameron is luckier, because there's a record government deficit for him to get stuck into reducing and a recession to claw out of, and him repeatedly saying "I am going to do this" crowds out actual policies as people mistake it for substance. In another sense, it's a poisoned chalice because the whole thing will unravel pretty quickly once he's in government.

a record government deficit for him to get stuck into reducing and a recession to claw out of

this is the the biggest worry because part 1 of that is mutually exclusive with part 2 as far as my limited understanding of economics takes me.

but really, i don't know what you all think an "actual policy" or "substance" is if it's not something like scrapping early release of prisoners, or committing themselves to reducing public spending in a recession or any number of things that they've mentioned. these things will have significant consequences, even/especially if you think they're half-baked.

i'd just prefer people to say the tories have bad policies, i suppose.

It's all very well saying you've got a policy of "putting more people in prison and scrapping early release" but where's the details? Every time they come up (very) short on that. Even if they start building (more)prisons(than Labour are committed to) from day one if they scrap early release prisons will be (even more) full (than they are now) in about a month.

I mean, of course they're got policies - fucking hell Screaming Lord Sutch had policies - anyone can say they're going to do something.

Incidentally - it's very easy to offer mums and dads 12 months parental leave but with no money to back it up who could afford it?

So..er..yeah, you're right - we really should talk about bad policies rather no policies.

the idea that they haven't got any policies is a routine lazy jibe against all opposition parties and it's never true

This after 2 years of watching Michael Portillo on This Week with a smug grin on his face saying, "The Tories don't actually have to announce any policies yet"

but really, i don't know what you all think an "actual policy" or "substance" is if it's not something like scrapping early release of prisoners, or committing themselves to reducing public spending in a recession or any number of things that they've mentioned

I took care not to say they didn't have policies, I said the policies were being crowded out by posturing over the economy (which is true).

oh yeah, sorry.

Yeah, it was me who said they didn't have any policies.But then I am lazy.

http://newsforums.bbc.co.uk/nol/thread.jspa?forumID=7296&edition=1&ttl=20091201174112

HYSers appear to be split on this one, loonies obv. siding with "Dave"

Like this fellow who seems to think there's one particular law that can just be got rid of...

One of (just one of) the worst pieces of legislation ever enacted.
Just get rid of it - use common sense! (if there is any left)!

do not click HYS links

Actually I think he's talking about the 1974 Health and Safety at Work Act. So what Tom said, basically.

You know, a woman sued McDonald's cause she said her coffee was too hot!

Fuck this cunt using a wee boy dying to further his fucking bollocks attempt at looking like he has policies.

― nearly 50 in vagina years (onimo), Tuesday, 1 December 2009 15:15 (1 month ago) Bookmark

And he's at it again to-day. He's on a roll.

god, it would be a terrible if a labour politician exploited a terrible crime to score points of the opposition.

oh no wait

http://www.newstatesman.com/200212160011

You bring this up every fucking time. If you want to start a Blair is a wanker thread be my guest.

Oh no wait
http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/index.jsp

don't think i've ever brought it up, actually.

Where is Cameron being mawkish about kiddie death? Link would be nice.

Not death but it's along the same lines. Broken britain = two kids half beaten to death.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8473888.stm

well someone did - and I'm lashing out.
xp

society is broek :(

i would not know this were it not for cameron and his touchy feely tories.

"While stressing that the case is not typical, Mr Cameron is expected to cite it as a shocking example"

fucking knobcheese

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/47162000/jpg/_47162016_008565558-1.jpg

It's a really good job Cameron didn't join the Labour Party because this is not a good look on him.

Red on red is not nice.

nor is cunt on red.

"While stressing that the case is not typical, Mr Cameron is expected to cite it as a shocking example"

fucking knobcheese

― take me to your lemur (ledge), Friday, 22 January 2010 10:09 (38 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

blair as shadow home secretary did the same over james bulger iirc

hmm, that rings a bell.

In fairness, Blair was asked to do that by James Bulger's mother, but it felt exploitative nonetheless.

the thing is, most labour voters actually agree with the "broken society" rhetoric, but blame it on the lasting legacy of thatcher, who after all said society didn't exist and made lots of people unemployed.

using this kind of exceptional crime (or the bulger case) is dumm, but both sides play the game. possibly the tories invented it in the 1970s, when mugging became a big hot-button issue, but i don't know much about the history of law-n-order posturing before then.

All part of the Dutch Auction rightward drift of the Home Office over the last 30 years, uninterrupted by the change of government from Tory to New Labour.

http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41ZW5K6SCXL._SL500_AA240_.jpg

^^ what i had in mind. stuart hall right?

It has got a cover image straight out of It's A Knockout.

All part of the Dutch Auction rightward drift of the Home Office over the last 30 years, uninterrupted by the change of government from Tory to New Labour.

― Neil S, Friday, 22 January 2010 11:25 (13 minutes ago) Bookmark

think "dutch auction" is right and "uninterrupted" is not quite right: blair as shadow home sec was a turning point because there was no opposition to lawn order posturing, and it made the tories more hard line. there's a good story about michael howard axing a speech by a junior minister which said criminals needed to be driven out like "vermin" and replaced it with something boring about locks on windows. the papers got hold of the draft and tried to get blair to denounce it, but he refused because daily mail readers would agree with it.

blair's phrase was the bulger case was like "hammer blows to the sleeping conscience of the country". but smashing it with a hammer is going to make it less likely for a sleeping conscience to get up, isn't it?

More like a gentle tickle from the feather of horrific child abuse.

but i don't know much about the history of law-n-order posturing before then.

iirc law and order didn't even feature in manifestos until the 60s (maybe the late 50s). It was them mods and rockers that started everyone off on the decline of modern civilisation as we know it. That and the Jazz Riots.

Everyone here is right that both sides do it and it does not augur well for future policy. Although I suppose it also depends what you do with that rhetoric once in power. Also, hollow laugh, this all comes the day after the BCS which showed overall crime down, less chance of being a victim, blahblahblah, and I suppose Cammy gotta say something, although up until last year even i thought he might not be quite so, erm, scumbag=ish. It's like he's being told what to say by some old editor of The Sun or something.

We shd have a thread about inappropriately violent similes decrying violent crime.

xpost

It's almost like he's some old Etonian leader of the Tory Party, even.

possibly the tories invented it in the 1970s

this can't be right? surely opposition jumped on jack the ripper etc long before modern political lines were drawn and fixed?

Hey Cameron, thanks for yr Secret Meeting palling up w/even the nuttiest loons of Northern Ireland unionism, sweet move after a decade of fragile peace partly enabled by having a British govt who could finally be believed not to side unthinkingly with the marching, tyre-burning, flag-waving blue-kerbstoned goons imo

(PS obv I have no idea what your meeting was actually about so maybe you called them all tits and pulled their noses, but in that case you could've invited the other lot too)

dunno -- doubt it. interesting qn. i think ned is right though about when it became a really big thing. gladstone is famous for going out and talking to prostitutes, but i can't imagine him campaigning agin the tories based on the number of them in the streets. they didn't have much in the way of social workers, community policing, etc., in late victorian london.

xpost

Yeah, I imagine most Victorian politicians - probably most politicians pre WWI, operating on the assumption that more or less the entire working class was filthy criminal monkeys, but it was okay as long as they were only murdering their own.

gladstone is famous for going out and talking to prostitutes

well, yeah, but.......

Apologies for the following anally retentive detail but it's sort of my thing.

The word 'crime' get's a mention in the 1959 Conservative manifesto, but as with Labour, they were more concerned with illegal gambling at this point. The 1964 manifesto mentions 'hooliganism' and 'juvenile delinquency', which, they note "originates in broken or unhappy homes". In 1966 they really get down to it with a section on 'To Beat The Crime Wave' (followed by 'To Deal with the Problem of Immigration'). Perhaps surprisingly, it's not until 1970 that they blame the other lot, if rather halfheartedly, - The Labour Government cannot entirely shrug off responsibility for the present situation since they restricted police recruitment at a critical time. 1979 is the real watershed, big section on Law and Order - lays blame fair and sqaure on the previous Labour gov (and again follows it with a section Immigration and Race Relations (no connection, obviously). First mention of a "short, sharp shock". And after that it's a major part of each manifesto.

First Labour manifesto to have a separate section on "Law Enforcement" is 1966 which starts...
For years Britain has been confronted by a rising crime rate, overcrowded prisons and many seriously undermanned police forces.
In 1970 they too realise this is a party political issue and there's a whole section on Law and Justice.
Nothing could be more cynical than the current attempts by our opponents to exploit for Party political ends the issue of crime and law enforcement.
The 1979 manifesto is a bit weak on crime but by Kinnock's first manifesto in 1983 there's a long section. And so on.

Fascinating reading they all are, incidentally, I recommend it.

http://i.imgur.com/W9LUWl.jpg

Elvis circa Vegas comeback there.

i thought it was grandpa munster

Is crime really rising? No.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/markeaston/2010/01/conservative_estimates_on_viol.html

Utterly vile.