British Right-Wing Pundits

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (641 of them)
xpost

Sure, Cameron didn't come up with free healthcare! But the political climate is such that he'd have a hard time getting rid of it. Which underlines my point about the political background being skewed more leftwards in the UK, despite years of Thatcher/Blair.

underpants of the gods, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:43 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"Cameron isn't proposing universal, free-at-the-point-of-service healthcare either, we've already got it."

well except for things involving teeth or eyes, ie the only two things i ever go in for...

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:44 (eleven years ago) Permalink

just going to say

Alan, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:45 (eleven years ago) Permalink

We'll see how hard a time he has getting rid of it, it'll be less hard than you think once he persuades the middle classes it's in their interest (xxpost)

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:46 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Well, I think if it were politically possible to get rid of the NHS, it would have already been done. Anyway, doesn't Cameron have a disabled kid or something. He probably uses the NHS more than the average Tory.

underpants of the gods, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

They are getting rid of it already, piece by piece

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

um guys the nhs is already on the way out...

xpost!

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 13:50 (eleven years ago) Permalink

BUT immigration is the no 1 concern of uk voters! apprently. maybe my first hypothesis was v v wrong.

acrobat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:21 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Not according to the most recent polls.

Ed, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Being tough on immigration didn't do Michael Howard much good last time round did it?

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

... and wasn't Cameron one of those responsible for that policy?

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

parties don't campaign on 'number one concern of voters' in general but the voters who will swing the election, ie middle england blah blah blah.

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:25 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Middle england (according to the polls) cares about health and house prices.

Ed, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:30 (eleven years ago) Permalink

healthy and house prices

fixed

onimo, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:31 (eleven years ago) Permalink

what on earth could their problem be with house prices!? they are winning that war. it would be interesting to know the nature of middle england's concern w. health -- taking my parents as barometer of same, their problem isn't exactly lack of service but quality of it: hospital bugs etc. a move by the tories towards increased private provision probably wouldn't phase them too much.

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:48 (eleven years ago) Permalink

their kids getting on the property ladder?

acrobat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Having to live near poor people?

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 14:52 (eleven years ago) Permalink

are the right wing pundits repping for "middle england" thou? as dom points out Littlejohn is, or at least was, the voice of white van man. all the big scares of recent years have focused on working class fears as much as middle england haven't they?

acrobat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

the fact that homeowners who actually rent their houses from the bank think theyre rich overnight and are spending the paper money they dont have?

600, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:05 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Ha ha, who cares about "working class fears"?

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:06 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Difference between white working class fears of immigration and middle England fears of immigration? Straightforward difference of economics vs culture?

Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:08 (eleven years ago) Permalink

also theres a sense that rightwing british pundits dont really believe that much in what they right, so it all comes off a bit geezer down the pub, who says one thing one minute and another the next

600, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:08 (eleven years ago) Permalink

a decent education system in this country might mean people writing right instead of righting write

600, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

If nothing else, the French election campaign makes me feel nostalgic for the days when one party stood for something and another party stood for something else, clearcut with no ambiguity and no chasing after the same limited and overrated floating electorate.

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

perhaps with a decent university system that keeps the poor out, some of them may even write correctly

600, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:10 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"the fact that homeowners who actually rent their houses from the bank think theyre rich overnight and are spending the paper money they dont have?

-- 600, Tuesday, April 24, 2007 6:05 PM (4 minutes ago)"

lol 8080

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:11 (eleven years ago) Permalink

There are a lot of rent-a-rightie types on the op ed pages of the Times who you know cynically knock out 500 words of half-hearted spleen on the turn of a dime and really don't give a toss one way or the other - stand up Stephen Pollard, Ross Clark, Mick Hume and Rosemary Righter, which latter name could have come straight out of Kingsley Amis.

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:12 (eleven years ago) Permalink

oh i think mick hume cares a lot. he's sinister fucker with a scary team.

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:18 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Since when was Mick Hume on Sinister?

Still, never trust an ex-Marxist.

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i think saying they don't actually believe what they're saying is a bit dangerous. cf that thread about melanie phillips and the missing WMDs.

acrobat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:53 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I've said this before elsewhere on ILE, but Peter Cook used to write a fervently right-wing column for the Daily Mail in '76-8. He said he didn't agree with a word of it but he thought that was the kind of writing the editor of the Daily Mail wanted, and it paid good money. Most notoriously, he gave a scathing denouncement of punk rock which he'd written with Malcolm McLaren the night before.

Marcello Carlin, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

what thread was that?

i know what you mean acrobat. but melanie p means every word of what she says. she is less of a menace than the others, partly because that imo. which sounds odd but basically i don't think many guardian writers are really very committed to any kind of politics, they, like their right-wing counterparts, churn out perversely 'reassuring' copy each day, confirming their readers' half-thought out prejudices. polly toynbee and jackie ashley exist solely as government mouthpieces, for example.

crosspost

the cook columns are really funny though!

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 15:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

He also mocked the idea that Martin Luther King was a good person because he used to sleep around, some of the columns are in that "I Was Born An Only Twin" collection.

xp

Dom Passantino, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:00 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Does this guy count as a rightwing pundit? Or is he a bit too button-down for the raving loon aspect?

He's the kind who's exported to america, at least, since he's over here on a book tour.

kingfish, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:01 (eleven years ago) Permalink

http://www.ilxor.com/ILX/ThreadSelectedControllerServlet?boardid=40&threadid=53352#unread

this thread. i flicked through the spectator for the first time ever last week. it was really horrible.

xpost

acrobat, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Upper class twit (xp)

Tom D., Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

he's crazy like a right-leaning fox.

good parody of him in last week's private eye.

xpost

That one guy that quit, Tuesday, 24 April 2007 16:03 (eleven years ago) Permalink

"'reassuring' copy"

hmmm...

acrobat, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 08:29 (eleven years ago) Permalink

i'm thinking of toynbee really -- totally reliable worldview, could have been written any time in the last century.

i remember that labour voters used to say, well yeah blair *is* a dick, but wait till brown comes in, then it'll be sweet. so we live in interesting times.

That one guy that quit, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 08:49 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I find Toynbee a lot more dangerous than pretty much any right-wing British pundit, to be honest.

Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 09:23 (eleven years ago) Permalink

When Blair gets back from saving the Middle East...

Are the right-wingers in Britian opposed to TWAT?

Heave Ho, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:06 (eleven years ago) Permalink

It's complicated. Provisionally, no. In reality, sort of.

Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Daily Mail have pretty much opposed any war fought by Blair.

Dom Passantino, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:09 (eleven years ago) Permalink

well it's all sort of paradoxiacal innit. the old divisions have become bluured. a government that, if the strawmanning can work properly, has to be characterized as left wing fighting an "imperialist" war. with brown coming in i guess the old battles may be revived SOUR SOCIALIST SCOT WANTS YR TAXES!

british culture is weird atm, reactionary seems to be the new subversive. or at least people (mark lawson) can still be claiming the likes of ricky gervais, little britain etc to be something other than the heirs of love thy neighbour. also see the hideousness have i got news for you has become: "john prescott is a fat cunt lol lol, boris johnson is a top wheeze jeremy clarkson lol global warming doesn't exist ha ha ha..."

acrobat, Wednesday, 25 April 2007 12:17 (eleven years ago) Permalink

No mention of Patrick O'Flynn? from The Worlds Greatest Newspaper?

Monday's was a cracker.

[Removed Illegal Link]

It even came complete with the Expresses favourite photo...
http://www.website.com/yourimage.jpeg[/img]

Ned Trifle II, Friday, 4 May 2007 10:56 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Which is my opinion of right-wing pundits, and my inability to post links...

Ned Trifle II, Friday, 4 May 2007 10:58 (eleven years ago) Permalink

[Removed Illegal Link]

Ned Trifle II, Friday, 4 May 2007 10:59 (eleven years ago) Permalink

Oh read it for yrselves...

THE Rowntree report into poverty levels among Britain's ethnic minority communities is, predictably, being used by left-wingers to call for even more public spending and even more "anti-racism" initiatives.

The report reveals that poverty rates are far higher among black and Asian communities than among whites.

Bangladeshi and Pakistani families are particularly likely to live in poverty.

But there is another way to read this report.

What it actually does - though this is not what its liberal leftish authors will have intended - is to give the lie to claims that mass immigration has always been in the national economic interest.

It is common ground now among Left and Right that economic participation is the way to eliminate poverty. So a community with lots of poverty will tend to be a community in which relatively few people are making an economic contribution.

Therefore, not only are Muslim communities in the inner-cities the source of cultural and political tension with mainstream Britain, they are also revealed to be a major economic burden too.

Their economic participation rates are extremely low. If you believe, as I do, that this is primarily due to cultural factors rather than any overwhelming anti-Asian racism in Britain, then it becomes even clearer that the mass immigration of these groups with no simultaneous demand being made of them to integrate, has not so far been in the interests of Britain as a whole.

Given the large family sizes which are typical in these communities, they must also be putting a big strain on public services and social housing.

If we are to build a tolerant, successful, multi-racial Britain then people must be persuaded to stop using their ethnic origin as an excuse for underachievement or anti-social conduct. Left-wingers should be challenging members of these communities to fulfill their human potential, not giving them more excuses to view themselves as victims.

No doubt racism does still exist towards the ethnic minorities, but it is clearly not the main reason for some groups prospering and others ending up in poverty. It cannot explain why the Jews and Chinese have been economically successful and yet people from Pakistan and Bangladesh have, in general, not been. Neither can it explain why black boys and the children of Irish travellers are much more likely than average to be expelled from schools, while Indian and Chinese children are much less likely.

Is there an army of black-hating, traveller-baiting state school teachers out there which at the same time has an irrational adoration for Chinese and Indian children? I hardly think so. Different family structures are resulting in different types of behaviour across the ethnic groups.

The answer to problems of poverty and crime have to come from within the communities themselves. It is time for law-abiding Britons to stop beating themselves up about the failure of large proportions of people from some immigrant groups to succeed.

So you don't want to be poor? So learn the language, work hard at school, get a job and only bring into the world only the number of children that you can support out of your own income. So you don't want to end up in prison? Then stop breaking the law. And that applies whether you are black, white or sky-blue pink.

Ned Trifle II, Friday, 4 May 2007 11:02 (eleven years ago) Permalink

I don’t even like OJ but the way his colleagues pile on him & talk about him in public is disgraceful! Plus the way they refer to him as Squealer (an Animal Farm reference) is more than a bit homophobic and suggests they’re hiding behind plausible deniability to have that dig. But no, he’s the real problem.

gyac, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:12 (three days ago) Permalink

Oh, also, several of them were delightedly tweeting a video of him being called a wanker by a yellow vest - before it emerged that he’d been chased down the street by the same group of protesters who were shouting homophobic abuse at him. Yet him asking the press to hold themselves to any standards is “Trumpean”.

gyac, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:16 (three days ago) Permalink

Ron Liddle took a day off from the usual race-hate peddling yesterday in the ST for his other pet subject: that made up condition ME and the pathetic malingerers who claim to be afflicted with it. He needs to be put down in most brutally painful fashion rather than OJ (who I think is a complete wazzock as well tbh!).

calzino, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:19 (three days ago) Permalink

Today: why does Owen Jones talk about the media like it applied to everybody? Saturday: have you seen Janice Turner's fantastic piece about the left?

— The Justin Horton Show (@ejhchess) March 18, 2019

the other half of this is that you’ll see many of the same columnists piling in to have a pop at OJ - who is just one person - RTing their scummy mates at the Times going full culture war on trans people. Like Jan1c3 Turn3r afaict is employed by the Times to churn out scaremongering shit about trans people - and most of the pearl clutchers are fully on that train & spouting off that people who support trans rights are the real misogynists.

gyac, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:24 (three days ago) Permalink

Exactly. And let’s not forget JT’s husband is Exec Ed of the Sunday Times, so it’s up to him what goes in the paper. BTW, his father was Peter Preston, so I bet he rates himself as ‘liberal’.

suzy, Monday, 18 March 2019 11:42 (three days ago) Permalink

Urgh

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 18 March 2019 11:48 (three days ago) Permalink

They forget the whole seeking truth aspect of journalism, eh.

Never changed username before (cardamon), Monday, 18 March 2019 11:49 (three days ago) Permalink


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