Keith Sansum1
- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#1
I didn't get chance to watch question time last night, and i know our grand editor is a great fan of the programme.
From reports it apears the cobbled together govt(more so the tories) got a rough ride.
is that correct paulb????
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#2
Yes indeed I am a fan of it Keefy and I did watch. It wasnt anything spectacular. John Redwood represented the Conservatives and he appears to be an altogether more palatable figure than he used to be.. isnt age and wisdom a wonderful thing! Labour were represented by a new name, an up and coming star, who we have a quote from on our frontpage this morning called Rachel Reeves who is a shadow pensions minister.
The Libdem flag was flown by Norman Baker who I sat next to at dinner once and a very nice chap too. Thats my claim to fame!
There was a poor contribution from Fern Britton who didnt seem to know anything about anything so why bring her on such a show...and that comedian from Peep Show cant remember his name, he did make a worthwhile contribution though.
The topics were...
The Greek Bailout
Womens Pension Anomaly ( see our frontpage this morning)
Did the 347 troops die in vain in Afghanistan now that we are pulling out with nothing really fully resolved.
The Cameron humiliation on Circus Animals yesterday etc etc
all the topical stuff raised its head. It wasnt a classic version of the show but it was okay nonetheless.
EXTRA BIT Re the Greek Bailout. Nobody generally is in favour of giving them any more money although concerns were raised about the effect it would have on everyone right across Europe should they collapse. David Cameron though is claiming victory this morning saying that the UK will not be contributing further...its a Eurozone problem is the thinking. So, a victory for him. Although we do as ever contribute to the IMF and some of their money will be used in the bailout
#3
So not quite the victory it is being painted as! A nice visible quick "win" for him which conceals the fact that we will, actually, contribute!
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#4
PAULB;
I watched the commons when the issue of live animals in circus's was raised.
the conservative MP who raised the issue(mr pritchard)was realy getting out of his pram over threats by the conservative party whips, and mr cameron himself that he would dimly on mr pritchard if he continued his fight on animals in circus's.
I'm pleased that mr pritchard had the backbone to stand up to mr cameron and the conservative party, and got it all through.
so much for barryw vision of freedom of speech
conservatives dont tell its mp's what to do
we have now seen the real conservatives in action
and im pleased that mr pritchard stood up to them.
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
#5
I do wonder sometimes why people are so surprised when politics gets a bit tough! That is how it works. It is designed for treachery, manipulation and left field thinking. Think chess.Think mucky. People are leaned on all the time, and their job is to find a way to lean back or side step effectively. That is politics - my time as a union rep taught me much about politics. Mr Pritchard was elected as a Tory, he accepted the Tory brief, if he has a problem with that I suppose he could have foregone the support of the party and stood as an independent.
Actually I don't care. This guy has had his 15 minutes of fame, fair play to him!!
Guest 640- Registered: 21 Apr 2007
- Posts: 7,819
#6
The big question on the Circus animal thing is why Mr Cameron was bothering to such a heavy degree. Why was he making such a big deal out of it as its hardly major league stuff. He went particularly out of his way to stop this Pritchard guy..firstly by offering him the incentive of a worthy job, this he turned down, then they got heavy with him with enough threats to make your eyes water. Pritchard carried on but did spill the beans on this during the debate which was quite a shocking revelation ...the media loved it as the Conservatives do try to revel in the appearance of a united front .
I saw it live myself.
On BBCs Question Time even arch Tory John Redwood did not support Cameron either and all went for a ban on circus animals performing which was Pritchards original motion. Cameron wanted no ban...but an amendment to the status quo.
Pritchards career wont be moving upwards and onwards anytime soon!
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#7
i have total admiration for mr pritchard, it was not a party issue anyway.
m.p's of all shades of opinion were for the ban as are the general public.
Keith Sansum1- Location: london
- Registered: 25 Aug 2010
- Posts: 23,948
#8
PAULB;
I think mr cameron thought by trying to buy mr pritchard off, then threatening him, that he was playing up to the hunters within his party
as well as those that have no interest in animal welfare.
But this one badly backfired, and mr pritchard was brave enough to highlight the real face on the conservative party.
so let's not have our barryw tell us any more about the conservative party and its members freedom to say whatever they want, and bottom up beliefs.
mr pritchard has proved otherwise.
Was rather a strange subject for mr cameron to take such a stand on, but certainly this has destroyed all thos myths on the conservative party
ALL POSTS ARE MY OWN PERSONAL VIEWS
Brian Dixon
- Location: Dover
- Registered: 23 Sep 2008
- Posts: 23,940
#9
i havent been to a circus since they stopped useing animals,it has cut the danger out of it and made it more boring.
Guest 645- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 4,463
#10
I'm all for the protection of animals and eradicating any type of cruelty towards them ,circus or otherwise but.......I only wish we spent as much time debating in parliament the same type of concern and protection of our children ,the aged and the vunerable.
If it came to the crunch kids first ,boxing kangaroo's second.
Marek
I think therefore I am (not a Tory supporter)
howard mcsweeney1- Location: Dover
- Registered: 12 Mar 2008
- Posts: 62,352
#11
there are plenty of laws to protect children and the vulnerable, it is just that they get broken by people.
#12
Broken, and also not upheld by the people tasked to do so. I could barely believe the excuse given by the most recent collection of organisations who had failed to protect a child who was murdered by his carers: they were "overburdened".