Comments for Acme Politics

Comment on I’m in the Y.P. by dan

dan — Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:07:00 +0000

I think you are right to an extent David. D.D. was in a very good position, that is for sure. However, bear in mind that he was in a position where he knew that the opposition was taking the unpopular choice. This, I suspect, would have made him very uncomfortable and his reasoning for taking this action would be that he would not have otherwise had the freedoms to say what he wants to say and on what issues. I am not sure Cameron was as convinced on 42 days as Davis and he would have known that. Perhaps this was the only way D.D. could see of taking this matter to the country.

As for other peoples views on this, I think some are annoyed with him and they are within their rights to be so, I daresay if a person didnt see it from D.D.’s point of view another £80k seems to be going down the spout. However this is part of a wider issue. That is to say, those who seem to ahve a problem with his actions also have a problem with his stance (this is based on a very non-scientific pub debate I was part of last night), also there were plenty of people not happy with his stance full stop. The people of Britain need to be woken up to what is being done to their rights in the name of security and I think that the comments in the YP demonstrate that they do not.

Comment on I’m in the Y.P. by David

David — Sat, 14 Jun 2008 17:04:25 +0000

Dan, I think you’re confusing criticising someone’s actions with criticising someone’s beliefs. I sincerely hope that a majority of people, and certainly those who have thought about it for more than five minutes, agree with David Davis’ opinion. What a lot of people are questioning, myself included, is his method - I simply fail to see what resigning from parliament, while in a senior position in a party that supports his view, and forcing an £80,000 bill on the taxpayer to fund an almost uncontested by-election in a safe tory seat can actually demonstrate?

Surely the Shadow Home Secretary is the best person to attack this bill in the House? Isn’t that part of the mandate that the people of Haltemprice have already given him? One could argue that he is doing them a serious dis-service by removing himself from an effective position to a mere back-bencher.

Comment on A man of principle by David

David — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:05:17 +0000

Ryan, I don’t think the election of a man, almost unopposed, by a very small percentage of the electorate on a single issue is grounds for a leadership contest.

Cameron has now grown into a competent and respected leader - about the only thing that could spoil our chances of winning an election is a messy leaderhip contest at this late stage.

Dan, perhaps you’re right - maybe I’ve launched into him a bit too much. But I still think he could have made a more useful protest in the House, and not caused a lot of embarassment for the party. If he wins, which looks likely, then it will appear as if the rest of the Tory party don’t care as much, and if he looses it’ll reflect badly on us for loosing a relatively safe seat and a prominent MP.

Comment on A man of principle by dan

dan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:38:42 +0000

Ryan, I really hope he does not. This is not about the leadership of the party. It is about the freedom of the people of Britain.

Comment on A man of principle by Ryan Lavelle

Ryan Lavelle — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 13:25:58 +0000

Mr Cameron is not to be trusted.

He has failed to mobilize the party and broader electorate to defend themselves from the emerging EU dictatorship, and one can only conclude that this is because he is a collaborator.

Mr Davis will return to the house with a strong mandate from the electorate that this is not going to be tolerated by the British people any more, and as such, he will be in a position to challenge Mr Cameron for the leadership.

The Conservative party needs to break decisively with its Europhile past and fight for our national sovereignty via a clean, negotiated exit from the EU.

Comment on A man of principle by dan

dan — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:55:47 +0000

I understand your point to a degree David, looking at it in purely the short term. But I do believe that D.D. must stand for his basic principles. I am very sad to see the party replace him so quickly as Shadow Home Secretary, I really wish he could have stayed in the post as he would make a spectacular Home Secretary when we come to power. I would disagree with you on the point of it being a miracle for Labour, Davis has gone out to fight for the issues, you, I and most other British people hold dear, we need to register this point by registering our support for him. This is not a vanity trip, it is a point of principle and I know many people on the other side of the political divide saying “Thankyou Mr Davis” because he is standing up for the ideas of Habeas Corpus, he is willing to put his neck on the line. People will remember what Labour have done with their civil liberties come the general election, and they will remember it all the better now because Davis has had the balls to put everything on the line for it. Remember, there is no guarantee he will get back into the front bench, he has effectively gambled EVERYTHING he has spent his life working for on a point which he values higher than his job. We should praise, not berate his actions.

Comment on A man of principle by David

David — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 12:28:19 +0000

Sorry Dan, but I completely disagree. Just what the hell does Davis think he is going to accomplish by splitting up our front bench? This pointless gesture detracts from the emphasis that should be on Labour at the moment - he, as Shadow Home Secretary, should be tearing the government to peices over the deal with the Irish, and he should continue to contest the legislation IN THE HOUSE - exactly where is ought to be contested.

This stunt is a catastrophe for Conservatives - and a miracle for Labour. I actually want him to loose the by-election, then we can be rid of him, and get on with minimising the damage this has done.

Sweet Jesus! What is the point? You and I, and everyone else, have worked so hard for so fucking long to make our party ready for government again. I am seriously considering going to Haltemprice to campaign for anyone who stands against him. He’s making his position and our party into a national joke.

Comment on Don’t think TOO hard, the following can happen… by batguano101

batguano101 — Wed, 11 Jun 2008 12:31:47 +0000

Do not follow the US lead in this:

In the Viet Nam war protesters of the war began blaming the troops for an unpopular war they did not start. This ended in protesters spiting on troops who had fought for the USA.

In the USA the mission is 100% ordered by civilian leadership.
The military advises but has no power to order a mission, go to war, only the civilians of government may do this.

We already have protesters trotting out “winter soldiers”, a euphemism for prior service members confessions of atrocities as was done in Viet Nam.

Some confessors of atrocities were not combat soldiers and are motivated by attention, some were combat soldiers and their guilt for killing in war is manipulated, some no doubt were present when civilians were killed.

The end effect is the same- license is given to spit on soldiers as protest to the war.

Civilians were targets in WWII, both in Europe and the Pacific. Civilian deaths happen in all wars, it is part of the nature of war, even if not targeted as in WWII.

The use of the technique of blaming the soldiers for the unpopular war needs to be identified immediately each time it is presented for what it is:

cowardly shifting of protest from the issues of the war and those who gave the order to go to war to those who stepped up to the plate on behalf of the nation with their lives.

Agree or not with this or any other war, blaming the troops is an unacceptable form of “protest” and should be identified as such each time it is used.

Comment on Indiana Jones and the pile of sh*te by Lucy (off of Linden's friends)

Lucy (off of Linden's friends) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:57:42 +0000

Umm, I don’t know whether that worked…

Comment on Indiana Jones and the pile of sh*te by Lucy (off of Linden's friends)

Lucy (off of Linden's friends) — Wed, 04 Jun 2008 19:56:58 +0000

I thought it was ace. But that’s mostly because I loved the first three, and it was a massive nostalgia trip, and I managed to buy into the critics’ hype about it being a huge disappointment, and therefore expected the worst.

Aliens aren’t believable but ghosts coming out of the Lost Ark and killing all the mean Nazis are? And let’s not forget the old Templar Knight in the Last Crusade, and how the Holy Grail’s contents magically healed Henry Jones Sr…

Last thing, I promise; of course the script’s a bag of crap. It’s written by George Lucas. Hardly known for his eloquence, is he…?