View previous topic | View next topic

Welcome, O Prince of Darkness!

Page 1 of 14
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next


Would YOU have brought Peter Mandelson back into the Cabinet?
Yes
38%
 38%  [ 5 ]
No
61%
 61%  [ 8 ]
Total Votes : 13

QiScorpion
417530.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 9:25 am Reply with quote

What's so controversial about the re-appointment of Peter Mandelson to Gordon Brown's cabinet?

(the thread title is from a picture from the daily telegraph article.)

 
barbados
417629.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:19 pm Reply with quote

What's so controversial?
Nothing really, he isn't an MP but that isn't too much of a big deal'
He isn't really much of a Gordon Brown fan, but there's nothing controversial about that - not many people are.

The one thing that worries me is he is a master of spin. I'm not a great fan of spin in politics, I'd rather a party be judged on real results rather than the implied results

 
jakamneziak
417638.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 1:48 pm Reply with quote

Then in reality barbados you may as well ahev ruled out the politics of the uk since the late 70's maybe even earlier. Spin has been around for so long and it is so integrated now that removing spin is a futile task. To judge a party on real results nowadays is a very tough attribute to have.

 
Davini994
417645.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:05 pm Reply with quote

Well what else should we judge them on? The amount of spin they produce? Just because judging something accurately is difficult doesn't mean we should just not judge it at all.

And making cynical comments doesn't make you sound worldly wise like I reckon you hope, it just makes you sound like you've been reading the redtops too much.

Furthermore, there *are* politicians with integrity and a desire to be constructive rather than just gain power by any means, in my opinion, and from all sides of the house. John Major, Paddy Ashdown and Tony Benn spring to mind.

The first time Mandy resigned was for a nice bit of corruption involving a zero percent loan from a millionaire MP which he didn't declare.

The second was for another bit of corruption, this time a bit of you scratch our back we'll scratch yours, with a pair of unbelievably rich dodgy dealers who supported the labour party financially and got some American style personal involvement in their attempts to gain British citizenship.

It's a bit controversial due to these, and a feeling by the press and the general populace that he is a bit dodgy and arrogant. Tony Blair found him invaluable.

He seemed to do a good job with Northern Ireland though.

 
barbados
417655.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:26 pm Reply with quote

There are quite a lot of MPs that have integrity as you say Dave. Those that think otherwise seem to be idiots. Even today on the three main parties I can think of three good politicians without having to try too hard. Jack Straw, Paul Burstow, and William Hague

 
Davini994
417661.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:38 pm Reply with quote

Paul Burstow is a new one on me, but he certainly seems to fit the bill doesn't he? Nice one.

 
barbados
417670.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:50 pm Reply with quote

I only know of him because he's my MP. And really quite good at his job

 
jakamneziak
417678.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 2:59 pm Reply with quote

I am not knocking him for trying davini lets get that straight, merely pointing out that it is an exceptionally difficult skill to have given the amount of spin that is put on politics over the last 30 years. Furthermore what does "reading the redtops" actually refer to exactly? (another phrase i have yet to come across.)

In reference to my "cynical" comment earlier, say you had a chicken fahl and you were gravely ill because of it. You want to know which one of the ingeedients in it reacted very badly. It is possible to find out but very tricky, hence why i find judging politicians on actual results rather than spin very difficult.

It is so amalgamated in with the actual results that it is nigh on impossible to pin down what is spin and what isn't, especially given that everything when written down has a personal bias (no matter how slight.) So technically EVERYTHING written, spoken or communicated is spin, but with politics (and to a certain extent business) the spin has been interwoven with actual results making it almost impossible to seperate.

 
barbados
417695.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 3:39 pm Reply with quote

You seem to judge everybody at the very low bench mark you have set yourself once again Jak.

Just because you can't judge how well someone is at actually doing their job, it doesn't mean the rest of us are also unable to carry out such a simple task.

 
Davini994
417703.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 4:12 pm Reply with quote

jakamneziak wrote:
Spin has been around for so long and it is so integrated now that removing spin is a futile task.


Wiktionary wrote:
Futile: Incapable of producing results; useless; not successful; not worth attempting.


http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/futile

So I read your post, fairly reasonably I think, to mean that we shouldn't bother trying to judge the integrity of politicians when they speak, because they are all lying to us. When we catch them it doesn't matter, the only difference is that those are the ones that get caught and it's just more proof of all of them being the same.

This is something that really annoys me, as it seems to be more and more pervasive in public discussion and thought. It's group mentality, led in large part by the red top papers and the daily mail.

QI is a philosophy as much as anything*, and part of the philosophy is cutting out this sort of dumb animal thinking; being led by the group, or what we think is the group as determined by what the populist papers print. We should think for ourselves and base our opinions on facts, whether discussing how many wives Henry VIII had or current affairs.

The clearest example of this, to me, is the permanent and counterproductive hysteria that surrounds whichever sucker is currently the England football manager. But it's everywhere, the global warming debate being another sound example.

The point of discussing these things here is not to repeat the same accepted herd mentality, but to cleave the rubbish from the salient points, in order to make sound judgements and form reasonable opinions.

Take Neo for example; he and I disagree on almost all political and economic points, but he thinks what he thinks for justifiable and explainable reasons. We advance the argument when we clash, and maybe even sometimes convince each other of the alternative point of view.

You, on the other hand, just repeat cynical herd nonsense, which for some bizarre reason you think makes you look cool, and is funny and/or interesting, for reasons which I fail to understand.

Work it out soon, please, ffs.

[/rant]

*yes I know I sound like a jerk when I say that.

 
PDR
417713.  Sat Oct 04, 2008 5:10 pm Reply with quote

I was about to accuse you of plagiarising the post I would have written, but then I realised that it was far to diplomatically put...

PDR

 
bobwilson
417760.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:24 am Reply with quote

Quote:
QI is a philosophy as much as anything*,
*yes I know I sound like a jerk when I say that.


nope - you don't sound like a jerk. I think the evidence of these forums shows that QI is a philosophy of sorts - and one which has a long tradition. It's avoiding accepting received wisdom - whether that's given as "hard facts" or "fashionable ideas".

Quote:

Take Neo for example; he and I disagree on almost all political and economic points,


Actually, I think all intelligent people ultimately agree on all major issues. The differences are cosmetic and the best approach is not adversarial but to try to figure out why there is an apparent disagreement.

 
QiScorpion
417761.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 2:52 am Reply with quote

so there's no real controversy about Peter Mandelson, he's just seen by the redtops as a bit dodgy. ergo, he's actually an alright guy, since the redtops only ever print utter bollocks stuff that's almost unfit for wiping your arse after a particularly bad curry.

Qi is and has a philosophy - "About QI" contains the QI Philosophy and i think it's quite a good philosophy to have, which is why i'm here. I may not have the first clue what the LHC is actually doing, but i'd still like to discuss the impacts of it etc and see if i can find out, for myself in language i can understand, what it's doing and so on.

Herd mentality annoys me, but not all the time. Thing is though, herd mentality is omnipresent:

In our school, if anyone were to, say, slip up in the canteen and go head over heels into their lasagne, almost every single person in the canteen would turn around and go :"HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA" in one long stream, even if half the people didn't see it happen. I make a point of never doing it, simply because i can sympathise with the person who is being laughed at.
Ergo i loathe herd mentality.

 
barbados
417767.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 3:57 am Reply with quote

QiScorpion wrote:
so there's no real controversy about Peter Mandelson, he's just seen by the redtops as a bit dodgy. ergo, he's actually an alright guy, since the redtops only ever print utter bollocks stuff that's almost unfit for wiping your arse after a particularly bad curry.



With the exception of him being corrupt of course

 
djgordy
417771.  Sun Oct 05, 2008 4:16 am Reply with quote

Bad news for Mr. G. Brown.

Quote:
New Business Secretary Peter Mandelson has said he will be "joined at the hip" to the prime minister from now on.


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7653134.stm

Should make for interesting nights in with Peter, Gordon and Sarah.

 

Page 1 of 14
Goto page 1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14  Next

All times are GMT - 5 Hours


Display posts from previous:   

Search Search Forums

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group