The Vibe - Latest Comments

Re: Was Osama bin Laden’s killing lawful?

Gazl — Thu, 02 Jun 2011 02:22:45 -0000

dead men tell no tales

Re: Water for Elephants film review

Bum — Tue, 31 May 2011 10:59:12 -0000

get over it

Re: Travels on the Dance Floor by Grevel Lindop

Grevel Lindop — Sun, 22 May 2011 15:08:48 -0000

Thanks, Emma, and I'm delighted you enjoyed the book and found it authentic. I had a lot of fun writing it as you can tell! I write various pieces about salsa and related music on my blog at www.grevel.co.uk which you might enjoy if you have time to look. Thanks again and happy dancing! - Grevel

Re: A Week in Politics: Labour / Coalition SPAD-swap & Blue Labour

Agent M — Fri, 20 May 2011 05:16:37 -0000

Spot on. Love it!

Re: Water for Elephants film review

Catherine — Wed, 11 May 2011 17:56:46 -0000

Wouldn’t go to see this film if you paid me £1 million. The ADI footage of ‘elephant training techniques’ shows me all I need to see. Horrific - if unsurprising. That’s how you train big wild animals – don’t believe for a second anyone that tells you otherwise.

Re: Government plans to cut allowances to addicts

alcohol and drug treatment — Fri, 06 May 2011 08:44:05 -0000

Hi,

Its really great guys that Government plans to cut allowances to addicts.

You have given really great information guys.

Thanks

Re: Andrew Marr’s super injunction shame

Matsciejs — Wed, 04 May 2011 18:49:13 -0000

Well as some might see some of this as a shame, what of his family? I am sure they don't want to be taunted by people who get to know about this. I think people should not take it upon themselves to name and shame what went on behind closed doors, at the cost of the families. His life is personal and he is well within his rights to keep it that way

Re: Wasting Light by Foo Fighters review

Robert — Tue, 19 Apr 2011 09:34:01 -0000

Thank you for the review.It would be great album, I hope their touring will be also successful. From interview, which I downloaded from http://www.torrentoff.com I got to know that they going to do that in garages through the USA. Grohl said, "When you are confined into a tight space, you are forced to really listen. These shows in little rooms are only making us tighter. We are not ready to play a big arena rock show -- so why not get warmed up in someone else's garage? Perhaps, he is right!

Re: Higher tuition fees for four-year language courses could put students off

P E H Rodriguez-martinez — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 11:10:59 -0000

Very well written and argued with conviction and passion.
PRM

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Emma — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 12:29:56 -0000

Wow! It appears there's been a long debate over this even before I could get my comment in. I won't join in the debate. I'd just like to say a few things. First is, I find the article interesting and I like the different opinion it takes on the protests. It's an original angle as mostly one would have expected an articles that went along the lines of "the government's wrong, the protesters are right, we're all going to be poor".

However, I would also like to disagree with you. France is a clear example of how protests actually can have an effect on government plans. Of course, France is at the other end of the spectrum completely, considering how often they strike it often renders their strikes meaningless, particularly in the eyes of the international society. However, they have succeeded in making the government back down in several instances over history and it's only recently with a tougher Nicolas Sarkozy that they have not managed to do so. Overall though, I would say that their track record is pretty good. So this shows that protests can be effective, I think it depends a little on cultural history and context, and how strongly each side feels about their opinion. If the people protesting against the cuts feel strongly enough about it, they can emulate the French and take to the streets on a regular basis in growing masses until the government gives up (or gives in). Or, they could just as well leave it at that and then get on with it...

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Eshaan Akbar — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 11:08:53 -0000

@Matthardwick1977

There are plenty of people who have taken to blogging and commenting as their form of employment generating their own income. It's somewhat arrogant to feel that having only worked in the private sector for 45 years, you have some moral authority over what constitutes work and what doesn't. That's for another debate.

"In each case, the end result was the same. Nothing changed." (Quite untrue, and no mention of time limits)
I have clearly referred to the cases for which this statement is intended: "Famously, hundreds and thousands of people descended onto the streets of London in 2003 condemning the decision to go to war in Iraq. We now mourn the dead – both civilian and military. People have protested vocally against the visit of the Pope, Tamil protesters wreaked havoc on the streets of Westminster in 2009 and, most recently, student protests against rises in tuition fees." What was intended to happen happened; the aftermath is not at issue here and I agree with you that the events themselves will have changed policy. The protests in the lead up to a particular policy didn't.

I have accepted that the Poll Tax protests did change policy - I was 5/6 years old when thsoe protests took place. Whilst that is in my lifetime (so, by definition, there have been protests which have changed policy in my lifetime), I don't regard an event that took place when I was a child to form part of the political discussion when talking about my lifetime.

"...I do feel that a march on a sunny Saturday afternoon will do little to change the mindset of the government set in its ways." (It clearly will, and again, no mention of time limits)
I've said will do little. Not that it won't do anything. It's nonsensical to be debating semantics.

"...unless drastic changes take place within and across communities, no one will sit up and take notice." (Again, evidenced as wrong)
I've said drastic. Not just any change. It's nonsensical to be debating semantics.

I have no qualms with accepting when I'm wrong - as I have done with the Poll Tax argument. But, we still see more examples of protest marches in recent times failing to achieve their intended outcomes until after the event has occurred. That is undeniable.

I am glad you've entered the debate and, being an elder resident of this country, will undoubtedly have more first-hand experience of critical points in history. But, it is unacceptable for you to direct attacks at me - you've spent equal amounts of time at dismissing as presenting some intellectual arguments. That's bordering on immaturity.

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Matthardwick1977 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:47:59 -0000

@Eshaan

I probably was a little aggressive - maybe 45 years paying the salaries of public sector workers will do that to a man... As for me "missing" option (c) writing and responding to blogs as employment - only a public sector worker would consider that a job.

Say what you will about the private sector Eshaan, but for the most part we are all net contributors to the treasury. You are not and, I'm going to take another stab here and guess that you aren't out saving lives when not writing blogs.

However, back to the issue:

It's only now that you realise you are wrong and that there are innumerable cases of mass protest affecting government policy that you are claiming that the article was about protest immediately changing outcomes. This is evidenced by:

The title of the article.

"In each case, the end result was the same. Nothing changed." (Quite untrue, and no mention of time limits)

"No protest, certainly in my lifetime, has changed the course of events or decisions that have already been made." (By decisions that have already been made, you are presumably referring to legislative agendas either in effect, or about to be - in which case the Poll Tax riots and Countryside Alliance marches alone make you quite wrong. And I've just remembered another - the CND marches of the 80s are widely regarded as having been instrumental in overturning deep-seated poli American championed policies to increase our strategic nuclear deterrent).

"...I do feel that a march on a sunny Saturday afternoon will do little to change the mindset of the government set in its ways." (It clearly will, and again, no mention of time limits)

"...unless drastic changes take place within and across communities, no one will sit up and take notice." (Again, evidenced as wrong)

Eshaan, my issue here not your job; your writing style; the frequency with which you write; and when you choose to. It's the fact that you are wrong and in the face of considerable evidence you don't have the good grace to admit it.

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Eshaan Akbar — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:16:43 -0000

@Matthardwick1977

"The examples I give did palpably affect government policy - Poll Tax was abandoned; Labour was inexorably stained with the memory of Iraq and we won't be setting a foot in Libya as a result; the Vatican was said to be deeply affected by the negative response; and numerous policies on rural matter were watered down."

Poll Tax - protest DID affect the outcome. Iraq - protest didn't change the outcome; Pope - protest didn't change the outcome; rural matter - protest watered down but didn't change the outcome. And these are facts.

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Eshaan Akbar — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 10:08:57 -0000

@Matthardwick1977

You missed out another potential option. (c) writing and responding to blogs is my employment. As it stands, it's (b).5. I am employed, public sector, on annual leave. Make of that what you will. As for the 'self-respecting' private sector lark; I've been there and see no reason why working in the public sector would make me more or less self-respecting. That's for another time.

The title of this article was decided by the editors. It's a shame you've decided to dismiss the entire article/blog/pseudo-intellectual claptrap on the basis of its title. Fair play to you.

I don't actually write very many blogs - I write an article once a month at best seeing as this fits around my job and part-time Masters. I don't expect people to agree with me and some debate is always healthy. But being retired is no excuse for being miserable and aggressive now is it?

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Matthardwick1977 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 09:53:45 -0000

@Eshaan

It seems you aren't above back handed comments yourself! My "seemingly busy schedule" as you say is about as busy as I want it to be given that I'm retired. I see from your picture that you are clearly of working age and are therefore either (a) unemployed and responding to blogs when you would be better served by looking for a job, or (b) employed and responding to blogs in work time.

Any self-respecting private sector employee would have responded vehemently to my accusation of working in the public sector - which leads me to believe that I was bang on with my assumption that you are responding to me at the expense of the taxpayer.

As for validating your arguments - the title of your article (I use that term loosely) is, "Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy". The examples I give did palpably affect government policy - Poll Tax was abandoned; Labour was inexorably stained with the memory of Iraq and we won't be setting a foot in Libya as a result; the Vatican was said to be deeply affected by the negative response; and numerous policies on rural matter were watered down. If you had entitled your blog "Protests against cuts unlikley to affect government policy immediately" then I might be inclined to agree.

Interesting that your article asks for intellectual, non-political argument rather than offers it! Please be in no doubt that this pseudo-intellectual claptrap that you write (and I've read your other nonsensical blogs) isn't nearly as smart as you think it is. And you know it.

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Eshaan Akbar — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:59:47 -0000

@Matthardwick1977

Gosh - you're incredibly upset aren't you?

Yes, it has occurred to me that "the underlying complexity of some of these issues means that populist drum-beating based, at best, no a loose understanding of the facts isn't necessarily the best way to drive policy" which is why I am arguing for "an intellectual, non-political argument". Read last line of article above.

The examples you've provided of staining Blair, making Brown a less palatable candidate and the Pope no longer turning up proves my point: people protested AHEAD of the war/Papal visit but it didn't stop it from happening. Fine, it may have changed things in the future (though post-Iraq, a Libyan invasion hasn't been prevented and has been poorly thought out) but the point still stands that "No protest, certainly in my lifetime, has changed the course of events or decisions that have already been made." Read paragraph 6 of the article above.

It is sad that you've been made so upset that you've resorted to personal attacks (div? Seriously?) - for what it's worth, whether or not I have time or make time is a matter for me to know and you not really needing to find out. But I'm glad you've taken the time out of your seemingly busy schedule to validate my arguments with pretty weak examples and thrown in some abuse too.

All in all, a good day's work!

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Matthardwick1977 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:44:36 -0000

Another thing: I actually completely disagree with the whole premise of this article.

Is it your expectation that mass protests create dramatic policy reversals each and every time they happen? If so, that isn't how our parliamentary system works and would, I suggest, create something of a nasty precedent if it did.

But to say that these protests don't affect policy at all is just plain wrong - and to say so actually makes you look like a bit of a div (as my granddaughter is fond of saying). Big K rightly mentions the Poll Tax riots (perhaps the closest we've got to the dramatic policy reversal described above). But consider also the anti-Iraq War marches (which you even mention!) which stained Blair for the remainder of his presidency (whoops, I meant premiership) and vicariously made Brown a far less paletable candidate in the general election; the Papal Visit protests (do you think Benedict will return any time soon or be in any doubt as to the increasingly secularist electorate here in the UK?); or the Countryside Alliance march (with the result that much ensuing legislation was watered down considerably).

Eshaan, you really need to think more about these posts. Your views come across as patently ill-considered and pushing for the cheap, facile soundbite rather than genuinely reasoned and logical argument.

You also seem to have a lot of time on your hands - what's the betting you work in the public sector, write blogs all day, but will chew someone's face off the moment they suggest cutting your departmental budget?

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Matthardwick1977 — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 08:21:16 -0000

Eshaan - has it occured to you that the underlying complexity of some of these issues means that populist drum-beating based, at best, on a loose understanding of the facts isn't necessarily the best way to drive policy?

There are an unfathomable number of dynamics that must be considered in a nation's fiscal policy, particularly one as complex as ours - but the heart of the current issue lies with what will happen to the cost of our national debt servicing costs if we don't get our structural deficit under control. I could bang on here about the years of Labour government profligacy but I won't - we're in a real pickle and regardless of whose fault it is we need to do something about it.

What I saw on Saturday was not a united front, but a large number of self-interested groups who I suspect understand and perhaps even agree with cuts, just not in their domain.

Re: Protests against cuts unlikely to affect government policy

Big K — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 07:15:38 -0000

How about the Poll Tax? The demonstrations and protests against this policy (not just the battle of Trafalgar) brought Thatcher down and reversed the policy. Whilst I'd agree that the Iraq protests did not stop that invasion there is no doubt that the narrative that resulted from the policy failure there is certainly having an impact on our willingness to make similarly daft foreign policy interventions (Iran for example). It certainly hurt the Republicans in the last election.

In more recent times the UKUncut focus on tax dodging has created a problem for HMRC and big companies that is slowly influencing policy. The National Audit Office investigation into the Vodafone deal and others may well question how these deals are structured and result in a more aggressive policy.

Re: Indian agricultural reforms should bring about greater change

Jon Baldie — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 16:21:56 -0000

Harsh words, no?

Re: Indian agricultural reforms should bring about greater change

Rich — Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:39:36 -0000

Your understanding of economics is very basic. It sounds like you are reading from a GCSE textbook rather than providing your own considered opinion.

I would recommend reading something by Vandana Shiva. It may not alter your opinion but at least you could then adequately deal with the counter arguments.

Re: Le Pen storms to poll win over unpopular Sarkozy

Jon Baldie — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 09:38:03 -0000

Haha no worries Emma, thanks for your comment. How are you finding the Sub-Editor role?

To respond to your comment, I do agree with your underlying point, that this is a ruse by Sarkozy to save himself electorally. If the French see him as a Napoleon 'renaît' then perhaps he'll regain confidence, but once all of this is done they'll remember that their kids are on the dole and struggling to live.

Re: Le Pen storms to poll win over unpopular Sarkozy

Emma — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:10:08 -0000

Sorry huge disclaimer but this is not 2water wine charity posting, it's Emma. No idea how to change that. Huge apologies!

Re: Le Pen storms to poll win over unpopular Sarkozy

2 Water:Wine Charity — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 07:08:50 -0000

Jon I have to say I disagree with you!

First of all, I doubt Marine Le Pen will ever make it to presidency and you can read why here: http://tinyurl.com/4j7baav Actually, you also doubt her ability to become president but I thought I would re-iterate the point.

Secondly, I think there is a very good reason why in Germany the NDP doesn't hold a seat in the Bundestag. However, I don't think this means nationalism doesn't exist in Germany and that there aren't still people who uphold those values. Indeed, they exist all over Europe the only difference is that they are increasingly gaining power in elections and therefore gaining in legitimacy. However I might point out that several years ago already in Austria and Poland there was a rise in far-right political parties and their success, whilst in Switzerland the UDC has a constant crow of supporters. This isn't new.

I strongly doubt that Sarkozy's decision to intervene in Libya will save him from his current unpopularity. Indeed, his decisions are tainted with embarrassing moments of him jumping the gun eager to look good but instead just being a bit of a loner. First he recognises the Libyan rebels as official representatives. Bear in mind he does this on his own without evening warning his own government in a desperate attempt to show himself as decisive. Then he decides to intervene in Libya once more in a desperate attempt to show himself as a true leader. What we forget (luckily most reporters have not) is his previous terrible behaviour with Egypt and Tunisia where he was supporting the Egyptian and Tunisian governments, reluctant to speak out against them and instead being involved in several scandals of accepting favours from Tunisia etc. This is why he's suddenly so keen to show himself as against Gaddafi's regime though not so long ago he was letting him camp in his own tent at the Elysee...

The fact that you actually put in writing that Sarkozy "cares about human rights" makes me laugh. It is obvious that what he is doing here is putting on an act. I'm not saying he doesn't care about human rights however France is well known for its strong rhetoric and promotion of human rights, acting as a leader in the matter due to its role in the creation of the bill of rights. However its rhetoric is obviously way stronger than its actual actions on the ground.

Of course the British and the Americans were reluctant to intervene and rightly so, given the past of their intervention in the area and how badly that has gone. It's only natural that they should be a bit hesitant to take part in a civil war that actually has nothing to do with them. (See my argument in the debate later on).

I strongly doubt the unemployed youth of France will think of Sarkozy as heroic. On the contrary, they are completely disillusioned with French politics, hate Sarkozy and find him embarrassing. It's highly unlikely they should suddenly decide to vote him back in.

Finally, it is surprising how many voters identify with the FN. The interesting thing, that I think Marine Le Pen has understood is that they need not identify to the party as a whole. They only need to latch on to one idea, one thing they think she does better than the other parties, for her to be able to gain a few extra votes. Being fed up with the current left and right options will only serve to help Marine Le Pen's cause, as in 2002.

Re: There’s nothing progressive about the ‘Big Society’

Shaz — Mon, 14 Mar 2011 01:20:54 -0000

MPJ, your statement about a 'post cuts' Britain without the 'economic necessity argument' seems to be premised on the ideas that 1.There is a definitive end point for the cuts (a line taken consistently by the propagators of the Big Society - that it'll only hurt now, but it will all be over soon, when in reality the cuts are a part of an economic program that systematically transfers wealth upwards, with no feasible 'end point') and 2. that the economic necessity argument will at some point no longer exist (when a very basic view of economics is clear on the fact that capitalist (in which case all) societies are economically structured on the illusion of what you call 'economic necessity' which then feeds into the logic of scarcity, demand and supply, etc. And if that basic principle were followed through in your approach to the economic situation, the government IS currently in a position to invest in HE (or has always been, or will never be, depending on how the ideological perspective/priorities of whoever is making the claim)