Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

Dan Hodges Watch

killer b said:
He's not just read by telegraph readers though, that ignores how people read newspapers these days. His articles are also shared on facebook with approving nods by blue labour types.
Click to expand...

The critique of Corbyn in the torygraph and from the right of his own party can be very hard to tell apart. It's shameful that they choose a Barclays Brother rag over their own colleagues.
 
nino_savatte said:
Now I know he'd tell us "I don't write the headlines" but what about the words underneath? It looks like knock-off Dan Hannan. :D
Click to expand...

That is always a possibility; after all, writing all that anti-IS stuff when Hodges himself flounced out of Labour because they refused to bomb the other side is a bit of a stretch, even for him.

Also the photo caption for the second to last image is wrong. Hodges is many things, but I am sure that he knows the difference between a B-1B and a GR4.
 
Hodges still bangs the drum for the Tories. In this piece, he tells us:
Osborne is going to push ahead with his tax credit policy for two reasons. One is that he believes it’s right in principle. Or more specifically, he thinks its wrong for taxpayers to be assisting employers by effectively subsidising low wages, a view that actually brings him into alignment with many on the Left. In 2013 John McDonnell described tax credits as “just another way of subsidising bad employers”.

The second is that when he says he plans to eradicate the deficit during the lifetime of this parliament, he does actually mean it. There’s been a lot of talk about what was and wasn’t promised by the Conservative party in the run up to the election. But one pledge was issued with unambiguous clarity – vote Conservative and we will cut the remaining half of the deficit.Nothing George Osborne does about tax credits can make Jeremy Corbyn prime minister
Click to expand...

Yes, we must repeat the mantra of deficit reduction over and over again. This notion of deficit reduction only came about because of the last Tory-led coalition's insistence that Labour "crashed the economy". It's used as a means to bamboozle the public, many of whom will readily defer to the presumed economic wisdom of their 'betters'. Economics has become mystified; a form of magick that only wizards like Osborne are entitled to master.

Two weeks ago the Observer published an article headlined “Tory MPs in 71 marginal seats at risk from cuts to tax credits”. According to the piece “George Osborne has come under fresh pressure to halt controversial cuts to tax credits as new research shows that 71 Tory MPs in marginal seats could be vulnerable to a backlash from families hit by dramatic falls in their incomes”.

It’s wrong. 71 Tory MPs are not at risk from cuts to tax credits. 71 Tory MPs are not at risk from anything. No Tory MP is at risk from anything. After the next election there will be more Tory MPs, not fewer Tory MPs.
Click to expand...

Next, Mystic Dan brings you this week's winning lottery numbers. Please, won't someone put this cunt out of his misery?
 
Last edited:
Venezuelan police have "nazi style" helmets.

But I once had the pleasure – I use the term in its loosest sense – of being part of a Transport for London delegation that visited Caracas in Venezuela. This was at the height of Ken Livingstone’s infatuation – an infatuation shared by Jeremy Corbyn, John McDonnell and their fellow travellers – with the Chavez regime. And when you’ve seen police on motorbikes, with shotguns and Nazi style helmets mounting the pavement to clear a path for the London transport commissioner, it tends to give you a slightly different perspective on the romance of the Bolivarian revolutionary struggle.
Click to expand...

Being anywhere forrin is probably a struggle for anyone who's lived with his mam for his whole life but I bet he didn't mind the free dinners and VIP treatment while it lasted.

 
copliker said:
Venezuelan police have "nazi style" helmets.



Being anywhere forrin is probably a struggle for anyone who's lived with his mam for his whole life but I bet he didn't mind the free dinners and VIP treatment while it lasted.

Click to expand...

I've said it before but I'll say it again: what a cunt.
 
agricola said:
That is always a possibility; after all, writing all that anti-IS stuff when Hodges himself flounced out of Labour because they refused to bomb the other side is a bit of a stretch, even for him.

Also the photo caption for the second to last image is wrong. Hodges is many things, but I am sure that he knows the difference between a B-1B and a GR4.
Click to expand...
I think he was also a little miffed by Miliband not offering him the job of press secretary. Now he does his "Hell hath no fury as a Dan scorned" schtick.
 
nino_savatte said:
Yes, we must repeat the mantra of deficit reduction over and over again. This notion of deficit reduction only came about because of the last Tory-led coalition's insistence that Labour "crashed the economy". It's used as a means to bamboozle the public, many of whom will readily defer to the presumed economic wisdom of their 'betters'. Economics has become mystified; a form of magick that only wizards like Osborne are entitled to master.
Click to expand...

Indeed - though as you have raised the magical talents of George the Magnificent, it is worth pointing to the article in the latest Eye where it is alleged that his family firm has managed to pay minus twelve thousand pounds in British corporation tax in the past seven years; £0 in actual contributions and a twelve grand tax credit (delivered just before the May 2010 election). The best-paid director* got an 18% pay rise (£684,000 from £580,000), as well.

* his dad
 
Today's musings:

If people can't protest peacefully, they shouldn't be allowed to protest at all
Tonight's anti-austerity 'Million Mask March' is almost certain to descend into kicking, punching, screaming and smashing. That's not striking the balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society

Tonight, there is going to be a licensed riot in central London. We know there will be a riot, because the Metropolitan police service – whose job it is to prevent riots – have told us there will be one.

Yesterday, Chief Superintendent Pippa Mills, of the Metropolitan Police told the Telegraph, "We will always facilitate peaceful protest and have a strong history of doing so. However, over the last few years this event has seen high levels of anti-social behaviour, crime and disorder. This year we have strong reason to believe that peaceful protest is the last thing on the minds of many of the people who will come along. It is unacceptable that a small minority should believe they have the right to break the law, harass people, damage buildings and attack police officers”.

Strong words. The problem is that the small minority do have that right. And they have been granted that right by the Metropolitan Police. The “protestors” – the self-styled anti-austerity group Anonymous, who are marching against capitalism – asked for the right to demonstrate in Trafalgar Square from 5.00 pm to 9.00 pm. “No”, said the police. You can only demonstrate there from 6.00 p.m. to 9.00 pm. Or, in effect, you can only bring disorder and chaos to western Europe’s most vibrant capital city for three hours, instead of four.

I actually have a lot of sympathy for the police. In these situations they are damned if they do, and damned if they don’t. Ban the demonstration and they are accused of facilitating the establishment of a police state. Allow it to proceed – with the inevitable violence that follows – and they are condemned for their inaction.

Which is why we need to start to take these decisions out of their hands. Public, commentators, politicians. We have to start banging on about the right to protest a lot less, and start banging on about the right to law and order a lot more.

Every time there is a “democratic protest” in Britain now – especially if the target of that protest is that catechism “austerity” – it is accompanied by intimidation and violence. We saw it at the Tory conference in Manchester. We saw it yesterday during the student protests. We will see it again tonight.

People have the right to protest peacefully. But they also have an obligation to protest peacefully. And if they can’t meet that obligation – and it is increasingly apparent that many people cannot – then their right to protest has to be removed from them.

“But, but, but”, wail the organisers of these protests, “it wasn’t that bad. There were only a handful of arrests. It was only a few idiots. The vast majority of the marchers were peaceful”.

Tough. There are too many arrests. There are too many idiots. Not enough marchers are acting peacefully.

If, as the TUC and the National Unions of Students claim, it is only a small, unrepresentative number of people causing the disruption at their events then it should be simple to marshal them in such a way that they cannot cause disruption. But they don’t.

In a democracy we have to strike a balance between the right to political expression and the right to live in an ordered society. And we are not striking that balance.

There was disruption and disorder in central London yesterday. There will be disruption and disorder in central London again tonight. It may inconvenient for those who would like us all to live in a state of perpetual agitation, but people actually have to live and work in this city. And they have a right to do so free from continuing intimidation from a group of juvenile – invariably-privileged – delinquents.

“We cannot ban these people, it will be an assault on our democracy,” the civil libertarians storm. No. The people who are assaulting democracy are the people who are kicking police officers in the head, attacking women because they have “posh” accents, vandalizing cars and shops, and bringing our transport system to a standstill.

Let’s imagine for a second if tonight’s “demonstration” was being organized not by anti-austerity protestors, but anti-immigration protestors. If thousands of them spent the night rampaging across London, attacking people who they thought had “the wrong” accent, assaulting the police, and claiming their actions were on behalf of Britain’s silent majority. You wouldn’t be able to hear yourself think over the clamor of the liberal progressives demanding they be banned from our streets.

And they would be right to make that clamour. They should be banned. Just as tonight’s demonstration should have been banned.

I’ve written this before, but it needs repeating. It may grate with some people, but we had a massive expression of our right to protest in this country back in May. Tens of millions of people took to the streets to make their voices heard. It was called a general election. If people want to protest against the result of that election, that’s fine. If they want to try and convince people to speak with a different voice at the next election, that’s fine too.

But what they can’t do is what we’re going to see tonight, which is to try to kick and punch and scream and smash until they get their way. Because if they do, than that will represent the ultimate assault on our liberty.

It is vital we protect our right to free speech. It is vital we protect our right to protest. Which is precisely why tonight’s “demonstration” should not be taking place at all.
Click to expand...
 
Tonight, there is going to be a licensed riot in central London. We know there will be a riot, because the Metropolitan police service – whose job it is to prevent riots – have told us there will be one.
Click to expand...
This is the kind of clarification that Thin Lizzy could have done with years ago.
 
nino_savatte said:
The trouble with Hodges is that he's had a comfortable life and so he's adopted the same attitude towards protests and dissent as his Tory chums. Fucking cunt.
Click to expand...
former aide to Blair, Blair the Labour PM who brought in the restrictions on protest in London coz people were protesting against his illegal war
 
cynicaleconomy said:
Is this cunt still claiming he's a Labour man?
Click to expand...
Yes, in fact after leaving Labour in 2014, he rejoined in July 2015.
Earlier this week, I rejoined the Labour Party. It was a surprisingly easy decision. I didn’t need to pretend to be someone I’m not – adopt a disguise, or a funny accent. I didn’t even need to put on a northern accent. I simply logged onto the website, clicked on the video of a small child attempting to eat a Vote Labour badge, and hey presto. I put in my details, paid my £3, and I was in.

Everyone’s doing it, apparently. According to the Sunday papers, up to 140,000 people will have joined the Labour Party by the time the leadership election ends, almost all of them for the purpose of getting Jeremy Corbyn to the top of the ballot. Obviously “up to 140,000” is quite a broad figure. It could be 140,000. It could be one man and his dog - though given that this is the radical Left, that would mean one white man with dreadlocks, and a dog on a string. No one really knows for sure.

But the fact this once stout party is seeing a wave of support on behalf of a pseudo-Marxist grammar-school boy is indisputable. I know, because I’ve signed up again precisely so I can be part of that wave of support for Jeremy Corbyn myself. It’s 23 months since I left Labour because it opposed the bombing of Syria. Now I’ve rejoined so I can vote for a man who helps lead the Stop The War coalition. Which I suppose indicates I’ve been on a bit of a journey.

And I have. As recently as last week, I thought this bout of Corbynmania was merely a silly-season construct. That despite all the hype, there wasn’t a cat in hell’s chance of Corbyn being elected leader. Correctly, because at the moment there isn’t. If an army of 140,000 Marxists sign up to the Labour Party by September, I’ll eat Comrade Corbyn’s little black Breton cap.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...the-next-election-is-to-elect-Corbyn-now.html
Click to expand...


Principles? Dan has none.
 
It's Corbyn who's mounting a coup against the constitution, not the generals

Wild, desperate stuff from Hodges today - so out there I don't quite know what to make of it:


"Our mechanisms of constitutional checks and balances may be imperfectly calibrated. But in the main, they work. And the fact Jeremy Corbyn is currently taking a hammer to them represents a much greater threat to British parliamentary democracy than any off-the-record military braggadocio. It is not the generals who are currently mounting a coup against the British constitution, it is Jeremy Corbyn mounting a coup against the British constitution.

At this rate the tanks of General Houghton’s anonymous colleagues will not be needed. The current Labour leader is destroying our system of parliamentary democracy perfectly effectively on his own."

...He's destroying our system of parliamentary democracy (single handed!). How can he be, according to Hodges, both utterly useless and worthy only of scorn but at the same time almost unbelievably powerful, dangerous and malignant? That's the paranoid style right there. I hope Hodges is getting well paid for this propaganda, because outside of the weirdo Telegraph (whose writers increasingly seem to inhabit a through the looking glass world) unless he's angling for a spot on a putative British Fox News or suchlike, crying wolf every week in hysterical terms won't fly.
 
Then there's this.
For the British political system to function it requires a government-in-waiting to be present at all times. But that government-in-waiting no longer exists. Jeremy Corbyn has now disowned the concept of Official Opposition altogether. He has said the policies of Her Majesty’s Opposition are separate from his policies. He has also stated quite openly that whatever is written in Labour’s manifesto, and whatever view is passed on that manifesto by the British people, he will only implement a policy of de facto unilateralism.
Click to expand...

What fucking planet is this bitter cunt living on?
 
agricola said:
We are so fortunate to live in his times. I cannot think of any other commentator in the English-speaking world that would choose to attack a politician, elected in a landslide, because he didn't faithfully adhere to the commitments made in a manifesto that Hodges himself panned and which led to a catastrophic election defeat.
Click to expand...
This, after leaving the party and then rejoining it a year later. :D
 
Today, the ever sagacious Hodges claims to speak for everyone in the country. This article recycles previous smears he's already penned for the dismal Torygraph.

First, he cites IDS
Iain Duncan Smith famously said any British political leader has six months to define themselves, after which their opponents and the media finish the job. Jeremy Corbyn has been in post only two months, but his process of self-definition is about to be completed well ahead of schedule.
Click to expand...

Then, he repeats the Tory crap about Corbyn's refusal to "press the button".
So for example, one of the weaknesses the Conservative Party identified was the perception Jeremy Corbyn was weak on national defence. Theyran adverts to that effect. In response, Jeremy Corbyn announced a review of Labour’s defence policy. And then followed up with the statement that regardless of what that review concluded, there were no circumstances where he would ever authorise the use of nuclear weapons.
Click to expand...

Then, he repeats the "Corbyn is in league with terrorists" line.
Another weakness – which again emerged during the leadership election – was Jeremy Corbyn’s propensity to share platforms with political extremists and terrorists. He reacted with anger when challenged over his description of representatives of Hamas as “friends” on Channel 4 news. So he appointed as his shadow chancellor John McDonnell, a man who once said “It’s about time we started honouring those people involved in the armed struggle. It was the bombs and bullets and sacrifice made by the likes of Bobby Sands that brought Britain to the negotiating table.”
Click to expand...

Then, he repeats the silly Cenotaph story.
Take the current row over his appearance at the Cenotaph. Whether Jeremy Corbyn was guilty of disrespect can only ultimately be determined by the veterans themselves, and the families of the fallen. And whether his minimalist nod was perfectly appropriate for the occasion, or a contemptuous snub, is a matter of opinion. There is no regulatory authority for these things.

But again, it is a row that could easily have been avoided. All the man had to do was deliver a proper bow. A slightly larger inflection of the head – that is all it would have taken for the ludicrous debate to have been successfully skirted.

And bowing is not hard. Nor is singing the national anthem. Nor is finding a women to take a senior role in the shadow cabinet. Or finding economically competent Labour MPs who have not expressed public admiration for Bobby Sands. Or public policy experts who are not in the habit of wandering around boasting about their desire to punch former members of the Labour government.
Click to expand...

And finally, he returns to the 'traitor to his country" theme, much beloved by Britain's right-wing media.

The window of opportunity – narrow though it was always going to be – has closed now. Jeremy Corbyn can prostrate himself on his chest tonight. He can kiss the Queen’s hand, then kiss her on the lips, then dive right in and give her a hicky. It doesn’t matter. Labour’s leader will forever be the man who refused to sing his own country’s anthem, embraced those who embraced the IRA, and snubbed the Queen.
Click to expand...
It's too late for Jeremy Corbyn, the public's already decided what it thinks of him

Even regular Torygraph readers are bored with his constant whining.
 
"But again, it is a row that could easily have been avoided. All the man had to do was deliver a proper bow. A slightly larger inflection of the head – that is all it would have taken for the ludicrous debate to have been successfully skirted."

...this simply isn't true, and Hodges knows it - they would have gone after him whatever he did.
 
It may represent something of an inconvenient truth for those currently calling for Sir Nicholas to be cashiered, but support for retention of Britain’s independent nuclear deterrent – and of the entire nuclear deterrence principle – is not currently a matter of party political dispute. It is the settled policy of Her Majesty’s Government. And it is also the settled policy of Her Majesty’s official Opposition. Indeed, as recently as September, Labour Party conference voted formally to restate support for that policy.
Click to expand...

about right though ?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

CH1
Calvin Robinson Watch
2 3
Replies
65
Views
4K
CH1
CH1
K
Dan Hodges v Supertanksi
Replies
6
Views
488
bemused
bemused
steveseagull
Tamworth Byelection 2022 Watch
2 3 4
Replies
91
Views
5K
Monkeygrinder's Organ
M
brogdale
Shrinkflation watch
4 5 6 7 8
Replies
210
Views
10K
Saul Goodman
Saul Goodman
Cloo
Culture war watch!
Replies
4
Views
642
Shechemite
Shechemite
Back
Top Bottom