Another week and more messages from the public for the main party leaders.
For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP. The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state, unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU. A simple In or Out poll.
For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider. These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies. Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34% and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%. So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies. If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?
So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry. While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).
Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full. Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point. Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get. Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does, shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us. I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.
I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.
My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation. Remember what sparked this? Phone hacking. Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.
Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law. How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed? That surely is the fundamental question. We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.
Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories. The first is what I would call 'true victims'. The Dowler family for example. The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law. The second category are what I would call 'celebrities' People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye. These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.
I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers. The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.
I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show. Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine. What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public? Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?
And what of the BBC? They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story. Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?
Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped. The laws that we have should be enforced.
For David Cameron, the recurring theme is UKIP. The easiest solution (and yes this really is easy) is for Cameron to state, unequivocally, unambiguously or any other way that clearly demonstrates that, within 90 days of the next election, a Conservative led government would hold a referendum on the UK's continued membership of the EU. A simple In or Out poll.
For Ed Miliband the message may, at first sight be a good one - three resounding victories out of three - but consider. These are stronghold seats for Labour and yet in these so called times of austerity with an allegedly 'Tory toffs' led government, the Labour voters could barely be bothered to vote and register their 'disgust' at the government's policies. Voter turnout at Rotherham was just under 34% and Midllesborough and Croydon, just 26%. So hardly a ringing endorsement of Miliband's leadership or policies. If Labour can't get them off of their couches now, when can they?
So take the messages a stage further and consider the results of the Leveson enquiry. While you do so, consider that if this judge has his way, there will come time, in the no too distant future, when blogs like this and comments on Twitter, will also be subject to control (or as he puts it regulation).
Labour have instinctively jumped in and demanded that Leveson's recommendations be implemented in full. Those who accuse them of rank hypocrisy, given their earlier very close ties to the media, miss the point. Labour is all about winning and like all 'left' parties down the years, see control of the free press as an ideal way to make sure that the right' message is the only one that people get. Also, a free press is a danger to all politicians and those that rule us because it can ,and sometimes does, shine a light into the dark areas where these people steal from us. I cannot believe, for one minute, that the MPs expenses scandal would have been exposed under Leveson.
I think that the Conservatives have almost got it right, in taking a more considered view and opposing a statutory regulator approach.
My own view has hardened around there not being any need for more legislation. Remember what sparked this? Phone hacking. Particularly when it was alleged that the phone of murdered schoolgirl, Milly Dowler, was hacked.
Leave aside, for a moment the morality of such a thing and just know that this was a violation of the law. How would a press regulator be any more able to enforce the law than the lack of enforcement that already existed? That surely is the fundamental question. We don't need more laws, especially one that puts power over the press in the hands of politicians, we do need enforcement of the laws we have.
Rightly or wrongly, I would suggest that most people put the victims of hacking into two categories. The first is what I would call 'true victims'. The Dowler family for example. The hacking that is said to have occurred was a gross violation of decency and should be punished to the full extent of the law. The second category are what I would call 'celebrities' People in the public eye and those who want to remain in the public eye. These people use the print media to promote themselves and their personal agendas but then don't like it when their own craving for public adulation leads them into areas which they then wouldn't like to see publicized.
I have much sympathy for the people like the Dowlers. The intrusion that they endured was and is, unspeakable.
I have no sympathy for the celebrities that seek to control what it is they show and don't show. Now they are rushing forward to jump on the 'shackle the free press' bandwagon and so to push their ' we know best because we are famous' routine. What makes a book writer more qualified to be widely quoted as supporting restrictive laws than other members of the public? Has the UK really come to the state that we will be lectured on morality by people that get caught in flagrante paying for and having oral sex performed by a prostitute or those who think that the drug laws don't apply to them?
And what of the BBC? They have pushed and pushed the Leveson story. Think though, under Leveson, does anyone think that we would now be talking about Jimmy Saville and his odious crimes?
Leveson should not be implemented, just pulped. The laws that we have should be enforced.
No comments:
Post a Comment