I'm probably not going to be the first to say this,but John prescott's argument that David Cameron's speech threatens "political unity" on terrorism is nonsense. The logical conclusion of such an argument tells us more about John Prescott's own opinion on political discourse than it does about so called "political unity". When Prescott speaks of "political unity" what he's actually talking about is the shutting down of political debate.
The stock charge of "playing politics" being levelled against Cameron is utterly absurd as it suggests that the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition is not allowed to pass comment or judgement on Government policy and highlight where he/she thinks it is failing.
It is quaintly amusing though that Shahid Malik, one of the MP's in the Acquiescing Popular Front, should have the audacity to attack David Cameron over this matter. Whether the Conservative Party has opposed previous Government measures is a spurious argument as it does not preclude him being right now.
As Iain Dale quite rightly points out, the reaction by Prescott et al "almost goes to prove that [Cameron] is on to something"
3 comments:
Prescott's gone for a big smoke screen to cover up sensitive places.. The spot where Cameron's landed a blow is the inability of Britain to export Preachers of Hate because of the Human Rights Act. If that's the place that hurts, keep smacking it.
He's definitely ON something. I don't know about on to something. Still, at least he didn't mention carbon emissions, climate change or giant asteroids.
This is an overused tactic. We criticise the government’s mismanagement of the NHS we are “talking down doctors and nurses”, we criticise defence policy we are “undermining our troops”, we talk about grade inflation and the fall in A level standards we are “calling modern students stupid”.
We have to ignore these brickbats and say what we believe to be the truth.
Post a Comment