Prats in suits (Boris and Dave)

[malumbu]

Passed Traf Square today and had the fun of watching the Mayor and PM join in wheelchair tennis. Whilst I can make cheap shots at their expense until the cows come home, two questions:

1. Should they have at least taken their ties off, or probably put some sort of sports casuals on

2. Should they have sat in wheelchairs, as able bodied people often do, to experience what it is really like. A confident chuffer I knew was there and said that would have distracted from the two guys partnering them in wheelchairs.

I am not knocking the event (launch of Paralympics) of course.

3. Or should I get a life?

[Bluerevolution]

4. Force fed there own guts.

[Loz]

malumbu Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Passed Traf Square today and had the fun of

> watching the Mayor and PM join in wheelchair

> tennis. Whilst I can make cheap shots at their

> expense until the cows come home, two questions:

>

> 1. Should they have at least taken their ties

> off, or probably put some sort of sports casuals

> on

Then someone would have criticised them for looking scruffy.

> 2. Should they have sat in wheelchairs, as able bodied people often do, to experience what it is

> really like. A confident chuffer I knew was there and said that would have distracted from the two

> guys partnering them in wheelchairs.

Then someone would have criticised them for not taking wheelchair sports seriously.

Really, whatever a politician does (or even most celebrities) they are going to be criticised by someone, somewhere for it.

[Jeremy]

I think it would have been rather patronising for them to use wheelchairs. In no way does sitting in a wheelchair for 5 minutes let you experience what it is really like.

I think it's good that they're trying to raise the profile of paralympic sports, disappointing that people are putting a negative spin on it because you don't like them as politicians.

[Ridgley]

I just think it is a good thing that they turn up and supported it all.

[Jeremy]

Me too.

[Voyageur]

Depends how it came about, to me anyway. Were they invited by paralympians to do what they did, or did they decide to do it themselves as a photo stunt?

[david_carnell]

You can bet there were intense discussions about what to wear and the use of wheelchairs at No10 and City Hall in the days leading up to this. Civil servants and SpAds would have been in knots over it.

[maxxi]

I suppose the question is can you think of a politician of any persuasion/dress sense who wouldn't have done it?

[KatharineRye]

he,he,he, Maxxi Yes the Mayor Boris Johnson

I saw him once cycling against the rules and without a helmet.

PMs

[Salsaboy]

Could have been worse. They could have put T-shirts over their shirts and ties.

[Undisputedtruth]

It's an old Tory divertion tactic: appear to support the disabled in public while cutting their disabled benefits.

[Loz]

Undisputedtruth Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> It's an old Tory divertion tactic: appear to support the disabled in public while cutting their

> disabled benefits.

Hooray! Always good to get the old political sloganeering out. I bet if you heard that they had turned down the opportunity to promote the paralympics you'd have stuck the boot in even harder.

Heads you win, tails you win.

[Undisputedtruth]

Absolutely right, Loz. Always a tosser with the Tories!

[maxxi]

KatharineRye Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> he,he,he, Maxxi Yes the Mayor Boris Johnson

> I saw him once cycling against the rules and

> without a helmet.

>

> PMs

Oh look, a Rye-bot.

[northlondoner]

Loz Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Undisputedtruth Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

>

> Hooray! Always good to get the old political

> sloganeering out. I bet if you heard that they

> had turned down the opportunity to promote the

> paralympics you'd have stuck the boot in even

> harder.

Correct analysis. I am no tory, but it seems churlish in the extreme to criticise Dave and Boris for doing the right thing. All this tedious "Tory equals evil" and " labour equals evil" reductionism really belongs to a bygone era and merely serves to coarsen public debate.

>

> Heads you win, tails you win.

[Undisputedtruth]

Unfortunately northlondoner, the Tories have not abandoned their principles from a bygone era. Perhaps a deeper analysis of the Tories would confirm my understanding of the party.

[Marmora Man]

UDT - a classic closed mind response to Northlondoner - "I'm right - you're wrong". A good balanced debate.

Have you looked at the work of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice - have you really listened to Damian Green's views, have you checked out the rationale behind Michael Gove's changes to schooling. You appear lost in the mythical past of a student selling the Socialist Worker - longing to cry "Maggie, Maggie, Maggie, Out, Out, Out" again.

[Undisputedtruth]

Marmora Man, the arrogance of your last post stuns me.

The Tories have nicked the policies:

on schools from Sweden

on localism from the Labour party

on economics from the Canadians

Perhaps, Marmora Man, these policies are new to you and with your arrogance you think that nobody else doesn't know about them.

If you fully understood the Michael Gove's changes on schooling then you would realise it's a divide and conquer on the current schooling system with the ultimate goal in privatising schools for profits. Last week I was hearing Lord Willis, admittedly a Lib Dem, on the radio in my local barber and he was putting forward a case for running schools for profit.

I guess you take the attitude of I'm alright Jack as long as you keep your money in your pocket while kicking the undesireables such as disabled people when they are down. Same ole Tories.

I tell you what, why don't you spell out your rationale behind their policies and I'll give you mine. I think it's time I put an end to your arrogance.

[Marmora Man]

UDT - I am tempted to ignore your post. In responding to it I was criticising your apparent closed mind and kneejerk anti Tory reaction rather than necessarily defending or promoting Conservative policies.

I'm not quite sure why I am accused of arrogance - but perhaps it's your default criticism of anyone that indicates a degree of Conservative thinking or support for the right of centre view.

I note you haven't criticised the policies themselves - only the supposed fact that they were originally the policies of others. Of course the Conservative Party policies have a history - political ideas, policies and processes are memes - they evolve and change as they develop from tiny seeds of an idea somewhere, are modified and tested in discussions and debate, are tried in part in certain places, modified and evolve again and so on. To ignore successful ideas and policies would be to exhibit a closed mind, not something the Conservative party or the current Coalition is inclined to.

Michael Gove's Free Schools policy does, indeed, have its roots in Sweden. It also builds on the previous government's Academy programme. However, it also incorporates long standing Conservative beliefs in the power of education and its ability to free people from the shackles of poverty and deprivation. The latter element being a core belief of both Iain Duncan Smith and Michael Gove. To me that's good news - children, and society will benefit. I see no problem with this.

I am not sure why you decry the possibility of a school making a profit. Few, of any political persuasion, would argue that top private schools are not successful - in that the children lucky enough to be taught in them achieve high grades in exams, enjoy fantastic sports facilities and emerge as well read, articulate adults, ready to engage with the world. Just what we would wish all schools to deliver - yet private schools do so by generating a surplus of income over costs every year. They must do so, as they are charities and are not permitted to trade at a loss.

I am very relaxed (to borrow a New Labour phrase) about the possibility of schools making a profit just as long as they succeed in their core task of educating children well and effectively. Particularly, if the free schools can demonstrate the ability to provide high quality education at a lower cost than the current spending by LEAs and the Department of Education on what is, in too many cases, a poor education.

Labour and localism - this must be an ironic comment. The Blair / Brown administration was one of, if not the most, centralising in the political history of the last century. Personally, I doubt that the Conservative policy on localism will get as far as I would wish or that the party's rhetoric would have us believe. However, the direction of travel is correct and I wish it every success; it will be a tough policy to deliver. The ability of the government civil service to accrete power to the centre remains undiminished - and the current debate over devolving planning powers to a more local fora are an example of this tendency to belittle the ability of local communities to make their own decisions.

On economics - I wish the Coalition would follow the Canadian example - that restructuring of the government budget and spending was swift, ruthless and successful. Circumstances dictate that in UK such action is not, however desirable and necessary following a decade of irresponsible spending, possible - but George Osborne is doing reasonably well - now needs to get the growth element of the strategy working.

I'll now get back to my day job - which at present is developing a charitable outreach / satellite clinic for respiratory therapy services to NHS patients in SE London, Kent, Surrey and Sussex - a "good ole Tory" type of role.

Edited for spelling / grammar.

[Undisputedtruth]

MM, I was merely pointing out that Tory's policies were not original and I am convinced their thinking are one dimensional. No doubt I could easily cricise their policies but prefer to save that for later.

Labour and localism - this must be an ironic comment

Perhaps you've never followed what Labour were doing. Clearly you weren't aware of John Healy's work on the sub-national review. Nor were you aware of the work done by Hazel Blear, the former Communities Secretary of State, to decentralise government and her commitment to give the people more power. I suppose you don't know about Local Area Agreements either.

With regards to Michael Gove's Free Schools policies, even the Swedish ministers are saying that it wouldn't work in this country. But hey, it doesn't matter, since the Tory chums are licking their lips with the prospect of making more money at the detriment of children's education and taxpayers.

Again, it seems the Tories haven't thought through on the Canadian example since they haven't factored in growth and the world economic climate. Yes, the policies are hurting but they're not working.

The economic record of Labour's administration tends to be far better than the Tories since the second world war. Not sure why you thought Labour were irresponsible with spending when they have built new hospitals, schools and tackled urban decay. I suspect you call that irresponsible spending because of your greed for money in your pockets. Sod the nation as long as your pockets are full with money is what really matters to you.

I'm puzzled to why you think your day job is of any particular importance to me and a sign of good character. Let me remind you that Dr Harold Shipman was an NHS GP and look what he did to some of his patients!

[Marmora Man]

UDT - until / unless you remove your final paragraph I will not dignify your posts with a response.

I enjoy political knockabout and robust discussion but to be likened to a mass murderer is simply offensive.