This is Tristan Downing's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Tristan Downing's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Tristan Downing
London
こんにちは、お元気ですか。私はトリスタンです。
Interests: buddhism, atheism, philosophy, politics, science, japan, japanese, current affairs.
Recent Activity
The 1/4 statistic doesn't tell you a lot though. It gives the impression that in the US you have a 1/4 chance of being in contact with an STI when you sleep with a girl. But most of the outbreaks are in concentrated areas. Newark for example has HIV rates similar to sub Saharan Africa. Like in Africa, sexual practice is a large contributor to the problem. Of course the issue in the UK with teenage pregnancy isn't about how much sex there is, it is about how much unprotected sex there is. The best way to deal with it is to make sure everyone has free access to condoms, then pill, the morning after pill, and abortions, as well as all information possible. Abortion should be freely available to any woman in any circumstance. I agree that our sex-ed classes are stupid and pointless but rather than weakening them as Nadine would have us do, we should make them more hard hitting. Don't limit it to discussing how to apply a condom, periods and no means no... show them all photos of what they are risking if they do not use protection and make it clear that having a baby when you are young will ruin your life. http://www.stdsincolor.com/index.php Here is a fairly tame version of a site that might help.
Toggle Commented May 10, 2011 on Chastised for Chastity at THE FREEDOM ASSOCIATION
1 reply
Islington has a large number of University of London students too. The inner city ones will vote for whatever the left tells them too as per their cosy arrangement with hand outs. If a PR referendum was put to the country, they would lose that too. Students always think they know better because they are only used to spending other people's money. When they actually start working for things for themselves and gain something to lose then they give up their leftist idiocy. Unless of course they become public sector whores.
1 reply
Coulson doesn't need to go, but he needs his wings clipping. Information coming from government is weak and yet the government's policies are better than any of the other options on the table (for the most part anyway - some are just short sighted and idiotic). Whilst the student protests couldn't have been avoided, because the riots were organised by ULU which has been taken over by an SWP splinter group, but the numbers could have been reduced by students being made to understand the plans early on. They could have flooded the Universities with leaflets explaining the plans. I would have handed them out at my university. Now that the Tories are in power, they have little excuse for poor communication with the public.
1 reply
Actually this shows very little.. The headline on Conservative Home is misleading too. These are indeed short profiles of the individuals, but they are worded not as American opinions but more often than not, Labour insider or public opinions. There is actually a huge lack of American opinion in the vast majority of these files dealing with Labour. I'm not defending Labour. I'd rather the whole party were dumped naked and shivering in the middle of Siberia, but we are not in election mode anymore so this thread is relatively pointless. All the Americans have really shown is that they read the morning papers. I'm sure their "emboffs" are enjoying their expense accounts though.
1 reply
Actually Ms H Cushion, we do not ALL beg to differ. That Labour moron did make himself look like an idiot. Of course the only necessary condition of him looking like an idiot is that someone can see him. That kind of behaviour is what one can expect from a member of the Labour party; the largest coagulation of slime on the planet. Bercow is useless and the pathetic excuse for an MP on the opposition back bench should have been ejected from the chamber.
1 reply
And what do we know about the dodgy history of the socialists Labour are in bed with?
1 reply
how many people did you have in each room?
1 reply
This was dreadful! How totally crap. Why was Clegg allowed to get away with saying anything he wanted? He lied non stop and Cameron did nothing. Nick Clegg winning these debates are enough to damage public opinion. We need to stop letting the Liberals go unchallenged!! Why is it that when Clegg talked about inheritance tax cuts for "double millionaires" Cameron just stood there, saying nothing???
1 reply
You guys crack me up. Still, nothing like a little forced outrage to ease the boredom. At the risk of sounding like a LibDem, there are some good points on both sides of the debate. There are plenty of reasons to dislike Tatchell. One of mine is the lack of logical consistency in his arguments and views as shown in his argument for lowering the age of consent to 14 (read it). I can understand the admiration some have for him not giving up the fight for his principle and on some issues he has been right, others he has been wrong (I think mostly wrong). It is also worth noting as others have done that Tatchell spoke out against any law making it illegal to criticise homosexuality. Any such law would trample on our basic freedoms and it is also worth noting that Labour have attempted and failed to enact similar laws in the not too distant past (making it illegal to criticise Islam for example). For the swing voter above concerned about Cameron criminalising his views, that won't happen. Labour, the authoritarian party, is more likely to attempt that and as you are more than capable of reasoning yourself, a vote for UKIP is a vote for Labour. Some people have expressed anger at many of the comments above, which is fine, but what I like about this thread is that it still falls into the realm of healthy debate. If you were to look at an American version of a similar debate you would find extreme polarisation, hostility, abuse, dogma and hatred. Rather than despair that the party is losing its soul, I am glad to see that we are at a stage where we can argue about social issues within such a broad church. It is a return to traditional Tory pragmatism and away from ideology and that is our greatest strength and is what makes us different from the other parties. I agree with the comments that say there are plenty more important things to talk about than gay issues and that most voters, including most gay voters, probably care less about gay issues than they do about other things. On the other hand, those other things are being talked about as well on other threads and don't seem to be losing out. Cameron needs to win this election if we are to put in place a Tory government and to get rid of Labour who has proved themselves to be the worst government in modern history. In order to win the election, Cameron needs a broad base of appeal and that means reaching out to voters that have in the past been disenfranchised by Tory policies, even if a minority on the right don't like it (those that care enough to get angry and go elsewhere). Although most gays probably are more interested in other policy areas, there is still a significant number that need winning over. There is nothing wrong with Cameron spending a little time courting their vote. It sounds nice to say we should have a firm principle and stand by it whether or not the public agree with it, but that is far from the smart thing to do. For one thing, it isn't just the voters that might not agree, it is a significant percentage of our own party. How then are we to stick to such a principle? It isn't a case of us abandoning principles in order to win votes; it is a case of the party getting the message across that we have genuinely changed in terms of our mainstream. My personal view is that there is no valid reason to discriminate against homosexuals in any way, so by letting go of pointless divisive social views, we can focus on the more important issues. We can include those that would be otherwise cut off for no good reason, and then we'll have greater support for enacting our important conservative policies such as lowering tax and shrinking the state and not getting sucked into a federal Europe. Remember our list of Tory PPCs are more Euro-sceptic on average than our current MPs and so the more we return to Westminster, the greater the chance to pull back from the EU, and the way to do that is with a broad base of appeal. As for those that say they are traditionally socially conservative, what does that actually mean? A lot of what our party believes in is increasing personal freedom and individual responsibility. We don't like state interference in the everyday lives of citizens. We think that is the best way forward not just because philosophical arguments like those of JS Mill, but because it is also the most pragmatic option. The state has no need to impose itself in many areas and any attempt to restrict liberty unnecessarily inevitably leads to a lack of stability. When people talk of being socially conservative, what they for the most part mean is they take a religious view. Their morality comes from dogma. That absolutist view tells them something is wrong and so they believe it is and therefore we must prevent it. However, those are religious values, not political values and religious values do not make you a Tory and they do not define or even characterise the Conservative Party. If your religion tells you to believe a certain thing and you choose to take their word for it then that is entirely up to you. No one is telling you that you must believe homosexuality is right or morally justified if you don't want to, but holding that view does not exclude you from the Conservative Party anymore than gays aren't excluded. As a party we want to put in place a system that will allow us the freedom to hold our views whilst having stability and prosperity and protection. Therefore we need to have in place a government that is capable of and has the will to deliver on those objectives. That is what a Conservative government can provide that the other parties cannot. Those of us that value those things as a higher priority can then debate the differences of opinion on social policy. The liberal Tories can debate with the authoritarian Tories, the environmentalist Tories with the climate change sceptic Tories, the pro Israel Tories with the anti-Zionist Tories, but above that is the fact we would have a Tory government that allows for this debate and diversity rather than a Labour or LibDem one that doesn't. Conservatives that do not agree with homosexuality do not need to be put off by the party reaching out to homosexuals. More basic Tory attitudes towards running the country are still far better than those offered by the other parties and you still have the freedom to make your case. But it doesn't help you or any of us to use an identity as a Tory to do that. You should separate your objectives and fight for them under different banners. Overall regardless of your moral views, you are better off under a Conservative government that is open to all people. But to affect specific policies form a pressure group and generate support for your ideas and argue the case under the banner of that group rather than a Conservative banner and if you are successful you will change Party policy. However, if you decide that because CCHQ doesn't agree with you, that you should go and join a different party, you will be the one losing out. As a member of UKIP, you will never have a hope of influencing government policy. You will most likely just help Labour stay in power and then government will be even more against you. Having a Conservative foundation from which we can build and shape our future is far more important. So even those with specific and rigid views should still support the Party's efforts to gain maximum support at this election even if that means the party takes a policy direction you don't agree with, because your views will still have greater protection under a Tory government.
Toggle Commented Apr 12, 2010 on In praise of Peter Tatchell at CentreRight
1 reply
Pretty polarised comments here. Cameron did get flustered, that's true. I know the media wouldn't like you to think so because it doesn't sell well, but politicians are human too. Getting into a muddle happens to us all; it is just unfortunate for him (and us because another Labour government would spell the end for the UK) that it had to happen infront of camera. Fumbling on a few questions does not change the fact that out of him and Brown, he is clearly the better candidate. As for his views, I think it is clear that he believes in equality for homosexuals in general but what he isn't sure on is whether or not a family with gay parents is suitable for a child. And to assert that it is suitable is just arrogant because chances are, you don't know. For him to actively support homosexuals wanting kids when he isn't sure it is best for the kids would be the worst thing here. That is why his views appear to differ when children are involved; he wants to be sure first. Gay people are not qualified to answer the question either. As a prospective gay parent, you are in no better position that anyone else to decide whether or not it will be right for the child. A gay person may love and care for a child just as much as straight parents, but the parents love or parenting ability are not the only factors. The most important open question is about the social and psychological pressures on a child with gay parents. As much as some people would like (and claim) it to be an easy answer, it is not. Given how strongly Cameron feels about the family and its role in providing a stable environment for children, it is not surprising that he wants to be sure before he votes in favour of something that could potentially be harmful to children. Things aren't as polarised as the media and public (especially bloggers) seem to want to make them. Cameron should have done his homework first and expected the question about the EU vote, and he handled the whole thing badly, but that is all. Messing up an interview is not a sign in any possibly world, that our incumbent PM, the most dishonest PM in the history of the term, would be a better choice to lead the UK for the next half a decade.
Should have read "look better on paper"
Toggle Commented Mar 9, 2010 on To arms! at Big Brother Watch
The police don't care.. They really don't. Senior police are Labour stooges and so they are more than happy to attack relatively innocent people to boost their stats. It makes them too better on paper and it makes their political masters better. My brother was arrested in London for impersonating a police officer simple because he was riding a bike with reflective markings, had a yellow reflective jacket and a white helmet. On the government's own Think! campaign, it says to wear a reflective jacket and a white helmet! They were verbally abusive, confiscated his protective clothing and helmet, they confiscated his bike, they then damaged all the electrics on the bike, they proovably lied on the police mechanics report, and they after a long bail, decided they didn't have a legal leg to stand on. After a formal complaint was made about the officers and the action took, the station Superintendent responded with a threatening letter saying my brother was guilty whether he liked it or not and if he knows whats good for him he should move on and count himself lucky they haven't done more yet. The IPCC did absolutely nothing because they are not in the least bit indepentent. There are virtually no checks on police power under this government, especially since the police have been used for Labour party actions, like arresting Damien Green for political reasons. Our police force is rotten to the core and we need to go inside and strip out these crooked cops. The police in this case should face disciplinary charges for this abuse of power. The RSPB should also be forced to pay compensation and those responsible should lose their jobs.
Toggle Commented Mar 9, 2010 on To arms! at Big Brother Watch
I can understand bloggers not knowing AV isn't PR, but surely it would be helpful if our MPs knew that? AV is a worse system than FPTP; the number of times a party has won an election whilst losing the popular vote is much higher on AV than FPTP. Check out how the Aussies do it for examples of why we don’t want it. In the 1997 election, ceteris paribus, Labour would have won a larger majority than they did and would be even more over-represented in Parliament than they are. Sitting in the Commons just over a week ago, I heard Jack Straw claim that with AV voting behaviour would be different so that wouldn't happen, but it could quite easily. PR is not something we want for Westminster. FPTP produces stronger more decisive government (even if from time to time it is the wrong one), the Doctrine of the Mandate is supported, the Iron Bond between an MP and constituents is maintained, and extremists are kept out of office. PR weakens the constituency link, damaging representation, it produces weak and ineffective government (policy stagnation and gridlock), it increases the chances of extremists gaining power, it reduces any government majority making it almost impossible to pass legislation from the manifesto, and it makes coalitions likely if not the norm. Coalitions are bad for many reasons, for one they are not stable, as has been the experience in Wales with AMS. Secondly, if a coalition is formed, voters will not know whose manifesto will be put into action, thus damaging the Doctrine of the Mandate. A third party can remain in power indefinitely as happens in Germany by simply switching sides to join with the biggest party. This damages accountability because voters are unable to remove them if they do anything wrong. Coalitions also damage accountability by playing the blame game; when policy goes wrong, the coalition partners will simply blame each other and they public will be confused. Labour have been in power for the last 13 years and so they cannot justifiably blame anyone else for the economic ruin they have again caused in the UK (although they do try to blame the Americans for Brown's mess). Coalitions are formed by dodgy backroom deals with sweeteners and bribes; this is not representation, this is corruption. FPTP has its draw backs, it is less representative politically and socially, voters suffer the wasted vote, and governments can be formed on a minority of the vote (in 2005 Labour won with only 36% of the vote, and only 22% of the total electorate), and it also gives over representation to the Labour party because of inner city distributions. However, despite its draw backs, FPTP is simply the least bad system out of all the available systems. Liberals wishing to appear "fair" does not change that fact (though really they just want to increase their own representation). AMS - Scotland: Shaky coalition followed by weak minority government. AMS isn't that representative either. Wales: weak coalitions and ineffective assembly. CPL - The most proportional system. It is not very democratic because it concentrates power in the hands of the party leadership. Even when party members get to vote on the order of the list, it is pretty much a sham as it was in my region. Incumbents are automatically at the top, followed by result of affirmative action, leaving us to decide the order of those that won’t win a seat (a complete waste of time, paper and money). CPL also makes it more likely for extremists to do well. Europe: BNP won seats as well as hard left Greens. Europe is also insanely unrepresentative, unaccountable and largely corrupt. STV - complicated and most plebs won't understand how to use it. This happened in Scotland when STV was used for local elections whilst AMS was used for devolved elections and a significantly high number of ballots were spoilt. In Northern Ireland, the most significant result of STV has been government by extremists, and moderates pushed out. Northern Ireland now has terrorists (just calling them what they are) in office because of STV. Representation and fairness are obviously virtues in a democracy, but how fair is it to give people chaos, confusion and gridlock just for the sake of boosting the Lib Dem vote? This representation is less important than having a country that is stable, safe and prosperous. No system that exists at the moment is perfect, but FPTP is the least bad. Cameron is not going far enough when he talks about "broken politics", we have a broken democracy. Changing our voting system will not fix it and will most likely make it far worse. What we need to do is keep FPTP and at the same time, reinforce Parliament's ability to hold the executive to account. We need to undo the last decade that has been little more than an exercise in concentrating power in the hands of an illegitimate oligarchy. We need to stop the over use of secondary legislation. We need to weaken the power of the Whips (especially in Select Committees), we need to give more powers to Select Committees to call witnesses and papers. We need to give more time for debates (stop the use of guillotine, kangaroo and closure motions), and increase the number of days parliament sits each year. We should allow more time for private members bills. We should make appointed peers serve a minimum term if they are to keep their title to stop things like Gordon's GOATs from taking place. We should make all ministers able to answer questions in the Commons. We should make the PM have to answer questions at PMQs instead of ignoring them. We should give more power to the Lords to allow it to be a check and balance on the reactionary and Whip dominated Commons. We should be able to throw Lords out for misconduct. We should put an end to tax payers' money being used for political propaganda. We should also put an end to sofa government and have a return to proper cabinet government. We should also give MPs a proper wage (whether the public like it or not - and I'm sure this will have people sharpening their pitchforks - MPs are underpaid compared to the public sector and that creates brain drain from parliament) so they can buy their own things and pay tax on it like everyone else. Labour have done so much to destroy accountability, civil liberties and democracy in the UK and that is where the reform needs to be focussed, not the voting system.
1 reply
In what possible world would a hung parliament be good for anyone? It would force a coalition which would only mean weak government that cannot get anything done. It would be less democratic because coalitions mean less accountability; parties can play the blame game. There is no doubt that Labour wrecked the economy because they were the only ones in power for the last 12 years. We need a strong government that can rebuild after the economic and social chaos left behind by a twisted Labour party and the only thing that can do that is a Conservative government with a strong majority. That means no voting for the LibDumbs, no voting for UKIP, and certainly no voting for Labour. If we have another 4 years of Labour (or a LibLab coalition), there will not be a sovereign UK let alone a democratic one.
What you want is an in or out of the EU referendum and I sympathise.. But more than that I want to win the GE. The electorate deserves a referendum on the EU, but since CCHQ knows it wont win, it isn't going to give one... especially not just beefore a GE. Cameron is trying to aggregate the party so we can fight as one.. that is why he wants to move on from the one issue that tears us apart. We are never going to get an EU referendum promise.. but the only chance we have of moving in the direction we want as Eurosceptics is having a big Tory win. Think about it.. UKIP and Libdems cannot win, so cross them out.. Labour might possibly win, maybe, but if they do, they are the ones that sold us out to the EU. They would be very bad for us in EU terms, the other option is a LibLab pact.. That would possibly be the worst possible outcome for EU sceptics.. that means giving the last of our sovereignty up to the EU with no chance of any say for us... That is the nightmare senario for us. It is also the most likely outcome in the event of Conservative failure to win the election. The only remaining possibility is a Tory win, broken down into a small majority or a large majority. Given that when polled, our candidates are mostly Eurosceptic, pro EU policies will have a hard time getting through parliament. A large Tory majority is our best possible outcome if we want to stop EU federalism. A weak Tory majority means a higher ratio of pro EU people in parliament and so it will be easier for the federalists. It should be worrying to EU sceptics that our best realistic outcome is almost right next to our worst outcome in possibility terms. Therefore anything that divides the party, or gets in the way at all with electoral victory is not only domestically dreadful for us all, but even worse for Eurosceptics! Logically Eurosceptics have the most to lose from a failure of Cameron to win a landslide majority and so rather than flirt with apathy or UKIP, Eurosceptics should be supporting Cameron now more than ever, if not only for self interest... That is the cold calculating truth of the matter... Lets worry about referendums when we are in a position to have one.
1 reply
I have to agree with this.. I am conviced that with another term of Labour the UK will be over with.. In another four or five years, we will have nothing left to fight for. If anyone actually cares about their situation, or their friends and families, then the very worst thing they could do at the next general election is vote for Labour. It doesn't matter if you are rich or poor, Labour will destroy the country. All the welfare in the world wont matter when society has collapsed, the services have crumbled and the economy has sunk into the ground. I wish the British electorate would actually look at the reality of it and realise the dire consequences of supporting Labour at the next GE. If Labour win again, then I really don't want to live here anymore.
1 reply
You are completely right again Patsy.. Everyone with the slightest interest in politics knows full well that it was Labour that prevented us from having our referendum, not Cameron. Eurosceptics have done a lot of damage with their twisting of reality on this issue. (I am Eurosceptic but I prefer honesty on the subject, not point scoring and games.) Anyway.. Are Mori polls not usually pretty wacky? I thought they were more bias propaganda than actual polling of genuine public opinion.
1 reply
I have no cases for you as of yet... But I have joined your Facebook group and published a link to your website on my wall.. Hopefully someone will take a look at it!
1 reply
I could choose not to drive too, but road tax is still a tax.. Your idea is interesting.. I don't know how it would work, but that is more a failure on my part than the plan itself. I look forward to future development of the idea. If you genuinely think it is a good idea then don't give up on it.
1 reply
Planet Earth was brilliant! But that was 2006, we're now in 2009 and we have not progressed very far at all. (By the way, Planet Earth was co-produced by the Discovery Channel and NHK so as to spread the cost. The cost wouldn't have needed spreading if the BBC wasn't too busy funding crap TV. Discovery got all US rights and it became the fastest-selling DVD in the Discovery Channel's history. Note: Discovery Channel not BBC. The BBC gave up the US market for the sake of production costs.)
1 reply
Ahahaha... That's one of the funniest things I've read on Con Home... Thank you. I'm so tempted to commit an Ad Hominem fallacy but I won’t bother. The BBC is corrupt, it is heavily biased towards the left (and I'd say socialist, not liberal), it charges insanely high fees (a tax) for complete and total crap, it is still dumbing down science related programming, it gives unreasonably high regard to religion, it is not in the slightest bit socially representative, it is unaccountable, the BBC Trust is not independent of the management, it pays stupidly high salaries to its so-called talent (is a news reader really worth £91,000 a year of our money?), it has a culture of abuse of expenses to rival that of the House of Commons (equally as bad because it is public money), the list goes on.. There is no desire to do anything well at the BBC because people will just be fined or locked up if they don’t pay this Soviet-like broadcaster. There is endless reality shows, endless cooking shows, game shows, nonsense rubbish. As a state broadcaster, it should have a duty to make high brow programming, it shouldn’t dumb down for the plebs, and it should raise its standards to raise its viewers’ standards. It that typical left wing idiocy of lowering everything to the lowest common denominator, making everything equally dumb or poor rather than trying to improve things. And that left wing mentality comes out in most genres of BBC programmes too. The news is pro Labour and anti Tory, a fact they can’t even be bothered to hide anymore. The comedy shows are basically gatherings of Marxists, ranting about Eton and thinking it makes them clever and funny. The soaps and dramas are filled with characters and story lines promoting leftist values. And all of this brainwashing is paid for by a public that is judging by the opinion polls, not on the side of Labour and the BBC. Despite all this, I am not totally against the concept of the BBC. I just want radical reform to stop it being a socialist propaganda machine that supports the Labour party, I want unbiased news, I was a reduced licence fee paid for by massive reduction in the scale of the BBC's operation. Scrap BBC 3 for example, scrap BBC Persia, scrap endless talent contests and increase programmes about the real world, make the Trust fully independent and make their two top priorities value for money and monitoring neutrality (with payment by results) and stop the abuse of expenses paid for by us!
1 reply
This author is at least on form... one article of mindless nonsense after another. Blair is a gimp, he will always be a gimp. His being president would be dreadful for the EU and for Britain. I wonder if this article is more motivated by Mr Blair's new found faith and is something shared by the author.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2009 on Vote Blair for President! at CentreRight
1 reply
I believe that he can believe what he has written... This is just the latest in a line of nonsense articles from the same author so there is nothing out of place here. I've yet to read a good one in fact. I'm still waiting for the author to surprise me with a decent piece.
Toggle Commented Oct 29, 2009 on Vote Blair for President! at CentreRight
1 reply
"As far as I can see the most they can do is demean themselves by being rude in public, or ring him up every day to nag only for his secretary to say that he’s out meeting his fans." Are you serious? Is this the most you can imagine the crooks running the EU doing? I wouldn't put any number of criminal acts of violence past them. If the president makes it to June without having signed the treaty, it wont be without at least one horse's head turning up in his bed. I just hope he steps up his personal security.
Toggle Commented Oct 20, 2009 on Will Klaus sign the Lisbon Treaty? at CentreRight
1 reply
The word Chav can be used in the sense you describe, but that is not its general use. It represents a very specific section of society and not the working class. Most chavs are woring class, but not all working class are chavs. What is represented by the word is an attitude to life, and one that is quite rightly looked down upon by the majority of the British public. It might be that the word was out of place in your article, but there is no reason for anyone to suggest that one should not us this word at all. If we stop using all words that might be used out of context and then cause someone to take offence, would we have many nouns left? The chav is someone that does the opposite of embodying British values of fairness and decency, so good luck in finding one that tries to better himself/herself.
1 reply