This is Alex Swanson's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Alex Swanson's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Alex Swanson
Recent Activity
The idea of foisting a second unelected Prime Minister on the nation is surely unthinkable without the promise of an early-ish general election I've been reading this a lot lately, but I don't see why it's true. If Labour do choose another leader, but don't call an election, what would anyone do? Mass strikes? Violent revolution? Military coup?!? You could argue that they would lose public support; I suspect their attitude would be that they could gain more by delay and sorting out the mess Brown had left. The only person in this country who really can force an early election is the Queen, and she has a rock solid track record of doing absolutely nothing under any circumstances however horrific. I really don't see her breaking the habit of a lifetime and doing anything now.
Toggle Commented Jul 26, 2008 on Sticky Brown at CentreRight
1 reply
Uh, sure, let's turn the Middle East into a Jurassic Park and wait a few million years. Given the energy, CO2 and H20 input and appropriate industrial processes - either in chemical or engineered microbe form - reproducing "fossil" fuels is easily feasible; work is underway on this right now. As for nuclear fuels, well, there is plenty thereof, and if you're not using it now, it'll be used later anyway, so you might as well make use of it now Like I said, selfish and shortsighted.
1 reply
"No, fossil fuels are replaceable." You're being pedantic. I'm being accurate. Fossil fuels are replaceable. Nuclear fuels are not. "Don't be silly" The effect of this advice is not so much odd as risible, given your apparently sincere suggestions that "resources... are there to be used...But not necessarily by us." (who else then - dolphins, little green men..?) By generations to come. Humanity has been around for tens of thousands of years. Uranium and thorium represent an - and I'm going to say this again - IRREPLACEABLE resource. For us to use it now, when we don't have to is, as I say, unbelievably selfish and short-sighted. and that you'd happily see the countryside covered in wind turbines. That's not what I said. File under tinfoil hats. I resent this sort of thing. I've made a sensible and important point. Abuse is not an appropriate response. Apart from anything else, I would have thought experience of standing up for shooters, which you've often done on here, would have given you an appreciation of how wrong it is. All you've done now is morally justified anything similar that anti-gun people sling at you in the future.
1 reply
All such resources are of course "irreplaceable" No, fossil fuels are replaceable. If you don't understand the difference between a chemical compound (which can always be rebuilt given enough energy) and an element, which once destroyed can never be replaced, then here is not really the place to explain it. resources they are there to be used. But not necessarily by us. In the case of uranium etc one trusts the intensive use is fairly short term, since fusion should be with us before long ANY avoidable use is wrong in the meantime, nuclear fission reactors offer the most cost-beneficial source of the increasing amounts of power we require. Depends how you define "cost" Without them, what ya gonna do? Despoil the landscape with umpteen acres of wind turbines that will still require backup systems for when the wind fails? Yes. Supplemented by tidal or solar. This idea that sometimes the wind stops is stupid. You think the wind stops everywhere in the UK at the same time? Or do what the Greenies want us to do - step back in time, live in a threadbare Socialist distopia, and travel everywhere by methane-powered rickshaws - ? Don't be silly.
1 reply
We shouldn't be using nuclear power. The uranium and thorium (and uranium-derived plutonium) it uses are quite literally irreplaceable. Space exploration already cannot proceed properly without these fuels and, since we're only at the start of utilising nuclear power, we cannot know what other applications might be developed in the future. It's even possible that important applications might develop which depend on these elements simply because of their chemical properties - anti-tank ammunition made from depleted uranium, for example, does not depend on its nuclear properties. For us to waste this stuff when we don't have to is, quite literally, a crime against humanity. It is selfish and incredibly short sighted.
1 reply
The iniquity of this is that the founders of the SIF can truthfully claim to represent almost nobody. BBC reports on gun crime routinely quote the Gun Control Network, a small pressure group rumoured to contain all of six people. Shooters groups, who represent tens of thousands, are invariably ignored. And I mean invariably. I challenged the BBC last year to produce any example - any example at all - of a quote from a shooters group on gun crime and the unfairness and ineffectiveness of current firearms law, and they were completely unable to produce one.
Toggle Commented Jul 22, 2008 on Brotherhood bias at the BBC at CentreRight
1 reply
Any one who possibly dares to vote for the other side = thick. People in many parts of the country (including Glasgow) have been voting Labour literally for generations on the premise that Labour will solve their problems. Labour has had plenty of opportunity to do so and has failed miserably. But they still vote Labour anyway. I hesitate to say anything that might be construed as patronising or even tactless, but you must admit that this shows, at the very least, a serious lack of imagination. And also, if you think that "voting for the other side = thick" is bad, how about "voting Conservative is evil", which is the considered view of LabourHome's Alex Hilton? Let's be honest, when it comes to intolerance and abuse, Labour and its supporters are way ahead of the Tories, and always have been.
1 reply
@Westie Fine, if policy is irrelevant then it can be changed and we can go back to the firearms laws we had just after the war, when we were allowed rifles and handguns without any serious limitation, and were in particular allowed to own them for self defence. The fact is that policy is not irrelevant. The policy since WW2 has been to reduce gun crime by suppressing the legal ownership of firearms, and much as I sympathise with your general comments about the police, the fact is that the police have not only agreed with this but zealously over-enforced it. The result has been to divert attention and effort from other policies which might have worked but have not been implemented, and to remove any possibility of deglamourising guns by allowing teenagers to become familiar with them in a safe context from positive role models. What is surprising is that problem hasn't become even worse than it is.
1 reply
Well here's something I never thought I'd say. I agree entirely with NorthernMonkey. I will add one thing which I think he wouldn't agree with: my suspicion (cynical as I am) is that Labour won't reform it because a reformed upper house would have more clout to interfere with whatever a Labour government wanted to do.
1 reply
In the meantime, there is a gun crime every hour It's simple hypocrisy for the Conservative front bench to attack the government on gun crime. They must know perfectly well that policies on gun crime have been for all practical purposes the same under successive govts for decades, and that Labour and Conservative policies today are still for all practical purposes identical.
1 reply
sexy sam Are you sure you're not getting mixed up with "I'm Sorry I Haven't A Clue"?
Toggle Commented Jul 14, 2008 on Monday 14th July 2008 at ConservativeHome
1 reply
turning Britain into the OK Corral is really not the answer! Erm, I think you'll find that carrying weapons was against the law in Dodge City at the time. So Britain is already like the OK Corral. We really would find ourselves involved in gun fights on the streets and many innocent people could lose their lives. What, as opposed to the safe, peaceful streets we have right now you mean? Seriously, Sally, it's one thing to have an opinion about the possible outcome of a proposed policy. It is another thing entirely to suggest something that, as you as a regular around here must have read many times, is demonstrably untrue. There is absolutely no evidence to support the idea that allowing normal people to own guns for self-defence does anything other than improve public safety. You personally don't like guns? Fine, you don't have to have one. But your prejudices shouldn't limit the rest of us.
Toggle Commented Jul 9, 2008 on Hackney Instamatic at CentreRight
1 reply
I personally have no opinion on WTC7, because I know nothing about it. What I will say is this: anybody who relies on the BBC for honest, objective, or full reporting, especially honest or full represention of a case with which the reporters themselves disagree, is being very naive.
Toggle Commented Jul 7, 2008 on WTC7 at CentreRight
1 reply
I'd start by checking out the electoral register.
Toggle Commented Jul 7, 2008 on Computer says no at CentreRight
1 reply
Alex Swanson - why say I'm a socialist? I'm not. What has socialism got to do with this? Well you said terribly nice Tory people living in leafy suberbs who need a Smith and Wesson to polish after church. I'm not a Tory, I don't go to church, and I've never polished a Smith and Wesson or indeed any other type of gun. Your attitudes are typically socialist - don't address the arguments, just be abusive and intolerant. You waddled and quacked so I drew the obvious conclusion.
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2008 on To have-a-go, or not to have-a-go at CentreRight
1 reply
I'm not convinced that such areas can be fixed without a massive increase in taxation and expenditure In my opinion, massively increased expenditure would actually be counter-productive; it would reinforce the idea that these people are helpless victims with no power over their own fates. The first step is for Cameron and his team to fight this by-election as hard, as enthusiastically, and above all as visibly as they've been fighting others recently. Cameron should find the best candidate he can and go for it. He'll lose, of course, but it is extremely important for him to demonstrate that he values the citizens of Glasgow as much as he values anybody else. Thatcher's biggest mistake - again in my opinion - is that throughout her term as PM she always did exactly the opposite, giving the impression that she couldn't care less about anyone in Scotland.
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2008 on The social justice by-election at CentreRight
1 reply
I really would like to know exactly what the laws are, regarding what we can and can't do to defend ourselves I am not a lawyer, but: - You are not allowed to own a weapon for self-defence. Any weapon. And that includes any otherwise normal object. If, for example, you wake up to find a burglar in your bedroom and you thump him over the head with a cricket bat, you had better be able to demonstrate to the police that you regularly play cricket, otherwise they are legally entitled to conclude that you bought it specifically against the possibility of said thumping, and will prosecute. - you are allowed to use "reasonable force" in self defence. Nobody knows or has ever been able to explain exactly what "reasonable force" actually is. You are expected to decide for yourself, and get it right, in the middle of the night when faced with a shadowy figure who may or may not be armed. If you guess wrong, too bad! One kind of wrong guess gets in you hospital, the other kind in prison.
1 reply
I live in Hackney, and not once, have I thought I needed a gun or a weapon Well good for you. Typical socialist selfishness: you're all right so there's not a problem. My wife, a teacher, was once attacked by a student with a home-made weapon in her own classroom. What should she have done, phone you up?
Toggle Commented Jul 4, 2008 on To have-a-go, or not to have-a-go at CentreRight
1 reply
I wouldn't feel safer if people like you had a gun that would be deployed when you felt a bit threatened When the handgun ban here came fully into force in February 1998, the Home Office issued a press release claiming that it would take handguns "off the streets". Ten years later, an official study has had to admit that in fact it has had no effect whatever: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7478034.stm
Toggle Commented Jul 3, 2008 on To have-a-go, or not to have-a-go at CentreRight
1 reply
We need more people who have the ability to disagree without being disagreeable. The sad problem is, Tim, that amongst left-wing people - and this seems to be increasingly true even of left-wing conservatives - if you are NOT rude and disagreeable, they think you're not emotionally committed to your argument, and hence that even you don't really believe it.
1 reply
He has long supported the handgun ban in Washington DC but has now backed the Supreme Court's overturning of that ban. To be fair, it would be a respectable position to support a ban as policy but to acknowledge its unconstitutionality, in the same way that it is possible to recognise that torturing terrorists might be effective in getting information but it is still a breach of human rights.
1 reply
While I agree with you in principle, my sympathy with Mr Marshall is limited. He's been in the Labour Party long enough to understand what sort of people he was supporting.
Toggle Commented Jun 29, 2008 on Harm done at CentreRight
1 reply
We're getting the usual NIMBY rants about airports. Hope you're not including me in that, I live nowhere near it.
1 reply
He says, rightly, that the proper question is whether there is a feasible alternative. I think the first question is: were previous planning bids (eg for Terminal Five) approved on the basis of promises of no third runway? If they were (and my recollection is that they were) then that's the end of the story before you start.
1 reply
Tim . . . . . . . how can I put this without being moderated out . . . do not try debating economics with Tony. Your sock drawer needs much more urgent attention.
1 reply