I am trying to get my head round this Twitter thing and quite what the point is. Number 10 say they have 7,169 'following' it and 6448 'followers'... no idea what the difference is. Is it useful? Should I be doing it?
Were I to be Twittering at this precise moment, I would probably be saying 'My God isn't Paul Weller spectacularly boring'? But I don't suppose anyone wants to be woken up by a text message telling them that.
54 comments:
Actually he's doing the Butterfly Collector now, which is one of his better ones, tho' with some silly lyrics: "You carry on coz its all you know, You can't light a fire, You can't cook or sew". (So she has to become a groupie instead. very enlightened Paul).
For a great example of how to us twitter successfully, have a look at the adventures of the suprisingly geeky Steven Fry.
Twitter is what birds do
Twatter is what Blears do
When you're twittered up perhaps you could ask Gordon to twitter less about giving his "undivided attention" to "hard working families" - whatever he means.
When will he come out and say what he is 'doing' for people who don't fit his monocular vision of a compliant, grateful population?
Here's Brown twittering ... here's Simon Mayo's opening question to Gordon Brown on Radio Five Live this afternoon...
(the man is clearly off his rocker)
SM: How are you?
GB: Er OK but er I'm er trying to work through at the moment how we can give real help to families and to businesses over this period when things are very difficult and er obviously the cut in interest rates today helps er what we've announced yesterday to help mortgage er holders er helps and I'm just determined that we do everything in our power to take people through these er difficult world times in a way that er shows that we can er actually give help to people.
We are paying you to try and reverse the collapse of the country, not play around with flippant banalities like some seven year old who just got a mobile phone.
Remember remember - let's nail this "we're paying you" one. Either a tiny little share of my cost to the country is paid by every single tax-payer out there, in which case, give me your name and address and I'd be happy to let you have your 1p back.
Or - MPs are accountable to their constituents, and it's up to their constituents at the next election to decide whether they represent value for money and are doing what they are 'paying them' to do. In which case they can look at my website, and my theyworkforyou stats, and the amount of correspondence between them and me, and I am pretty sure they would think I am more than doing my bit. They are also, of course, entitled to make a decision based on whether they agree with my political views and decisions, rather than on a crude 'VfM' calculation.
And to be frank, at 1.30am, when I would assume virtually every other MP in the country is fast asleep or 'off duty', it's entirely up to me whether I want to write lengthy treatises on the burning issues of the day, or have a bit of a dig at Paul Weller.
Ben - I like the Stephen Fry stuff, but at the moment I have a Viewty phone which I bought entirely because he had just given it a good review in his Guardian 'geek' column, and I hate it!
You seem to think that winning some election is a ticket for a 5 year dictatorship.
We can see that you do not represent the people but yourself and your Totalitarian Loony Party from your abysmal Parliament voting record:
http://tinyurl.com/5hdwqq
The cost of your lack of integrity is far, far greater than "1p" per person.
You'd also be well advised to be more humble and loyal to your real masters:
Us, The People.
If you push The People beyond a certain point, no "laws" will protect you, as history is ample witness. Learn it.
Go and tell that to your own MP and let me get on with my job of representing my constituents - and stop trying to tell me that you know their views better than I do.
Especially all the vegan Somali pimps.
The Penguin
Bristol East has 68,000 entitled to vote. Slightly over 19,000 voted for Ms. McCarthy. She (theorectically) represents less than 29% of her constituents.
Democracy in action.
Leviathan - that is ridiculous
MPs represent all the people in their constituencies, regardless of how their constituents voted in a general election.
Simple fact is - more people voted for her than the another candidates - sounds democratic enough to me.
At least propose an alternative model when knocking FPTP
What makes you think you are not "my MP", Kerry?
You do NOT represent your constituents, we can see that from your voting records:
against Iraq investigation
against public vote on Lisbon treaty
for ID cards
for "terrorism" laws
...to name a few. In fact your voting is almost identical to Geoff Hoon's. So don't even pretend that you "represent your constituents".
Your voting record proves that you deliberately ignore their views on a large range of matters of major impact.
What a clever idea: choose 3 or 4 controversial issues and claim on that basis that an MP is unrepresentative of their constituents' views
She also voted for lords reform and equal rights, interesting how RR chose to ignore those
NL, the point is that MPs and the Gov have forgotten that they are supposed to represent the views of all their constiuents/govern for the whole country. If they don't do this, then sections of society are marginalised and that results in the hatred of MPs and Gov that we've seen expressed.
I've asked Kerry about this before and she has so far refused to answer the charge
The first past the post system only works if all views are represented after an election is won. Otherwise proportional representation is the only option (not one I agree with incidentally)
Northern Lights, check the rest of her voting:
http://tinyurl.com/5hdwqq
Andy: Nicely put. Party Politicians almost invariably represent their party and it's whips.
The people do not have whips for those five years, only a vote and some pianowire.
The solution is only to vote for Independents.
Vote for independents?
Yes, I can just see the effective legislative process now...
C'mon NL, its a serious point .. How about a serious reponse.
Ok, I take the point.
If all 646 MPs were independent it would prove difficult to pass legislation as the consensus required would be slim to none.
And who forms the cabinet?
RR - I have, and the point remains.
RR - I'd love to know how Government functions with 646 independent MPs?
NL
But that is the point; a gov needs to produce policies that represent the whole electorate, not just those that voted for them. If govs remembered that, we would not see many of the views expressed today on blogs, nor would we see the hatred for our "elected representatives".
PR doesn't work for the reasons you imply. FPTP does, provided the gov remember the above.
I'm not sure about that point - ie if I vote for a Labour Government I want them to implement Labour policies, not Conservative ones.
It is nice to see some intelligent points being made though A, it makes a nice change from the usual rants.
NL: "RR - I'd love to know how Government functions with 646 independent MPs?"
Democratically.
Certainly preferable to a bunch of Party Drones who lie when they claim to represent the people. A party Whip is an enemy to democracy and to the will of the people.
The problem is that Politicians are more scared of party Whips than the Citizens they are meant to represent.
Look at Kerry's Parliament voting. Do you think she would ever have got elected if people had known what she would support?
You don't really think people are going to put up with 2 more years of this (and that's without a recession)?
And who makes up the cabinet? Who decides on and ratifies legislation? Your proposal amounts to 646 people in a room bickering with no demonstrable outcome
Give me sensible alternatives, not mindless waffle
NL: It works exactly how Committees work. You're obviously not familiar with Democracy.
You and Kerry are the problem, not the solution. Do keep blowing hot air though, It shows your true colours.
Ahhhhh - the old insult the other person and don't answer the question routine
It shows a distinct lack of wit - one more time for fun though:
In a parliament of 646 independent MPs - how would one achieve the consensus required to pass legislation? While there might be broad agreement, legislation requires consensus on particular and specific issues.
If 646 people can't agree, it must be a pretty shit law
NL, if 2 people voted for the BNP and 16,798 voted for 16,798 other parties, would you be happy?
According to your logic, the BNP would have a landslide.
if a candidate wins a mandate from the electorate then I would respect the free will of those voters
I wouldn't make ridiculous claims like '51 million people didn't vote for New Labour' which either shows a child-like understanding of who is eligible to vote or a manipulation of statistics Peter Mandleson would be proud of
In other words, I respect the democratic decisions that people choose to make, unlike Old Holborn who abuses all those who don't fit in with his blinkered view of the world
I would be interested to see how the libertarians do at the next election though ;)
Hey Kerry, do you like Party Whips?
Do they really represent your thinking and that of "your" constituents?
I am still interested to know what your views are on the feckless choices that were provided to the Matthews and shed loads of similar feckers.
I pay for their choices yet have no choice in this. I am getting increasingly hacked off with this arrangement.
Labour hates hard working families. It utterly detests them.
Want PROOF?
Defend that.
PS I detest Paul Weller and Billy Bragg.
Shirking
Arm yourself. I am.
If millions of us were armed, you can be damn sure the crazy 646 would think twice occassionaly before they shat on us and the unemployable feral apes they have created might be a little less cocky when they demand "respect" from hardworking decent citizens.
I trust OH has a license for his 'arms'?
Depends what he's armed with. He's got a link to pitchforks on his blog. Personally, I'm well aware that I need no license for a flamethrower cobbled together from a gas-powered blowtorch or a 24" breaker bar.
Unless an MP was to cast a proportional vote in accordance with the number of constituents for and against a particular issue, and carry out a local referendum before every such vote in Parliament (presumably with compulsory voting), there has to be an element of the MP exercising the right to decide what is in the best interests of her constituency and the wider national interest and her own political/ moral beliefs (doesn't always coincide and you could write a dissertation on what should come first - e.g. an MP might be anti-nuclear, but have significant employment in defence industries in her constituency, so do they vote for Trident or not?)
Constituents are free to write to or otherwise lobby their MPs on issues as they come up in Parliament, but I have to say, I had very few letters on any of those issues you mention. And when people did contact me, I explained in full the reasons for my decisions.
But if, for example, half a dozen UKIP members write to me about the Lisbon treaty, and the rest of my constituents aren't bothered enough about the issue to write at all, am I supposed to allow those six people, whose views on a whole range of issues I disagree with, and who could only muster a handful of votes at the last election, to dictate to me what I do? Ditto on issues like abortion - it will be the anti-abortion people who feel motivated to write in, but I am confident that they are not in the majority. At the end of the day, it's my call, and I will be held accountable at the General Election if I've got it wrong. But at least I will be able to say that I did what I thought was right at the time. I think there's nothing worse than a politician who is constantly pandering to public opinion and whose every utterance is designed to win over another batch of voters, rather than being based on any firm moral or political beliefs. Not to mention any names!
P.S. It's licence!
NL, I will shortly be announcing a campaign on my blog to arm the millions and millions of decent, law abiding, tax paying citizens of this country.
99% of us are allowed to own a shotgun at home. I intend to see that I play my part in ensuring that fewer of them are beaten to death in their homes by New Labours feral underclass in search of £5 for a wrap of crack.
Kerry, go and look at the Swiss model. Most Swiss people have absolutely no idea who the President or Prime Minister of Switzerland. I don't either.
Doesn't stop them from being the richest, happiest, healthiest, most intelligent and democratic people in Europe though does it?
Well do us all a favour and go and live there then.
Yes I can see how all of us owning guns is going to reduce crime...good thinking genius
Here you go, N.L., fresh in Today's Times:
http://tinyurl.com/5esvva
Kerry said "Well do us all a favour and go and live there then."
Hear, hear, hear. Anyone disatisfied with this country or our culture should leave.
NL: Burglary in the US is very rare as you have the right to shoot on sight anyone in your property with illegal intentions.
NL, many, many Swiss have automatic weapons lawfully in their homes, almost no Brits do.
Who has higher gun crime?
Who has higher hot (i.e. residents present) burglaries?
Please tell me the answers. What does this suggest?
Give me a call if you want a Twitter crash course
Well, people owning guns is fine.
It's criminals with guns you have to worry about.
The thing is, in this day and age, criminals are the ones with most of the guns.
In all honesty, when I look to new hampshire, with its murder rate of 1.1, half that of ours, and see its amazingly lax gun laws, I think to myself, maybe our government is wrong. After all, the handgun ban was introduced after 1 freak accident.
In addition to that, I feel a dead rapist in an alleyway is better than an innocent woman raped.
So, I've given up on supporting gun laws, because I simply can't find the evidence to support them.
Panopticon
Here are some...
http://www.gunfacts.info/pdfs/gun-facts/5.0/GunFacts5-0-screen.pdf
It's true that gun ownership is very high in switzerland. However, they also have a great deal of gun control.
Gun ownership is high because reservists have government issue rifles. They are easily traceable and ammunition provied is strictly acounted for. Hand guns require licenses in most areas and ammunition is registered.
Regardless,Switzerland has a much higher gun death rate than the UK.
"Regardless,Switzerland has a much higher gun death rate than the UK"
Sir, your source information for this statement please?
Post a Comment