politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » PB’s cartoonist, Marf, on the news from Paris

Richard Tyndall @ 4:26pm -- thank you, finally some sense!

Socrates said:

Casino_Royale said:

Morris_Dancer said:

Miss Cyclefree, we should.

But I doubt we will.

As I wrote a couple of threads ago, there was no publication here of the 2005 Danish cartoons. The march of thousands of lunatics was allowed to go ahead. In the recent Jesus and Mo story there was censorship of Mohammed, practically a self-inflicted blasphemy law. Politicians have been keener to restrict than protect freedom of speech (eg Leveson and the police monitoring Twitter, which may explain why they don't have resources for other concerns).

Don't forget the law against incitement of 'religious' hatred, passed as a bit of red meat for a chunk of Labour's voter base. Hatred of religion: stuff you choose to belief that has no factual basis, rather than what you are and cannot change. Despicable.

Rowan Atkinson was the hero there.

Labour may have passed it, but the Coalition have kept it on the books. The "Liberal" Democrats and "liberal" Conservatives don't understand the concept.

You're preaching to the converted. I also think their failure to repeal is a disgrace, and a sign of the moral bankruptcy of the mainstream political parties.

MikeK said:

isam said:

SeanT said:

isam said:

HurstLlama said:

isam said:

Numbers matter more than anything else

there are over three times as many muslims in the UK as there are Hindus, 6 times the amount of Sikhs and ten times the number of Jews and Buddhists, 50% more Muslims than the others I have mentioned put together.

That's the main reason we have the problem

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion_in_the_United_Kingdom

No. If the numbers were reversed and there three times as many Hindus as there are Muslims or ten times as many Buddhists then there would not be the same problems. There are numerous religious minorities in Western Europe but only one seems to have a problem with being in Western Europe.

I disagree... the problem only arises once the minority is significant enough to feel entitled to a share of power, and no other religion is big enough numerically for you to say they wouldn't behave as Muslims do now

I'm with Hurst on this. The supremacism and intolerance inherent in Islam makes it uniquely problematic.

Well I must admit I am piggybacking an argument made by someone who I respect a lot.. but on looking up the %s of religious minorities around the world I think it is backed up

Nowhere in Europe are Jews more than 1% of the population.. same for Sikhs and Buddhists

We have 1.5-1.7% Hindu's, the biggest % of non Christians or Muslims across Europe

So we really cant say that it is "because they are muslims" rather than "because there are so many muslims"

By the same logic, look how UKIP were not particularly disliked 5 years ago by other parties - because they were statistically insignificant.. if anything UKIP have become more mainstream in the last 5 years but are more disliked, and in turn dislike the other parties more, because they are on 15% ish,

They are taking power and want more power, that's why UKIP/Muslims are disliked/strike out

Sorry isam, UKIP are nothing like Muslims, although the party has quite a few of them.

My point is exactly that really.. it is all about the numbers of the minority relative to the established population not the views of the individuals within. Works the same when talking about political parties/religions/immigrants/drunken guests at a wedding

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.

The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.

It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.

We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.

I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.

No-one - I'm certainly not - is advocating Governmental or public persecution of a section of society.

What we are advocating is vigorous enforcement of our values and fighting back against those who would remove our freedoms.

Neil said:

MikeK said:

Richard_Nabavi said:

MikeK said:

So Richard_Nabavi if your family were mown down on a busy high street by a rogue vehicle, you couldn't care less who the perpetrators were. Bully for you!

Certainly I would want to know who the driver was, and the circumstances, and of course I'd want the police to investigate thoroughly and impartially.

Your use of the word 'perpetrator' is this case is somewhat revealing, but not as revealing as wanting to know the religion of the driver. What could you possibly mean by that?

I mean that through the last few weeks, throughout Europe and the Middle East, Muslim drivers have been attacking innocent pedestrians in order to cause havoc and mayhem and in doing so make a point that they are willing martyrs for Allah.

You think there's the slightest chance that this was a terrorist attack and that the driver's employer is trying to hide the fact from the public? Are you completely mad?

Sadly I don't think he's mad. Obsessed, and with a warped perspective, but not mad.

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

Something to warm the cockles of the heart, if you are Neil or Flightpath:

Unbelievable lefty bullshit from the FT. Basically blaming the journalists. They couldn't even wait a DAY.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9T3JtGH

I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.

While I found the Guardian's article balanced - this is not:

It is merely to say that some common sense would be useful at publications such as Charlie Hebdo, and Denmark’s Jyllands-Posten, which purport to strike a blow for freedom when they provoke Muslims, but are actually just being stupid.

The comments are giving it all it deserves......

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.

The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.

It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.

We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.

I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.

My instincts on this are along the lines that you have expressed.

But I agree with RobD that today is not a day for forming policy. Today we should be angry and appalled. When we have had time to reflect and to mourn, then we should consider how best to respond to this direct assault on our civil freedoms.

SeanT said:

MikeK said:

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

Something to warm the cockles of the heart, if you are Neil or Flightpath:

Unbelievable lefty bullshit from the FT. Basically blaming the journalists. They couldn't even wait a DAY.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9T3JtGH

I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.

Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?

Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.

I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.

Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.

RodCrosby said:

Le Figaro reports that around a dozen marches up and down France are expected to take place later today in solidarity with Charlie Hebdo’s journalists. The Sydicat National des Journalistes (National Union of Journalists) will hold a rally this evening in the centre of Paris.

The mayor of Nantes, Johanna Rolland, has called for a rally at 6pm while others are expected in Lyon, Montpellier, Toulouse and many other major towns and cities. Le Monde reports that rallies are also expected at the European parliament in Brussels and London’s Trafalgar Square.

edit: with three gunmen on the loose, who may be preparing further acts, large public gatherings may not be a wise idea...

Do you have any more information on the Trafalgar Square gathering?

antifrank said:

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.

The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.

It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.

We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.

I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.

My instincts on this are along the lines that you have expressed.

But I agree with RobD that today is not a day for forming policy. Today we should be angry and appalled. When we have had time to reflect and to mourn, then we should consider how best to respond to this direct assault on our civil freedoms.

I agree. And please don't take what I wrote as even the tiniest attack on the victims. Defence of freedom of expression is for me utterly fundamental and I agree with those who have said this attack is equal if not worse than the previous atrocities as it is an attempt to silence open debate and peaceful disagreement.

Richard_Nabavi said:

Returning to the real world, it does seem surprising that the police officer on duty to protect Charb was caught completely off-guard by the murderers. He would undoubtedly have been armed, and as a 'policier du service de protection des hautes personnalités' presumably well-trained. In addition, President Hollande confirmed that there had been other attacks foiled in recent weeks, so one would expect this police officer to have been alert to the possible risk.

It seems he wasn't, and tragically it cost him his life, and also cost 11 other innocent lives. The French authorities are going to have some difficult questions to answer.

I asked the exact same thing at the end of the last thread, and at the start of this thread.

"Given the professionalism in planning and executing the attack, and then escaping, the French security agencies - particularly DCRI - have some serious questions to answer.

They seem to be more interested in censoring what Wikipedia publish: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direction_générale_de_la_sécurité_intérieure"

antifrank said:

RobD said:

SeanT said:

MikeK said:

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

Something to warm the cockles of the heart, if you are Neil or Flightpath:

Unbelievable lefty bullshit from the FT. Basically blaming the journalists. They couldn't even wait a DAY.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9T3JtGH

I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.

Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?

Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.

I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.

Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.

The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.

Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.

True, call it morbid fascination as a journalist ends his career.

Christopher Hitchens from beyond the grave: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/fighting_words/2006/02/cartoon_debate.html

Patrick said:

Yes - but they've had nearly 5 years to consider the illiberal nonsense Labour shat onto this country. Whatever happened to a Great Repeal Act? The Labour nanny state survives essentially unmolested.

That's not true, is it?

ID Cards: Gone.
HIPs: Gone.
DNA Database of innocent people: Gone
ContactPoint daatabase: Gone
Control Orders: Reined back
Criminal Record checks: Reformed
Independent supervision of the security services: Improved
Libel laws: Improved to protect free speech
European arrest warrant: Improved

Of course some people would like the government to go further, although one does wonder why (in a cynical partisan sense) they should bother since they seem to get zero acknowledgement of what they have done.

Charles said:

I'd assume not - this is presumably just looking into whether there is a case to present to the CPS

Not the CPS - the system is different in Scotland.

May I just say this: this is an attack on freedom of thought. Freedom of speech and freedom of thought go together.

That is why this is so serious. And why we cannot let it lie.

antifrank said:

RobD said:

antifrank said:

RobD said:

SeanT said:

MikeK said:

Socrates said:

SeanT said:

Something to warm the cockles of the heart, if you are Neil or Flightpath:

Unbelievable lefty bullshit from the FT. Basically blaming the journalists. They couldn't even wait a DAY.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/9f90f482-9672-11e4-a40b-00144feabdc0.html?siteedition=uk#axzz3O9T3JtGH

I cancelled my FT subscription when I saw that on Twitter.

Absolutely disgraceful appeasing bullshit. Has the FT become a soft porn socialist rag?

Read the comments underneath. He has angered 99.5% of the FT readership: it's a blistering tide of anger. Most FT pieces get about a dozen comments, he's got 300 in an hour, many of them calling for him to be sacked.

I suspect the editor will be ruminating, right now.

Can you post (or PM) the text? I want to get riled too.

The piece is quite disgusting. Even if you share the author's views (I don't), to publish them today is an affront to human decency.

Of course, he has the right to write it. That is what freedom of speech is about. And we have the right to think much less of him as a result.

True, call it morbid fascination as a journalist ends his career.

Check your vanilla mail.

Ta. The copyright police will be around shortly

Richard_Nabavi said:

Charles said:

I'd assume not - this is presumably just looking into whether there is a case to present to the CPS

Not the CPS - the system is different in Scotland.

Whoever makes the prosecuting decision then

Indigo said:

isam said:

My point is exactly that really.. it is all about the numbers of the minority relative to the established population not the views of the individuals within. Works the same when talking about political parties/religions/immigrants/drunken guests at a wedding

You can't believe that surely. You think that being radicalised to believe that killing non-believers is the meaning to your life, as decided by your deity, and that you will be rewarded in perpetuity in the afterlife has no effect at all, and its really just about numbers ?

Sorry I shouldn't have said "all about the numbers" but I think that is the most important factor

Most muslims don't agree with the things you reference

There are all sorts of odd minority views in the UK, but most aren't a major problem because they aren't allowed to grow.. they are stopped in their tracks by criticism/alienation

The problem with Islamic fundamentalism is that is is a parasite on muslim immigrants, and deference to multiculturalism has meant the host of the parasite has been welcomed and afforded immunity from the criticism, hence more parasites

As one or two people on this thread are chucking around stuff about "leftie" responses, here's a left-wing analysis of the killings and the suggestion that the cartoons were a provocation:

http://leftfootforward.org/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-no-excuses-just-murder/

I think this is well put. One can like or dislike the cartoons, think them a good idea or a bad idea. But that's not the point. The point is that murder in response to free expression is an attack on a fundamental human value which should be central for all of us, whatever our beliefs.

Socrates said:

But a major deterioration from the short period they opted out of it entirely.

That depends on what could have been negotiated in its place.

Anyway, progress is progress. And the plain fact is that there have been significant improvements to civil liberties under this government.

Socrates said:

the sharing of health data without an opt-in is another example

It might be if it were true.

Anyway my main point remains. If you said 'this government has made some progress on civil liberties, but I'd like it to go further', that would be fair enough. But you don't, you claim it's done nothing or even gone backwards - which is completely absurd.

Richard_Tyndall said:

I am very sorry to see some posters on here providing exactly the sort of reaction that these terrorists were looking for. All the more sorry because I consider some of them fellow travellers politically.

The one thing that terrorists the world over, of whatever background, want above all is for us to change the way we behave in reaction to their criminal acts. As such the very best response is to use the laws and systems we have in place and the common decency of the vast majority of people to bring the criminals to justice.

It is particularly sad that we see some of those who rightly oppose the increasing of Government powers of surveillance under the excuse of 'keeping us safe' are the same who would advocate us changing our behaviour towards a select group of our fellow citizens for the same reason.

We should enforce the laws we have in place in the first place - and stop circumventing them in the name of social cohesion or political correctness. The laws of the land should apply to everyone equally. But that works both ways and we should not for a second countenance Government or public persecution of a section of our society simply because a few maniacs are hell bent on killing people.

I hope the French response is tough but measured. The last thing anyone needs (apart from perhaps the terrorists themselves) is a knee jerk reaction that alienates people further.

Good post, totally agree.

I tend to stay out of these Islamism arguments because I feel like a charlatan, living in an area so un-multicultural. But I will say, unpalatable though it may be, that the young (mid twenties) Pakistani boys who work in the shop in my village, are unrepentant about their lack of sympathy for the West. They are decent lads and I talk cricket with them, they are from Lahore. I'm pretty laddish and don't care what I say and I've asked them outright what they think of the world's going-ons vis a vis Islam. In response they said they understood why young Muslims go to Syria and they just gave snarled-up faces at mention of America.

I doubt their attitude is unusual among young muslim men living in Britain. We throw that catch-all 'only a minority' out there when awful terrorist attacks happen because it makes us feel secrue, and it's probably true amongst older muslims, but the yonunger ones have been brought up here in the wake of 9/11. In a world where the working class, uneducated have little on offer to them, the excitement of hating something and not feeling disenfranchised anymore (ie, identifying with Islam's struggle against the West) must be pretty enduring.

Those guys up the shop won't give a monkeys about those journalists today. They'll say they had it coming.

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics · 1m1 minute ago
The Pie Minister: Cameron on a diet after festive binge: http://sunpl.us/6014ao5j

Apparently this FT article seeks to partially blame journalists for the shootings:

http://t.co/NQLCF7b8EB

Indigo said:

Alistair said:

Indigo said:

A_Man_Called_Horse said:

"Mary Whitehouse in her prime never believed gay people should be executed..."

There are far-right Christians in the U.S. who do.

Enough of this diversionary tinfoil hattery, when they start crashing planes into buildings and, to pluck an example out of the air, murdering offices full of cartoonists, then I think we might worry about them.

So doctors who perform abortions don't get murdered then?

All sorts of people get murdered for all sorts of reasons, what's your point...

The murderers of abortion doctors in the US tend towards being people who, if you ask them, would identify themselves as Christian.

It seems that if some Muslims started bombing medical facilities you'd be really angry but when Christians do it it's not a problem.

I, on the other hand, am able to be angry at both.

Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.

And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.

Socrates said:

It is true:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/10565160/Health-records-of-every-NHS-patient-to-be-shared-in-vast-database.html

The fact you can't recognise this - and entirely fail to acknowledge the other examples I've brought up - shows your irrationalism.

A newspaper article reporting some people expressing concern doesn't make it true. The data is anonymous. Is it possible that there might be some risk of breaches of anonymity? Yes, of course. But if you think there is no risk of such breaches in the current NHS then you clearly have never had any contact with the medical profession. The current system is as leaky as a sieve. If I felt like it, and assuming I could persuade a close family member to cooperate (he/she wouldn't, I hope!), I could get you almost anyone's medical records.

I do accept, though, that the government has made a poor job of explaining what this is about. It really is likely to be a significant step forward.

Pulpstar said:

Neil said:

Sunil_Prasannan said:

Sun Politics ‏@Sun_Politics · 1m1 minute ago
The Pie Minister: Cameron on a diet after festive binge: http://sunpl.us/6014ao5j

Can you imagine the hours (days!) of fun tim would have had with this? Bless him.

Dave has my sympathies on this one

Unlike Osborne who is looking very trim these days.

Mr. 1000, I'm glad he's not my candidate. I'd have to give serious consideration to voting for him if he were [on the basis of his actually liberal approach to pictures of Mohammed and a refusal to back down].

FrancisUrquhart said:

rcs1000 said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Can't believe Sky are showing the shooting of the police man. It really isn't necessary, and very disturbing.

And the BBC had on Mohammed Shafiq, who was spouting the usual nonsense....but nobody dared bring up the fact he led a campaign in reaction to Maajid Nawaz tweeting a cartoon from the Jesus and Mo series. I would have thought that might be pertinent given todays horrific actions.

Maajid Nawaz is the LibDem candidate in Hampstead & Kilburn. From what I've read of him, he's seriously impressive.

The campaign to try and get him deselected was a disgrace, all because he retweeted a cartoon poking fun at Jesus and Mohammad, stating that he wasn't offended.

He is my Parliamentary candidate and I intend voting for him, for this (and other) reasons.

You can tell it's an election year when a Prime Minister who is often labelled as out of touch lets it be known that he is participating in the New Year activity that half the country does every year.

Mr. Urquhart, I recall at the time watching Newsnight (one of Paxman's) and posted here what a disgrace it was. One moment about freedom of speech, the rest banging on about offensiveness and the oaf Paxman trying to browbeat an atheist cartoonist for breaking a tenet of a religion to which he did not belong by depicting Mohammed.

It's precisely that sort of bullshit approach that risks freedom of expression, by attacking those who dare to exercise a basic and vital right.

CD13 said:

But if, as estimated, around five hundred want to join IS, then I would guess about ten times that number will have sympathy for ISIS aims. It's a very low percentage of the total but a worrying number all the same.

Right, and the numbers get bigger if you start counting more broad sympathies, "I think what they're doing is wrong but I can understand why they're doing it and they do have a point", then the numbers swell even more. It is worrying. Telling British Muslims they should all "f**k off back to their own country", or that past governments shouldn't have let them or their families in, doesn't seem to be a terribly effective way of getting us all to be one big happy family again, or choking off moral support for extremism.

One thing we shouldn't think is that it's an unsolvable problem, an unbridgeable gap, a clash of incompatible cultures and values. Go down that route and we just keep putting up the barriers, closing off a community behind it, and give the virus a greater chance of taking root there.

In the 1980s there was a serious danger from international Sikh terrorism. Sikh communities in the Western diaspora, including Britain and Canada formed a prominent part of this network. There's been no repeat of Air India Flight 182 and the threat has largely fizzled out (the perception certainly has, it's fascinating to see how many people compare British Muslims unfavourably to British Sikhs, who have "integrated better" and are a "model minority") though apparently the legacy of the networks is still there.

Ten years ago a lot of the Tamils I knew were vocal supporters of the Tigers. Sure, they got uncomfortable if you asked too much about the LTTE launching suicide bomb attacks - but just like how you ask a pro-Palestine activist about this stuff, you end up receiving a bunch of arguments about how terrible the conditions are, and why Resistance is justified.

If you ask about it now, people seem to have mixed feelings. "I can understand why the Khalistan movement took back the Golden Temple", "it was tragic so many people died", wavering a bit short of condemnation. But no sense that British Sikhs or British Hindus are about to spearhead a new wave of violence. There was a chap I knew whose close relative had had a very senior position in the IRA and he exhibited the same sort of ambiguity. Shame it happened like that. Weren't politicians idiots for letting it get to that stage. Tough circumstances. Different times. Wouldn't want to walk in those shoes. Would I have been more comfortable hearing a full-blooded "I repent, on my own behalf and on behalf of my own community!" Well it would have sounded nice, but I don't think it would have achieved anything. So long as this wave of Islamist militancy also passes, and we reach this ambiguous but quiet stage, I'll take that as a "win".

Morris_Dancer said:

Mr. Urquhart, I recall at the time watching Newsnight (one of Paxman's) and posted here what a disgrace it was. One moment about freedom of speech, the rest banging on about offensiveness and the oaf Paxman trying to browbeat an atheist cartoonist for breaking a tenet of a religion to which he did not belong by depicting Mohammed.

It's precisely that sort of bullshit approach that risks freedom of expression, by attacking those who dare to exercise a basic and vital right.

Absolutely. I hope this might be a turning point for those kind of opinions, but I doubt it.

Give it until tomorrow and we will be hearing all about foreign wars, western involvement, and Muslims fears of a backlash, while the central point is totally lost and the voices of the few that are willing to buck the trend and stand up to this bulls##t sidelined.

antifrank said:

You can tell it's an election year when a Prime Minister who is often labelled as out of touch lets it be known that he is participating in the New Year activity that half the country does every year.

He's tightening his belt.