Progarchives.com has always (since 2002) relied on banners ads to cover web hosting fees and all.
Please consider supporting us by giving monthly PayPal donations and help keep PA fast-loading and ad-free forever.
/PAlogo_v2.gif "Progarchives.com Homepage") |
|
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 7> |
| Author | |||
JJLehto 
Prog Reviewer 
Joined: April 05 2006 Location: Tallahassee, FL Status: Offline Points: 34550 |
 Posted: August 09 2010 at 05:19 |
||
|
Honestly, a lot of what has been said sounds close to home (with difference of course).
Beginning to think more and more that politics is pretty much the same, regardless of location.  |
|||
 |
|||
|
Syzygy
Special Collaborator 
Honorary Collaborator Joined: December 16 2004 Location: United Kingdom Status: Offline Points: 7003 |
Posted: August 09 2010 at 07:51 |
||
|
And another bloody thing - every time the BBC news mentions Barclays Bank they feel the need to reiterate that it didn't receive a government bailout. Fair enough as far as it goes, but where would Barclays have been if there hadn't been a bail out? Totally stuffed, that's where. The fact that they chose to sell the family heirlooms to a far eastern conglomerate when their dodgy dealings went tits up does not exonerate them, and just because they didn't take any governement money it doesn't mean that they weren't as big a beneficiary of the taxpayer's largesse as their cronies.
I feel better now...
|
|||
|
'Like so many of you
I've got my doubts about how much to contribute to the already rich among us...' Robert Wyatt, Gloria Gloom |
|||
|
|||
|
flower-of-scots
Forum Newbie 
Joined: June 27 2010 Location: Scotland Status: Offline Points: 15 |
Posted: August 12 2010 at 19:13 |
||
|
The Etonians have us all by the balls. they can, and will, do what they can to sacrifice the poor and give their friends a big lift.
Cameron is not ever to be trusted on the NHS and Clegg (Faust) remains a tory under libdem colours. The 2 w@nkers as i call them, each with their own agenda that they know will stiffle recovery and send us all into another recession, but what the hell do they care, because it won't affect them or their friends.
The banks are once again creaming of us and tefal head cameron won't do a thng to stop it...too many friends in banking. The UK is heading straight into another recession caused by cameron and his high pitched sidekick gideon osbourne....a tit if ever there was one let loose on our country....a man who knows nothing about poverty...the silver teaspoon seen to that.
god help us...............
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:09 |
||
|
Blair's memoirs, then. How many millions will he need to donate to the British Legion to wash all that blood off his hands? I don't wish to seem preachy, but everything about this gesture really sticks in my craw.
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 06:25 |
||
|
I'm not saying the BL is not deserving of the money, but it would be more fitting if the money went directly to the families of those who died in Iraq. The war was illegal and we shouldn't have been there. Deep down Blair knows this, although whether or not he feels any remorse is another matter. I suspect not.
|
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:10 |
||
The last coalition government that lasted for more than a few months and that had a meaningful mandate was the wartime one, to be fair. Homogenisation of the parties isn't a terrible thing, in my view. About Clegg: I don't know... if he gets the AV, even if it is a crappy vote reform, it's a very important step to having people actually represented in a relevant manner here... maybe it'll be worth it in the long term. Either way, I think that whatever happens with the voting referendum, it'll be used as an excuse to delay any real vote reform for a term or two. Really, this election was the only chance of getting any vote reform for a completely broken system (given that the system in place always and by default favours the party in power), it just might be worth it. Might be. I agree that NuLab has done a hell of a lot more than people think for public services and I think they've done some very important things socially as well - I suspect the conservative government is still slightly uncomfortable with homosexuality, despises single mothers and believes the poor are poor out of choice... I think that a shining element of NuLab's legacy is in ensuring that these sort of things are no longer something it is acceptable for a mainstream party to openly endorse (I mean, you can see that Theresa May is visibly discomforted when talking about homosexuality but she has still changed her stance on it publicly and in terms of the way she votes - I think that's a damn good thing). Edited by TGM: Orb - August 17 2010 at 08:02 |
|||
|
|||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:13 |
||
|
Ah, missed this.
About spending cuts: the fact that schemes like the free school scheme (and I think the rather empty marriage tax break policy is still knocking around - correct me if I'm wrong) are still going ahead does rather imply that the deficit is being used as an excuse for cuts in the public sector on a basically ideological basis rather than in response to the actual crisis. RE: Benefit cheats... I thought tax fraud cost us drastically more than benefit fraud but you never hear about Cameron declaring war on that because that's done by rich people who didn't decide to be poor... I think it's a rather cheap publicity move and meaningless given how the Brown government was clearly moving against benefit fraud anyway. @Mystic Fred: I thought health spending was the only area that the conservatives actually had ringfenced spending on. I know they're planning on changing some things and trying to decentralise it a bit but I'm not sure exactly what... either way, I'm more worried about education. The thing that really worries me about this deficit is how immediately and how entirely people have accepted that politics is just about the economy. I've yet to see anyone, when asked about how they'd 'fix' the economy suggest that maybe some things should matter more in politics. |
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 07:21 |
||
|
TGM, I agree with basically everything you've said in those two posts, with one glaring exception:
I'd be very interested to know why you think this could be a positive change. |
|||
|
|||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 08:00 |
||
Well, I don't think it's ideal but it's much better in the context of our political system than the polarised politics of the 70s. 1) Neither of the major parties is going to be extremely radical. No labour leader now will suggest an 83% top rate (no joke, we had that once) of taxation, I don't think the conservatives will attempt to pull out of the EU or to slash the NHS because it doesn't fit in with their fundamental ideals. I think that in a first-past-the-post system you basically get a lot of alternation of government by two parties, and most governments are far stronger than their share of the vote should leave them - hence, if you have two major parties each of whom is doing exactly the opposite of the other, the country's going to swing between two extremes in a very precarious fashion. I suppose my point is that, as far as I can tell, there were some extremely bad times (Idee Amin offered us bananas as 'economic aid' at one point) when we had hardline left and right wing governments with solid majorities (and that was when we had politicians with character, as well) and I think the current consensus should avert things from ever becoming that bad. 2) I think that good ideas on both sides of the centre are more likely to be implemented irrespective of which party's in control. If Labour borrows a good conservative idea which is popular and reasonable and then tailors it to its own particular priorities (eg. the inheritance tax thing, which got lambasted so much by the broadsheets), that's a good thing in my view. 3) I don't really believe that people neccessarily had that much more choice back when they had more drastic choices... yes, there is no serious far left party now, but back in 1974 I don't think you could've voted for a serious centre-left party that wasn't suggesting an 83% top rate of taxation to support industries with a sense of entitlement. The only way we are going to get more meaningful party choices in this country is electoral reform so that there are more than two viable parties. So, yes, I don't think consensus politics is worse than what went before. We could do with some new characters in politics though - I mean, Mandelson (and he's not even an MP!) is probably the most memorable and charismatic figure in all three major parties right now... that's ridiculous. Optimally, I think we could do alright with more polarised main parties if we had a proportional system that would offer some kind of balance to them and make parliamentary votes more genuinely important. Edited by TGM: Orb - August 17 2010 at 08:06 |
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:47 |
||
Thanks for that. You've made some pretty persuasive arguments there. I agree with you that we really need to see meaningful electoral reform for this country to move forwards politically. As it currently stands, I doubt I'd be able to cast anything but a protest vote in the next election, such is my disdain for all three main parties. Tell me, are you involved at all in the Take Bake Parliament campaign? I've signed a few petitions and stuff, but haven't been to any meetings or anything yet because no one's taken the lead in my area (I would, but finding a job is my top priority right now). I'm drawn to it because it's proper worthwhile political activism which I can do from a non-partisan perspective and, like you, I sincerely want the referendum on AV to be a success, for the sake of reinvigorating our stale political system. |
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:55 |
||
It would be good if we had some 'positive' characters in politics, rather than dark sinister types like Mandelson. It seems that all Labours 'good guys' either resigned after Iraq, or died (Mo Mowlem, Tony Banks, Robin Cook et al..) I can see the sense in parties meeting in a middle ground. The fact of the matter is, there is still a socialist party people can vote for, there is a facist party, a green party, and anti Europe party. All the choices are still there, just not among the main three parties. |
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
Dean
Special Collaborator
Retired Admin and Amateur Layabout Joined: May 13 2007 Location: Europe Status: Offline Points: 37575 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 09:58 |
||
Take Bake Parliament!?!?!
Is this something organised by Jane Asher
 |
|||
|
What?
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 10:27 |
||
Whoops.  My idiot brain was attempting to refer to Take Back Parliament. Unlike the Tory-backed (or should that be baked?) No campaign, the Yes campaign is relying on grass-roots activity, in lieu of massive billboard campaigns funded by multi-millionaires. |
|||
|
|||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 11:07 |
||
'fraid not... I switch at random between having too much free time and none and I've never really thought about activism, to be honest. Might see if I can help out with some things in the run up to the referendum. Edited by TGM: Orb - August 17 2010 at 11:09 |
|||
|
|||
|
TGM: Orb
Prog Reviewer
Joined: October 21 2007 Location: n/a Status: Offline Points: 8052 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 11:13 |
||
Would be. Not convinced the current trend towards career politicians and shortlists is going to give us any more Dave Nellists. |
|||
|
|||
|
freedom-of-speech
Forum Newbie
Joined: August 17 2010 Status: Offline Points: 9 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 20:06 |
||
|
Still flogging the old Iraq war was it illegal nonsense to death.
Why do parents and relatives of armed forces members still reel in shock when in times of war their loved ones get killed? Isn't it one of the hazards of the job? Good god the numbers who have been killed in Iraq/Afghanistan are insignificant to the soldiers who died in world war one, in an hour, or even world war two. Have our armed forces become so soft?
Good on Blair for donating his profits to the British legion, i bet the tory numpties wouldn't......
Finally the war in Iraq would never ever be found illegal in any court in any part of the world...so get a different record people it's so yesterday. Edited by freedom-of-speech - August 18 2010 at 18:36 |
|||
|
|||
|
Equality 7-2521
Forum Senior Member 
Joined: August 11 2005 Location: Philly Status: Offline Points: 15784 |
Posted: August 17 2010 at 21:04 |
||
|
It's illegal in America. I'd wager it's possible it is in other countries whose laws I know little about.
|
|||
|
"One had to be a Newton to notice that the moon is falling, when everyone sees that it doesn't fall. "
|
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 18 2010 at 01:48 |
||
I know I probably shouldn't rise to the bait as the tone of this post smacks of trolling, but oh well. 1. Regarding the legality of the war: "The United Nations Charter is the foundation of modern international law.[9] The UN Charter is a treaty ratified by the US and its principal coalition allies in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, which are therefore legally bound by its terms. Article 2(4) of the UN Charter generally bans the use of force by states except when carefully circumscribed conditions are met, stating:
This rule was "enshrined in the United Nations Charter in 1945 for a good reason: to prevent states from using force as they felt so inclined", said Louise Doswald-Beck, Secretary-General International Commission of Jurists.[11] Therefore, in the absence of an armed attack against the US or the coalition members, any legal use of force, or any legal threat of the use of force, had to be supported by a UN security Council resolution authorizing member states to use force against Iraq.[9] The US and UK governments, along with others, stated (as is detailed in the first four paragraphs of the joint resolution)[12] that the invasion was entirely legal because it was already authorized by existing United Nations Security Council resolutions and a resumption of previously temporarily suspended hostilities, and not a war of aggression as the US and UK were acting as agents for the defense of Kuwait in response to Iraq's 1990 invasion.[13][14] Some International legal experts, including the International Commission of Jurists, the US-based National Lawyers' Guild,[15] a group of 31 Canadian law professors, and the US-based Lawyers' Committee on Nuclear Policy have found this legal rationale to be untenable, and are of the view that the invasion was not supported by UN resolution and was therefore illegal.[16][17][18] The ICC can find only individuals to have committed crimes, not governments.[19] However, the unauthorized use of force or threat of use of force by a member state of the UN violates the UN Charter.[9]" (from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legality_of_the_Iraq_War). As you say, "so yesterday". Wouldn't it be nice if people stopped getting so hung up on major transgressions of international law which has resulted in massive death tolls, political instability and the increased radicalisation of certain individuals who may well not otherwise have been drawn towards terrorism? [/sarcasm] 2. Your comments about relatives of armed forces members is crass, insensitive and completely unbidden. When I talked of the blood on Blair's hands I wasn't just referring to 'our' troops who lost their lives fighting an unnecessary war. The total body count of civillian deaths as a direct result of this war is currently estimated at between 97,196 and 106,071 (source). Yes, this might pale in comparison to previous conflicts, but at least in those we had a valid excuse of self-defence. 3. I'm all for bashing the 'Tory numpties', but that seems like a weird statement. It wasn't their leader who took us into two bloody, unnecessary wars with no sense of what a victory might actually look like. Yes, they all voted for them, but they weren't involved in the day-to-day running of these wars. I doubt their memoirs on the subject would shift a significant number of copies. Welcome to Prog Archives! Edited by Trouserpress - August 18 2010 at 01:55 |
|||
|
|||
|
The Hemulen
Special Collaborator
Honorary Collaborator Joined: July 31 2004 Location: UK Status: Offline Points: 5964 |
Posted: August 20 2010 at 05:00 |
||
|
Only partially related to politics in the narrow, westminster sense perhaps, but anyone with a passing interest in the case of Ian Tomlinson, the newspaper vendor who was filmed being beaten by a police officer and died shortly afterwards, and the subsequent failure to bring said police officer to justice would do well to listen to this excellent piece of reportage. Incompetency, cover-up or both?
|
|||
|
|||
|
Blacksword
Prog Reviewer
Joined: June 22 2004 Location: England Status: Offline Points: 16130 |
Posted: August 20 2010 at 06:39 |
||
|
I was going to post something about the calls to re-open the enquiry around Dr David Kelly's 'suicide' and the fact that a law chief has said he will intervene to stop this, in the absence of fresh evidence, but I decided against it. I dont anticipate much interest in debating that.
In the case of Ian Tomlinson, I think there was incompetence at the outset, followed by a cover up. The police can be pretty hapless. Their superiors dont actually support them behaving in this way, but are not man enough to hold their hands up afterwards and say "Yep, we f***ed up! We're sorry. The officer's been charged with manslaughter and the chief of police has resigned, without a golden handshake" In the case of David Kelly, the fact there is much that needs to be clarified, and that the medical records were classified for 70 years, by Hutton at the end of his last whitewash, only serves to reinforce suspiscion. Edited by Blacksword - August 20 2010 at 07:12 |
|||
|
Ultimately bored by endless ecstasy!
|
|||
|
|||
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 7> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
UK Politics
Topic Options
Blacksword wrote: