***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 3 *****
So - the "other" politics thread, titled "Nigel Farage", is getting too long to read and has spread far wider than its original subject, so here's a place for hopefully, polite, non-personal, discussion about things which please you and things which make you grind your teeth in frustration.
Have at it!
Last edited by: VxFan on Fri 22 Mar 13 at 01:18
|
Thanks Roger. I'll lock the other thread.
Vx
|
|
It might facilitate discussion if you moved the last dozen or so posts here first.
|
I just got a leaflet through the door from the local Tory candidate who is the Chairman of the Town Council.
The first two paragraphs concentrate on his family and local credentials, the next about his current role and the last two about what he wants to do for the voter.
His last line invites you to contact him directly about any issues.
It is a very good leaflet and I have met him before on the doorstep - I highlighted a problem to him and he did indeed fix it.
I have another problem in mind - I wonder if I should drop him an email and see what happens!
|
|
I can't find a credible source using that quotation Roger. Can you?
|
|
I think the bouquet of barbed wire round the quote tells you all you need to know.
|
|
I don't know whether this will help, but Jean Monnet was utterly traumatized by Edward Heath's driving after accepting a lift from him. I believe in the end Heath's minions forbade him to drive at all.
|
Comment referred to Bromponaut. Indeed. And here is a rebuttal of the eurosceptic twaddle:
"The following quote is often misascribed to Jean Monnet — in fact it is a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton:
"Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional deception"
europa.hs-pforzheim.de/jeanmonnet_biography.html
Last edited by: NIL on Thu 7 Mar 13 at 21:26
|
>> Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional
>> deception"
>>
>> europa.hs-pforzheim.de/jeanmonnet_biography.html
>>
In the link quoted it states "After retiring to his home in Houjarray, Monnet wrote his memoirs."
From those memoirs:
"The sovereign nations of the past can no longer solve the problems of the present: they cannot ensure their own progress or control their own future. And the Community itself is only a stage on the way to the organised world of tomorrow".
I don't read that as the testament of an evil machiavellian genius. I read it as the view of a man who had lived through two horrific world wars and was ahead of the game in seeing where internationalization was headed.
As a technocrat and administrator his solution has a lot in common with Plato and his organized "Republic". Very rational and well intended but missing the point about human nature, i.e. We want the freedom to be pillocks.
|
|
Let's have a referendum this year either in or out.At least we will have some political excitement.
|
>> At least we will have some political excitement.
God protect us from that comrade. Chinese curse: 'May you live in interesting times.' Peruvian blessing: 'Let no new thing arise.'
The wisdom of ancient civilizations.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Fri 8 Mar 13 at 00:53
|
>> Comment referred to Bromponaut. Indeed. And here is a rebuttal of the eurosceptic twaddle:
>>
>> "The following quote is often misascribed to Jean Monnet — in fact it is
>> a paraphrase of a characterization of Monnet's intentions by British Conservative Adrian Hilton:
>>
>> "Europe's nations should be guided towards a super state without their people understanding what
>> is happening. This can be accomplished by successive steps each disguised as having an economic
>> purpose, but which will eventually and irreversibly lead to federation."
>>
>> Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional
>> deception"
>>
>> europa.hs-pforzheim.de/jeanmonnet_biography.html
Missed out the sting in the tale, did you not?
"Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional deception, saying "Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "... the current communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce the political union which is the goal."
Last edited by: Roger on Fri 8 Mar 13 at 09:14
|
>> Missed out the sting in the tale, did you not?
>>
>> "Monnet is reported to have expressed somewhat similar sentiments, but without the notion of intentional
>> deception, saying "Via money Europe could become political in five years" and "... the current
>> communities should be completed by a Finance Common Market which would lead us to European
>> economic unity. Only then would ... the mutual commitments make it fairly easy to produce
>> the political union which is the goal."
So he's setting out a pathway to political union. A perfectly respectable objective albeit one some or even many would oppose. It still lacks the intentional deceit inserted in Hilton's misquote.
|
Even if we left the Union we would be part of a other union the 53rd state of the US.
In the meantime the financial institutians carry on with their dirty work and the ordinary folk will still be screwed.Look at Greece Portugal and Spain.People kicked out of their houses mass unenployement and suffering.It is reaching our doorstep and the cuts will start to bite now.No matter how much Nigel will shout about the EU and immigration it won't change anything.Unless.>:)
|
>>In the meantime the financial institutians carry on with their dirty work and the ordinary folk will still be screwed.Look at Greece Portugal and Spain.People kicked out of their houses mass unenployement and suffering.It is reaching our doorstep and the cuts will start to bite now.No matter how much Nigel will shout about the EU and immigration it won't change anything<<
goo.gl/UbG2u
This country isn't Greece, Portugal, Spain, Ireland, Italy etc. etc. this country is Great Britain.
There is more to this world than just Europe and I for one am of the opinion that we can trade successfully with the rest of the world including Europe without being governed by Europe or being part of a federal superstate.
|
>> www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2013/mar/09/ukip-opinium-observer-opinion-poll
The only voting figure in there that matters in an election is Labour's lead over the Tories. UKIP can score 18% in every constituency in England and not get a single MP. Some LD's will get back because of their strong local organisation and their representation in Scotland where different politics apply.
UKIP might get one or two if they put Farage and other plausible candidates in well chosen seats and get foot soldiers out on the ground. But they still lack the local organisation of the LDs (or Greens in Brighton).
The numbers on government's economic competence will put the wind up Downing St though.
|
You are of course right Brompt, but it interesting that both Labour and the Tories lost ground to UKIP.
Labour will certainly need to reconnect with the working class voters they took for granted for 16 years and Milliband developing a sudden interest in immigration is indicative of how worried he is that their vote isnt automatic anymore, but it will be I think a positive thing for Labour to try and reconnect, though how effective they are remains to be seen.
UKIP is working to quietly creep into local politics and they are constantly asking for people to come forward at the moment, a call to arms as it were. What has gone unnoticed is the constant stream of Tory councillors defecting to UKIP ( and a few Lib Dem/Labour ). There is one most weeks now and it will be curious to see whether in May they retain their seats. They won in Congleton at 44% recently.
They do lack the organisation or rather the funds to create an organisation that matches their success, but this is being worked on, the rise in the polls has been extremely steep of late and I suspect even UKIP members are a little shocked.
|
UKIP's big problem for the General Election will be finding enough money to put sufficient candidates in the field. 650 X £500 deposit is a big chunk of money.
Actively fighting that number of seats is a huge undertaking
At present UKIP is almost wholly funded by donations from its membership and whilst membership is growing at phenomenal rate, (compared with other parties), we still have only around 23,000 paid up members.
Membership is put at £30 pa, but can be a minimum of £15 pa, so the sums are easily done. We have a few "Patron" members at a grand a throw and a very few properly well-off donaters.
I think a good proportion of the party management's time is spent seeking a decent source of income. The problem there, is that large donations come with large obligations to the giver and there is discussion within the party whether or not this is a good thing!
Nigel Farage recently had a private dinner with Rupert Murdoch (The Devil Incarnate to some!) and to say the least, there has been a mixed reaction to his even meeting the man.
The rank and file of the party, at the present, seems to be against an electoral pact with the Conservatives - just look at the corrosive effect of the Con/LibDem coalition for both of those parties.
|
I think you have to be realistic when it comes to bigger donors Roger - it depends on the obligations - if it means abandoning a core policy then perhaps not, but if it means ditching a small technical policy such as a certain business regulation, or an adjustment on the points system for the immigration policy for example, it is worth considering.
I am not at all bothered about Nigel meeting the old crone - I find it highly unlikely Nigel would be leaned on by Murdoch and the most likely explanation is that Murdoch doesnt like Cameron, Nigel doesnt like Cameron either so by being positive towards UKIP Murdoch gets to land a few punches on Cameron and Farage gets better press - it is one of those mutually beneficial situations.
I dont see a pact forming at all, Nigel was just making mischief over that to niggle at Cameron as he is well aware Cameron wont be going anywhere, but it doesnt hurt to try and weaken him by the suggestion given a fair few backbenchers cant stand the posh twit anyway.
|
''The problem there, is that large donations come with large obligations to the giver''
No doubt the reason some contribute to the established main parties for gain.
I don't think that applies to Farage's crew in quite the same proportion, but neither are we naive enough to think there won't be a degree of it going on, time will tell if there is anything untoward then the hostile media will report it with glee, especially the state broadcaster.
Patriots don't need payback for their contributions to a just cause.
|
Read this:- tinyurl.com/agw5pa5
.....and UKIP are accused of scaremongering? Come on.
|
"My 10-year-old daughter is with my parents at home in Plovdiv. I want her to be with me. And when she is here, I will be able to claim €180 a month in childcare support – in Bulgaria it is €7."
"I earn €2,300 a month as a lorry driver. But the Bulgarians tell my boss they will do my job for €1,000 a month – and they don't need visas, unlike me. Turkey is booming now, so it is time to go home."
I earned €200 a month with McDonalds in Bulgaria; here I earn €1,200 for doing exactly the same job."
“Europe is a monument to the vanity of intellectuals, a programme whose inevitable destiny is failure: only the scale of the final damage is in doubt".
Margaret Thatcher 03/2002 ("she did, however, sign the Single European Act onto the Statute Book!")
|
"Chancellor Angela Merkel suddenly has a "UKIP problem" on the her right flank"
{ ´°`(_)´°` }
|
And ... from the supreme C4P cut n' paste merchant:
The spoilt brats of yesterday are now today's politicians. That is just so true. Take a look at the House of Commons and BOTH front benches are millionaires row, none of whom know anything about honesty decency, principles or ethics and worst of all NONE of them know anything about the reality of life for ordinary decent folk who are working in genuine jobs or who have worked all their lives and are struggling to survive in their autumn years.
It was one their own, an ex intelligence officer of senior rank (one Major David Cornwall aka John Le Carre) and one time English tutor at Eton College who wrote:-
"The last breeding ground of the true savage is the English Public School"
~Lifted from the expat forum/Spain.
|
More pot stirring! (Trolling I guess)
If you want to see "Islamophobia" at it's most virulent look here:- www.barenakedislam.com/about/
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 10:22
|
>>If you want to see "Islamophobia" at it's most virulent look here:- www.barenakedislam.com/about/<<
I smell a rat Zionist behind that site.
|
>> I smell a rat Zionist behind that site.
I'd come to conclusion that it was probably NSFW - might have a peek this evening just to satisy my curiosity.
|
>> >> I smell a rat Zionist behind that site.
>>
>> I'd come to conclusion that it was probably NSFW - might have a peek this
>> evening just to satisy my curiosity.
Your instinct is entirely correct. It should have carried a warning. Nasty.
Last edited by: Manatee on Mon 11 Mar 13 at 12:54
|
>> it was probably NSFW
The site is garbage. What is NSFW?
|
>> "Chancellor Angela Merkel suddenly has a "UKIP problem" on the her right flank"
>>
>> { ´°`(_)´°` }
>>
"Like" !
|
cdn.yougov.com/cumulus_uploads/document/6ermykkegf/YG-Archive-Pol-Sunday-Times-results-08-100313.pdf
Some very interesting data in this poll as it details UKIP voter views against Tories. Some predictable, some less so. Worth scanning through it.
|
The EU machine proves yet again that it is our best recruiting agent!
tinyurl.com/bs5yomc
|
Now I know why pubs are closing.
A pint of draught Guinness and a pint of Coca-Cola: four quid change from a ten pound note!
Good meeting though!
|
www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/may/31/coalition-u-turns-full-list
I don't think any party will get an overall majority at the next General Election. So, if there is going to be another Coalition, who will be involved?
|
|
That's weird. I could have sworn that, when we were discussing the AV referendum, the accepted wisdom on here was that FPTP was a bulwark against weak coalition governments, and therefore the only sensible electoral system. Did I miss a meeting? Did my side win? Hurrah!
|
>> I don't think any party will get an overall majority at the next General Election.
>> So, if there is going to be another Coalition, who will be involved?
Difficult to call until nearer the time. As the polls stand Labour would be likley to have a working overall majority. The current lead will however be significantly erroded before the election.
Assuming Labour largest party I suspect PM Milipede supported by rump Lib Dems (Clegg defenestrated and possible defections) and/or Nationalists.
If Tories are largest but NOM then Cameron will have failed and be impelled to resign. Possibly a caretaker leader as the big cheeses won't want to drink from the chalice that poisoned Cameron. If NI Unionists can, as they did in recent by-election, select unity candidates in seats where SF or SDLP are vulnerable then they could hold balance of power.
An alliance of that sort would though be potentially fatal to the peace process.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 15 Mar 13 at 12:26
|
I'm not a big fan of the government, but this article just goes to show how everything can be twisted to a negative.
Having had a quick browse through the list it seems that many of the "U turns" made sense, either because of changing circumstances or because strong arguments were put forward, and listened to.
I suppose they could have carried on regardless, and then we could have had an article of "30+ instances where the government ignored reason or reality"
alternatively, they could just never have mentioned any plans, and then we could have had
"3 years and no decisions"
|
>>Having had a quick browse through the list it seems that many of the "U turns" made sense, either because of changing circumstances or because strong arguments were put forward, and listened to.<<
Im not a fan of this government either, but I think you are spot on. The only thing worse than a government making a bad decision is realising its bad and carrying on regardless to save political face.
|
>> Having had a quick browse through the list it seems that many of the "U
>> turns" made sense, either because of changing circumstances or because strong arguments were put forward,
>> and listened to.
>>
That is true. But getting a policy to the point of being in the budget or a statement by the PM suggests it should have undergone rigorous testing first.
That testing should have identified the sort of practical issues that stymied the English Baccalaureate or unnanounced Ofsted Inspections. Even where lobbying is in play it really should be anticipated - alcohol pricing was a case in point.
Some of these are almost certainly down to a sense in Westminster that the Civil Service is too cautious and advice being ignored.
I'd also add in some cases a failure to understand the devolution settlement. Moving Welfare such as Council Tax relief and the Social Fund from the UK wide DWP to largely devolved Councils involves Edinburgh and Cardiff. Meaninigful consultation on deployment can be seriously late/lacking.
I suspect Rob/RP would have a view on that from the advice side too!!
|
>> That is true. But getting a policy to the point of being in the budget
>> or a statement by the PM suggests it should have undergone rigorous testing first.
>>
>> That testing should have identified the sort of practical issues that stymied the English Baccalaureate
>> or unnanounced Ofsted Inspections. Even where lobbying is in play it really should be anticipated
>> - alcohol pricing was a case in point.
Just picking your first two points. They seem to be classic cases of the government putting forward an idea, but then listening to feedback.
Unless these things are announced, there won't be full feedback.
Sure, they could try to do things behind the scenes as much as possible, in some effort not to announce it until they are completely sure of going ahead.
But who benefits from that? What is the problem with announcing a plan, but then later changing it in the face of valid argument?
The only effect it would have, would be to stop the papers publishing these U-turn stories, and maybe replacing them with
"Coalition trying to push through Plan X, with secret behind the scenes deals"
|
SS
If govt wants to put forward an idea and listen to feedback it has the means to do so by way of a 'green paper' or some other form of structured consultation on options. Interested bodies and experts then contribute before a more detailed statement of policy is published. In the web era that process can be open and transparent with all contributions in the public domain.
The coaltion has tended to jump that stage and launch what appear to be fully formed policies. Often these are quick reactions to problems that are currently in the headlines or they're intended to create clear blue water between the govt and past consensus.
Once the policy is announced consultation looks like a sham (it often is too) while any bowing to reality looks like retreat. Embarrassmnet at the hands of Parliamentary Committees is another hazard of ill thought action and one which the govt has encountered to the point of looking like carelessness.
They bring it on themselves.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Fri 15 Mar 13 at 15:06
|
Thing is we don't actually hear or read what the relevant politician, if there is such a thing, has said.
We get told what the one in question will say today, not a report of an actual statement but a usually biased quote from something which hasn't yet been announced.
Trouble is what do we want or more importantly what do we expect, if we were told the truth that the govt of the day, Lib Lab or Con, was actually just re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic as it steams on at full speed for something to fill news time, that whilst being closer to the truth wouldn't please anyone.
Hence constant waffle or non news, then retract that same non news just to fill comic pages and to keep an army of media luvvies experts and commentators in cushty jobs.
Politicians fiddle while Rome, or in this case the EU Western Islands formerly known as Great Britain, burns, its nothing new the country isn't ready for the truth yet.
|
This is a very soft government perhaps because it is coalition and it requires two parties to vote together - it is also far from unified either as both parties have divisions that are open to being exploited, so it doesnt take much to prevent it moving forward with a proposal.
I wonder how many of these U-turns happened because either Cameron or Clegg couldnt bring enough of their parties with them but didnt want a 3-line whip situation either.
Lords reform died a death because it didnt look like it was going anywhere and I expect many policies simply dont have a chance of getting the numbers for a majority.
I wont be suprised if the vote on the budget is far from plain sailing, I suspect that if it has any welfare cuts a fair few Lib Dems wont go with it.
|
>> Once the policy is announced consultation looks like a sham (it often is too) while
>> any bowing to reality looks like retreat. Embarrassmnet at the hands of Parliamentary Committees is
>> another hazard of ill thought action and one which the govt has encountered to the
>> point of looking like carelessness.
It doesn't look like a retreat. It just looks like they changed their mind, and they may have had very valid reasons for doing so.
It is the paper and, yes, the opposition that will classify them changing their mind as a "retreat" or a "U-turn".
But that is just political points scoring, nothing more.
As has been said above, it would be much worse if they just stuck to their guns and pushed through a policy that was flawed.
|
|
Yes but it would even better if the proposed measures were thought through and analysed and introduced instead of being rushed and then changed. The record does not show me that the government are being too clever. £4 million wasted on Leveson and another £4 million and counting on West Coast Mainline bidding alone
Last edited by: Meldrew on Fri 15 Mar 13 at 18:44
|
>> Yes but it would even better if the proposed measures were thought through and analysed
>> and introduced instead of being rushed and then changed. The record does not show me
>> that the government are being too clever. £4 million wasted on Leveson and another £4
>> million and counting on West Coast Mainline bidding alone
>>
By Government standards of waste £8 million is chicken feed.
The MOD regularly overspent projects by £3-4 BILLION a year. (see aircraft carriers)
|
Carriers - another money pit! Mid build design change and then changed back and the word on the street is that the F-35 is such a bag of bolts the production could be scaled down and the unit price will continue to rise
"Since December, Pentagon officials anticipated the per-unit cost including the price of development to be $112 million; it is now expected to be $155.6 million. The number most closely associated with flyaway pricing was estimated at $92.4 million only a few months ago; it is now at $133 million. Earlier this year, development was extended from Fiscal 2012 to Fiscal 2016 in an effort to reduce schedule risk and concurrency between testing and production."
|
.....and more waste to come, on HS2, for what?
20 minutes off the journey time for the few who will be able to afford the tickets.
|
>>20 minutes off the journey time for the few who will be able to afford the tickets.<<
Only a twit in London would think 20 minutes saved matters when you cant even catch a train from Northampton to Peterborough etc. When I was dating my wife she could only get as far as Peterborough, then I had to drive 40 mins in the car to pick her up - great transport system!
Rich people looking after rich people is all HS2 is about, Im sure someone is making a handsome profit even if it doesnt go ahead.
|
>> .....and more waste to come, on HS2, for what?
>> 20 minutes off the journey time for the few who will be able to afford
>> the tickets.
HS2 is about capacity, not journey times. The main lines from Euston and Kings Cross are rammed. We're now doing more rail journeys a year then before Beeching when the network was far bigger than today.
IF you need a new 21st Century line to relieve the old ones it would be barking to build it for 19th century speeds.
|
Cheaper, more efficient, and more environmentally clever (har har) to shift the jobs from London to Birmingham than shift even more people a couple of hundred miles every day to work.
|
Even better, move parliament and government to a nice brownfield site in the Midlands. The NEC would do!
It would provide much needed employment, cheaper housing for non-local MP's (a block of purpose built flats) , reduce house prices in London, reduce commuting, and generally reduce the London-centric attitude of the UK.
|
>> Even better, move parliament and government to a nice brownfield site in the Midlands. The
>> NEC would do!
>> It would provide much needed employment, cheaper housing for non-local MP's (a block of purpose
>> built flats) , reduce house prices in London, reduce commuting, and generally reduce the London-centric
>> attitude of the UK.
A new 'federal' capital in the style of Canberra or Ankara?
Massive opportunity for UK architects to do their stuff.
|
|
"non-local MP's" EEEK - how did that errant apostrophe appear there? #Blushes.
|
Do the speeds matter that much? The time saving is neither here nor there unless you are doing it everyday, which is a terrible idea anyway and environmentally stupid for any material number of people.
If I want to go to Manchester for the day, whether it takes 2 hours or two and a half is neither here nor there when I do it a few times a year. (Actually I drive because it's cheaper and more flexible).
Non-stop trains between two points do sod-all for the people en route whose peace is blighted.
The vast majority of people will never travel on HS2. Who is it really being built for?
There's a good chance it will be a white elephant if it isn't finished until 2033 too. Virtual offices could be ubiquitous by then.
A couple of sceptical articles
goo.gl/BE1yI (DT)
www.neweconomics.org/blog/2013/01/29/does-the-dft%E2%80%99s-case-for-hs2-stand-up-to-scrutiny
|
>>There's a good chance it will be a white elephant if it isn't finished until 2033 too. Virtual offices could be ubiquitous by then.<<
I quite agree. I have several customers who work in upper management in well known companies in the UK and they primarily work from home - this HS2 lark is a very London-centric idea that could well be obsolete by the time it arrives.
Usually when said customers go anywhere they fly - Birmingham to London included.
|
I see that thing who called UKIP Eastleigh candidate Diane James disgusting on last weeks QT has been outed as a Labour activist.
I watched the program twice and had my suspicions it was a stooge, is that the depths that Labour have to sink to?
it is they who are disgusting in my not-so humble opinion.
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2292995/Question-Time-How-Labour-Party-planted-diehard-supporter-audience-attack-UKIP-panellist.html
|
>>I watched the program twice and had my suspicions it was a stooge, is that the depths that Labour have to sink to? it is they who are disgusting in my not-so humble opinion.<<
They sink deeper than that.
www.miltonkeynes.co.uk/news/local/former-nazi-wins-a-labour-council-seat-1-3826439
No amount of 'regret' on her part would make me trust anyone who ever thought like that, shameful that she was ever selected. Disgusting as Miss Rutland would say.
|
Stu,
She'd probably have been better avoided, if only because of risk of the sort of headline you quote. OTOH all parties have their share of folks with dodgy history.
Wasn't the late Rhodes Boyson a communist in his youth?
|
>>She'd probably have been better avoided, if only because of risk of the sort of headline you quote. OTOH all parties have their share of folks with dodgy history.<<
No, the reason should not be because of headlines, it should be because nobody who has ever behaved in that manner should be promoted to public life.
If she would be refused UKIP membership, you have to wonder why the Labour Party opens such people with open arms.
|
>> >>I watched the program twice and had my suspicions it was a stooge, is that
>> the depths that Labour have to sink to? it is they who are disgusting in
>> my not-so humble opinion.<<
How low did Dimblebore and the BBCQT producers sink, though?
Quite obviously they knew she was there and was going to be called to speak.
The Labour MP knew who she was as she had spent part of the day with him and to describe her as "the young lady in the audience", as he did was a bit rich.
Once she had spoken Dimblebore would not let Diane James answer the question under discussion, but insisted she replied to the "disgusting" epithet. The camera and sound booms were concentrating on Ms Rutland to such an extent that it did seem pre-planned.
|
is that the depths that Labour have to sink to?
>>
Nulab must be in serious trouble if that incoherant and almost humourous attack was the best they could muster.
Pudding overegged by overzealous child.
|
Standard QT stuff. Surely other panellists had their mates in the audience too. Even the Mail cannot make that much of it.
The lass is 23 and a Labour supporter. The 'die hard label is just hyperbole of the sort analysed by CGN in Armel's 'rap' thread.
The use of the word disgusting might justify an apology but accusing UKIP (and by extension the Mail) of scaremongering about Romanians is fair comment.
|
>>The lass is 23 and a Labour supporter.<<
That is a little disingenuous, she is a regional policy co-ordinator, hardly just a member of the public. Twigg even pretended he didnt know her, shifty little weasel.
|
No other even vaguely suitable thread so I'll just lob it in here...
I don't normally like the Welsh...
But today, oh yes !
What can we have with leeks tonight do you think?
:-)))))
|
>> What can we have with leeks tonight do you think?
>>
>> :-)))))
>>
arsenic.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 16 Mar 13 at 21:06
|
|
Yes, what a bummer that was. I wish I hadn't watched it now. I was only escaping from the violence of the little girls' party too.
|
>> No other even vaguely suitable thread so I'll just lob it in here...
>>
>> I don't normally like the Welsh...
>>
>> But today, oh yes !
>>
>> What can we have with leeks tonight do you think?
>>
>> :-)))))
Humble pie, :-(
|
>> The use of the word disgusting might justify an apology but accusing UKIP (and by
>> extension the Mail) of scaremongering about Romanians is fair comment.
Creating fear is scaremongering I suppose, whether the object of fear is real or not. If those doing it think the contingency is likely to arise, then they might think it justified.
The problem now is that some think it is politically unacceptable even to discuss it.
|
>> The problem now is that some think it is politically unacceptable even to discuss it.
>>
Isn't that the anti fascist method, using any means including violence to silence those they accuse as fascists who don't say the right thing?
Free speech so long as its the approved message.
|
>> Know thine enemy:
>>
If an alien ship landed and multi limbed several headed creatures emerged, we'd have politicians lining up to kiss their backsides as soon as they gained the vote.
They are all the same, they will say anything...eg cast iron guarantee from the other cheek.
|
gb, they aren't all the same and very few will 'say anything'. Those are both untrue assertions.
I must say it seems a bit odd of you to be hostile to 'anti-fascism' too. If we hadn't been anti-fascist we would have encouraged the Nazis instead of fighting them, surely?
|
>> gb, they aren't all the same and very few will 'say anything'. Those are both
>> untrue assertions.
>>
>> I must say it seems a bit odd of you to be hostile to 'anti-fascism'
>> too. If we hadn't been anti-fascist we would have encouraged the Nazis instead of fighting
>> them, surely?
I'm a bit lost in this one myself.
I thought gb's point was that the anti-fascists are out-fascisting the supposed fascists by being utterly totalitarian themselves.
I didn't like the Labour apparatchik either.
|
>> anti-fascists are out-fascisting the supposed fascists by being utterly totalitarian themselves.
Yes, I've seen people behaving like that, and very deplorable it is. It's stupidity. There's a lot of it about. There certainly was thirty years ago.
But it's a point that needs to be made carefully, without tarring all 'anti-fascists' with the same brush.
Actually in this day and age to call oneself an anti-fascist is to imply that there are a lot of serious fascists about, and encourage the few that there are. Or so it seems to me. It's a mistake to define yourself by what you are against. It begs the question: what do you support?
|
No AC is quite right, not all will say anything, but the leaders of the three cheeks apparently will to spin a vote.
I'm anti anti fascist in that they ironically manage to outfascist the fascists without it entering their heads what they themselves have become.
|
And they know that we know what they are doing, and we know that they know we know, and they know that we know that they know that we know.
I'm glad we got that out of the way. For some reason 'fascist' is a very hard word to type.
|
For some reason 'fascist' is a very hard word to type.
>>
tell me about it, i had four esses in one of them yet it looked nearly right.
|
>> No AC is quite right, not all will say anything, but the leaders of the
>> three cheeks apparently will to spin a vote.
This "three cheek" thing is getting a bit tired, what with UKIP so desperate to become a fourth "cheek". They're still a political party and are subject to the same behavioural traits and mores as the larger ones.
Their recent nonsense about the numbers of people who will move here from Romania and Bulgaria was one example of spinning and untruths.
Those who argue that UKIP will somehow prove to be new moral standard bearers in politics should be prepared to be hoist by their own petard, in fact they already are.
|
I tend to agree that there was some hyperbole implying "definitely coming" immigrant numbers: perhaps we should have used the magic phrase "up to"!
It will be instructive to find out just how many of the newly enabled Romanians & Bulgarians DO come.
Historically, it seems that officialdom underestimates likely numbers of immigrants, though.
I'm pleased to note your acceptance that UKIP is a political party:-)
Last edited by: Roger on Mon 18 Mar 13 at 11:53
|
>> I'm pleased to note your acceptance that UKIP is a political party:-)
>>
Never thought otherwise. I even voted for it once, 2 European elections ago. Before a few pennies dropped.
|
>> If we hadn't been anti-fascist we would have encouraged the Nazis instead of fighting them, surely?<<
Would that have been such a bad thing though I often ask myself, I mean, look at the Forth Reich today,
compared to 'Great' Britain.
Godwin?
|
>> Forth Reich
National Socialist Republic of Fife Perro? That's a new one on me.
|
The Forth Reich?
Surely that's a bridge too far.
|
Blimey CGN you are on form, excellent stuff.
Home brew or from a shady looking geezer on a dimly lit street corner...;)
|
|
Fourth! - stupid blimmin language, Spanish is easier IMO :)
|
Well....something momentous has happened to me....for the first time since I've been an adult and a voter, I think I've slipped into the floating voter territory.
I'm sort of ashamed of myself, because i'm normally pretty decisive and don't like to waste a vote...but...the Tories have slipped in my estimation, being obsessed with trivia (e.g. gay marriage) and less than decisive on other things, even if they are constrained within a coalition.
So UKIP now becomes a possibility, particularly as the sniffy Left don't like them and have tried to tar them with several brushes and Cameron's constant unnecessary put down has irritated me.
I do not for one minute think that UKIP will win an election, but it would be good for a large chunk of the population to 'stick it' to the three main parties and give them a warning shot across the bows.
I haven't decided yet...and may write to my local Tory MP (Dr Sarah Wollaston) to see what her thoughts are...and sign it as 'Unimpressed of the South Hams'.
If someone like me can become a floating voter, then the main political parties ought to really have a good think.
|
Welcome to the darkside Westpig :-)
Apparently Labour is conducting a review into how to deal with UKIP according to Mark Ferguson on labourlist.org so I would suggest they are more worried than they let on, which is rather gratifying. I guess watch out for Amy Rutland doing more guest appearances!
|
>> Welcome to the darkside Westpig :-)
>>
Indeed its been a lifetime since i voted for the one party state, increasingly i could find no difference between the three worth mentioning, at one time the Tories at least pretended to be patriots whilst behind the rhetoric encouraging and endorsing ever further political integration by eagerly signing each new treaty, and rubber stamped by the sovereign.
Now there's not even a credible dose of whitewash, the Tory party is dying and deserves no sympathy.
|
I must admit he is good to listen to Nigel Farage there are plenty of continental people who agree with him.He will say what the others think but dare not.
Cameron is a wimp he won't give the British people a referendum about the EU.Like Blair and Mr Brown ducking and diving politicians.
We have one in the lowlands called Mark Rutte a clone lookalike.They must breed these types somewhere funny farm?
|
>>I must admit he is good to listen to Nigel Farage there are plenty of continental people who agree with him.He will say what the others think but dare not<<
= = = > www.youtube.com/watch?v=JMf_KwQ2Xlk
^_^
|
Westpig, be warned, there are many , many Scottish voters who did as you suggested and voted SNP. Labour were always going to get in and win so vote SNP as a kind of protest vote and keep labour on their toes.
Then, one day, it backfired and SNP got in..........
|
>> Then, one day, it backfired and SNP got in..........
The Scots know exactly what they were doing. Alex in Edinburgh and Labour in London.
|
>>and Labour in London. <<
London voted for Boris, not sure how Labour explain that one :-)
|
It's obvious that Westpig is really a Labour voter. The only thing holding him back is the memory of attitudes he defines as 'lefty'.
He's far too fly to imagine that Miliband's post-New Labour line is 'lefty'. The lad's doing well in the House, and sounding sensible most of the time for a party leader (don't forget they have to be all things to all men).
And far, far too fly to give his precious vote to a one-issue party with a damn silly name led by a vuvuzela with teeth, knowImean?
Come on Westpig, shape up. Be a man.
:o}
(but I mean it)
|
>> >>and Labour in London. <<
>>
>> London voted for Boris, not sure how Labour explain that one :-)
>>
No, he means that those who live in Scotland vote Labour for Westminster elections, and Scot Nat in Scottish.
Also... a lot of Tories in Scotland vote Scot Nat, just to keep Labour out.
|
>> the sniffy Left don't like them and
>> have tried to tar them with several brushes and Cameron's constant unnecessary put down has
>> irritated me.
You could say that of many parties - Green, BNP, Respect, etc. It's not really a great reason to vote for any of them, is it? So why is it a reason to vote UKIP? Vote on the issues and policies, not because some alternative slimeball/s bad mouthing someone gets up your nose.
|
>> constant unnecessary put down
What d'you mean, 'unnecessary'? A large part of everyone's political discourse consists of putdowns. In fact that and the booboos made all the time on every side are the only things that make any discussion of so-called politics bearable... to an irresponsible person of taste and discernment.
Modest blush.
|
>> the only things that make any discussion of so-called politics bearable...
In case anyone thinks that is a bit OTT, just try to imagine a whole day closeted with the Education Minister having the bleeding obvious simultaneously distorted and explained with baleful earnestness...
Shudder....
I never could stand prefect types. I might even have taken against the Mayor were I younger and had I gone to a more expensive prison.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 21 Mar 13 at 19:07
|
The Politics or putting the word to rights thread. - VxFan
