This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Well, soon your publicly funded institutions won't be able to boycott the unethical
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-boycott-local-council...
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-local-freedom-to-divest
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/israel-boycott-local-council...
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/protect-local-freedom-to-divest
13
2
10
2
6
1
In reply to llechwedd:
Yes just saw that
It increasingly looks like our government is actually evil
When people ask, what did the lib dems actually achieve when they were in coalition, the answer is now clear. Stopping the nasty party having a free reign to make its loathsome instincts a reality.
Yes just saw that
It increasingly looks like our government is actually evil
When people ask, what did the lib dems actually achieve when they were in coalition, the answer is now clear. Stopping the nasty party having a free reign to make its loathsome instincts a reality.
Post edited at 14:44
33
4
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
It never ceases to amaze me the lows the government reaches down to.
> Yes just saw that
> It increasingly looks like our government is actually evil
> When people ask, what did the lib dems actually achieve when they were in coalition, the answer is now clear. Stopping the nasty party having a free reign to follow its loathsome instincts.
It never ceases to amaze me the lows the government reaches down to.
11
1
In reply to llechwedd:
was outraged to see this earlier.
They've done so much that I find appalling, callous, cruel, greedy, arrogant, generally out of order and very bad for the country in both short and long term, but they normally have a justification that some lap up and believe.
What possible justification is there for this other than their f*cking evil?
We're past "we need to vote them out" and into these people need putting on the stand in court and to be sentenced for everyhitng they're accountable for.
this latest is also illegal by EU law....but like that will make any difference
was outraged to see this earlier.
They've done so much that I find appalling, callous, cruel, greedy, arrogant, generally out of order and very bad for the country in both short and long term, but they normally have a justification that some lap up and believe.
What possible justification is there for this other than their f*cking evil?
We're past "we need to vote them out" and into these people need putting on the stand in court and to be sentenced for everyhitng they're accountable for.
this latest is also illegal by EU law....but like that will make any difference
18
4
In reply to llechwedd:
Is this how it felt living under Thatcher or is it worse? I'm maybe a little too young to judge but this government is contemptible.
jk
Is this how it felt living under Thatcher or is it worse? I'm maybe a little too young to judge but this government is contemptible.
jk
9
1
13
In reply to john arran:
maybe it's got something to do with this https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1105939686134829&set=a.15519554...
I like the comment about it making headlines in Malaysia
> It's worse, but for some reason it seems to be meeting less resistance.
maybe it's got something to do with this https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=1105939686134829&set=a.15519554...
I like the comment about it making headlines in Malaysia
2
2
In reply to llechwedd:
Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions. A simple example: the Arab justice on the Supreme Court had the final word on putting the Jewish President in jail for sexual harassment.
see from one who has seen both SA and Israel
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/I-know-what-aparthe...
Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions. A simple example: the Arab justice on the Supreme Court had the final word on putting the Jewish President in jail for sexual harassment.
see from one who has seen both SA and Israel
http://www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Politics-And-Diplomacy/I-know-what-aparthe...
Post edited at 15:57
7
6
In reply to john arran:
I agree it is worse, possibly because mainstream media (thinking terrestrial broadcasters) didn't cover this (or the cabbies beef linked above)
I agree it is worse, possibly because mainstream media (thinking terrestrial broadcasters) didn't cover this (or the cabbies beef linked above)
2
1
In reply to MikeTS:
I think the point was that under these new regs boycotting because of Apartheid (as happened previously) in any country would be illegal.
I think the point was that under these new regs boycotting because of Apartheid (as happened previously) in any country would be illegal.
Post edited at 16:22
2
5
In reply to john arran:
Its not worse because there is not the mass unemployment issue. Also plod were much more violent back then and the media ignored that whenever it suited.
D
Its not worse because there is not the mass unemployment issue. Also plod were much more violent back then and the media ignored that whenever it suited.
D
In reply to MikeTS:
That is not the point though.
This thread is about the disgusting behaviour of our contemptible government, not the disgusting actions of the Israeli government. If you want yet another Israel/Palestine thread, please feel free to start one.
It's the lying they engage in that's the worst thing. If they just dropped the pretence and admitted up front that they have utter contempt for anyone who isn't part of their racket, I would at least be able to respect their honesty while marvelling at their sickening ruthlessness, in the same way I might at a pack of wild dogs relentlessly hunting down and killing a wildebeest.
But instead we get tripe about devolution and northern powerhouses, while at the same time using the criminal law like a hand round the throat of locally elected representatives who actually try to use their powers in a way not approved of by conservative central office.
What a dismal direction we are heading in. And, as i said on the Jeremy hunt thread, no wonder they are loathed.
That is not the point though.
This thread is about the disgusting behaviour of our contemptible government, not the disgusting actions of the Israeli government. If you want yet another Israel/Palestine thread, please feel free to start one.
It's the lying they engage in that's the worst thing. If they just dropped the pretence and admitted up front that they have utter contempt for anyone who isn't part of their racket, I would at least be able to respect their honesty while marvelling at their sickening ruthlessness, in the same way I might at a pack of wild dogs relentlessly hunting down and killing a wildebeest.
But instead we get tripe about devolution and northern powerhouses, while at the same time using the criminal law like a hand round the throat of locally elected representatives who actually try to use their powers in a way not approved of by conservative central office.
What a dismal direction we are heading in. And, as i said on the Jeremy hunt thread, no wonder they are loathed.
14
1
> Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups
You joking or serious?
Sadly, this is no laughing matter.
7
2
In reply to john arran:
>It's worse, but for some reason it seems to be meeting less resistance.
It's curious really. Back in the day, (before the internet, if you kids can imagine such horror), to find out about a demo, someone would hand you a flyer at a gig. You'd tell your mates by word of mouth, perhaps phone a friend (if they were in, no mobiles remember) and then hitch or catch a coach if it was well organised.
Now people can contact an audience of thousands, and those thousands can contact thousands more. And yet, the best we can do is an online petition or the occasional march, if the organisers get permission and pay for the policing etc.
I don't know what THEY are doing to quell any sort of protest against perceived injustice in society, but it seems to be working.
>It's worse, but for some reason it seems to be meeting less resistance.
It's curious really. Back in the day, (before the internet, if you kids can imagine such horror), to find out about a demo, someone would hand you a flyer at a gig. You'd tell your mates by word of mouth, perhaps phone a friend (if they were in, no mobiles remember) and then hitch or catch a coach if it was well organised.
Now people can contact an audience of thousands, and those thousands can contact thousands more. And yet, the best we can do is an online petition or the occasional march, if the organisers get permission and pay for the policing etc.
I don't know what THEY are doing to quell any sort of protest against perceived injustice in society, but it seems to be working.
3
In reply to MikeTS:
Funny though because Desmond Tutu begs to differ, but maybe he wasn't there.
This thread isn't really about that though is it, it's about having a voice and being told to shut up by central government.
We all know where Maggie stood on South Africa, it doesn't make it right.
Suddenly after years of being a terrorist, Nelson Mandela becomes a demi-god with world leaders, who supported and encouraged apartheid, falling over themselves to have they photo taken with the great man. The hypocrisy was just as sickening then as it is now.
This government is making me ashamed to tell people I'm British.
> Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions. A simple example: the Arab justice on the Supreme Court had the final word on putting the Jewish President in jail for sexual harassment.
> see from one who has seen both SA and Israel
Funny though because Desmond Tutu begs to differ, but maybe he wasn't there.
This thread isn't really about that though is it, it's about having a voice and being told to shut up by central government.
We all know where Maggie stood on South Africa, it doesn't make it right.
Suddenly after years of being a terrorist, Nelson Mandela becomes a demi-god with world leaders, who supported and encouraged apartheid, falling over themselves to have they photo taken with the great man. The hypocrisy was just as sickening then as it is now.
This government is making me ashamed to tell people I'm British.
7
2
In reply to John Postlethwaite:
He does.
But please don't fuel the derail. Another 200 reply marathon about Israel will only distract attention from what our own elected representatives have been up to.
He does.
But please don't fuel the derail. Another 200 reply marathon about Israel will only distract attention from what our own elected representatives have been up to.
3
In reply to MikeTS:
OK, technically; apartheid is sloppy shorthand.
There are some parallels about appropriating other people's land and then pretending it's yours, but that's not really apartheid. And the de facto institutionalised ethnic discrimination, but that's not really apartheid either.
But an organised campaign not to buy goods labelled as Israeli when actually they came from illegally occupied land on the West Bank, now that is a boycott.
> Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions.
OK, technically; apartheid is sloppy shorthand.
There are some parallels about appropriating other people's land and then pretending it's yours, but that's not really apartheid. And the de facto institutionalised ethnic discrimination, but that's not really apartheid either.
But an organised campaign not to buy goods labelled as Israeli when actually they came from illegally occupied land on the West Bank, now that is a boycott.
Post edited at 17:18
11
1
In reply to llechwedd:
Under the new rules all contracting authorities including local councils, quangos and universities which receive the majority of their funding from the Government will lose the freedom to take ethical decisions about whom they purchase goods and services from. The only exemption will be UK-wide sanctions decided by the Government in Westminster.
Maybe I'm miss-reading the whole situation, but isn't the Government essentially saying that individual councils, etc. can't unilaterally boycott countries/organisations that aren't on the Foreign Offices sanctions list?
Under the new rules all contracting authorities including local councils, quangos and universities which receive the majority of their funding from the Government will lose the freedom to take ethical decisions about whom they purchase goods and services from. The only exemption will be UK-wide sanctions decided by the Government in Westminster.
Maybe I'm miss-reading the whole situation, but isn't the Government essentially saying that individual councils, etc. can't unilaterally boycott countries/organisations that aren't on the Foreign Offices sanctions list?
6
In reply to dread-i:
I don't like to sound like a tinfoil hatist, but It's noticeable we're getting pictures of the bombing in Syria now that Russia are killing people, when the American dropped a bomb(s) on and MSF hospital in Nov. last year hardly a mention.
I've noticed (because I take an interested in) that Israeli deaths often get e mention on the news yet Palestinians don't.
A march that attracted 100,000 - 200,000 people in the centre of London never made the ITV of BBC news channels.
We've seen very little war footage, we've been involved in, from any major conflict since the Balkans and Iraq. I think because our politicians don't want us to, because then we might realise what dropping bombs on people might really mean. Instead we get picture of it being some computer game, where only the bad people get hurt.
The people who come out and tell the truth like Bradley Manning and the Israeli soldiers Breaking the Silence are vilified and put in jail.
> I don't know what THEY are doing to quell any sort of protest against perceived injustice in society, but it seems to be working.
I don't like to sound like a tinfoil hatist, but It's noticeable we're getting pictures of the bombing in Syria now that Russia are killing people, when the American dropped a bomb(s) on and MSF hospital in Nov. last year hardly a mention.
I've noticed (because I take an interested in) that Israeli deaths often get e mention on the news yet Palestinians don't.
A march that attracted 100,000 - 200,000 people in the centre of London never made the ITV of BBC news channels.
We've seen very little war footage, we've been involved in, from any major conflict since the Balkans and Iraq. I think because our politicians don't want us to, because then we might realise what dropping bombs on people might really mean. Instead we get picture of it being some computer game, where only the bad people get hurt.
The people who come out and tell the truth like Bradley Manning and the Israeli soldiers Breaking the Silence are vilified and put in jail.
9
4
In reply to FactorXXX:
It would seem that way. Not limited to Israel but absolutely any country or organisation.
> Maybe I'm miss-reading the whole situation, but isn't the Government essentially saying that individual councils, etc. can't unilaterally boycott countries/organisations that aren't on the Foreign Offices sanctions list?
It would seem that way. Not limited to Israel but absolutely any country or organisation.
1
In reply to KevinD:
Not limited to Israel but absolutely any country or organisation.
That aren't on the Sanctions List obviously.
Not limited to Israel but absolutely any country or organisation.
That aren't on the Sanctions List obviously.
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Without a coherent, credible opposition, the government can do pretty much what they want, without having to worry about/plan for the next general election.
I very much doubt that Cameron is sat in number 10 reading UKC forums, he doesn't care what you think because his party are unlikely to face any difficulties getting re-elected!
Without a coherent, credible opposition, the government can do pretty much what they want, without having to worry about/plan for the next general election.
I very much doubt that Cameron is sat in number 10 reading UKC forums, he doesn't care what you think because his party are unlikely to face any difficulties getting re-elected!
3
In reply to FactorXXX:
Which means the government has the say, and people power (for what it's worth) isn't worth a f*ck. At least at present people can vote in local politicians who share their own values, which has to be better for a democracy, after all was Cameron all for devolution of power?
> Not limited to Israel but absolutely any country or organisation.
> That aren't on the Sanctions List obviously.
Which means the government has the say, and people power (for what it's worth) isn't worth a f*ck. At least at present people can vote in local politicians who share their own values, which has to be better for a democracy, after all was Cameron all for devolution of power?
1
1
In reply to JackM92:
Yes, exactly.
That's why it's so utterly, utterly grim. Another 9 years of this.
Oh, and if anyone was in any doubt before, just think what this lot would do if we leave the EU and their lawmaking isn't subjected to some sort of restraint.
Im off to sit in a darkened room. Til 2025.
Yes, exactly.
That's why it's so utterly, utterly grim. Another 9 years of this.
Oh, and if anyone was in any doubt before, just think what this lot would do if we leave the EU and their lawmaking isn't subjected to some sort of restraint.
Im off to sit in a darkened room. Til 2025.
6
3
1
In reply to llechwedd:
What possible good reason could they have for such a draconian piece of legislation? The article doesn't say...
Also, doesn't the Jewish Human Rights Watch have better things to do than bring councils to court for trying to boycott Israel?
What possible good reason could they have for such a draconian piece of legislation? The article doesn't say...
Also, doesn't the Jewish Human Rights Watch have better things to do than bring councils to court for trying to boycott Israel?
1
1
In reply to krikoman:
Which means the government has the say, and people power (for what it's worth) isn't worth a f*ck. At least at present people can vote in local politicians who share their own values, which has to be better for a democracy, after all was Cameron all for devolution of power?
Nothings going to change. All it means, is that public organisations that are funded by Central Government can't be seen to be blocking suppliers that aren't on the UK sanctions list.
Which means the government has the say, and people power (for what it's worth) isn't worth a f*ck. At least at present people can vote in local politicians who share their own values, which has to be better for a democracy, after all was Cameron all for devolution of power?
Nothings going to change. All it means, is that public organisations that are funded by Central Government can't be seen to be blocking suppliers that aren't on the UK sanctions list.
8
1
In reply to krikoman:
Yep, tin hat is still there
Not only was it mentioned, but the point was laboured, a full public apology made by the US, investigations launched into how it happened, and discussion over the fact that MSF would rather an "independent" investigated the decision to fire rather than the US military (who understandably don't think showing an independent what their rules of engagement and targeting strategies are) These are just the stories on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34433302
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34467631
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34463608
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34435238
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34925237
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34444053
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34738652 (different incident of americans shooting at msf staff fleeing)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34928945
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34520197
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06hhm6m (30 Mins Hard Talk Interview with MSF)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35327121 (Follow up article - 19th Jan)
There are plenty more but I'm bored now
Can't agree with you more. I also believe that undue influence is used by Israel in both the UK and the US political system (and maybe more countries I'm not familiar with) as to their foreign policy to the detriment of Palestinians
That's probably because its boring now. I don't think I've been to London on a weekend in years (I go quite often maybe 20 times a year) to not find it covered in mess from the morning's march, or come across the actual march - there are just too many. Back in the old days of mass marches and police confrontations these were rare occurrences and usually on a subject of much more widespread support, where as now there seems to be as many causes as protesters.
> I don't like to sound like a tinfoil hatist, but It's noticeable we're getting pictures of the bombing in Syria now that Russia are killing people, when the American dropped a bomb(s) on and MSF hospital in Nov. last year hardly a mention.
Yep, tin hat is still there
Not only was it mentioned, but the point was laboured, a full public apology made by the US, investigations launched into how it happened, and discussion over the fact that MSF would rather an "independent" investigated the decision to fire rather than the US military (who understandably don't think showing an independent what their rules of engagement and targeting strategies are) These are just the stories on the BBC
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34433302
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34467631
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34463608
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34435238
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34925237
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34444053
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34738652 (different incident of americans shooting at msf staff fleeing)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34928945
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-34520197
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06hhm6m (30 Mins Hard Talk Interview with MSF)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-35327121 (Follow up article - 19th Jan)
There are plenty more but I'm bored now
> I've noticed (because I take an interested in) that Israeli deaths often get e mention on the news yet Palestinians don't.
Can't agree with you more. I also believe that undue influence is used by Israel in both the UK and the US political system (and maybe more countries I'm not familiar with) as to their foreign policy to the detriment of Palestinians
> A march that attracted 100,000 - 200,000 people in the centre of London never made the ITV of BBC news channels.
That's probably because its boring now. I don't think I've been to London on a weekend in years (I go quite often maybe 20 times a year) to not find it covered in mess from the morning's march, or come across the actual march - there are just too many. Back in the old days of mass marches and police confrontations these were rare occurrences and usually on a subject of much more widespread support, where as now there seems to be as many causes as protesters.
3
1
In reply to Trevers:
Money and Influence. Parliamentary Israeli lobby is huge. This has been cooking for a while. Same reason the U.K. government ignores all sorts of horror. Same reason Saudi Arabia is on the Human Rights Council. But to say so without naming any other regimes which lobby the U.K. government and parliamentary parties with equal or worse human rights records is antisemitic. So, Uzbekistan, Bahrain and Egypt. Cue pages of gum flapping about democracy.
Free Mordechai Vanunu.
D
Money and Influence. Parliamentary Israeli lobby is huge. This has been cooking for a while. Same reason the U.K. government ignores all sorts of horror. Same reason Saudi Arabia is on the Human Rights Council. But to say so without naming any other regimes which lobby the U.K. government and parliamentary parties with equal or worse human rights records is antisemitic. So, Uzbekistan, Bahrain and Egypt. Cue pages of gum flapping about democracy.
Free Mordechai Vanunu.
D
2
1
In reply to Trevers:
It probably has a lot to do with success of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement.
Despite all efforts by pro Zionists to influence the media and governments, a different reality keeps on leaking out, and many people, Jews and non Jews, use Boycott to register their repugnance of Israeli actions.
The only way to stifle it is with draconian legislation.
JHRW equates BDS with antisemitism and calls the previous policy of Boycott by my local Council, Gwynedd, a 'Jew hating campaign'. JHRW rely very heavily on the antisemitism card and has been formed specifically as an anti BDS measure.
I would imagine the names 'Jewish Human Rights Watch' and 'UK Media Watch' have been carefully crafted to achieve a certain effect
> Also, doesn't the Jewish Human Rights Watch have better things to do than bring councils to court for trying to boycott Israel?
It probably has a lot to do with success of the BDS (Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions) movement.
Despite all efforts by pro Zionists to influence the media and governments, a different reality keeps on leaking out, and many people, Jews and non Jews, use Boycott to register their repugnance of Israeli actions.
The only way to stifle it is with draconian legislation.
JHRW equates BDS with antisemitism and calls the previous policy of Boycott by my local Council, Gwynedd, a 'Jew hating campaign'. JHRW rely very heavily on the antisemitism card and has been formed specifically as an anti BDS measure.
I would imagine the names 'Jewish Human Rights Watch' and 'UK Media Watch' have been carefully crafted to achieve a certain effect
Post edited at 20:18
3
1
In reply to balmybaldwin:
Yes I know it's on web sites, I'm talking about the TV News, where (still) most people get their news from. Where you don't have to take an interest in a particular subject, but have it projected into your front-room. The news I've seen today ITV and BBC both had video footage, I've seen very little footage at all from Syria over the last 5 years.
> Yep, tin hat is still there
> Not only was it mentioned, but the point was laboured, a full public apology made by the US, investigations launched into how it happened, and discussion over the fact that MSF would rather an "independent" investigated the decision to fire rather than the US military (who understandably don't think showing an independent what their rules of engagement and targeting strategies are) These are just the stories on the BBC
Yes I know it's on web sites, I'm talking about the TV News, where (still) most people get their news from. Where you don't have to take an interest in a particular subject, but have it projected into your front-room. The news I've seen today ITV and BBC both had video footage, I've seen very little footage at all from Syria over the last 5 years.
1
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Well, something close to that. The purpose of the modern Conservative Party seems to be to destroy Britain and redirect as much of its wealth as possible into their own hands and those of their friends. They are building. or is it demolishing, the perfect kleptocratic state.
> It increasingly looks like our government is actually evil
Well, something close to that. The purpose of the modern Conservative Party seems to be to destroy Britain and redirect as much of its wealth as possible into their own hands and those of their friends. They are building. or is it demolishing, the perfect kleptocratic state.
9
1
In reply to Dauphin:
Indeed, meanwhile the Israeli spy in the US gets released and Bibi says it's a great day!
> Free Mordechai Vanunu.
Indeed, meanwhile the Israeli spy in the US gets released and Bibi says it's a great day!
2
1
In reply to krikoman:
It's just your perception. It was in the headlines for days, it took 5 days of talk about it in the news before the truth came out after the initial "there were fighters there" statements and the americans apologised. there was then days of wrangling about whether it should be considered a war crime with MSF representatives appearing on news programs for interviews, the One show etc. It would have been impossible not to know about if you had watched just 1 news program that weekend and the following week.
It's just your perception. It was in the headlines for days, it took 5 days of talk about it in the news before the truth came out after the initial "there were fighters there" statements and the americans apologised. there was then days of wrangling about whether it should be considered a war crime with MSF representatives appearing on news programs for interviews, the One show etc. It would have been impossible not to know about if you had watched just 1 news program that weekend and the following week.
2
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Err....... but by doing so they've handed them a majority the next time round to let them do things like this. And they had the option to go with labour or to drive a harder bargain. So a bad and self interested judgement call from clegg because he doesn't see the tories as the morally reprehensible scumbags most of them are.
> Yes just saw that
> It increasingly looks like our government is actually evil
> When people ask, what did the lib dems actually achieve when they were in coalition, the answer is now clear. Stopping the nasty party having a free reign to make its loathsome instincts a reality.
Err....... but by doing so they've handed them a majority the next time round to let them do things like this. And they had the option to go with labour or to drive a harder bargain. So a bad and self interested judgement call from clegg because he doesn't see the tories as the morally reprehensible scumbags most of them are.
2
In reply to MikeTS:
Lolza
> Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions.
Lolza
5
2
In reply to Donald82:
no they didn't
or to drive a harder bargain.
so they swam with the sharks and got bitten. yes, there were alternatives, but i don't think any of them were really viable. I'm sure you'll see it differently though.
So a bad and self interested judgement call from clegg because he doesn't see the tories as the morally reprehensible scumbags most of them are.
if you like.
though as to 'handing the tories a majority', i was under the impression the electorate did that. part of the story of the election was clearly 'teaching the lib dems a lesson' for the choices they made.
well, that's gone well, hasn't it?
> Err....... but by doing so they've handed them a majority the next time round to let them do things like this. And they had the option to go with labour
no they didn't
or to drive a harder bargain.
so they swam with the sharks and got bitten. yes, there were alternatives, but i don't think any of them were really viable. I'm sure you'll see it differently though.
So a bad and self interested judgement call from clegg because he doesn't see the tories as the morally reprehensible scumbags most of them are.
if you like.
though as to 'handing the tories a majority', i was under the impression the electorate did that. part of the story of the election was clearly 'teaching the lib dems a lesson' for the choices they made.
well, that's gone well, hasn't it?
Post edited at 22:42
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
the tories got most of their gains from the lib dems and have a tiny majority. seems fairly likely that if the lib dems had behaved less badly they'd not have had suck a kicking and the tories wouldn't have got a majority
i suspect Clegg overweighted the whole 'party of government' schtick and under weighted how much many lib dem voters despised the tories. and that why he's a xxxx and they're out now, he put the perception of being a party of government before doing the right thing... kind of ironic really
the tories got most of their gains from the lib dems and have a tiny majority. seems fairly likely that if the lib dems had behaved less badly they'd not have had suck a kicking and the tories wouldn't have got a majority
i suspect Clegg overweighted the whole 'party of government' schtick and under weighted how much many lib dem voters despised the tories. and that why he's a xxxx and they're out now, he put the perception of being a party of government before doing the right thing... kind of ironic really
1
In reply to Donald82:
All im saying is that other opinions are available on that point.
Less than a year into the majority tory administration it should now be abundantly clear that the lib dems were having a substantial impact.
All those lib dem voters who decided to teach clegg a lesson, well it looks like it's going to be an expensive one.
All im saying is that other opinions are available on that point.
Less than a year into the majority tory administration it should now be abundantly clear that the lib dems were having a substantial impact.
All those lib dem voters who decided to teach clegg a lesson, well it looks like it's going to be an expensive one.
In reply to Dauphin:
Aperitif and sample of the main course perhaps.
http://4bitnews.com/uk/ttip-israel-use-massive-trade-weapon-palestinians/#s...
> Nice little aperitif for TTIP I would think.
> D
Aperitif and sample of the main course perhaps.
http://4bitnews.com/uk/ttip-israel-use-massive-trade-weapon-palestinians/#s...
1
In reply to Donald82:
I feel sorry for Clegg personally. In hindsight it was a terrible mistake going with the Tories but at the time it seemed like the more democratic choice.
Shame he didn't show a bit more spine while in government. If they'd voted against student fee increases, the shape of the house may look very different today.
> the tories got most of their gains from the lib dems and have a tiny majority. seems fairly likely that if the lib dems had behaved less badly they'd not have had suck a kicking and the tories wouldn't have got a majority
> i suspect Clegg overweighted the whole 'party of government' schtick and under weighted how much many lib dem voters despised the tories. and that why he's a xxxx and they're out now, he put the perception of being a party of government before doing the right thing... kind of ironic really
I feel sorry for Clegg personally. In hindsight it was a terrible mistake going with the Tories but at the time it seemed like the more democratic choice.
Shame he didn't show a bit more spine while in government. If they'd voted against student fee increases, the shape of the house may look very different today.
2
1
In reply to llechwedd:
What the f*cks happened to this world?
> Aperitif and sample of the main course perhaps.
What the f*cks happened to this world?
1
1
In reply to Trevers:
They did what they were designed from the start to do. Stalking horse party to ameliorate the effect of the left in european politics. Bait and switch election election policies; Politics 101.
Feel sorry for Clegg? GTF.
D
They did what they were designed from the start to do. Stalking horse party to ameliorate the effect of the left in european politics. Bait and switch election election policies; Politics 101.
Feel sorry for Clegg? GTF.
D
In reply to no_more_scotch_eggs:
Wherever you look, be it through UKC forums or Facebook news feeds, there seems to be almost nobody that supports the policy of the current government.
This was the case both before and after the last election, therefore what I really don't understand is how they managed to get such a high percentage of the vote. I've NEVER seen any posts online supporting the Conservatives or UKIP, but when it actually comes down to it, they seem to get a lot of votes.
Wherever you look, be it through UKC forums or Facebook news feeds, there seems to be almost nobody that supports the policy of the current government.
This was the case both before and after the last election, therefore what I really don't understand is how they managed to get such a high percentage of the vote. I've NEVER seen any posts online supporting the Conservatives or UKIP, but when it actually comes down to it, they seem to get a lot of votes.
In reply to MikeTS:
It was Rape that he was jailed for. The man was deemed guilty by virtue of evidence. An Arab Christian judge was merely the instrument to deliver justice.
Here's some alternative views on the rights of all in Israel
http://www.seamac.org/EqualRights.htm
I'm struggling to see a lack of apartheid therein. Maybe it's like WMDs?
> Israel does not have apartheid. It has full rights for all its citizens, of all ethnic groups and religions. A simple example: the Arab justice on the Supreme Court had the final word on putting the Jewish President in jail for sexual harassment.
It was Rape that he was jailed for. The man was deemed guilty by virtue of evidence. An Arab Christian judge was merely the instrument to deliver justice.
Here's some alternative views on the rights of all in Israel
http://www.seamac.org/EqualRights.htm
I'm struggling to see a lack of apartheid therein. Maybe it's like WMDs?
4
1
In reply to Dauphin:
A little bit sorry. Not massively sorry. He was dealt a bad hand, but didn't play it remotely well.
> They did what they were designed from the start to do. Stalking horse party to ameliorate the effect of the left in european politics. Bait and switch election election policies; Politics 101.
> Feel sorry for Clegg? GTF.
A little bit sorry. Not massively sorry. He was dealt a bad hand, but didn't play it remotely well.
1
In reply to Trevers:
You feel a little bit sorry for him because he comes across as a nice sincere man and appeared to hold the same political objectives as yourself? You can say the same about most of them. Thieves are normally very polite, its the easiest way to take something from you without the prey fighting too much. Social proof.
D
You feel a little bit sorry for him because he comes across as a nice sincere man and appeared to hold the same political objectives as yourself? You can say the same about most of them. Thieves are normally very polite, its the easiest way to take something from you without the prey fighting too much. Social proof.
D
In reply to llechwedd:
To strengthen you argument, how many Israeli homes have been bulldozed, because a member of the family has committed a crime?
Collective punishment, but only for some.
> I'm struggling to see a lack of apartheid therein. Maybe it's like WMDs?
To strengthen you argument, how many Israeli homes have been bulldozed, because a member of the family has committed a crime?
Collective punishment, but only for some.
5
1
In reply to MikeTS:
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987185/war_crime_israel_des...
I'm lost for words.
http://www.theecologist.org/News/news_analysis/2987185/war_crime_israel_des...
I'm lost for words.
3
1
In reply to JackM92:
Your sample is not representative. I also suspect you can't have looked very hard.
jk
> Wherever you look, be it through UKC forums or Facebook news feeds, there seems to be almost nobody that supports the policy of the current government.
> This was the case both before and after the last election, therefore what I really don't understand is how they managed to get such a high percentage of the vote. I've NEVER seen any posts online supporting the Conservatives or UKIP, but when it actually comes down to it, they seem to get a lot of votes.
> This was the case both before and after the last election, therefore what I really don't understand is how they managed to get such a high percentage of the vote. I've NEVER seen any posts online supporting the Conservatives or UKIP, but when it actually comes down to it, they seem to get a lot of votes.
Your sample is not representative. I also suspect you can't have looked very hard.
jk
3
1
In reply to jkarran:
It's worse ... at least under Thatcher we had Spitting Image to alleviate the pain
It's worse ... at least under Thatcher we had Spitting Image to alleviate the pain
3
In reply to MikeTS:
True. No apartheid in Israel where Arabs get full democratic rights.
Situation is entirely different in OPT.
Jews can live in the WB as full Israeli citizens enjoying the rights benefits of Israeli democracy while Palestinians are stateless non-citizens who live under a regime of military occupation. Different legal systems, different roads, different access to resources, different levels of democratic participation in the system which controls their lives, different access to state planning - that is apartheid.
If a Jew and a Palestinian are arrested in, say Hebron, at the same time for the same crime they would be subject to two very different legal systems - the first Israeli civil law and a military court system for Pals. This institutionalised discrimination, aka apartheid.
> Israel does not have apartheid.
True. No apartheid in Israel where Arabs get full democratic rights.
Situation is entirely different in OPT.
Jews can live in the WB as full Israeli citizens enjoying the rights benefits of Israeli democracy while Palestinians are stateless non-citizens who live under a regime of military occupation. Different legal systems, different roads, different access to resources, different levels of democratic participation in the system which controls their lives, different access to state planning - that is apartheid.
If a Jew and a Palestinian are arrested in, say Hebron, at the same time for the same crime they would be subject to two very different legal systems - the first Israeli civil law and a military court system for Pals. This institutionalised discrimination, aka apartheid.
8
1
In reply to Timmd:
> I'm lost for words.
Yes, a sad state of affairs. The links provided at the end of your article from the ecologist show the overarching use of such disgusting tactics. The tenacity of Palestinians in the face of such US and UK funded nastiness is a continuing marvel.
1
2
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...