General politics discussion thread

[bobbins]

Complicity? That's a strong word.

But accurate.

 

That depends entirely on your view of Israel and its position in the world. It's the only functioning democracy in the region. It's under constant threat from terrorists within its own borders. More than one of its near neighbours see its destruction as a primary foreign policy goal. I don't necessarily agree with all its policies as they relate to the Palestinians, but a major Arab nation that recognises it as a valid sovereign nation with a right to exist and which seeks peace with it (rather than more pointless conflict as it had in the past) is surely better than the alternative?

 

Let me stress that I'm not saying that Mubarak is a good guy, or even that he's "our bastard" so we should protect him. I'm just saying that the whole region is a lot more complex than a lot of people would like to think. There is horrible shit going on on all sides, whether it's Egypt abusing its own citizens or Israelis settling on Palestinian land or the Palestinians bombing fuck out of Israel or whatever else. We should either go in and "impose our will" on them all or, more sensibly, we should stand well back and only give them support when 1. they ask for it; and 2. it's advancing a genuinely just cause. For example, now that Mubarak has said there will be elections soon, I'd be more than happy to send whatever help they need to make that happen in the easiest and best way possible.

Wow, interesting interpretation. I'm guessing by your tone that we're on completely opposite sides regarding the Israel-Palestine situation, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that Egypt are absolutely complicit in the inhumane and immoral blockade of the Gaza strip.

 

Of course it's a very complex situation, but I don't see how anyone interested in human rights can defend Egypt's actions re Gaza. It just goes to show the weakness of Israel's only functioning democracy in the region, that they need to be propped up by a repressive dictatorship. They may be the only democracy, but they clearly aren't acting in the best interests of the region as a whole.

[Loki]

I'd be more than happy to send whatever help they need to make that happen in the easiest and best way possible.

 

You'd best get right on this, Kenny.

[Keith Houchen]

Due to being at home, I'm watching the Al Jazeera coverage of the stand off in Tahrir Square. It's absolutely incredible stuff, the army firing bullets into the air and trying to disperse the anti Mubarak protesters but they aren't moving back.

[Kenny McBride]

Complicity? That's a strong word.

But accurate.

 

That depends entirely on your view of Israel and its position in the world. It's the only functioning democracy in the region. It's under constant threat from terrorists within its own borders. More than one of its near neighbours see its destruction as a primary foreign policy goal. I don't necessarily agree with all its policies as they relate to the Palestinians, but a major Arab nation that recognises it as a valid sovereign nation with a right to exist and which seeks peace with it (rather than more pointless conflict as it had in the past) is surely better than the alternative?

 

Let me stress that I'm not saying that Mubarak is a good guy, or even that he's "our bastard" so we should protect him. I'm just saying that the whole region is a lot more complex than a lot of people would like to think. There is horrible shit going on on all sides, whether it's Egypt abusing its own citizens or Israelis settling on Palestinian land or the Palestinians bombing fuck out of Israel or whatever else. We should either go in and "impose our will" on them all or, more sensibly, we should stand well back and only give them support when 1. they ask for it; and 2. it's advancing a genuinely just cause. For example, now that Mubarak has said there will be elections soon, I'd be more than happy to send whatever help they need to make that happen in the easiest and best way possible.

Wow, interesting interpretation. I'm guessing by your tone that we're on completely opposite sides regarding the Israel-Palestine situation, so we'll have to agree to disagree. I'm of the opinion that Egypt are absolutely complicit in the inhumane and immoral blockade of the Gaza strip.

 

Of course it's a very complex situation, but I don't see how anyone interested in human rights can defend Egypt's actions re Gaza. It just goes to show the weakness of Israel's only functioning democracy in the region, that they need to be propped up by a repressive dictatorship. They may be the only democracy, but they clearly aren't acting in the best interests of the region as a whole.

 

First of all, I was only mentioning a small handful of issues that have been ongoing for a long time and are amongst the biggest stumbling blocks to progress in the "peace process." And besides, I read a few pretty interesting things recently that changed my view on the whole situation somewhat. I'll see if I can track them down again when I get a chance but, for example, did you know that there's a five star hotel and restuarant in Gaza City that has no problems whatsoever in obtaining the best of everything for its clientele (predominantly Western journalists, who presumably wouldn't then be biased in any way), despite the "immoral and inhumane" blockade? I've never been there so I don't know, and given my views on the Irish situation, I can certainly sympathise with anyone who feels their country is being occupied illegally and immorally, but I think it's a far more complicated issue than "evil Jews trying to starve out the justified Palestinians." The way you're talking, it's as if the Palestinians are all acting like Gandhi. They're not. Plenty of them are attacking Israel at pretty regular intervals and their government then rewards them by giving cash to their families. If Sinn Fein openly did that for members of the Real IRA, you'd be up in arms.

 

I want to stress as well that I'm not saying we should defend Israel at all costs or that I think they're whiter than white (so to speak), but we can't act like they're not in a hugely dangerous and difficult position and don't deserve a measure of sympathy for trying to defend themselves as best they can.

[mikey]

There's a Kurdish girl here, she talks up Iraqi Kurdistan and seems to act like the authority on the Arab world. She said of Mubarak, "I live in the Middle East and I know he should go". I didn't have the heart to say "would that be Middle East Lewisham?" I'm such a pussy.

 

What I find strange about the whole situation is basically how everything has been forgotten. This is a long and complicated history and it's not as simple as what the Israelis have done since 1948.

[Loki]

It's all going Pete Tong over there, Tahrir Square is a warzone between pro and anti-government forces. The army is going to HAVE to step in now, surely?

 

Mubarak's lost the support of the US now, so really he's got to go.

 

 

In a moment of surreality, the anti-government protesters were charged by workers on Camels from Giza who are upset by the damage to the tourist trade.

Edited February 2, 2011 by Loki

[d-d-d-dAz]

The thing is, they're not really pro-government protestors..they're more 'pro status-quo' protestors. They've been placated by Mubarak's statement and now want to go about earning money, lets not forget the protests have now gone beyond the tipping point and are began to have negative impact on the situations that brought about civil unrest in the first place.

 

One thing I would say is, though, is that I have been heartened by events in Tunisia, Egypt and even in the Yemen and Jordan. In the West, commentators band democracy about as a term synonymous with 'Western Liberal Democracy' which is a complete nonsense. 'Western liberal democracy' centers on the norms and institutions of 'our' democracy alone; i.e. a multi-faceted political system, timed political cycles, expectations of services and press etc. In fact, so consumed are we with the idea that 'democracy' assumes something of the political organising principles of a country that we forget that these norms and institutions are in fact borne out of the values of a democratic heart, rather than the antecedents of democracy.

 

Democracy is just a feeling, its in the hearts of Tunisian people pumping their fists in the air saying 'we deserve better', its in the hearts of Egyptian people doing much the same thing and its in Palestinian kids slinging rocks at Israeli walls. The settled will of the people doesn't have to result in the Western appropriation of democracy, and in fact when we stop making such assumptions and stop pushing a culturally neoimperialist agenda on unwilling systems and citizens, than the likelihood of a peaceful, democratic and agreeable solution increases tenfold...

Edited February 2, 2011 by d-d-d-dAz

[Keith Houchen]

Liverpool withdraws from government 'big society' pilot

 

The leader of Liverpool City Council has written to the Prime Minister withdrawing its involvement from his "big society" plans.

 

The city was one of four pilot areas for the scheme, aimed at giving community groups and volunteers more control over their local services.

 

But council Leader Joe Anderson said government cuts have threatened the future of many local volunteer groups.

 

He has now told David Cameron he can no longer support the initiative.

 

When he announced the "big society" in Liverpool last July, Mr Cameron said community groups should be able to run post offices, libraries, transport services and shape housing projects.

 

The concept would be a "big advance for people power", he said.

 

While reducing the budget deficit was his "duty", the prime minister said giving individuals and communities more control over their destinies was what excited him and was something that had underpinned his philosophy since he became Conservative leader in 2005.

Joe Anderson Joe Anderson said Liverpool was 'very much committed' to working with community groups

 

Merseyside television producer Phil Redmond has already attacked the "big society" idea, saying it has been undermined by public spending cuts.

 

The Brookside creator had originally been a fan of the concept, taking charge of a project involving volunteering and cultural activities in Liverpool.

 

Joe Anderson said in his letter: "You will recall that you announced Liverpool as one of four "big society" vanguard areas last summer with Phil Redmond leading the initiative.

 

"Later in the year, Liverpool City Council was asked to assist in this initiative around some key projects, including running a 'parallel vanguard programme'.

 

"We took up this challenge wholeheartedly and have invested significant resources to deliver this substantial programme of activity."

 

However, he said the government promised to work with the council to "remove some of the problems and blockages" that were preventing them from making the programme work.

 

He said the government had failed to deliver any of the changes the council asked for.

 

Mr Anderson, who is leader of the Labour Party in Liverpool, said: "Liverpool has been doing the "big society" for many years. We call it 'working with our communities' and it is something we are very much committed to."

 

But he said the loss of more than

[David]

I remember what happened the last time Liverpool City Council withdrew it's participation from a Conservative led Government

[JNLister]

On a similar note, the Big Society "tsar", who was heading the project in an unpaid role, quit because he didn't have enough time between his other paid work and family commitments.

[Dynamite Duane]

I also spotted this via UK Column:

 

Liverpool pulls out of Cameron's Big Society

 

Reuters) - Liverpool City Council said on Thursday it was withdrawing from Prime Minister David Cameron's flagship Big Society project after losing 100 million pounds of central government funding.

 

Analysts said the council's decision was embarrassing but not fatal for the scheme, which Cameron has described as his "great passion" and a new type of politics amounting to the biggest redistribution of power in modern times.

 

Liverpool, controlled by the opposition Labour party, was one of four pilot authorities for the policy which aims to decentralise power and expand the voluntary sector.

 

Critics say the programme is a smokescreen for public spending cuts that the government is pushing through to tackle a record budget deficit.

 

Liverpool City Council leader Joe Anderson told Cameron in a letter the authority was pulling out of the scheme after losing 100 million pounds of funding that would have been spent on helping the voluntary sector tackle deprivation.

 

"How can the city council support the Big Society and its aim to help communities do more for themselves when we will have to cut the lifeline to hundreds of these vital and worthwhile groups?" Anderson said.

 

"I have therefore come to the conclusion that Liverpool City Council can no longer support the Big Society initiative, as a direct consequence of your funding decisions," he added.

 

Last week the council said 1,500 jobs would be cut to meet a 141 million pound reduction in spending over the next two years.

 

A spokesman for Cameron said the government was examining the council's decision.

 

"We are looking into what the issues are and whether there were particular barriers and problems, and seeing if there is anything we can do to unlock that," the spokesman said.

 

Tony Travers, an expert on local government at the London School of Economics, said public spending reductions meant councils would end up cutting support for the kind of voluntary bodies championed by the Big Society programme.

 

"However well intentioned the Big Society is, cuts to public expenditure undermine it. And this is just a physical manifestation of that problem," Travers told Reuters.

 

Labour said Liverpool's withdrawal showed the project was imploding. The government has struggled to explain the policy to the public, with 63 percent in a recent YouGov opinion poll saying they didn't understand what "Big Society" meant.

 

source:

 

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2011/02/03/u...E7127KK20110203

[David]

I see David Cameron has made a rather bold statement on how multiculturalism is working in the UK;

 

The prime minister has criticised "state multiculturalism" in his first speech on radicalisation and the causes of terrorism since being elected.

 

Addressing a security conference in Germany, David Cameron argued the UK needed a stronger national identity to prevent people turning to extremism.

 

He also signalled a tougher stance on groups promoting Islamist extremism.

 

But the Muslim Council of Britain said its community was being seen as part of the problem rather than the solution.

 

Mr Cameron suggested there would be greater scrutiny of some Muslim groups that get public money but do little to tackle extremism.

 

Ministers should refuse to share platforms or engage with such groups, which should be denied access to public funds and barred from spreading their message in universities and prisons, he argued.

 

"Frankly, we need a lot less of the passive tolerance of recent years and much more active, muscular liberalism," the prime minister said.

 

"Let's properly judge these organisations: Do they believe in universal human rights - including for women and people of other faiths? Do they believe in equality of all before the law? Do they believe in democracy and the right of people to elect their own government? Do they encourage integration or separatism?

 

"These are the sorts of questions we need to ask. Fail these tests and the presumption should be not to engage with organisations," he added.

 

Reacting to the speech, the Muslim Council of Britain's assistant secretary general, Dr Faisal Hanjra, said the government had failed to move the issue on.

 

He told Radio 4's Today programme: "It is disappointing. We were hoping that with a new government, with a new coalition that there'd be a change in emphasis in terms of counter-terrorism and dealing with the problem at hand.

 

"In terms of the approach to tackling terrorism though it doesn't seem to be particularly new.

 

"Again it just seems the Muslim community is very much in the spotlight, being treated as part of the problem as opposed to part of the solution."

 

Muslim youth group The Ramadhan Foundation said that, by singling out Muslims, Mr Cameron had fed "hysteria and paranoia".

 

Chief executive Mohammed Shafiq said: "British Muslims abhor terrorism and extremism and we have worked hard to eradicate this evil from our country.

 

"But to suggest that we do not sign up to the values of tolerance, respect and freedom is deeply offensive and incorrect.

 

"Multiculturalism is about understanding each others faiths and cultures whilst being proud of our British citizenship."

 

In the speech in Munich, Mr Cameron drew a clear distinction between Islam the religion and what he described as "Islamist extremism" - a political ideology he said attracted people who feel "rootless" within their own countries.

 

"We need to be clear: Islamist extremism and Islam are not the same thing," he said.

 

The government is currently reviewing its policy to prevent violent extremism, known as Prevent, which is a key part of its wider counter-terrorism strategy.

 

A genuinely liberal country "believes in certain values and actively promotes them", Mr Cameron said.

 

"Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights, regardless of race, sex or sexuality.

 

"It says to its citizens: This is what defines us as a society. To belong here is to believe these things.

 

"Each of us in our own countries must be unambiguous and hard-nosed about this defence of our liberty."

 

He said under the "doctrine of state multiculturalism", different cultures have been encouraged to live separate lives.

 

"We have failed to provide a vision of society to which they feel they want to belong. We have even tolerated these segregated communities behaving in ways that run counter to our values."

 

Building a stronger sense of national and local identity holds "the key to achieving true cohesion" by allowing people to say "I am a Muslim, I am a Hindu, I am a Christian, but I am a Londoner... too", he said.

 

Security minister Baroness Neville-Jones said when Mr Cameron expressed his opposition to extremism, he meant all forms, not just Islamist extremism.

 

She told Today: "There's a widespread feeling in the country that we're less united behind values than we need to be.

 

"There are things the government can do to give a lead and encourage participation in society, including all minorities."

 

But the Islamic Society of Britain said the prime minister did not appreciate the nature of the problem.

 

Ajmal Masroor from the group told BBC Radio 5 live: "I think he's confusing a couple of issues: national identity and multiculturalism along with extremism are not connected. Extremism comes about as a result of several other factors."

[Loki]

Is he moving towards a written constitution? I'd support that.

[Happ Hazzard]

Can a monarchy have a written constitution?

[ReturnOfTheMack]

I thought we did have a written constitution, just not all written in one place.