General politics discussion thread

[JNLister]

Just out of curiosity what was it thats sparked all of this toppling of regimes that we've been witnessing the last few weeks? I've tried finding out by watching sky news but its usually just them going on about OIL or whatever so can someone on here explain it?

 

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

[David]

It appears that those who live in Glasgow will have a decent left-wing campaign to follow for the Scottish elections;

 

A left-wing alliance featuring George Galloway and members of Tommy Sheridan`s Solidarity Party is still on the cards, party members said today.

 

Relations between the pair were strained last month amid speculation that Mr Sheridan`s wife Gail was due to stand against Mr Galloway on the Glasgow list in the forthcoming Scottish elections.

 

Mr Galloway and Mrs Sheridan had previously negotiated standing together on a single ticket, but talks floundered over differences about Scottish independence, political leanings and Mr Sheridan`s tarnished reputation.

 

The former Scottish Socialist Party MSP is currently serving a three-year prison sentence for perjury.

 

However, after her husband's sentencing, Mrs Sheridan said she had no intention of standing for Holyrood, and will instead focus her attention on the Glasgow Council elections next year.

 

Next Monday there will be a public reconciliation when she joins Mr Galloway at Renfield Street St Stephen`s Church in Glasgow for a Defend Tommy Sheridan Campaign rally.

 

The reconciliation has opened the door for renewed negotiations about a left-wing alliance between Mr Galloway`s Respect Party and Solidarity.

 

Shortly before the sentencing last month, Mr Galloway said: "The Sheridans and Solidarity want Scottish independence. I don't. They're an ultra-left group and my values are real Labour.

 

"And the third issue was that, if Gail were on the ticket, it would become a referendum on Tommy and the trial, and not about my candidature."

 

However, party members said they were now working through the differences towards a possible alliance, but that it is unlikely to be a straight Solidarity-Respect ticket as previously mooted.

 

Mr Galloway`s political assistant Ron McKay said: "Although nothing has been decided yet, a George Galloway Respect Anti-Cuts Alliance could include Solidarity members on the list, but it won`t be a Respect-Solidarity linkage.

 

"Apart from anything else there couldn`t be because the Electoral Commission doesn`t allow party alliances to stand together, although the Con-Dems at Westminster will no doubt do something to change that.

 

"However, there are obviously ambitions and policies that Solidarity and Respect share, chiefly opposition to the most severe cuts in living memory, so there are joint links that are workable.

 

"The stage we`re at just now is that George is standing, we need to put forward eight people, George is the only one we`ve announced so far, and negotiations are continuing with others both allied and non-allied."

 

Solidarity national secretary Graeme McIver confirmed that Solidarity remained part of these discussions.

 

He said: "Negotiations continue in Glasgow between Solidarity and George Galloway`s Respect.

 

"(A Solidarity-Respect ticket) was Tommy`s preference but it did look at one stage that this would be unlikely. It`s not resolved yet though.

 

"In the meantime, we continue to prepare for the elections and intend to field candidates all across Scotland."

Source: The Scotsman

[bobbins]

People are starting to believe they really can take their countries back.

It's just a pity we probably won't ever see the same kind of thing here.

What the fuck have we got to complain about? In general, really?

Our democracy has been eroded and is now enslaved to the financial sector, to the point where we can no longer make our opposition known through the ballot box. You and I might be perfectly comfortable, but the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS and the marketisation of all our public services comes at a massive cost to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the single mothers, children, the mentally ill and countless others. Funny how an attack on the forests, the playground of the middle and upper class caused massive uproar and a reversal of policy. But attacks on the disenfranchised and the voiceless continue unabated.

[David]

You and I might be perfectly comfortable, but the destruction of the welfare state and the NHS and the marketisation of all our public services comes at a massive cost to the poor, the disabled, the elderly, the single mothers, children, the mentally ill and countless others.

You mean in instances such as this?

 

About 1.6m children in the UK are living in severe poverty, Save the Children says.

 

The charity, which found the highest levels of child poverty in Manchester and Tower Hamlets, in London, said the figure was a "national scandal".

 

And it said more children would be tipped into poverty by public sector job losses and changes to benefits.

 

The government said it was "fully committed to the goal of eradicating child poverty by 2020".

 

Of the UK nations, Save the Children found Wales had the highest proportion of children living in severe poverty (14%), followed by England (13%) then Scotland and Northern Ireland (9% each).

 

It found 29 authorities across the UK had more than one in five children living in severe poverty.

 

Manchester and the London borough of Tower Hamlets had the highest rates of children living in severe poverty at 27%.

 

The London borough of Newham had 25% in severe poverty, Leicester and Westminster (London) had 24%, Nottingham, Liverpool and Birmingham 23% and Blackpool and Hackney (London) 22%.

 

In Wales, the local authority with the highest rate of severe child poverty was Blaenau Gwent at 20%.

 

In Scotland, Glasgow City had the highest rate of child poverty with 18% living in severe poverty.

 

The charity based its regional breakdown of child poverty on statistics from the New Policy Institute.

 

It defines severe poverty as those living in households with incomes of less than 50% of the UK median income (disregarding housing costs).

 

Sally Copley, Save the Children's head of UK policy, said: "Children up and down the country are going to sleep at night in homes with no heating, without eating a proper meal and without proper school uniforms to put on in the morning.

 

"No child should be born without a chance. It is a national scandal that 1.6 million children are growing up in severe poverty.

 

"If these children are to have a future, we must acknowledge their desperate need and urgently target government help towards them."

 

A spokesman for the Department of Work and Pensions said: "Over the last decade vast sums of money has been poured into the benefits system in an attempt to address poverty, this approach has failed.

 

"Our radical welfare reforms will benefit the poorest in society, helping 350,000 children out of poverty, and targeting support at those who need it most to make work pay and break the benefits trap.

 

"We know that work is the best route out of poverty."

[Happ Hazzard]

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

[The King Of Swing]

Libyan Youth Movement tweets: "under ground prisons being discovered in Benghazi, political prisoners being found alive, not seen light of day for years#Libya"

 

Hardly a suprise but still terrible.

 

BBC Arabic are reporting that former Libyan Justice Minister Mustafa Abdul Jalil - who has resigned during the unrest - has told a Swedish newspaper that he has evidence Colonel Gaddafi personally ordered the bombing of Pan Am flight 103 over Lockerbie in 1988, which killed 270 people.

 

Not sure what to make of this one but honestly wouldn't be at all suprised if that was the case.

 

The BBC website has collated strong eyewitness testimony from Libya, including one Tripoli resident who told BBC Arabic there were now four military frigates in Tripoli ports, amid fears the gunships are on standby to fire on the capital.

 

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweets: "#Libya military officer tells me 3 naval ships ordered to sail to Benghazi to attack it. Crew torn about what to do."

 

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof tweets: Amazing: I hear by phone that Tajura, #Libya , less than 10 miles from Tripoli, has fallen. Rebel flag flying over it."

 

Sadly I think it this whole situation has now become a case of how much damage Gaddafi and what is left of his support can do on his way out.

[David]

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

 

You're always good for a bit of a laugh, Happ.

 

Why don't we just impose something similar to what China have, except only on those who earn under a certain amount per year? How does that sound?

[Happ Hazzard]

Sorry, but it is 2011. Having children is strictly a lifestyle choice nowadays. This isn't the 50s. We have free contraception, abortion on demand. You don't just have children and expect your sons to follow their father into the local factory or down the pit, and your daughters to marry a local lad and work in a shop or something. Having children without the means to give them a good upbringing and a decent chance in life is tantamount to child abuse in my opinion.

[Jonathan Ford]

Couldn't it be asked why people living in dire poverty are making the decision to bring children into the world?

 

Similarly, it could be asked what Labour did about the problem, other than throwing money in benefits at the people involved, and just snowballing the problem for the future. Labour simply do not know how to deal with problems. The solution would be to incentivise poor people NOT to have children, instead of to have them, which is the case currently. The welfare state was introduced in the late 1940s. It isn't the 1940s anymore. We need to recognise that. Otherwise the system will simply collapse because feckless people will continue to breed at a much more rapid rate than responsible hard-working people.

 

You're always good for a bit of a laugh, Happ.

 

Why don't we just impose something similar to what China have, except only on those who earn under a certain amount per year? How does that sound?

Do you not think that it is socially irresponsible to bring a child into the world, planned or otherwise, if you do not have the means to support the child?

[David]

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

[Psygnosis]

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

 

Doesn't matter if its a budgeted start to life for the child or a well off one, if one can support a child, by all means do. If you can't and know you can't support it, it would be wise not to and concentrate on yourself first.

 

Thats how I was brought up anyway.

Edited February 23, 2011 by Psygnosis

[Loki]

So, basically what you're advocating is that people who earn below a certain amount of money shouldn't have children?

 

That sounds like an excellent suggestion to me! But I'm guessing people might shit on me for that

[soretooth]

Having children is strictly a lifestyle choice nowadays.

No it isn't, it is a biological imperative and how our species perpetuates itself.

[The King Of Swing]

If only those selfish cunts in the third world stopped making such an irrisponsible lifestyle choice

[Happ Hazzard]

People in the third world haven't got access to contraception and abortion. Not to mention the welfare state. Having children is a necessity there if you want to be cared for in your old age. In developed countries like Britain, that is not the case.