General politics discussion thread

[Loki]

No. Uh, clearly not! Al Jazeera has its agenda just like anyone else.

 

But regardless of the spin they put on it, a lot of the reality of Palestinian day to day life is heartbreaking, and the fact that it's happening in a supposedly first-world country should provoke a lot more outrage than it does.

 

That situation is hugely, hugely complex and it would be pointless to distill it down into a few pithy thoughts, but.... at some point, one of the two sides is going to have to be the better man and make a bold move towards a lasting piece, in the process giving up something that is cherished.

 

I think it probably needs to be the guys with tanks, helicopters and gunships.

[David]

Glen Beck has strong views about the situation in Libya and the surrounding area.

I'm assuming you posted that link to give us all a laugh, and remind us why we don't want Rupert Murdoch controlling a good chunk of the UK's media?

[Happ Hazzard]

Glen Beck has strong views about the situation in Libya and the surrounding area.

I'm assuming you posted that link to give us all a laugh, and remind us why we don't want Rupert Murdoch controlling a good chunk of the UK's media?

It's entertainment. Do you think people take it seriously?

 

Newspapers have been printing the news in sensationalist fashion since the year dot. Why do you hold TV news to a different standard?

[David]

It's entertainment. Do you think people take it seriously?

 

Newspapers have been printing the news in sensationalist fashion since the year dot. Why do you hold TV news to a different standard?

The problem is, a lot of people don't take that as "entertainment". You can usually find them taking part in anti-Islamic protests and the like.

 

Call me old fashioned Happ, but when I pick up a newspaper or turn on a news channel I don't do so with the intention of being entertained, I do so in order to be informed of that days happenings.

 

There's printing the news in a sensationalist manner, then there's what Beck and FOX News do, which is broadcast right-wing propaganda and scaremonger.

[Happ Hazzard]

I don't see any difference between what Fox News do and what the Guardian does. They're different sides of the same coin.

 

Guardian correspondents were not even tacit about endorsing violence during the student protests. One columnist was advising protesters to cover their faces and advocating taking snooker balls to use as weapons.

[David]

Here's an interesting article for you Happ. It's not from The Guardian, which I'm sure will disappoint the hell out of you, but it is written by one of the infamous left-wing tyrants you speak of;

 

Earlier this week, the Tory-run Westminster Council, one of the richest in Britain, announced a ban on sleeping on the streets, or feeding anybody who does. They say giving Steven food only

[Happ Hazzard]

That last paragraph killed it. The bankers didn't cause the country to be in massive amounts of debt. The bankers didn't have access to government money. It was Labour's choice to bail out the banks. And it was Labour's choice not to place strict conditions on the bailouts such as preventing bankers from being paid huge bonuses.

 

If the bankers caused the bust, who caused the boom in the first place? Who do you think was paying the majority of tax revenue that allowed Labour to spend money like sailors on shore leave?

 

If local councils choose to cut services for the homeless instead of making cuts elsewhere, don't they have to shoulder some of the blame? How many bowls of soup would a Council Chief's

[JNLister]

It was Labour's choice to bail out the banks.

 

You do understand that RBS was literally a couple of hours from going bust? As in accounts frozen and cash machines closed. As in a sizeable proportion of the population suddenly being without access to their money. As in people not being able to buy food. As in everyone who was with another bank panicking, running to the cashpoints, and the other banks having to put a freeze on withdrawals.

 

So yeah, it was a choice, but it was a choice between bail out the banks or have what, with "great" already used, would have to be described as the "fucking enormous depression".

 

I highly doubt any of the personal details included in it are actually true. The author would probably run a mile rather than get anywhere near real homeless people.

 

Go fuck yourself, you miserable little cunt.

[matbro1984]

Thoughts on this? More Law-Making Powers For Welsh Assembly

 

I am Welsh, and I voted no. There was a fairly substantial campaign in my area to vote yes, almost entirely from the Plaid Cymru nationalist/socialist mob. The principal arguments being

 

1. No-one takes us seriously. How will anyone take us seriously if we aren't confident in our own capacity to rule?

2. You're not a patriot if you vote no.

3. Shane Williams is voting yes.

4. English decisionmaking destroyed our Welsh speaking communities and our countryside.

 

This devolution stuff is all bullshit. We are supposed to be a United Kingdom. Wales and Scotland rely on England for funding; England relies on Wales and Scotland for water, oil and gas. (Not that Wales has the oil and gas reserves, but a fucking enormous pipeline stretches the length of Wales to supply it to England). That is a fairly symbiotic relationship, and it has worked just fine. Now these narrow minded people actually believe that this referendum result is a positive thing. It's anti-English bigotry disguised as nationalism, and it really is the ultimate act of cutting one's nose off to spite a face. If England really cut us loose, we'd be fucked. England can get its resources elsewhere; and what is there of a Welsh economy really? No natural resources to tap, and Thatcher killed off our industries a few decades ago.

[Happ Hazzard]

It was Labour's choice to bail out the banks.

 

You do understand that RBS was literally a couple of hours from going bust? As in accounts frozen and cash machines closed. As in a sizeable proportion of the population suddenly being without access to their money. As in people not being able to buy food. As in everyone who was with another bank panicking, running to the cashpoints, and the other banks having to put a freeze on withdrawals.

 

So yeah, it was a choice, but it was a choice between bail out the banks or have what, with "great" already used, would have to be described as the "fucking enormous depression".

 

I highly doubt any of the personal details included in it are actually true. The author would probably run a mile rather than get anywhere near real homeless people.

 

Go fuck yourself, you miserable little cunt.

You don't think journalists make up instances of meeting people in order to back up their story?

 

You can't isolate Labour from blame. It was they that engineered the boom in house prices in order to give people the illusion that they had money in order to keep the economic boom going. Do you not think that has a large part to play in the increased amount of homeless people? Wouldn't it be better to create conditions where people are not made homeless in the first place, rather than making housing ridiculously expensive and then throwing money (which they didn't have) at the problem?

 

Added to this is the immigration free for all which has put upward pressure on house prices and downward pressure on wages. One of the homeless men in the story says he worked in construction, one of the industries most affected by immigration. Brickies were earning

[JNLister]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

 

You've done it again. Fucking three paragraphs of why you hate Labour, none of which has anything to do with the point you originally made (Labour chose to bail out the banks) or the point I made in reply (It wasn't a choice as the only other option in the event was to watch the economy literally implode.

 

Seriously, I underestimated you in calling you a baby. You're clearly a three-year old who thinks that when you make a claim and it gets disproven, you're allowed to just stream out something else at a random tangent.

 

I don't want to be that guy who stomps out of an internet argument, but fuck it, I'm done. As the saying goes, the problem with arguing with a retard like you is that you drag people down to you intellectual level and win with experience.

[Jonathan Ford]

Go fuck yourself, you miserable little cunt.

 

Bloody hell, Lister.....you kiss your mother with that mouth? :D

 

In my opinion, bailing out the banks was absolutely the right thing to do. The problem quite simply is that, with the current bonus culture, coupled with the kind of vultures that can be attracted to banking, banks that do not pay comparable terms will not be able to attract talent. Now, personally, I'd like those institutions that were bailed out by the taxpayer to perform well, and have a hope of repaying us! Therefore, I have no specific objection to them paying out humungous bonuses, as long as pursuit of a bonus does not encourage the very behaviours that got us in this shitty mess.

 

Homelessness is a tough issue, particularly for a Tory government. I'm pretty centre right in these issues, and would argue that homelessness rarely presents as an isolated issue, and I'll colour this by saying that I suspect I've met more homeless people and substance abusers than most. I genuinely find the case cited in the Independent article that roughly equated to "no work in construction = homeless" to be pretty hard to believe. The process for a landlord/mortgage company to evcit a tenant or repossess a home is pretty lengthy, and there are frameworks in place to prevent homelessness in these situations - even if it's a horrible room in the biggest flea pit "hotel" you could imagine. "No work in construction plus drink/drugs/theft/adultery = homelessness" I can easily believe. And therein lies the crux of the pretty simplistic Tory thinking on the issue - that all homeless people have unsavoury addictions or questionable morality alongside their homelessness. It seems that supporting these people out of these situations hasn't crossed their minds! I suppose, to your garden variety Tory, the behaviour of many people who are homeless has significantly contributed to their predicament.....so fuck 'em.

 

On the topic of cuts, every local authority can choose pretty much where it wants to make cuts. I suppose, seeing as homeless people may not be particularly invested in the political process and don't have a voice, they make an easy target. I will suggest, with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back up my point, that it appears that some authorities have it on their agenda to score political points in where they make there cuts. I'm sure that there are plenty of unnecessary committees and sub-committees that could either combine their meetings....or just bugger off...plenty of soft service that would have less impact than closing a library, for arguments sake.

[Happ Hazzard]

FOR FUCK'S SAKE.

 

You've done it again. Fucking three paragraphs of why you hate Labour, none of which has anything to do with the point you originally made (Labour chose to bail out the banks) or the point I made in reply (It wasn't a choice as the only other option in the event was to watch the economy literally implode.

 

Seriously, I underestimated you in calling you a baby. You're clearly a three-year old who thinks that when you make a claim and it gets disproven, you're allowed to just stream out something else at a random tangent.

 

I don't want to be that guy who stomps out of an internet argument, but fuck it, I'm done. As the saying goes, the problem with arguing with a retard like you is that you drag people down to you intellectual level and win with experience.

Was it a choice to get the country in the situation where we were almost entirely reliant on the financial sector? Was it a choice to not attach stringent conditions to the bail out money, such as not being able to pay bonuses until the money was repaid?

 

Whose fault was it that the banks held all the cards despite being on the verge of bankruptcy?

 

It's not like Labour just got in and a few days later, were placed in the position of saving the banks. They were in power for 12 years before it happened. If it wasn't their fault, what exactly were we paying them billions of pounds to run the country for? Why not just cut out the middlemen and let the banks run things directly?

 

I'm disappointed in you John for reverting to insults instead of being prepared to argue the point. You support Labour which is fair enough, but are you prepared to defend their policies? The people homeless today aren't homeless because of Tory policies, they are homeless because of Labour policies. Even a fair amount of people in the comments of the Independent article quoted earlier are of that opinion.

[JNLister]

You support Labour which is fair enough

 

I'm done arguing with you. However, purely to correct a personal point, you have no idea who I do or don't support, or indeed what basis I use for deciding who to vote for in any specific election.

[Kenny McBride]

I don't actually think John does support Labour, but he can answer that himself.

 

I think the Labour government made a mistake in the way it altered financial regulation such that a bank bailout should never have been necessary. However, the Tories actively supported the same policy and have since moved to reduce the tax "burden" on those same banks still further.

 

Oh, and I do some work with homeless people. I can tell you thay cuts since the election have made a difference. I agree that pushing home ownership above all else was a bad idea, but it was a policy first formulated by Thatcher. It was only under Labour that money from council house sales was allowed to be re-invested in new housing.