And Its Smith Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 David Davies is about the only Tory who isn't morally bankrupt. Amen to that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Portland Bill Posted October 12, 2014 Report Share Posted October 12, 2014 That was the Free Syrian Army. http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Peace/2014/07/08/US-Backed-Moderate-Free-Syrian-Army-Factions-Join-Islamic-State-Terror-Group Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Seriously, man? You think this 'mission' will not eventually see troops on the ground? deluded much. I don't see why it should. Keep bombing the IS infrastructure; transport links and their oil fields. Deny them the chance to trade and make money. They will run out of food and munitions in time. In the meantime arm the Kurdish Peshmerga to the teeth with tanks and artillery, giving them a chance against IS. If the Turks don't like that idea, tough. They can either attack IS themselves, or see the Kurds better armed. Alternatively, we could just sit and do nothing, and hope the IS menace "just goes away". History suggests that the latter option does not work (the 1930's for example). Allow this evil to grow unchecked, and one day it will come back and bite us all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Seriously, man? You think this 'mission' will not eventually see troops on the ground? deluded much. if it does, I seriously hope to god that it's the islamic states who border Iraq and Syria, it's their fight and they have the most to lose. Still come next may that might all change, except the lie of WMD won't work this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Not really, I bash Tory-boy's because that's my democratic right, but I've never professed to hate anyone. I am at least comfortable enough in my politics to say outright that I am of left wing ideologies and support the Labour party above the others as they are the least hateful, least racist, least interested in capitalism and the most interested in the issues that mean something to me. They're not very strong on any of those issues, to be honest. But they, to me, are the lesser of all the evils. There's no way I could ever contemplate supporting parties like UKIP and the Conservatives who preach hate, fear and inequality. it's just not in my nature. I also struggle to understand those who do support those ideologies. I've never once been presented with any information that would convince me that the right-wing of the political spectrum is anything short of evil. Even after Iraq 2003?. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Litoris Posted October 13, 2014 Report Share Posted October 13, 2014 Even after Iraq 2003?. The one your Tory boys supported and 1/4 of Labour MP's rebelled against? Yeah, why not? See Labour were left to make parliamentary decisions this evening, finally recognising the state of Palestine. Shame big Dave isn't interested. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barrs Court Red Posted October 14, 2014 Author Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Non binding token that means nothing. Nicely sums up Labour. No substance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Non binding token that means nothing. Nicely sums up Labour. No substance. How can it be "binding" they aren't in government? It is however party policy, so maybe the UK will join the 135 other countries recognising Palestine before too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Gasbuster Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 How can it be "binding" they aren't in government? It is however party policy, so maybe the UK will join the 135 other countries recognising Palestine before too long. Long, long overdue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 The one your Tory boys supported and 1/4 of Labour MP's rebelled against? Yeah, why not?See Labour were left to make parliamentary decisions this evening, finally recognising the state of Palestine. Shame big Dave isn't interested. Mate for the last time you are making a pathetic dick of yourself, I will say it just one more time and I will put it capitals because you can obviously write reading but struggle to read writing, I HATE THEM ALL, I JUST HATE LABOUR MORE. Yep good to see that good old parliamentary free thought and speech were to the fore with labour MP's under the whip. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 14, 2014 Report Share Posted October 14, 2014 Mate for the last time you are making a pathetic dick of yourself, I will say it just one more time and I will put it capitals because you can obviously write reading but struggle to read writing, I HATE THEM ALL, I JUST HATE LABOUR MORE. Yep good to see that good old parliamentary free thought and speech were to the fore with labour MP's under the whip. It was whipped because it's party policy, Es. If it was Tory.party policy, they'd have been whipped too. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 It was whipped because it's party policy, Es. If it was Tory.party policy, they'd have been whipped too. That's not my point and you know that, you know I have a problem with people not being allowed to vote with truth or conscience it's anti democratic in my view and leads 'I vas only following orders' replies when they are asked to justify why they voted in a particular way, that IMO is not why we elected these people, they are elected to carry out the will of the people not the party and if their conscience doesn't allow them to do that that's fine but then explain to the electorate why and if it's important enough expect a possible backlash at the next election. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 That's not my point and you know that, you know I have a problem with people not being allowed to vote with truth or conscience it's anti democratic in my view and leads 'I vas only following orders' replies when they are asked to justify why they voted in a particular way, that IMO is not why we elected these people, they are elected to carry out the will of the people not the party and if their conscience doesn't allow them to do that that's fine but then explain to the electorate why and if it's important enough expect a possible backlash at the next election. It was a "one-line whip" which means those who don't agree could abstsain. I'm not sure you could have a party system without whips. That may be no bad thing, but it would make forming stable governments extraordinarily difficult. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 15, 2014 Report Share Posted October 15, 2014 It was a "one-line whip" which means those who don't agree could abstsain. I'm not sure you could have a party system without whips. That may be no bad thing, but it would make forming stable governments extraordinarily difficult. Maybe but certainly flies in the face of 'democracy' IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Litoris Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Maybe but certainly flies in the face of 'democracy' IMO. Yep, something we can agree on there. I dislike the whip. It is undemocratic and I can't help respect 'Rebels' no matter their cause because they are at least standing up for their own values and beliefs Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chipdawg Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Yep, something we can agree on there. I dislike the whip. It is undemocratic and I can't help respect 'Rebels' no matter their cause because they are at least standing up for their own values and beliefs One of the issue with 'unwhipped' politics though is that it leads to far greater potential for corruption. Call me a cynic, but when I see 'rebels' I often think "are they standing up for their beliefs or the beliefs of a benefactor or business associate?" While I don't always agree with the use of the whip, surely it makes complete sense where a government is voting for (or indeed opposition voting against) something that is stated policy in a manifesto, etc? The whole concept of individual MPs representing constituents is redundant; people vote for the colour of the rosette and the policies it stands for, which in my mind makes a move to proportional representation an inevitability Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Litoris Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 One of the issue with 'unwhipped' politics though is that it leads to far greater potential for corruption. Call me a cynic, but when I see 'rebels' I often think "are they standing up for their beliefs or the beliefs of a benefactor or business associate?" While I don't always agree with the use of the whip, surely it makes complete sense where a government is voting for (or indeed opposition voting against) something that is stated policy in a manifesto, etc? The whole concept of individual MPs representing constituents is redundant; people vote for the colour of the rosette and the policies it stands for, which in my mind makes a move to proportional representation an inevitability True of course, but the policies of a party and those MP's in it should probably be enough to ensure a majority follow the party line? Shouldn't it? I mean, if I'm a labour MP and have a left wing ideology then I dont need a whip to tell me to back re nationalisation of the railways or such like. Part of me feels that without the whip, parties, particularly labour, would be forced into more aggressive policy decisions rather than the boring middle ground they all seem to inhabit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 One of the issue with 'unwhipped' politics though is that it leads to far greater potential for corruption. Call me a cynic, but when I see 'rebels' I often think "are they standing up for their beliefs or the beliefs of a benefactor or business associate?" While I don't always agree with the use of the whip, surely it makes complete sense where a government is voting for (or indeed opposition voting against) something that is stated policy in a manifesto, etc? The whole concept of individual MPs representing constituents is redundant; people vote for the colour of the rosette and the policies it stands for, which in my mind makes a move to proportional representation an inevitability Seems very little point to me in becoming a politician, surely a conviction politician should be voting truthfully not how he is ordered to vote, how is that democratic?, it's IMO as farcical as voting when in a union closed shop, democracy goes entirely out of the window, it's 'you will vote this way', surely we as a nation hold in distain the despots who tell there politicians when to put their hands up. As for corruption, toughen up the laws and make it very long prison sentences if found guilty. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Seems very little point to me in becoming a politician, surely a conviction politician should be voting truthfully not how he is ordered to vote, how is that democratic?, it's IMO as farcical as voting when in a union closed shop, democracy goes entirely out of the window, it's 'you will vote this way', surely we as a nation hold in distain the despots who tell there politicians when to put their hands up. As for corruption, toughen up the laws and make it very long prison sentences if found guilty. There haven't been union "closed shops" since the 80s, Es. Unions these days are run in a more transparent and considerably more democratic way than, say, the Conservative Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 There haven't been union "closed shops" since the 80s, Es. Unions these days are run in a more transparent and considerably more democratic way than, say, the Conservative Party. I am well aware of that, I was speaking from experience during the early 70's. or say the Unions still having far to big a say in choosing labour's leader?, the next election would probably be a forgone conclusion had they not voted in their man, again, I see even dear old Lord Sugar wants Ed replaced by Gormless Brown, i'd vote for that one (if I had a vote) but at least Jack Straw came to his defence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 I am well aware of that, I was speaking from experience during the early 70's. or say the Unions still having far to big a say in choosing labour's leader?, the next election would probably be a forgone conclusion had they not voted in their man, again, I see even dear old Lord Sugar wants Ed replaced by Gormless Brown, i'd vote for that one (if I had a vote) but at least Jack Straw came to his defence. At least that system allows individual members - whether constituency party members or union affiliates who pay the optional political levy - to have a say in choosing the leader. Unlike, say once again, the Conservative Party. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 At least that system allows individual members - whether constituency party members or union affiliates who pay the optional political levy - to have a say in choosing the leader. Unlike, say once again, the Conservative Party. With a block vote, how is that democratic? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 With a block vote, how is that democratic? Because the union consults its members on who they collectively will back. Hundreds of thousands can vote. Compare and contrast with the party opposite, who elect leader in a secret ballot of about 300 people. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 Because the union consults its members on who they collectively will back. Hundreds of thousands can vote. Compare and contrast with the party opposite, who elect leader in a secret ballot of about 300 people. it's a great system that I fully endorse and has been so successful, so far 1 worthwhile leader and 1 elected leader since yer actual Harold Wilson, long may it continue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 it's a great system that I fully endorse and has been so successful, so far 1 worthwhile leader and 1 elected leader since yer actual Harold Wilson, long may it continue. It's one member one vote now, so you.may be disappointed. For the Tories, it's still the old boys club. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Esmond Million's Bung Posted October 16, 2014 Report Share Posted October 16, 2014 It's one member one vote now, so you.may be disappointed. For the Tories, it's still the old boys club. We'll know in may if they have made another inspired choice, his own party don't seem so sure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AshtonGreat Posted October 19, 2014 Report Share Posted October 19, 2014 perhaps if everyone like yourself who feels this way got involved in the grassroots of a political party you might be able to steadily bring about changes that suit you? apathy. **** it. I very much doubt it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Yeah, it's probably closer to 2%. I reckon I could name 15 good men and women if I gave it some thought. Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell in particular are superb examples of what a politician can be. Corbyn was one of the Soviet Union's best apologists in the Cold War era....all the Cold War was down to American actions, the Soviets were all peace loving peoples....yeah ****** right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bucksred Posted October 21, 2014 Report Share Posted October 21, 2014 Because the union consults its members on who they collectively will back. Hundreds of thousands can vote. Compare and contrast with the party opposite, who elect leader in a secret ballot of about 300 people. Any comments on UNITE's gerrymandering in the constituency which the Grangemouth is sited. The one Millwanker backed off in the face of his paymasters hostility. Apologies cant reemember its name. Specifically the laspsed members who voted for the Unite favourewd candidate. All power corrupts. REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. And as for unions care to coment on the FBU attempts to sabotage Green Goddesses on the Fire Strike. A few us involved caught those ***** trying to do just that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Red-Robbo Posted October 22, 2014 Report Share Posted October 22, 2014 Any comments on UNITE's gerrymandering in the constituency which the Grangemouth is sited. The one Millwanker backed off in the face of his paymasters hostility. Apologies cant reemember its name. Specifically the laspsed members who voted for the Unite favourewd candidate. All power corrupts. REGARDLESS OF PARTY OR POLITICAL AFFILIATION. And as for unions care to coment on the FBU attempts to sabotage Green Goddesses on the Fire Strike. A few us involved caught those ***** trying to do just that. Yes, but you can't tar everyone with the actions of a few. That would be like saying various bosses have gone to jail ergo every employer is corrupt. Anyone who works in the media knows how the print unions basically operated as a criminal syndicate. But then do do the big banks.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.