sonofsanta Posted May 15, 2015 Posted May 15, 2015 He is young, yes, but I fear that horse has already bolted and we're stuck with this age group for leadership forever more, to appeal to the younger voters. Even though I, at 30 and a younger voter, would prefer someone older and with some experience and patience. Vince Cable is about the right age for where a leader should be, in my mind. I also fear Labour won't ever get into power on a purely left wing platform, and that even a centre Labour is more left than the Tories and is the best we can hope for while we're lumbered with FPTP.
localzuk Posted May 16, 2015 Posted May 16, 2015 This article is about exactly what I posted about earlier. People who refuse their first offer of a house, even if it is unsuitable, get taken off the list for 2 years. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-32555733
ZeroHour Posted May 16, 2015 Posted May 16, 2015 This made me lol http://www.buzzfeed.com/tomchivers/as-long-as-you-obey-the-law 2
flyinghaggis Posted May 17, 2015 Posted May 17, 2015 (edited) That was a rather sinister statement from Mr Cameron! Frankie Boyle's Election Autopsy should be available later today/tomorrow on iplayer for anyone interested BBC - Frankie Boyle's Election Autopsy Edited May 17, 2015 by flyinghaggis
Garacesh Posted May 17, 2015 Posted May 17, 2015 UK government quietly rewrites hacking laws to give GCHQ immunity | Ars Technica UK Well, bugger. Say hello to en-masse hacking and dragnetting. They'll presumably prosecute whatever little shows up, and be immune from the mass privacy invasion of all those people with 'nothing to hide' >.< 1
sparkeh Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Interesting. The Local Government Association (currently controlled by the Tories) has delivered a message to the Government that cuts across all political lines: No more cuts, Tory councils tell George Osborne | Society | The Guardian Its fascinating to see a situation where Tory national politicians are at odds with Tory local government about austerity measures. Who should we believe...?
sonofsanta Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens: as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone. It’s often meant we have stood neutral between different values. And that’s helped foster a narrative of extremism and grievance. “This government will conclusively turn the page on this failed approach. As the party of one nation, we will govern as one nation and bring our country together. That means actively promoting certain values. “Freedom of speech. Freedom of worship. Democracy. The rule of law. Equal rights regardless of race, gender or sexuality. “We must say to our citizens: this is what defines us as a society.” I cannot fathom a world in which this is not objectively terrifying, or deeply, deeply hypocritical. We must defend freedom of speech by persecuting those whose speech we disagree with? Equal rights, but some are more equal than others, right? And in what way is "neutrality" a bad stance for a government to take? It is not for them to decide, on my behalf, what I will and will not stand for. That's for me to decide. The people should tell the government what to do, but this is very much the other way round. If anyone can find a longer version of the speech for me to try and find any glimmer of context that might excuse it, I'd love to see it. I've quoted the biggest chunk I can find in order to put it in context, and it's just as scary as ever. The word "horrified" seems the only appropriate choice.
X-13 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 The word "horrified" seems the only appropriate choice. I can't help but read the quote with a slight microphone distortion, as if it's being said at a rally of some sort... It sounds like the exact kind of thing it's allegedly against.
6Foot2 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 ...If anyone can find a longer version of the speech for me to try and find any glimmer of context that might excuse it, I'd love to see it. I've quoted the biggest chunk I can find in order to put it in context, and it's just as scary as ever. The word "horrified" seems the only appropriate choice. You might have to wait until Wednesday until the full Queen's speech is delivered at The State Opening of Parliament.
localzuk Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 It comes back to this wishy-washy idea - what on Earth are British values? What on earth are these values we all supposedly hold so dear? As far as I can see, my values differ quite a lot with people around me - even within the office here. A friend was clear that "British" meant "White Christian British" when I asked them - pointing out that the country has absorbed other cultures for hundreds of years fell on deaf ears. The universal British value, that I can see, is tolerance - accepting that people can say things that you may disagree strongly with. That is the most British thing going, and that is exactly what Cameron wants to stop. How un-British of him. 2
LeMarchand Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 An "emergency budget" eh? Smacks of "we didn't dare do this before the election, but think that with our opposition in disarray we can get away with it now". Also, is the post of Mayor not considered a "public official"? If so, how can Boris be an MP?
tmcd35 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 A friend was clear that "British" meant "White Christian British" By that definition I'm not British! I'm white, I was born in England, you have to go back about 4 generations for my northern Irish roots (or 2 for my Scottish roots). But I certainly couldn't identify myself as British under that definition. If UKIP wanted to uphold that as the master race ideal, I wonder were they'd ship me off to? Maybe it's a case for giving Scotland independence? Or giving Northern Ireland to the republic? 1
Arreks Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 A friend was clear that "British" meant "White Christian British" when I asked them No longer I hope.
sonofsanta Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 A friend was clear that "British" meant "White Christian British" when I asked them Well that's me out then. ATHEIST TILL I DIE (and not a moment more, as at that point I will cease to exist, experiencing nothing further, my consciousness evaporated like mist in the morning sun).
Garacesh Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 By that definition I'm not British! I'm white, I was born in England, you have to go back about 4 generations for my northern Irish roots (or 2 for my Scottish roots). But I certainly couldn't identify myself as British under that definition. If UKIP wanted to uphold that as the master race ideal, I wonder were they'd ship me off to? Maybe it's a case for giving Scotland independence? Or giving Northern Ireland to the republic? No, no, no. We need to sell Northern Ireland to the highest bidder and use that cash to wipe off a chunk of the National Debt.. Think big! Apple could buy their own tax haven!
tmcd35 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 No, no, no. We need to sell Northern Ireland to the highest bidder and use that cash to wipe off a chunk of the National Debt.. Think big! Apple could buy their own tax haven! If this comes to pass I will happily be deported and go rediscover my irish roots - top of the mornin' to ya!
LiamH Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Well that's me out then. ATHEIST TILL I DIE (and not a moment more, as at that point I will cease to exist, experiencing nothing further, my consciousness evaporated like mist in the morning sun). I'm in the "Atheist till a even a single scrap of evidence is presented that may change my mind" camp here Really glad i got out of the UK when I did, Just not sure what i will do if the crackpot republicans get in power here. Australia?
featured_spectre Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Unfortunately the US party system is such a broad spectrum of lunacy...you have Left (democrats)...then you have SEVERE left (republicans).
sonofsanta Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Unfortunately the US party system is such a broad spectrum of lunacy...you have Left (democrats)...then you have SEVERE left (republicans). Er... the opposite, surely? Right and severe right?
Garacesh Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Now, now. I'm sure we can all agree on a classification here. "Buffoon and severe buffoon"? 2
X-13 Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 George W Bush The "W" stands for something we can't say here.
LiamH Posted May 18, 2015 Posted May 18, 2015 Democrats are the lesser of two evils though, Trouble is (as with all politicians) they are too busy arguing with each other to take a step back and work out what is best. Republicans/Labor are red, Democrats/Torys are blue. Neither one gives a flying about you.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now