Euro poll

Who would you vote for?

  • Conservative

    Votes: 7 19.4%

  • Labour

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • Lib Dem

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 5 13.9%

  • Green

    Votes: 2 5.6%

  • BNP

    Votes: 4 11.1%

  • Other nationalist

    Votes: 1 2.8%

  • They're all shite - I couldn't vote for any

    Votes: 8 22.2%
  • Total voters
    36
I've received mailings from Say No 2Europe or something like that, and 'Libertas'. Both anti-EU more than anything else, which is obviously de rigeur nowadays. I don't know - I'm attracted to the UK pulling out of the EU and the UN, but keeping in with NATO. But can one pick 'n' mix with one's European connections like that? It makes military sense, I guess, but does it make good economic sense?

I may well just revert to type and vote LibDem as I've done in the past, since the anti-EU parties seem to be standing for one reason only.
 
Last edited:
One for Gareth to chase down, as I believe he had an unhealthy fascination with the woman:D

I note the full result features something called "Independent - Katie Hopkins" 8,971 votes. Are we to assume that this was that nasty piece of work from the 'Apprentice' who gave the distinct impression of being a publicity shy and media phobic type?

I daren't even imagine what her manifesto looked like:lol:
 
There is no point attmepting to debate Israel/Palestine with clivex, as he is quite trenchant in his views on the subject (as he is entitled to be).

In an attempt, however, to draw the distinction between the actions of Sri Lanka and Israel in dealing with their respective 'threats', I would say the following:

Sri Lanka are/were fighting a domestic threat in the LTTE, who are/were seeking independence from the sovereign state. In my opinion, the LTTE are/were like ETA in terms of overall objective and their reason for existence.

Hamas/Fatah, on the other hand, are resisting an occupation of sovereign territory, rather than than attenpting to cede from the state.

The difference is not very subtle, imo, and I suspect that this explains the perceived imbalance in acceptability (or otherwise) of the respective actions of the Sri Lankan and Israeli governments.

Not that you are likely to agree, of course - I'm merely offering a possible answer to the question you have posed.
 
Last edited:
clivex said:
point remains ....with the supposed "failure" of captilism over the past year, why has there been virtually no call for or support for an alternative?
Click to expand...

There is no need, because "hard left" policies are being implemented by centre-right Governments in the shape of massive tax-payer funded bailouts and quasi-nationalisation.

The only step further to the left is full nationalisation a la Chavez etc.

How far left did you mean? :blink::whistle:
 
Rubbish reply Grasshopper. The "nationlisation" (as we are seeing with lloyds paying back already) was out of necessity rather than a desire to wreck enterprise (al Chavez)

As we all know there is no desire to create a new british leyland

Even worse reply re Israel and Sri Lanka. They condemned the violence in Rwanda (just to take one domestic example). Resolution 918 as it happens

Using ETA as an example would make sense if the Spanish goverment killed 30000 basques trying to stop the terrorists

We know full well why the UN, Iran, the Jenny tonges (filth that was a local MP around my neck of woods) and the Ken livingstones of this world are obsessed with Israel

Thats not condoning every aspect of Israels policy (the settlements are very self defeating...baffle me frankly), but the constant targeting has a definate whiff about it
 
The question remains a good one though doesnt it? Not answered yet...

Why does the hard left have zero appeal (in the UK anyway) at a time when capitalism is supposedly finished? Why didnt Scargills party not pick up the votes the Greens did?
 
constant targeting has a definate whiff about it
Click to expand...

I think it's quite the opposite.

Israel attracts greater attention because it's part of our world. Its existence is a product of European history. Its value systems and its main allies also belong to, or are closely linked to, our part of the world.
 
Because our thick tracksuit wearing friends have been brainwashed by the newspapers they "read"

I think the Star and the Sun need shutting down for some of the xenophobic shite they've come up with in the recent past. The "British Jobs for British Workers" thing turned my stomach.
 
Grey

That doesnt excuse the double standards at the UN.

The "opposite"? Come on now...when you get hard lefties like Ken Loach excusing (supporting?) attacks on Jews in Europe because of Israels "actions" then you know what you are dealing with.

As well as the racial aspect, Israels support from the US (Which is often OTT) and the lefts love affair with hardline islamics (god they love that control and austerity...) are factors too

but before warbler goes on about his Peoples front...its significant sections of the left we are talking about..rather than all
 
Last edited:
Wasnt it Gordon Brown who said "british jobs for Britsih workers"?

shouldnt he be shut down?
 
clivex said:
Rubbish reply Grasshopper. The "nationlisation" (as we are seeing with lloyds paying back already) was out of necessity rather than a desire to wreck enterprise (al Chavez)

As we all know there is no desire to create a new british leyland

Even worse reply re Israel and Sri Lanka. They condemned the violence in Rwanda (just to take one domestic example). Resolution 918 as it happens

Using ETA as an example would make sense if the Spanish goverment killed 30000 basques trying to stop the terrorists

We know full well why the UN, Iran, the Jenny tonges (filth that was a local MP around my neck of woods) and the Ken livingstones of this world are obsessed with Israel

Thats not condoning every aspect of Israels policy (the settlements are very self defeating...baffle me frankly), but the constant targeting has a definate whiff about it
Click to expand...

Clivex, note that I drew the comparison between LTTE and ETA only as regards their "objectives and reason for existence". I did not draw a direct parallel, and used the example only to give contextual differences between what I would call 'seperatists" (LTTE and ETA are), and those fighting an occupation.

Like I said, the difference is not subtle, but no surprise that you missed it.

I believe my own question is equally valid. How much futher left could the Western economies have gone, other than quasi-nationalise their banking systems?

Forget British Leyland - the banks are the very empitomy of Western capitalism, and yet huge numbers of them are now in government ownership across the globe. Tell me how this doesn't equate to "left" leaning policy.
 
Last edited:
And you have completely ignored the point about why Rwanda was condemned and Sri Lanka not....

Both are domestic incidents which you claim is the basic reason for non intervention or condemnation by the UN... It isnt is it?

Still the muslim countries (and China) did continually block UN intervention In sudan whilst the genocide was rolling along nicely. So perhaps there is a decent parrallel there isnt there?

I am refering to "hard left"..and ahve done so throughout thread ...rather than left leaning.. The tories nationlised Rolls Royce in the seventies on much the same basis it should be remebered. As I clearly stated, Nationlisation was deemed an unfortunate necessity frather than an idealogical objective and every one of the western goverments will be looking to get the banks off theirs hands at the first opportunity...as we are seeing already
 
Jeezus.

Do you really think that Rwanda - where one tribe was hacking another to pieces, for no better reason than they were from another tribe - was in any way comporable to what happened in Sri Lanka? Stop being such an arse.

For what it's worth, I think Sri Lanka should have been subject to censure in the UN. But that doesn't mean that your arguments are in any way coherent.

As for the credit crunch, you suggest that the "hard left" have "no answers" to the current crisis. When it is pointed out to you that right-wing governments have deployed "left-wing" policies in order to manage the crisis, your apparent get-out is to suggest that measures adopted are temporary, so ithey don't count....and anyway, those are merely "left-leaning" policies, rather than "hard-left".

You have an evident obsession with this "hard left" bogeyman. You routinely trot him out whenever you enter into debates such as these, but are extremely careful to remain vague about exactly who/what you mean by "hard left".

So let's start with this: who exactly represents this "hard left" that you keen rattling on about?

Once you have clarified exactly who you mean, perhaps then we can discuss whether they are as bereft of ideas as you suggest. Start naming names.
 
Complete rubbish. Of course they are comparable

wasnt one "tribe" attacking anothe tribe in Sri Lanka then? Or was killing 30000 an accetable way to deal with terrorists?

you miss the point entirely about the hard left. Nationisation on a temporary basis (itshoped) is not had left poilicy. Nationislation on a permenant basis is

if you try reading the thread it wasnt about whether "left leaning " policies have an appeal but why the Socialist workers and so on ahvent replicated the relative success of the BNP

who represents them? Didnt you read your polling card?
 
FFS. I've just said that Sri Lanka should have been subject to UN censure, so no, it wasn't acceptable to make 30,000 civilians expendable in pursuit of the LTTE.

And no, Sri Lanka was nothing like Rwanda - get a grip.

Apologies for missing the point about the "hard left" (whoever they are).

If you mean outfits like the SWP, I suspect their failure is due to them being a complete anachronism, with policies which are a total irrelevance in today's world. I don't, however, see that this is any reason to 'rejoice' (you know what I mean) in the fact that the BNP suddenly have an agenda that appears to be of some interest to many citizens.
 
Grasshopper said:
If you mean outfits like the SWP, I suspect their failure is due to them being a complete anachronism, with policies which are a total irrelevance in today's world.
Click to expand...

And deluded Trots who wouldn't know a decent ice pick if it hit them in the head:ninja:
 
Last edited:
Right...so the question as to why Sri Lankas (and other actions) get excused (werent they even praised?) by the UN whereas Rwanda and Israels..remains open


Yes I do mean the SWP etc. But could also extend this to the invisibility of the Meachers (god he was spouting rubbish this week on the box) and so on within the labour party too. With the current shambles that is Browns leadership, the threat from the party's left has not materialised. Very different scenario to the 80's
 
The hard left have done rather well in the Irish elections. They have taken one of the three European seats in Dublin and also made gains in the local elections. The Labour Party also did well.
 
The demise of Mary Lou and Ganley were the high points for me. Sinn Fein's lack of progress in current circumstances was extraordinary and very much welcome.
 
Melendez said:
The demise of Mary Lou and Ganley were the high points for me. Sinn Fein's lack of progress in current circumstances was extraordinary and very much welcome.
Click to expand...

Why is Ganley regarded as the 'big bad Wolf'. A Victim of mud slinging by the establishment. He took his defeat with more Grace than any of the old guard are capable of.
 
I don't like his CV. He was making money in Russia when only shifty people were making money. He walked out unharmed from what appeared to be an Albanian pyramid selling scheme where all other investors got shafted. He was hanging around for years "advising" on the formative government of Latvia (? - I think) yet nobody seemed to know what he actually did bar hang around. And seems to have strong ties with the American war machine.

Maybe there is nothing wrong with him but there is too much unclarified innuendo which he has had the time and resources to clarify. On balance, I'd much rather be rid.

The media don't seem to agree with your assessment about his graceful defeat.
 
unclarified innuendo
Click to expand...

Just about describes it.If there was proof of any wrong doing lets see it.

I saw him interviewed directly after he withdrew rather than make them still count till they got to the quota for the other candidates. He said he was retiring from politics as he did not have a mandate, no long winded excuses. Not exactly the actions of the hard nosed bogey man.

As regards
strong ties with the American war machine.
Click to expand...

He has an ex admiral in the U.S coastguard on his board and has won some contracts from the U.S military for communications. The government of this country lets the American war machine stop off in Shannon with their rendition and military transport flights.

We'll see if anything that can be proven ever comes out about him but my feeling was that the establishment where worried by his potential.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top