Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2015 General Election: Will the Liberal Democrats make

SystemSystem Posts: 12,137
edited May 2013 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The 2015 General Election: Will the Liberal Democrats make net gains?

Yes, you did read that headline correctly, it wasn’t a typo, I am going to discuss whether the Lib Dems can make net gains in parliamentary seats at the 2015 General election, which might seem odd, given the Lib Dems current travails in the polls.

Read the full story here


«1

Comments

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    No
  • No_Offence_AlanNo_Offence_Alan Posts: 4,481
    Thirty-something looks about right at the moment.
    They will certainly have more seats in 2015 than in 1992, the Conservatives will have fewer.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 33,371
    If you're right, Mr Eagles, some CiF posters will implode!
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 21,595
    edited May 2013
    Depends on the leader going into the GE. If they stick with Nick "sign a pledge" Clegg they might struggle. Any time they say they will do something, they will be challenged. A new leader could do well.

    But there is still no love out there for LDs.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    No.
  • rogerhrogerh Posts: 282
    Net gains for Lib Dems -no way. First the Lib Dem on current polling levels face a disaster in the European elections with a likely UKIP win and their share in single figures and maybe even falling behind the Greens into fifth place.More significantly given the Labour recovery, and the threat from UKIP, the Lib Dem council base in London will be seriously eroded. From this nadir their is just 12 months to stage a recovery.(possible new leader?)

    At the GE itself Lib Dem urban seats (and University towns) are highly vulnerable to Labour, In Scotland to a combination of SNP and Labour -maybe a virtual wipe out..The Lib Dems failed to make progress against the Tories in the recent local elections. If there is any economic recovery the Tories will get the benefit. Finally UKIP is likely to take votes from all parties and Lib Dem seats in the south west will be under pressure.

    So overall a bleak outlook which requires them to focus all resources on holding
    onto around 20-30 seats which may still give them a role in any Labour led coalition though this may include other partners like the SNP.

    However I agree 10 to one bet looks worth a punt!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Good morning, everyone.

    Just over an hour and a half to P3. Got a few potential bets in mind. I think I'd prefer Hamilton to top the timesheets (if Rosberg does his odds will perhaps be displeasingly short).

    I'd be surprised if the Lib Dems make net gains. If it were net gains versus the Conservatives that's possible, but surely they'll be hammered in Scotland?
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311
    "I love deadlines. I like the whooshing sound they make as they fly by."

    - Douglas Adams

    Happy Towel Day all you hoopy froods.
  • I was amazed how hard working the LDs were at my council election on May 2nd. Their candidate was certain to be elected, and yet they still had rosetted tellers at every polling station.

    Postal vote farming far is more efficiently organised by both left-of-center parties than by the tories (nil by UKIP). So maybe the tories will under-perform compared with their national vote?

    I suppose the tories might get their act together as far as postal votes is concerned, but they haven't shown any appetite for it yet. Or do any tory activists on here know different?

  • JackWJackW Posts: 14,787
    edited May 2013
    Latest ARSE 2015 GE LibDem Seat Projection - 45 seats.

    Net loss 12 seats.
  • VerulamiusVerulamius Posts: 1,540
    Can someone list the actual constituencies in question, so that we can compare with the list of LibDem selected PPCs.
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    No, according to the May ICM there has been a national swing of 2% from the LDs to the Tories nationally since 2010 even with UKIP at its polling peak, and in the May locals the Tories made net gains from the LDs. At the same time there has been a swing of 8% from the LDs to Labour since 2010.
  • tpfkartpfkar Posts: 1,562
    It's about an optimistic article as you can find for the Lib Dems, and it's the only serious way I can see gains next time.

    But key factor not considered is activists. Like all parties (possibly Labour an exception) number of activists are down, and given the national situation, LDs are only targeting winnable seats and having to pour resources in - exactly as David Kendrick has observed.

    So will the party have the resources still to pour everything into these target seats in the South? This is the key question for me, and as far as I can see the answer is yes; we have a marginal in this category near us and it's being given everything, although we're not next to a parliamentary seat we already hold.

    My guess all in is that JackW's ARSE is producing output in the right area.
  • GIN1138GIN1138 Posts: 22,203
    edited May 2013
    I see The Rant have really got it in for Google this morning - Could Dacre be a banned AdSense user? ;)
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Tim - That is why I think there should be a distinction in law between those who pay for child pornography images and those who simply access them (if that is what Platell did). While downloading child pornography may be distasteful it is only when payment is made to download that the act actually directly leads to child abuse and it is protecting the innocent from harm that is the law's primary purpose!
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    MD.

    "Just over an hour and a half to P3."

    From your man on the spot. It's f...ing noisy! Much better on TV.

    TSE. 'Will the Libs make net gains'

    No.
  • Oliver_PBOliver_PB Posts: 397
    edited May 2013
    The provocative headline distracts from a good point that I honestly hadn't considered.

    What happens to Con-LD marginals in the post-coalition post-UKIP-surge world?

    To what degree are Tory-to-UKIP switchers willing to tactically vote Tory to keep the Liberal Democrats out? Could the Tory-to-UKIP defection actually be bigger than the LD-to-Lab defection once tactical voting is taken into account?

    These are legitimate questions, especially since there are signs that the tactical anti-Tory vote is holding up for the Liberal Democrats, especially where there is a Lib Dem incumbent.

    It's a giant unknown. The next election is looking incredibly messy as tactical voting unwinds in some areas and begins in others.

    Do we even have any idea as to how much Con-to-UKIP switchers are willing to tactically vote against Labour in Con-Lab marginals? That will clearly have the biggest impact.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Roger, thanks for maintaining the tradition(ish) of pb having an on-the-spot chap for the Monaco Grand Prix (I believe Mr. Burdett fulfilled the role last year, or possibly the year before).

    Forecasts suggest very light rain is possible for qualifying (2pm your time). Would you agree proper rain is unlikely in the next few hours?
  • My current view is that the LDs will be down to 27 - 31 seats but next June's elections will give us a better clue. Remember that the LDs are also going to suffer retirements. They will lose marginals in Scotland and elsewhere against Labour.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    No-one has posted the cathartic cartoon from Matt. Shame I can't embed it....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 122,449
    Quinnipiac Iowa 2016
    Hillary Clinton (D) 46%
    Rand Paul (R) 42%

    Rand Paul (R) 44%
    Joe Biden (D) 39%

    Hillary Clinton (D) 48%
    Marco Rubio (R) 37%

    Marco Rubio (R) 40%
    Joe Biden (D) 39%
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    Good provocative article, TSE. You could reasonably factor in some LibDem polling recovery, since the differentiation strategy is likely to foo...er... persuade some voters back, perhaps more so than Tories with UKIP: it'll be harder to deploy the "stop Labour" argument if the main rival is a LibDem. Net gains looks a stretch, but 10-1 on 51+ looks a value bet.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    Well, I suppose the LDs did increase their seats quite a bit in 1997 despite their vote going down nationally, and lost seats in 2010 despite it marginally increasing, so it may well be possible. It requires a lot of things to go the way they need them to, however, so seems unlikely. I think in the 30s is about the best they will achieve. As others have said, it depends on how sustained the UKIP surge, and how that plays out in marginals at GE time.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    McNish reckons Ferrari may not have the pace for pole but could be good in the race. Anderson less sure and thinks the Mercedes is looking good.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    With lower degradation and being very difficult to pass Monaco should suit Mercedes nicely, but even if they get a 1-2 in qualifying it's possible varying strategies (probably 1/2 stops) could see someone (Lotus or Ferrari most likely) move up the grid.

    Also worth remembering a safety car is highly probable.
  • GrandioseGrandiose Posts: 2,323
    The LDs will do better in seats they currently control. If there are places where they do not hold the MP but have local control then gains may be possible. However, there will be - on current polling - at least some losses (not many, I think, personally, but some). I therefore find it difficult to conclude that the LDs will make net gains.
  • OblitusSumMeOblitusSumMe Posts: 9,143
    It's hard for me to see the Lib Dems holding many of their Scottish or ex-Labour seats. They would have to win quite a few seats from the Tories to make up for those losses, and it is plausible that they will win some, but enough to make net gains?

    One also expects that the Lib Dems will be concentrating on defending the seats that they hold at the next election, which makes gains less likely. I can see why they would be more likely to win a seat where they are close behind the Tories compared to a seat they already hold where Labour is second, but from a psychological and organisational point of view they will find it hard to abandon seats they already hold in favour of ones they do not.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Grosjean appears to have damaged his suspension, which follows a crash on Thursday. Wonder what the odds are on him finishing the race.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip
    UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk http://fb.me/UyZh9GVP
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    MD.

    "Would you agree proper rain is unlikely in the next few hours? "

    Very unlikely. I would doubt even light rain.

    Something always puzzles me in Monaco. Why are Ferrari by FAR the most popular team. Almost every store just sells Ferrari gear and nearly everyone is dressing in Ferrari colours. It's like Man U were playing twenty Accrington Stanley's
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Mr. Roger, thanks for that helpful answer.

    It's just a guess, but Ferrari are the most popular team generally, and the longest running in F1 which may play well at the longest running venue.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115
    Just had five mins over my scrambled eggs so I went over to Tap's blog. First time in years. Looooooooooooooooooooool.

    He is a star. Among this week's classic snippets: the tornado in Oklahoma was caused by a weather weapon. The US government controls weather systems to ensure snow stays on ths ski-slopes so that insurance companies don't have to pay out. The photos of the victims, perpetrators and crowds in Woolwich have been photoshopped. Endlessly fun stuff. He is a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire. Well done to whoever pointed to his blog a few days back (Plato?), it's put a smile on my face.

    Also, I've been reading Nick Robinson's book Live From Downing Street; I haven't got to the modern stuff yet. Good so far. I noticed when reading that the UK had GE's in both 1950 and 1951 and I either didn't know this or had forgotten. I went online to discover why and saw it was because Atlee had such a small majority and exhausted govt after his second GE victory that he was more or less forced into calling a new GE. Anyway, it got me reading Atlee's wiki page. There are some curious parallels with Atlee's 1945-51 govt and this current one: economic austerity, low unemployment (in spite of the hardships) and a govt that crumbles in exhaustion and unpopularity in 1951.. I expect this government will end up in the same crumpled heap,

    Atlee obviously governed during very, very hard times, and faced-down vested interests in a bid to change the UK through nationalisation (see Bevan's efforts to create the NHS etc). But he is highly regarded by historians as a gerat PM? I wonder if Cameron,Osborne and Clegg's efforts to stablise the economy, create jobs and keep the UK on an even keel be favoured by history.

    It'd be interesting to know how Atlee's govt was viewed mid-term? when wrestling with the seemingly insurmountable titan of austerity.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    edited May 2013
    Massa's had a big accident. McNish suggests, due to speed, something may've gone wrong with the car. 'Substantial accident' Allen says, but Massa seems to be ok, thankfully.

    Red flag is out.

    Edited extra bit: all four corners damaged, rear wing hanging off, front wing disappeared.

    Anderson speculates the throttle may've been locked open.
  • john_zimsjohn_zims Posts: 3,399
    @MikeK

    'An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip '

    Good example of vote UKIP get Labour?
  • RogerRoger Posts: 19,854
    @Tim

    "Could this be a day's sports reporting to rival "SeanT at the dressage"?"

    At least Sean could see the dressage! They have managed to block off every view to the track unless you are prepared to give the Rainiers 100E's which to a republican is out of the question (particularly as it's only to a practice) and as I said before f...ing noisy!!





  • JohnOJohnO Posts: 4,287
    @Fenster - I believe the Attlee government never lost a by-election, but at the 1950 election its landslide majority of 1945 was cut back to a mere 5.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Now Sutil's crashed. Hard to say whether he and/or Massa will be able to participate in qualifying.
  • FinancierFinancier Posts: 3,916
    TSE - thank you for provoking thoughts.

    LDs currently hold 57 seats and the first point to consider is how many will they lose before speculating on potential gains.

    These 57 seats are split:
    Scotland 11
    Wales 3,
    North East: 2
    North West: 6
    Yorks & Humber: 3
    West Midlands: 2
    East Midlands: 0
    East: 4
    London: 7
    South-East: 4
    Sout-West: 15

    17 of these seats are on Labour's Target List (UKPR) with majorities <8k and 15 are <7k.
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    edited May 2013
    Fenster, I think Attlee is well-regarded primarily because he created the NHS, which for all the grumbles remains one of our most popular institutions over 60 years later - there really aren't many political acts that have that longevity. Also, his austere manner wears well in retrospect. "Do you have one final last-minute message to add for the British people on polling eve, Mr Attlee?" asked an excited journalist. His answer: "No." Isn't that refreshing?

    My understanding is that he was under continuous cross-fire from the left, who wanted a seriously Marxist government, and the right, who argued that really we should be putting wartime, rationing, etc. behind us faster. A bad winter put pressure on supplies, and the killer line from the opposition was "Britain in built on coal and surrounded by fish and you're achieving a shortage of both." By 1950 many people were fed up, and Churchill's "Set the people free" resonated. Attlee did get an extremely high poll but the Tories matched it, though IIRC Labour still had most votes in 1951 and was undone by FPTP (I'm sure we grumbled about unfair boundaries). Others with less dilletantish memories/knowledge will no doubt correct me.

    Left-wingers have forgotten the arguments and remember his government as one that had a systematic leftish agenda, unlike all later pragmatic Labour governments - the obvious parallel is Thatcher. Right-wingers tend to think of him fairly benevolently as he was a nice safe long time ago.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeK said:

    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.

    Given that there will presumably be a criminal case arising from the incident, I'm glad that there is an attempt to limit the risk a future jury member could be influenced by ill-informed comment or speculation
  • johncjohnc Posts: 1

    A bad winter put pressure on supplies, and the killer line from the opposition was "Britain in built on coal and surrounded by fish and you're achieving a shortage of both."

    Erm, that was Nye, during the 1945 election campaign.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Grosjean off again. One shudders to think of his car insurance premiums.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Mark Williams-Thomas ‏@mwilliamsthomas 30m
    I have reported the Amanda Platell article of her searching for & finding child abuse material to @HantsPolice & @CEOPUK

    Not the brightest piece the Daily Mail have ever published.

    What will that achieve apart from distracting the police and making people less likely to discuss this terrible subject?
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    john_zims said:

    @MikeK

    'An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip '

    Good example of vote UKIP get Labour?

    Well it is a coalition and gives those UKIP councillors a chance at local government a wee bit of power.

  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    edited May 2013
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.

    Given that there will presumably be a criminal case arising from the incident, I'm glad that there is an attempt to limit the risk a future jury member could be influenced by ill-informed comment or speculation
    Oh! So you're saying that the government will prosecute any and all inflammatory statements thats published? Gerraway!
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Betting Post

    Backed Rosberg for pole at 1.95, no hedge.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    MikeK said:

    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.

    Given that there will presumably be a criminal case arising from the incident, I'm glad that there is an attempt to limit the risk a future jury member could be influenced by ill-informed comment or speculation
    Oh! So you're saying that the government will prosecute any and all inflammatory statement thats published? Gerraway!
    No, but I'm saying that in an appeal the defence could argue a fair trial was not possible because of commentary on the mainstream press sites prejudicing the jurors
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    I've not read the full article, but the quote you extract is flawed.

    It is possible to oppose multiculturalism without being 'anti-Muslim'.

    Personally I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. But that that you come to live here should be prepared to integrate into our society.
  • MikeKMikeK Posts: 9,053
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.

    Given that there will presumably be a criminal case arising from the incident, I'm glad that there is an attempt to limit the risk a future jury member could be influenced by ill-informed comment or speculation
    Oh! So you're saying that the government will prosecute any and all inflammatory statement thats published? Gerraway!
    No, but I'm saying that in an appeal the defence could argue a fair trial was not possible because of commentary on the mainstream press sites prejudicing the jurors
    And I would say that thats a load of codswallup and the real reason is to drown out the noise of protest and debate.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311
    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013
    MikeK said:

    An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip
    UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk http://fb.me/UyZh9GVP

    That you don't appear to know very much about the kippers if you think this is that surprising.

    At a local level they have always said they would be willing to do deals but at the national level it would be suicide and Farage knows he would lose a whole chunk of his members and his protest vote appeal as "we're not liblabcon" should he ever contemplate a pact or deal withe any of the other parties. Particularly the tories.

    Though if they keep these kind of deals up it's going to make it very easy for local tory MPs to hammer them as labour stooges in those areas. Same goes for any other deals with any other parties.



  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,212
    I think it's unlikely. A big vote for UKIP in the County elections did not produce gains for the Lib Dems.
  • FensterFenster Posts: 2,115

    Fenster, I think Attlee is well-regarded primarily because he created the NHS, which for all the grumbles remains one of our most popular institutions over 60 years later - there really aren't many political acts that have that longevity. Also, his austere manner wears well in retrospect. "Do you have one final last-minute message to add for the British people on polling eve, Mr Attlee?" asked an excited journalist. His answer: "No." Isn't that refreshing?

    My understanding is that he was under continuous cross-fire from the left, who wanted a seriously Marxist government, and the right, who argued that really we should be putting wartime, rationing, etc. behind us faster. A bad winter put pressure on supplies, and the killer line from the opposition was "Britain in built on coal and surrounded by fish and you're achieving a shortage of both." By 1950 many people were fed up, and Churchill's "Set the people free" resonated. Attlee did get an extremely high poll but the Tories matched it, though IIRC Labour still had most votes in 1951 and was undone by FPTP (I'm sure we grumbled about unfair boundaries). Others with less dilletantish memories/knowledge will no doubt correct me.

    Left-wingers have forgotten the arguments and remember his government as one that had a systematic leftish agenda, unlike all later pragmatic Labour governments - the obvious parallel is Thatcher. Right-wingers tend to think of him fairly benevolently as he was a nice safe long time ago.

    Thanks Nick. I defer to your very superior knowledge. I didn't even realise till this morning that Atlee had won a second election. And yes, Atlee's aversion to PR is very refreshing when compared to nowadays. It's fascinating to read that both he and Churchill were so disturbed by the vulgarity of TV! Even the bland, insipid TV of those days.

    Obviously, Atlee's government was completely different to this one in terms of the politics, but it's interesting that they both faced/face governing under similar restrictions: lack of money, foreign menaces and extraordinary inter-party difficulties. Little wonder Atlee is so well regarded having steered the UK through all that, and of course, the NHS stands as his grandest and most enduring creation.

    Cameron will not be able to hold up a legacy as enduring as the NHS, but if he is to be judged well by history (he may well be regarded poorly, who really knows?), will it be because of acknowledgement of the difficulties faced and gracious regard for the relative calmness with which he has steered himself, and us, through it?

    I give Cameron credit for at least allowing his ministers to think for themselves - he appears less concerned and intense about cosying up to the media (to his cost, often). Some policies have flopped and faced ridicule, but I believe he has been a lot more willing to allow radical thinking to develop than Gordon Brown was. Brown was always too electorally calculating, when in his heart he probably wanted to be a radical.

    I also think Clegg will be remembered as someone who changed British politics, possibly forever. If the economy straightens out, he may even go down as a tragic hero, albeit one who possibly wrecks his parties electorability in the process.

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    I've not read the full article, but the quote you extract is flawed.

    It is possible to oppose multiculturalism without being 'anti-Muslim'.

    Personally I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. But that that you come to live here should be prepared to integrate into our society.
    MODERATED
    Ok. I've read the quote that you extracted. How does it not conflate two things: opposition to multiculturalism and attacks on Muslims in general? Or perhaps you think they are the same thing?

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Charles said:

    MikeK said:

    Good morning. Browsing through the newspapers on line this morning, I notice that stories about Woolwich have had the comments section by readers suspended or withheld, in most of them. The Telegraph being a major withholder.

    Given that there will presumably be a criminal case arising from the incident, I'm glad that there is an attempt to limit the risk a future jury member could be influenced by ill-informed comment or speculation
    Oh! So you're saying that the government will prosecute any and all inflammatory statement thats published? Gerraway!
    No, but I'm saying that in an appeal the defence could argue a fair trial was not possible because of commentary on the mainstream press sites prejudicing the jurors
    Yeah, that's not a theory it's happened. Far more than once and usually due to the same idiots. They show no sign of learning their lesson either.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Yep understood Tim. I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I think all these religions are pretty daft but that is no excuse for trying to tar the vast majority of decent muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

    The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.

    The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
  • CharlesCharles Posts: 35,758
    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Charles said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    I've not read the full article, but the quote you extract is flawed.

    It is possible to oppose multiculturalism without being 'anti-Muslim'.

    Personally I believe that controlled immigration is a good thing. But that that you come to live here should be prepared to integrate into our society.
    Read then comment, always the better way.

    Ok. I've read the quote that you extracted. How does it not conflate two things: opposition to multiculturalism and attacks on Muslims in general? Or perhaps you think they are the same thing?

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are as cancerous as the far left and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.
    I haven't extracted any quotes, I've no idea what you're on about.

    I did you the credit of assuming you were too smart to conflate two different things - i.e. that you had extracted the comment.

    I'd be happy to criticise you directly for conflating anti-Muslim/Islamic views and multiculturalism if you would prefer
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 37,212
    Mick_Pork said:

    MikeK said:

    An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip
    UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk http://fb.me/UyZh9GVP

    That you don't appear to know very much about the kippers if you think this is that surprising.

    At a local level they have always said they would be willing to do deals but at the national level it would be suicide and Farage knows he would lose a whole chunk of his members and his protest vote appeal as "we're not liblabcon" should he ever contemplate a pact or deal withe any of the other parties. Particularly the tories.

    Though if they keep these kind of deals up it's going to make it very easy for local tory MPs to hammer them as labour stooges in those areas. Same goes for any other deals with any other parties.



    In my experience, where one party is by far the largest on a council ,it's best to let them form a minority administration, and for the opposing parties to take the various committee chairmanships. A Lab/Lib Dem/UKIP administration will be incoherent.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Agreed. FWIW I said something similar on my blog: http://www.nickpalmer.org.uk/
  • volcanopetevolcanopete Posts: 2,078
    On topic.The piece of the equation TSE has missed is the likely loss of LD seats to Labour-at least a dozen or so- but apart these I expect them to hold LD-Con marginals,where the LD machine on the ground remains effective.The opinion held by some,last year, that the LDs would end up with 10 or so is way off beam.
    I took 6/1 about the 41-50 block,now 4/1 as a result a few months back with a stake-covering bet on 31-40.

  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    tim said:

    Maajid Nawaz is brilliant.

    Nawaz 5 Choudary 0

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2BrueU4xd2w&feature=youtu.be

    Those who seek to portray Anjem Choudary as speaking for a "mass of British people" are a disgrace.

    Fantastic stuff!
  • Mick_PorkMick_Pork Posts: 6,530
    edited May 2013
    Sean_F said:

    Mick_Pork said:

    MikeK said:

    An interesting development in Norfolk. I wonder what M_Pork and co will say about this?
    @bloggers4ukip
    UKIP brings undemocratic Tory cabinet to an end in Norfolk http://fb.me/UyZh9GVP

    That you don't appear to know very much about the kippers if you think this is that surprising.

    At a local level they have always said they would be willing to do deals but at the national level it would be suicide and Farage knows he would lose a whole chunk of his members and his protest vote appeal as "we're not liblabcon" should he ever contemplate a pact or deal withe any of the other parties. Particularly the tories.

    Though if they keep these kind of deals up it's going to make it very easy for local tory MPs to hammer them as labour stooges in those areas. Same goes for any other deals with any other parties.



    In my experience, where one party is by far the largest on a council ,it's best to let them form a minority administration, and for the opposing parties to take the various committee chairmanships. A Lab/Lib Dem/UKIP administration will be incoherent.

    There's an argument for such deals overturning and shaking up stubbornly ensconced and perhaps complacent heartland areas which may have considered power to be theirs almost as a right, but on the whole I'd agree with you. Moving straight from a fractured and disparate opposition to power is far trickier than a gradual takeover or deal where one party is not monolithic and far bigger than the others. Lots of very big pitfalls for those unused to such politicking and wielding even limited power.

  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Brevik was a classic case of people wanting to believe something irrespective of the facts.

    As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.

    Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    edited May 2013
    The Major Projects Authority (MPA) has given 32 projects a red or amber/red rating, meaning they are deemed unachievable or in doubt.

    Pathetic. Why is government, any government, so fecking useless at delivering large scale projects on time or on budget? They barely seem to even get close most of the time. How can we not just bloody build or organise something effectively for once? Can you imagine a government trying to construct a major cathedral all on its own thesedays? It'd take 800 years (update - alright, let's say 1500) and be a 100 times over budget, the wrong shape and have to share space with the women's netball finals and the snail enthusiasts of west devonshire regional drag racing by the end of it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22664672
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311
    kle4 said:

    The Major Projects Authority (MPA) has given 32 projects a red or amber/red rating, meaning they are deemed unachievable or in doubt.

    Pathetic. Why is government, any government, so fecking useless at delivering large sale projects on time or on budget? They barely seem to even get close most of the time. How can we not just bloody built or organise something effectively for once? Can you imagine a government trying to construct a major cathedral allon its own thesedays? It's take 800 years and be a 100 times over budget, the wrong shape and have to share space with the women's netball finals and the snail enthusiasts of west devonshire regional drag racing by the end of it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22664672

    To be fair some of the cathedrals did take 800 years :-)
  • NickPalmerNickPalmer Posts: 21,509
    Fenster said:



    Left-wingers have forgotten the arguments and remember his government as one that had a systematic leftish agenda, unlike all later pragmatic Labour governments - the obvious parallel is Thatcher. Right-wingers tend to think of him fairly benevolently as he was a nice safe long time ago.

    Thanks Nick. I defer to your very superior knowledge. I didn't even realise till this morning that Atlee had won a second election. And yes, Atlee's aversion to PR is very refreshing when compared to nowadays. It's fascinating to read that both he and Churchill were so disturbed by the vulgarity of TV! Even the bland, insipid TV of those days.

    Obviously, Atlee's government was completely different to this one in terms of the politics, but it's interesting that they both faced/face governing under similar restrictions: lack of money, foreign menaces and extraordinary inter-party difficulties. Little wonder Atlee is so well regarded having steered the UK through all that, and of course, the NHS stands as his grandest and most enduring creation.

    Cameron will not be able to hold up a legacy as enduring as the NHS, but if he is to be judged well by history (he may well be regarded poorly, who really knows?), will it be because of acknowledgement of the difficulties faced and gracious regard for the relative calmness with which he has steered himself, and us, through it?

    I give Cameron credit for at least allowing his ministers to think for themselves - he appears less concerned and intense about cosying up to the media (to his cost, often). Some policies have flopped and faced ridicule, but I believe he has been a lot more willing to allow radical thinking to develop than Gordon Brown was. Brown was always too electorally calculating, when in his heart he probably wanted to be a radical.

    I also think Clegg will be remembered as someone who changed British politics, possibly forever. If the economy straightens out, he may even go down as a tragic hero, albeit one who possibly wrecks his parties electorability in the process.

    Pretty fair comments IMO, and I think the LibDems will survive after a period of regrouping. Anecdotally, my mum (a recently-arrived very apolitical Russian immigrant who seems to have learned English in a flash and was soon at home in social circles) met the Webbs (founders of the Fabian Society) and Harold Laski (Attlee's severest left-wing critic and head of the NEC) at a party. She thought the Webbs tedious but Laski absolutely charming and courteously indulgent to her lack of interest in politics (she didn't know he was a noted left-winger until I told her, 30 years later). I envisage him as a Tony Benn figure, combining good manners with far-left views, while the Webbs were more contemptuous of bourgeois niceties.

    It does seem a shame that the politics of a fascinating party like that was lost on her. I get the impression that middle/upper class society was more intermingled politically than it is now. She was being introduced to society by fairly Tory people - presented at court and so on. You probably wouldn't meet Tony Benn and George Galloway at a social event organised by George Osborne now.

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    Wee-Timmy is a paid Labour-shill: He speaks, from a place of comfort, about which he no longer exists within. His attitude to modern England is as dated as cash-for-honours.

    England has never been a multi-culti shyte-hole but for the last twenty years: England has always had a monolithic society; one which evolved as other 'cultures' came and settled. As Eddie Izzard notes, we are a mongrol nation: New Labour have sought to destroy this model (and, in accordance with the Leninist-Marxism doctrine, to undermine English society).

    England rejects multi-culti practices: Either the Mohammedians adapt or they wither. Labour represent all that will damage England; eventually multi-ethnic England will judge Labour accordingly....
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    edited May 2013

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Brevik was a classic case of people wanting to believe something irrespective of the facts.

    As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.

    Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.

    Well, indeed. People with agendas will spin events to fit such agendas. See Breivik, see Woolwich and so on. When this is pointed out some of those with the agenda then paint themselves as victims of political correctness or of western aggression or whatever. It's quite pathetic really.


  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    edited May 2013

    kle4 said:

    The Major Projects Authority (MPA) has given 32 projects a red or amber/red rating, meaning they are deemed unachievable or in doubt.

    Pathetic. Why is government, any government, so fecking useless at delivering large sale projects on time or on budget? They barely seem to even get close most of the time. How can we not just bloody built or organise something effectively for once? Can you imagine a government trying to construct a major cathedral allon its own thesedays? It's take 800 years and be a 100 times over budget, the wrong shape and have to share space with the women's netball finals and the snail enthusiasts of west devonshire regional drag racing by the end of it.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-22664672

    To be fair some of the cathedrals did take 800 years :-)
    I had a feeling that was the case :( Waste and incompetence are certainly not restricted to the present day, although why they even bother making predictions thesedays when they must know they will never ever get these things done on time or on budget, I don't know.

    Of course, one reason they do is they announce a cost and timescale, then reveal it will be 10x worse, then later say it will be half as bad as the last prediction, therefore it was a success! Dispiriting nonsense.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Brevik was a classic case of people wanting to believe something irrespective of the facts.

    As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.

    Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.

    Well, indeed. People with agendas will spin events to fit such agendas. See Breivik, see Woolwich and so on. When this is pointed out some of those with the agenda then paint themselves as victims of political correctness or of western aggression or whatever. It's quite pathetic really.


    You seem to be using "spinning events to fit agendas" to mean any views you dislike. People like yourself responding to the Connecticut shooting to complain about the US gun culture and policy loopholes. How is that not fitting an agenda? Do you think this guy is fitting an agenda, because the views in this article are identical to mine:

    http://hurryupharry.org/2013/05/23/confronting-the-causes-of-religion-motivated-terrorism/
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    tim said:

    Releasing that report just before close of play on the Friday of a Bank Holiday weekend suggests they are nervous.

    Particularly about the benefit cap and Universal Credit I'd guess

    The MPA was set-up in 2010. The Coalition is facing it's own failures and those they inherited.

    I'd be interested how Gormless McBruin would have behaved. His "love" of Her Majesty's Armed Forces resulted in such successes... not!

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/getting-out-of-fsta/
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940

    tim said:

    Releasing that report just before close of play on the Friday of a Bank Holiday weekend suggests they are nervous.

    Particularly about the benefit cap and Universal Credit I'd guess

    The MPA was set-up in 2010. The Coalition is facing it's own failures and those they inherited.
    That is indeed the key - the problem for the Coalition is they increasingly cannot rely on blaming the last government or pointing to the failures of the last government, because either they have been incapable of solving most of them after 3 years, or their own projects have just been unmitigated shite a lot of the time.

    They can count themselves lucky many people still blame Labour for the cuts, such as they are, but at the end of this government, whenever thay may end up being, if they don't at least look like they managed to get a grip on Labour's mistakes, let alone deliver any of their own projects effectively, they will not only lose to Labour (as I've suspected all along, given the difficulty of implementing cuts ina difficult economy, collapse of LDs to an extent and infighting Tories), but be absolutely spanked.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 39,630
    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Brevik was a classic case of people wanting to believe something irrespective of the facts.

    As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.

    Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.

    Well, indeed. People with agendas will spin events to fit such agendas. See Breivik, see Woolwich and so on. When this is pointed out some of those with the agenda then paint themselves as victims of political correctness or of western aggression or whatever. It's quite pathetic really.


    You seem to be using "spinning events to fit agendas" to mean any views you dislike. People like yourself responding to the Connecticut shooting to complain about the US gun culture and policy loopholes. How is that not fitting an agenda? Do you think this guy is fitting an agenda, because the views in this article are identical to mine:

    http://hurryupharry.org/2013/05/23/confronting-the-causes-of-religion-motivated-terrorism/

    Nope - I have sympathy with certain views about the failures of multiculturalism. I just wouldn't use the Woolwich attack in making my arguments. With regards to the Connecticut shooting, the argument was about the availability of the weapons, not the motivations or background of the murderer.




  • isamisam Posts: 41,118
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Yep understood Tim. I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I think all these religions are pretty daft but that is no excuse for trying to tar the vast majority of decent muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

    The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.

    The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
    "The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick"

    Completely agree. The only people here that have ever made derogatory comments about people based on skin colour that I can recall on here are tim and Lewis Duckworth.

    On the subject of Iraq and Afghanistan being leftie wars, I meant that they were the equivalent of the Nanny State on a world scale, interfering with things we dont understand and imposing western ways on countries that dont want it, and as a nation, were not a threat to us because "we know best".

    But I admit I overstated the case and got a bit silly due to a lack of respect for the person I was arguing with, and being argumentative/scoring points got the better of me.


  • edmundintokyoedmundintokyo Posts: 17,708
    Socrates said:

    Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war.

    It would have been a clearer case of a just war if the US had given the Afghan government evidence that the people they were sheltering had launched the attack, rather than just expecting them to take their word for it.

    And even then it doesn't sound like a clear case of a just war at all. For example, the UK is currently sheltering someone accused of involvement with terrorism in Jordan. Aside from whether or not we think they should be doing that, and even if he'd been involved in very large-scale attacks, it's not obvious to me that the Jordanians would be justified in invading the UK over it.
  • foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Yep understood Tim. I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I think all these religions are pretty daft but that is no excuse for trying to tar the vast majority of decent muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

    The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.

    The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
    I think that you misunderstand the differences between the Koran and the Bible. Muslims believe that the Koran was recited directly by Allah, and therefore is immutable. This is an article of faith. There is of course some room for interpretation.

    Few Christians are biblical literalists. The Catholics, Orthodox and Anglican traditions are of the body of the Church laying down doctine, so can evolve over time.

    There is also a difference in that the earlier parts of the Koran (the Meccan Suras) which are more peaceful and tolerant) are abrogated by the later Suras which support the killing of unbelievers etc. The converse is true of the bible, where the peaceful and nonviolent New testament over rides the violence of the early old testament.

    People will always find excuses to act how their predjudices lead them, but there are fundamental differences between the Bible and the Koran on the uses of violence in the cause of religion.

  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    edited May 2013
    kle4 said:

    That is indeed the key - the problem for the Coalition is they increasingly cannot rely on blaming the last government or pointing to the failures of the last government, because either they have been incapable of solving most of them after 3 years, or their own projects have just been unmitigated shite a lot of the time.

    They can count themselves lucky many people still blame Labour for the cuts, such as they are, but at the end of this government, whenever thay may end up being, if they don't at least look like they managed to get a grip on Labour's mistakes, let alone deliver any of their own projects effectively, they will not only lose to Labour (as I've suspected all along, given the difficulty of implementing cuts ina difficult economy, collapse of LDs to an extent and infighting Tories), but be absolutely spanked.

    MODERATED

    PFI/QEC/FSTA all have the hall-marks of Labour: Lawyered scam-contracts that cost more to exit than service. [You obviously did not follow the provided link.] You should go and sit, conical-hat attired, in the corner....

    :tumbleweed:

    Edited to add: Watchkeeper - a total disaster (and I think Woolas may have been involved) - is on the list. Sven and his ilk are truely twunts!

    http://www.thinkdefence.co.uk/2013/05/from-the-people-who-gave-us-the-38-billion-black-hole/
  • Richard_TyndallRichard_Tyndall Posts: 32,311

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Yep understood Tim. I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I think all these religions are pretty daft but that is no excuse for trying to tar the vast majority of decent muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

    The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.

    The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
    I think that you misunderstand the differences between the Koran and the Bible. Muslims believe that the Koran was recited directly by Allah, and therefore is immutable. This is an article of faith. There is of course some room for interpretation.

    Few Christians are biblical literalists. The Catholics, Orthodox and Anglican traditions are of the body of the Church laying down doctine, so can evolve over time.

    There is also a difference in that the earlier parts of the Koran (the Meccan Suras) which are more peaceful and tolerant) are abrogated by the later Suras which support the killing of unbelievers etc. The converse is true of the bible, where the peaceful and nonviolent New testament over rides the violence of the early old testament.

    People will always find excuses to act how their predjudices lead them, but there are fundamental differences between the Bible and the Koran on the uses of violence in the cause of religion.

    I am afraid that history is not on your side. Christians down the ages have used the Bible to persecute people they disagreed with, whether of other religions or their own. They continue to do so today. Conflating the Koran, Islamic extremism and the general Muslim population is no different to equating the Bible, The Westboro Baptist Church and the general Christian population. In both cases the comparisons are ludicrous.

    I think you will find it was a Papal legate who uttered those immortal lines "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" at Beziers.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    edited May 2013

    kle4 said:

    That is indeed the key - the problem for the Coalition is they increasingly cannot rely on blaming the last government or pointing to the failures of the last government, because either they have been incapable of solving most of them after 3 years, or their own projects have just been unmitigated shite a lot of the time.

    They can count themselves lucky many people still blame Labour for the cuts, such as they are, but at the end of this government, whenever thay may end up being, if they don't at least look like they managed to get a grip on Labour's mistakes, let alone deliver any of their own projects effectively, they will not only lose to Labour (as I've suspected all along, given the difficulty of implementing cuts ina difficult economy, collapse of LDs to an extent and infighting Tories), but be absolutely spanked.

    Your snip shows an ignorance or unwillingness to engage in sensible conversation.

    PFI/QEC/FSTA all have the hall-marks of Labour: Lawyered scam-contracts that cost more to exit than service. [You obviously did not follow the provided link.] You should go and sit, conical-hat attired, in the corner....

    :tumbleweed:
    Note: The problem appears to be that you wanted to have a conversation about one thing, whereas I was just wanting to vent about a non-political issue, which was made clear by my pointing out that, Labour at fault for many or not (and clearly they are), the Coalition can and will still be found wanting for not fixing government waste (as indeed, all governments do). You wanted to rant about one party, I happen to think this is a non-party issue, even if there could be arguments that one is worse than another, which I don't regard as a hallmark of sensible conversation.

    I'm just depressed that government (non political government there, so stop being offended about it) is so wasteful.

    If it will set your mind at ease I will say that I voted LD in 2010, although I hoped for LD-Con Coalition as I thought Cameron the best leader. I don't want Labour to get back in in 2015 as I don't think they are ready for it, they will be arrogant and don't appear to be keen to address major problems, just oppose things.

    Take a look at your sanctimonious, partisan post and then ask if I'm the one being unreasonable - I am frustrated that government, small g, is wasteful, whereas you want to attack Labour.

    And no, I didn't follow the link on this occasion, partly because I was merely commenting on a non-political issue of government, pointing out that the Coalition cannot blame Labour forever even where Labour cocked up majorly, whereas yours was patently a political attack which I felt no need to respond to directly as I am not attempting to defend Labour or suggest the other parties are worse than they are. I was making the point that, even if everything about it is Labour's fault, the coalition will ultimately be judged on whether they can sort our messes not of their making as well.

    Calm down, you see political attacks everywhere.

    I can rarely recall being so infuriated by a post, so blatantly misinterpreting the tone and intent of my post. Granted, meaning can be unclear sometimes, and my frustration with government incompetence has made me more vivid in my anger toward it than is usually the case, but that I did not feel the need to address directly a point which was regarding a point which I had not in fact been making, is not unreasonable I think, and I do not think I was that unclear in the first place.
  • PBModeratorPBModerator Posts: 663
    COMMENTS THAT ARE DELIBERATELY DESIGNED TO BE INFLAMMATORY OR INSULTING WILL BE REMOVED> PLEASE DISCUSS WHAT EVER YOU WANT TO CALMLY AND POLITELY.
  • Life_ina_market_townLife_ina_market_town Posts: 2,319
    edited May 2013


    I am afraid that history is not on your side. Christians down the ages have used the Bible to persecute people they disagreed with, whether of other religions or their own. They continue to do so today. Conflating the Koran, Islamic extremism and the general Muslim population is no different to equating the Bible, The Westboro Baptist Church and the general Christian population. In both cases the comparisons are ludicrous.

    I think you will find it was a Papal legate who uttered those immortal lines "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" at Beziers.

    Quite right. The irony is that for all the rhetoric linking a tiny extremist minority to Muslims in general in Britain, it remains the official position of the church of Rome that the Pope is infallible, possesses a plenitude of power in spiritual and temporal affairs, may depose emperors, may license princes' subjects to murder them, may absolve any sin, commute any temporal punishment and alter any doctrine of faith at will. Of course, most British Romanists would abhor most of these positions, but they remain the bedrock of the Roman dictatorship.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    edited May 2013
    Lack of insulting is much appreciated, it riles up the blood, although a scale of inflammatorialness (ok, that's not a word, I admit) is hard to judge. Some people have hair triggers on some topics of course.

    Bad start to the Cricket - looking nicely set, and then boom, both our most solid players out in two balls. Crazy.

    Not much political news happening this week it feels like. Just seen this story on the BBC. I was disappointed it was as amusing as the double yellows in a pedestrian alley from a few weeks back.

    A councillor has criticised the council for erecting a kissing gate in the middle of a field in Wiltshire.

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-wiltshire-22655640

    When are parliament back? I think some are missing manufactured conflict to feed off.

  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    edited May 2013
    F1: sudden shower means everyone's out on intermediate tyres.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 61,725
    Right now both Ferraris, a Lotus and Rosberg are in the drop zone.

    I'll be somewhat irked if Rosberg fails to make it through.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    And no, I didn't follow the link on this occasion, partly because I was merely commenting on a non-political issue of government....

    Please explain....


    Governments are wasteful. Some are worse than others, but it's a matter of degree, and so the fact of it inevitably happening is more frustrating and angering to me than determining which coloured rosette is worse at it. That's important too, but as I believe parties will switch back and forth over which is worse depending on their leaderships, it doesn't really matter which party currently is better or worse, and so engaging in a debate on that point was not something I felt I was best placed to do. I figured a Labour supporter would be better placed to dispute or apologise for such errors under their party's watch than I.

    My sympathies. I assume you are still in-the-dark as to why I call you a 'poor "Yellow-Submarine"'. Please ask any regular....I did. No response, but something tells me that hardly matters. I mainly LD because I sit on the fence, but then the options are limited in the Tory shires anyway. Recent locals only the Tories and an independent even stood in my area, so I am free to know my views and votes will never make a difference, and so can look at partisan squabbling from the outside - why get angry at Labour/Tories/LD, when they will still rule in this area whatever the government?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    Ugh, Monaco GP. The only interesting one I've seen was when Oliver Panis won it. Barely worth watching.

    Oh well, there's still one more day of IPL to go at least.

    And I must be off. 10-1 on the LDs for 51-60 may be worth it on an outside chance, but I don't think the bookies are that far off on the possibility of it happening. Surprised they put 21-30 at the same chance as 41-50 though.
  • FluffyThoughtsFluffyThoughts Posts: 2,420
    kle4 said:

    ...a 'poor "Yellow-Submarine"'. Please ask any regular....

    I did. No response, but something tells me that hardly matters.

    My original post has been deleted by PtP the Moderator. This conversation should stop.

    "YS" was a thoroughly decent Lib-Dem poster. His [Hers?] posts were thought-provoking, insightful and well-received. Yellow-Submarine is a muched-missed poster.

    :make-of-that-as-you-will:

  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    edited May 2013

    kle4 said:

    ...a 'poor "Yellow-Submarine"'. Please ask any regular....

    I did. No response, but something tells me that hardly matters.

    My original post has been deleted by PtP the Moderator. This conversation should stop.

    "YS" was a thoroughly decent Lib-Dem poster. His [Hers?] posts were thought-provoking, insightful and well-received. Yellow-Submarine is a muched-missed poster.

    :make-of-that-as-you-will:

    Back quickly (home-made shephards pie taking longer than hoped!). Aww. Now I feel bad for thinking such negative thoughts.

    I'd put a *sincere face* indicator to indicate the above is indeed a sincere, if cheesy, statement, but I think Sally Bercow has demonstrated that stage directions like that would most likely be taken as being ironic (as indeed hers was judged to be).
  • TapperTapper Posts: 14
    UKIP are strongest in the North. There are also many non-voters who rejoin politics to back UKIP, as well as the party switchers. If Conservative MPs are seriously threatened (some stats show that UKIP potentially lost Conservatives nearer 40 seats at the 3.5% support level at the last GE), then they could well ask to be badged joint ticket. The recent false flag terror in Woolwich has put the brakes on the disintegration of Cameron's position for a week or two, while he tries to embroil us further into Syria. We would do very well to keep out of it.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 95,940
    Tapper said:

    UKIP are strongest in the North. There are also many non-voters who rejoin politics to back UKIP, as well as the party switchers. If Conservative MPs are seriously threatened (some stats show that UKIP potentially lost Conservatives nearer 40 seats at the 3.5% support level at the last GE), then they could well ask to be badged joint ticket. The recent false flag terror in Woolwich has put the brakes on the disintegration of Cameron's position for a week or two, while he tries to embroil us further into Syria. We would do very well to keep out of it.

    If we were going to get involved at all, it should have been before now, probably. It does seem hard to see the benefits now, although if Yokel is around later no doubt they would know better.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2013

    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Yep understood Tim. I wasn't disagreeing with you per se. I think all these religions are pretty daft but that is no excuse for trying to tar the vast majority of decent muslims with the same brush as the extremists.

    The argument I always find most ridiculous is those who say that Islam is a hate filled religion because of what it says in the Koran. Clearly those people have never read the Old Testament of the Bible either.

    The skin colour issue is just so ludicrous as to be unworthy of a reasoned reply. Those who make such arguments should simply be dismissed as irreconcilably thick.
    I think that you misunderstand the differences between the Koran and the Bible. Muslims believe that the Koran was recited directly by Allah, and therefore is immutable. This is an article of faith. There is of course some room for interpretation.

    Few Christians are biblical literalists. The Catholics, Orthodox and Anglican traditions are of the body of the Church laying down doctine, so can evolve over time.

    There is also a difference in that the earlier parts of the Koran (the Meccan Suras) which are more peaceful and tolerant) are abrogated by the later Suras which support the killing of unbelievers etc. The converse is true of the bible, where the peaceful and nonviolent New testament over rides the violence of the early old testament.

    People will always find excuses to act how their predjudices lead them, but there are fundamental differences between the Bible and the Koran on the uses of violence in the cause of religion.

    I am afraid that history is not on your side. Christians down the ages have used the Bible to persecute people they disagreed with, whether of other religions or their own. They continue to do so today. Conflating the Koran, Islamic extremism and the general Muslim population is no different to equating the Bible, The Westboro Baptist Church and the general Christian population. In both cases the comparisons are ludicrous.

    I think you will find it was a Papal legate who uttered those immortal lines "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius" at Beziers.
    Christianity as it existed 800 years ago can not be used to judge Christianity as it exists today. There's a huge difference between Christianity and Islam, as they exist today, in that the vast majority of Christians in the world have views that are moderate and democratic, while a majority of Muslims in the world have extremist views. This is the inconvenient truth that people try to gloss over with false equivalence.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war.

    It would have been a clearer case of a just war if the US had given the Afghan government evidence that the people they were sheltering had launched the attack, rather than just expecting them to take their word for it.

    And even then it doesn't sound like a clear case of a just war at all. For example, the UK is currently sheltering someone accused of involvement with terrorism in Jordan. Aside from whether or not we think they should be doing that, and even if he'd been involved in very large-scale attacks, it's not obvious to me that the Jordanians would be justified in invading the UK over it.
    Perhaps I was overly euphemistic in my post. The Taliban were not just sheltering Al-Qaeda, they were intricately involved with them, to the point of almost being different wings of the same organisation.
  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322

    Socrates said:

    Socrates said:

    @Southam_Observer

    Regarding the "our foreign policy is to blame" mentality some have about this latest terrorist act. It's worth bearing in mind that one of the killers told one of the civilian woman that the guy deserved it because he killed Muslims in Afghanistan. Considering the Afghan War was fought because the Afghan government of the time was sheltering the people that launched an attack on the US that killed three thousand people, it's hard to think of a clearer case of a just war. If we are to adapt our foreign policy to not upset these sort of men, it means not defending ourselves against people that have declared war on us and are launching attacks on us. Presumably that's what neanderthals like Ken Livingstone want.

    We were being told on here the other night by one PB UKIP supporter (not you) that Afghanistan and Iraq were "leftie" wars and that everything would have been fine if we had not got involved. I agree with you that this Livingstonian argument is foolish in the extreme. People who want to kill will always find an excuse to do so. The same is true of other terrorists such as McVeigh and Breivik. Reading anything other than the fact that they are hate-filled extremists into their actions is indulging them.

    Brevik was a classic case of people wanting to believe something irrespective of the facts.

    As I think I mentioned at the time, Norway is one of the least 'multicultural' countries in the western world. That doesn't mean they don't have immigrants, far from it, but they expect those immigrants to integrate thoroughly into their society and to adopt at least some elements of Norwegian culture. They are given plenty of help to do this but there is no tolerance for those who will not integrate. So long as they do that they are welcomed and treated by the government as just another Norwegian.

    Unfortunately people like Brevik and the far right use the term 'multiculturalism' as a cover for their hatred for anyone who is not a white nothern European Christian. Even worse, those who do not know Norway bought into this argument and so gave some unjustified credence to his madness.

    Well, indeed. People with agendas will spin events to fit such agendas. See Breivik, see Woolwich and so on. When this is pointed out some of those with the agenda then paint themselves as victims of political correctness or of western aggression or whatever. It's quite pathetic really.


    You seem to be using "spinning events to fit agendas" to mean any views you dislike. People like yourself responding to the Connecticut shooting to complain about the US gun culture and policy loopholes. How is that not fitting an agenda? Do you think this guy is fitting an agenda, because the views in this article are identical to mine:

    http://hurryupharry.org/2013/05/23/confronting-the-causes-of-religion-motivated-terrorism/

    Nope - I have sympathy with certain views about the failures of multiculturalism. I just wouldn't use the Woolwich attack in making my arguments. With regards to the Connecticut shooting, the argument was about the availability of the weapons, not the motivations or background of the murderer.

    So it's ok to explore the wider context on how someone did a crime, but not ok to explore the wider context on why someone did a crime? It seems like you have decided on your end conclusion, and then are working backwards in the reasoning to get there, trying to split straws to make it work.

  • SocratesSocrates Posts: 10,322
    edited May 2013
    tim said:

    tim said:

    Two excellent pieces on Woolwich

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/may/24/woolwich-killers-strike-listen

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/terrorism-in-the-uk/10078786/The-West-is-fighting-on-behalf-of-ordinary-Muslims-and-winning.html

    The far left fellow travellers of the Islamists and the mirror image EDL and their propagandists are the enemy within.
    We have none of the former on here, but their excuses are all too familiar, before the election many on the right took up cudgels to blame foreign policy too.

    Those on the right who seek to broaden their attacks to Muslims in general and "multiculturalism" are equally cancerous and provide cover for those who attack Muslims and Mosques.

    But nothing is new under the sun, and the rhetoric and scapegoating has it's parallels.

    http://www.newstatesman.com/2012/05/britains-last-anti-jewish-riots

    Attacking muslims as if they or their religion were in any way to blame for what happened is abhorrent and plain wrong. And I say that as someone who doesn't believe in any of these Middle Eastern Sky Fairy tales. Religion is the excuse not the cause.

    Attacking multiculturalism - a system which has driven communities apart and allowed extremism to thrive - is not wrong. Integration, with all communities taking the best bits of each others cultures and using that to isolate and combat the extremists, is the only way to effectively deal with the alienation felt by so many sections of society today.

    This is why the idiots who protest about mosques being built are so wrong. Having a mosque alongside a church should be a sign of integration rather than alienation.
    Thats why I put "multiculturalism" in speech marks.
    The propagandists are largely attacking Muslims and those with different coloured skins.
    Which propagandists are attacking those with different colour skins, and in which posts?

    You can't back this up because there wasn't such a post and you are incapable of logical reasoning. There is as much justification for your point as someone arguing that as you dislike it when people post links about recent child abuse scandals, that you actually like child abuse.
This discussion has been closed.