World Politics

Discussion in 'Miscellaneous' started by Jacquie, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    It's definately a little weird considering what he's said about blair in the past. The thing is I still don't feel that cameron has the same connection with the people that blair had. Now yeah some people hated him because of the war and still do but at the end of the day tony blair successful kept the labour party in power for 13 years. blair was and is the Labour Party's longest-serving Prime Minister; the only person to have led the Labour Party to three consecutive general election victories; and he is the only Labour Prime Minister to serve consecutive terms, more than one of which was at least four years long - that is fact no matter what you think of him. Even if people weren't for the war the majority kept him in power even when only 60% (I believe) of people voted in the last general election. I don't feel that at any point cameron could do that.

    agreed! :)

    I have a big headache after watching the Leaders Debate on ITV. I think Gordon Brown stepped out of the box a little for me but mostly they were all humming the same tune that they've always done, Brown say we're on the road to recover, Cameron babbling on like a twit about change and Clegg saying I'm the one to make a real difference and real change. What did you make of it all *lisasimpson*? Were you able to watch it? The 1 minute each thing was a little annoying but atleast it meant they kept to the point!

    BTW, the next one is next Thursday on Sky News at the same time. Last one will be done by the BBC.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2010
  2. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    i agree, blair, for all his faults, was very very charismatic and good at bringing people onside, whereas cameron just comes across as trying too hard to be that way. i think in a way it's not his fault; if it wasn't for blair, uk politics would be far less image driven and far less bothered about the charisma or otherwise of the pm - blair was the one who used spin so well (too bloody well!) that now that's the prime concern of leaders, the need to project a good image (hence the wives, who in the past have always been background figures only really "in shot" at big events like elections, being trotted out in their best clothes and spouting crap about what amazing husbands they are:rolleyes: although actually that could be partially down to the move towards american style politics, the idea that our pm's wife should be the equivalent of a first lady, but again that was sort of down to blair too). but for blair it came naturally, and anyone who tries to recreate something that came naturally to someone else will fail because people can see when someone's trying too hard and it comes across as desperate and fake.

    oh i had a headache after it too, i was keeping an eye on twitter throughout (quite a few political commentators, journos, comedians etc were tweeting, people like armando ianucci, bbc question time etc, oh and philip schofield and ian from eastenders!) and there were quite a few things said that were less than complimentary about all of them, and my own tweets weren't exactly overwhelmed with positive energy either!

    i actually thought that clegg came out by far the best, and brown did surprisingly well against cameron, in numbers terms - in fact real time twitter polls done by the bbc, itv and channel 4 put clegg way ahead of the others. these were the two poll results that were tweeted immediately after the debate ended (i think c4 and itv had been running them during the debate - they're actually very similar in numbers as well which shows consistency)

    C4 News: Clegg:58 % Cameron 13% Brown 28%
    ITV news: Clegg 50% 50% Cameron 19% Brown 31%,

    erm as for them - well, i thought cameron came across as smug and patronising, which i expected, and seemed to look more and more lizard-like as it went on. brown, erm, well, i do think a lot of his policies make sense, especially the economic ones, i'm a keynesian at heart and so is he, so i kind of agreed with a lot of that, but omg he needs to stop trying to make jokes. i know why he does it - his advisers say he needs to be more personable, but it fails on so many levels.

    as for policy, cameron waffling on about waste was silly, he doesn't know what he's talking about. what he refers to as waste, anyone with a grasp of economics refers to as economy stimulus, which on the tail end of a major recession really is vital, especially if we want to avoid the dreaded W recession (which we do!).

    that said, i think the tories and lib dems have the right idea about limiting bureacracy in places like education, policing and the nhs.

    the other thing that really bothered me was the whole "my daddy's bigger than your daddy" crap - y'know, cameron was saying he'd been to a rehab centre so brown then said he'd been to 3 rehab centres and so on. it got a little pathetic. when cameron started talking about his son, i cringed - sure it was a big deal for him and i totally respect his right to be pleased with how the nhs dealt with it and his right to grieve, but i wish he'd stop using it as an example, it just seems like (a) oh look, i'm down with the normal folks and (b) exploitation of a personal tragedy to get favour. but then brown's done his fair share of that too.

    i really did think clegg came out on top, i think lib dem policy often makes more sense than people give it credit for, and the fact that he avoided becoming involved in the endless bickering between the other two really made him look good. it pretty much demonstrated (without him having to lift a finger) that for both the other parties the primary goal is to get one over on the other, not necessarily to put forward its own strategy. also i'm 100% behind clegg's taxation proposals - the idea of lowering cap gains and income tax for lower earners and raising them for higher earners; that's a classic socialist strategy and why gordon brown isn't doing it is beyond me. he keeps saying he will but never does.

    the other thing that bothered me, purely on an aesthetic level, was their ties. all good that their ties reflect party colours, but brown's tie was PINK! since when have labour been pink!? for god's sake man, if you're going to go for the party colours tie, you have to commit to it and find a red one!:lol:
     
  3. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha I was watching it live, I left the computer b/c my dad said I should really watch it and see what they (the leaders have to say)...I didn't get a chance to look at the polls afterwards b/c but from what I gather like you said Nick Clegg came over somewhat victorious.

    Yeah I agree with you on Clegg and Brown both did do quiet well, and Brown was showing that he wasn't gonna go out without a fight. I think Cameron seemed vulnerable at times especially when he wasn't able to properly answer some of Brown's questions to him about the police and education etc. That's interest about those polls because the sky news poll put Cameron ahead, Clegg second and Brown last. Can't remember the exact % points right now.

    hahaha the jokes were not his thing but he was told to add those like you said, yeah his polices do make sense. Cameron really really annoyed me, if my dad wasn't in the room I would have thrown stuff at the telly I swear.

    Agreed, Clegg really did well. I did expect him to because I knew the other two would do what they always do argue on and on.

    Well to be fair to him it was reddish and also he's been using those kinds of colours (pinks and purples) because he needs to show a softer side of him b/c of all this bullying crap that's been thrown at him that kind of fizzled in the end.
     
  4. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    i was almost live, thanks to sky+, but i have twitter on my phone so i kept an eye on it that way.

    haha sky would put cameron first :lol: i think it'll be a very close run thing tho. and like you, i'm glad brown is at least putting up a fight. the lab party have looked so utterly defeated recently, it's nice to see them at least trying.

    cameron's inability to answer questions on police and education was worrying, as were his policies in those regards. he was basically just saying "lock 'em all up" which given how overcrowded our jails already are makes no sense at all. he seems to have not grasped the idea of rehabilitation at all, which was backed up by his comments that kids excluded from school should basically just be left to rot. yeah, cameron, way to stop people turning to crime :rolleyes:

    yeah, i know why brown made stupid jokes but he should've stuck to the facts, they suit him much better. and cameron was massively annoying!

    that seems to be their strong point really, the whole "we're better than them" strategy. but it doesn't really help because it detracts from any policy they do have!

    yeah i'd not looked at it that way, maybe he was trying to show a softer side - that bullying stuff was just weird, i really don't think it was a dedicated campaign of bullying his staff into submission, like the press made out, i think it was just frustration. and all bosses get that way sometimes!

    it should've been red tho ;)
     
  5. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    Yeah he wasn't even making any sense. You're right about over-crowded jails tho, I do sociology and we're doing Crime & Deviance at the moment, and I read somewhere that the prison population has grow massively over the last decade or so (by 70% to 70,000). We also have the highest proportion of people in prison than any other country in Western Europe: 139 of every 100,000 people in prison, compared with 99 in France and 64 in Sweden (of every 100,000 people). So how he can say what he said was a bit stupid.



    I would like to think alot of that was b/s, he might have lost his temper a little but some of the claims were a bit over the top.

    I saw a couple of funny spoof posters, so I thought I'd share it with ya'll:
    http://www.mydavidcameron.com/posters/cat1
    http://www.mydavidcameron.com/posters/blair1
    ...Well atleast I found them funny.
     
  6. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^
    ooh studying crime & deviance as part of sociology: so the big question, naturally, is have you done foucault yet?! i like a bit of foucault, i know a lot of people that hate him/his work but i always kinda liked him. discipline & punish was a book i really quite enjoyed, and i liked madness and civilisation as well. can't go wrong with a bit of postmodernist waffle ;)

    well our prison record isn't as bad as in the US where overcrowding is far far worse (especially on death row, i believe, where people can wait years or even decades to be executed), and, surprise, they have a far harsher penal code than we do. generally in places where the emphasis is on punishment, you get overcrowding and higher rates of recidivism (god that's a hard word to spell, i always get lost with the multiple "i"s!), whereas in more liberal societies where emphasis is on rehabilitation you generally get higher reintegration and less overcrowded jails. only, a lot of people haven't grasped this yet and insist that punishment is the only answer and then wonder why the jails are all full.

    mind you france (since you mention them) isn't doing brilliantly, they have very high overcrowding as well and a phenomenally high rate of inmate suicide.

    i think the lab govt have been doing reasonably well in moving towards a more rehabilitative system as opposed to a harshly punitive system. obviously some things have to be punished, for instance, child abuse, rape, murder, armed robbery, kidnap, y'know, the big stuff, but as to smaller crimes, i think they've made inroads. i think they've realised that far too many people are in jail for petty crimes or for non-violent crimes (stuff like tax evasion etc, which really should probably be punished in a different way, perhaps financially or through community service), and also they've begun to realise that the majority of people in prison are there for crimes committed while on/to get drugs - that's the real issue.

    also, it's recently been noticed/revealed that something like 1/3 of the uk prison population are clinically mentally ill and i think there's a realisation that they just should not be in jail - it's a totally counter productive place for them to be. i spent a long time in and out of locked psychiatric units (hurrah for bipolar) and as much as i hate those places, they are far better for mentally ill patients (even criminal ones) than normal prisons - people like that need to be somewhere where they can be treated, not just left to rot. the last time i was in hospital there was a guy in there on a home office section, which is basically an indefinite, legal lockdown, enforced by the home office. he had to get permission, from the home office, every time he wanted to go anywhere, even just outside to the hospital garden, and he was in there indefinitely. i really felt for him, i know he'd done something awful in his past but he was a really nice guy most of the time. also he was really young, and that's a horrible way to live - but... at least he was getting treatment for his mental illness, which was what had caused him to do what he did. he was getting medication, therapy etc, and that was helping him somewhat. i think if he'd been in the general prison population he'd have been dead within months, and the crime he'd committed wasn't bad enough to warrant a guaranteed death sentence. hell, i did stuff i shouldn't have while i was ill, and i'm very glad i only got as far as locked wards with proper treatment, i would never have made it through prison and i definitely didn't do anything bad enough to warrant being left to die in a cell. [/tmi]

    i think one problem is that punitive sentences are too indiscriminate, and labour's gone some way in that as well, by making judges more able to use their discretion and take mitigating factors into account in sentencing. but cameron would just overturn all that and take things back to a much more primitive (imho) system whereby everyone was just thrown in jail, regardless of the circumstances behind their crime, which would result in more recidivism, more overcrowding, and far more inmate suicide.

    i think the thing they really need to tackle is the drugs issue - this "war on drugs" has been going on for decades and got nowhere - as far as i'm concerned the sooner they legalise everything, the better. it would certainly cut drug related crime dramatically.

    i like those posters too, that website is a lot of fun - or was, i think i might've been taken down :(
     
  7. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^Yeah I've done about Foucault's, his theory is very interesting and it does make sense.

    Well the US is a bigger country so logically they would have a bigger (the biggest) prison population. I know what you mean about the mental illness and rehab thing tho. It makes no sense to put those people in prison as the tory leader keeps saying.

    I don't quite understand this, I hear a lot of people saying but how will it work.

    The website still works (atleast for me it does).

    Okay who saw the egg being thrown at Cameron by some youth? :lol: Also the chicken the other day from the Daily Mail.
     
  8. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    true, but it's not the size of the prison population relative to the nation's size that's the issue so much as the size of the prison population relative to the amount and size of prisons! also the racial differential in american jails is crazy. i think it's similar in france, and we're not exactly doing brilliantly ourselves in terms of being a beacon of racial harmony.

    well it's mainly because in many cases the drugs themselves are not the harmful thing, yes, some of them can be highly addictive and so would need to be carefully regulated, but what's really harmful is the stuff that's mixed with the drugs, because the only way to get them is via the black market. black marketeers, naturally i guess, want to keep costs low and profits high so they cut down the drugs with all kinds of things to make them go further (the average gram of coke probably contains a tiny amount of drug to a much larger amount of other chemicals that are cheap to make/buy (even household cleaning products) and bulk it up).

    the biggest problem with them is probably the effects (health and financial) of addiction but by making people go black market, all that happens is that addicts rely on really unscrupulous providers, prices sky rocket, people end up having to steal/sell themselves/whatever to get drugs, and then drain health service resources because the addiction totally messes them up. to me it would make far more sense to legalise things, because that way 1: you put the money for them in the hands of the nation (and therefore the health service), not the dealers (by way of tax), 2: you can regulate their use much better, 3: people don't have to sell themselves for them (you rarely hear of someone selling themselves/stealing because they couldn't get cigarettes/alcohol, both of which, frankly, are more damaging than most street drugs and quite happily sold by the state) and 4: you remove the stigma which makes them so popular. to me the sure fire way to get a teenager/young adult to do something (and most drug addictions start in the teens/young adulthood) is to tell them they mustn't do it. i remember at school there were contests to smoke, drink and have sex before the ages of consent for those things, just because that's how teenagers think!

    i know it's an unpopular view but the "war on drugs" has been going on decades and all it's achieved is to make street drugs more dangerous, prices to skyrocket, drug cartels to get massively rich, growers in south america, afghanistan etc to get horrifically exploited, people to get sick from not only addictions but also from the other stuff cut with the drugs, all kinds of petty crime (a huge percentage of crime is drug related). i just think it's time a different tactic was tried.

    i think it was briefly taken down but that was a while back so i guess it's back up :D

    i missed it, but that last bit of that sentence is great: did the daily mail throw the chicken? was it a chicken that worked for the DM? was it a chicken grown/cooked by the DM? the possibilities are endless :D
     
  9. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^You make a fair point on drugs, it's just if any government even put that sort of idea forward the media would go wild as they always do...legalising the drugs would definately make it easier for them to be controled, this way the black market thrives.
    ha well the Daily Mail sent a man dress as a chicken to follow David Cameron around (for not answering their questions on some stuff I think regarding Lord Ashcroft), unfortunately for the Daily Mail Cameron got the last laugh as he tried to turn the tables by giving the bird man a hug, removing his chicken head to talk to him face to face and asking him what question he wanted to ask. Then when the guy starting asking his questions he just walked away...:rolleyes: :lol:.

    Sky News Leaders Debate is at 8pm today - a little earlier than the ITV one ;).
     
  10. _Hush_

    _Hush_ Winchester Inc.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Belgian Prime Minister Yves Leterme handed in his resignation to the king about an hour ago. The king keeps his decision on hold untill he has talked to the chairman of Open VLD (Flemish Liberal Democrats).

    It was about bloody time this government quit. Too many mistakes were made during and after the elections, resulting in a government that nobody asked for. Especially the re-assigment of Leterme after he screwed up the last time he was Prime Minister was the biggest mistake ever (Herman van Rompuy was our PM, untill he got elected for European president, making room for Leterme. )

    Belgian politics. It just stops being fun after a while :rolleyes:
     
  11. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    ^ yeah belgian politics has been very odd recently, how long ago did they actually manage to agree on a government at all? the last time i looked they were still running as a captainless ship - but that's my bad for not paying attention...

    i hope you guys get something decent this time. btw: what do you think of van rompuy as euro president? i think a lot of people here were kind of annoyed about it but that's probably just because it wasn't one of our guys! i think he seems ok, i'd rather him than tony blair!

    i love belgium btw, fabulous architecture and amazing food, what more could you want?!

    yeah, there's no way it could really go through, there'd be uproar - can you imagine how the likes of the daily fail (aka the daily hate) and express would react? the problem is that the drugs question is a massively reactionary topic and the mere mention of not continuing the (futile imho) war on them just leads to lots of "arrrrgh no!!!!" type responses, if people sat down and actually thought about the ins and outs of the problem i think there might be different conclusions.

    do you remember all that fuss a year or so ago when the government's lead drug adviser said E was relatively safe (not to mention the constant shift in status of cannabis) and the press just went nuts and he got sacked even though, as a scientist and generally clever bloke, he'd done all his research and drawn reasonable conclusions. but the reactionaries who write papers think they know more than the scientists who do the research, and because the papers are louder and shoutier, they're the ones the public listen to. it's ridiculous. it's just the most sensationalised subject in politics.

    can i just add i'm not saying everyone should go out and do loads of drugs btw, y'know, drugs are bad mkaaay? but i think there needs to be more reasoned discussion and consideration of various aspects instead of just a mad reactionary panic.

    hehe, brilliant. for once i think cameron did the right thing! humouring the daily mail is a baaad idea.

    oh i can't wait for tonight's debate, i'm sure it'll be loads of fun:rolleyes:
     
  12. _Hush_

    _Hush_ Winchester Inc.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think the last time we had a somewhat decent government was during Verhofstadt's time as Prime Minister (VLD). But I don't think we ever had a decent working government. If you see what we have to deal with (Flanders/Wallonia, Brussels-Halle-Vilvoorde -> the topic they tried to avoid for the last two years and has now come back to bite them in the ass), it's no wonder that this turned out in a big mess.

    I do think that was the problem of the British. They wouldn't have agreed on anyone but a Brit :p
    I think Van Rompuy will do a good job at it (not that he has alot to say though). Two years ago he managed to keep our little screwed up country together, and if you can handle Belgium in times of crisis, trust me, you can handle Europe.
    So I do think he was a good choice, but I would've preferred him to stay just so we wouldn't have to deal with Leterme. Again. :rolleyes:

    Decent politics and a Britain's got talent as hilarious as yours :p

    I'm with you on the drug issue btw. I think legalizing may solve a lot of the drug-related crimes. The substances can also be controlled this way. You wouldn't believe the kind of products dealers use to cut up the stuff.
     
    Last edited: Apr 22, 2010
  13. talkingtocactus

    talkingtocactus Coroner

    Joined:
    May 24, 2009
    Messages:
    2,614
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah it must be hard in belgian politics! i'm not surprised it's come back to bite them though, but then, is there really a solution?

    i agree - so far he seems ok i think, i think there's a worry that he's not "big" enough to stand up to the big nations like germany, spain etc, but like you said if he can handle the wranglings in belgium, those are probably child's play ;)

    and yes, many people in britain were just angry it wasn't a brit - i disagree by the way, our only candidate was blair and giving him any more power would just be stupid!


    haha good point. you're welcome to BGT, it's crap!

    oh, i would, i've seen the effects, it's insane what they do to make them go further. i know everyone brings up holland in this context but what they've achieved really does seem to make sense.
     
  14. shazza_018

    shazza_018 A Daily Anthem Moderator

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2007
    Messages:
    3,623
    Likes Received:
    0
    _Hush_, I heard about this, and the radio station was also covering the fact that Belgium are going to ban the burqa or wearing the full face-veil in public, what is your view on this? As a muslim I'm really not as outraged as I should be but would they also ban the wearing of the jilbab? What is your view on this. UKIP (the UK Independance Party) wanted to also discuss this in the house of commons (although it's probably not likely to happen here anytime soon).
    There was also the lead drug adviser who resigned over the illegalisation of methadrone..because he felt everything was being pushed too fast by the government due to political and media pressure. I know the government means well but be doing this it's just making the matter worse.


    That was fun...:rolleyes: Who do you think came out best *lisasimpson*? I think Gordon Brown actually did really well, he came out strong, he put his ideas forward. He was firm and assertive and he did what he had to do. I didn't hear any policies from David Cameron at all throughout that Debate I mean serious all he waffles on about is change, Clegg is getting a bit boring now and the same as Cameron except replacing the change with difference.

    The emigration issue pissed me off. Cameron is going to put a cap on emigration outside the EU. The problem isn't emigration outside the EU it's emigration within the EU that's the issue for us, and the Labour Party under Tony Blair made a big mistake by giving the EU some much control they shouldn't have signed up/agreed to anything without fully understand the issue. A cap wouldn't solve the issue if he only applies to those outside the EU. It's just stupid why our government didn't hold a referendum when this issue arose. But to be fair Gordon Brown said that within the EU we get 1 million people from the UK working in the EU and 1 million people from the EU working in the UK so it's a straight swap, but I wouldn't rely on those figure, Gordon Brown's messed up stuff like this in the past so.

    The question about the pope - wft sky, get a life does that really concern the people of this country. Gordon Brown and David Cameron really answered that question well. (I didn't what Nick Clegg said about it, I had to go to the toliet :lol:).

    Anywayz that's my ranting and raving done. A hung parliment seems likely I wouldn't want any one of these three in power but I would not be happy with Cameron in power so do I tactically vote Labour (because Liberals wouldn't win in a million billion years :lol:) or do I go with my gut and go Liberal. I don't know. I wouldn't mind a Labour/Liberal coalition (if this happens), as long as the Tories are not in power I'm happy.

    Sorry if some of this doesn't make sense, it's late and I'm annoyed ha.
     
  15. _Hush_

    _Hush_ Winchester Inc.

    Joined:
    Jul 13, 2007
    Messages:
    1,460
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ha, the eternal question. Is there really a solution? There has to be. The problem is that the way Brussels, Halle and Vilvoorde are organised now is unconstitutional. If the next elections are held when this hasn't been resolved yet, the whole national elections will be illegal if only one of those mayors decide not to go through with the elections in their city because they would be unconstitutional. Still with me? :shifty:
    I wanna try to explain what the whole problem is with BHV, but that's gonna cost me a good night of thinking how to explain it in english :lol:
    You kidding me? It's funny as hell :lol:
    The sneaky thing here is, they will not ban the burqa specifically, but they will ban the full face-veil. Just semantics, I guess.
    My view on this is that they're right to do so. I believe that everyone should be recognisable at all times. I have no problems with a regular veil, or even a jilbab (I had to wikipedia this one :angel:) because one can actually recognise the person wearing it. I don't have a problem with Islam (maybe a little, but that's just 'cause I have a problem with religions in general, but that's beside the point), but I think a veil should be enough to express one's religion.
     

Share This Page