Off Topic Political Debate

Maybe it's worth while looking for a definition of 'racism'. I understand it as being any form of differentiation between people based on stereotypes associated with skin colour, culture, religion or nationality. When one person is given an advantage over another based on one of these factors. If the circa 4,000 souls camping out in Calais waiting for the chance to come over to Britain were Americans, or Germans or Swiss, or returning Britons (or anyone else of remotely anglo saxon descent) there would be no problem in accepting them - but because they are mostly either of African or Arabic origins they are described as 'a swarm' - that is racism !

 

Clearly returning Britons should have the absolute right to relocate back to the UK. The rest, EU and non EU should be subject to the UK's need as in Australia.

An additional requirement should be proof than any migrant can sustain themselves without draining the state. I believe if I wanted to emigrate to Australia I would be required to pay their state a substantial amount upfront in case I needed medical services etc. It seems quite a sensible policy to me.

 

Marine Le Pen once again is in legal troubles over publishing pictures of James Foley who had been decapitated, and now suggested that she didn't know what she was doing having already created the damage. Three years in jail could be the penalty if found guilty. While she continues like this she will continue to attract a certain type of voter, but we have seen at the last elections she will never be acceptable to the vast majority of decent French people.

 

I think you may be confusing racism with nationalism. It is not racist to want to look after your own country's people ahead of other nationalities of whatever race. On a family level we all look after our own family ahead of our neighbours - or should we somehow vilified if we do not let our neighbours sleep in our garden. Racism is vilifying people based on their race.
The people in Calais have no ties to the UK - so they have no "rights" here. It may be for humanitarian reasons or something else that we may want to help other people but borders have always existed since mankind had city states. Your own citizens needs are always paramount.
I know some people believe we should help others simply because they are worse off - but that is only a political choice. It is just as valid for others to have a view that we should not help others. Who is to say one position is correct and the other not?

 

She is another Donald Trump type person - or are we not allowed to dislike her either? Thankfully the French electorate have more who oppose than support her and are prepared to put other differences aside to unite against her views.

 

I'm sure many of the near 30% votes she received were French people that considered themselves decent. It was the socialists withdrawing their candidates that prevented her gaining further influence. Until the EU reforms the support for the FN will only continue to increase.

Some of her views on expanding state spending to appease the left are totally ridiculous.

 

You really should look at where people moved their votes from and to before making sweeping statements. Even where the socialists continued to stand, people moved their votes to keep her out. A little research into actual voting figures would serve you well.

 

The fact that the FN gained almost the same percentage votes as the current ruling party and tripled its number of councillors suggests it has substantial and growing support in the country. Sarkozy's party will naturally take up some of the FN's policies to ward off this advance.

 

No it was not Tamoil, Tamoil was an overseas brand of the Libyan NOC (National Oil Company), they had many other companies including Al Jawabi in the UK these acted not just for their primary functions but also as a means of getting a certain kind of person where they wanted them. In Libya NOC had a few operating companies including Waha, Sirte, Zuetina, Veba etc. These were run by people from "the peoples committee" not by boards of directors or shareholders but these peoples committees were appointed by government much as the peoples congress is being implemented in Venezuela now. These appointments were mainly political rather than based on ability/education and the whole system was as corrupt as any you could imagine. I can only speak for the 14 billion pa corporation I work for and can categorically state that we have the following priorities in order 1) Health and Safety of All (staff and population), 2) Environmental Impact, 3) Profit 4) Sustainability. Our products and services are constantly evolving to provide growth and better lives for the world in terms of energy, water and hygeine.... As such this has provided shareholders with enormous returns across the past century the majority of which go to pension funds. We do not begrudge the chief executive or vice presidents multi million bonuses, the business growth and performance justifies it. Trump is racist as he believes mexicans and arabs are sub cultures.

 

No it was not Tamoil, Tamoil was an overseas brand of the Libyan NOC (National Oil Company), they had many other companies including Al Jawabi in the UK these acted not just for their primary functions but also as a means of getting a certain kind of person where they wanted them. In Libya NOC had a few operating companies including Waha, Sirte, Zuetina, Veba etc. These were run by people from "the peoples committee" not by boards of directors or shareholders but these peoples committees were appointed by government much as the peoples congress is being implemented in Venezuela now. These appointments were mainly political rather than based on ability/education and the whole system was as corrupt as any you could imagine. I can only speak for the 14 billion pa corporation I work for and can categorically state that we have the following priorities in order 1) Health and Safety of All (staff and population), 2) Environmental Impact, 3) Profit 4) Sustainability. Our products and services are constantly evolving to provide growth and better lives for the world in terms of energy, water and hygeine.... As such this has provided shareholders with enormous returns across the past century the majority of which go to pension funds. We do not begrudge the chief executive or vice presidents multi million bonuses, the business growth and performance justifies it. Trump is racist as he believes mexicans and arabs are sub cultures.

 

Companies are also democracies. Every year you have an AGM where there is a democratic vote regarding the board of directors. Ultimately companies succeed or fail based uppon their ability to please customers. If customers don't like they don't buy and the company fails, all very simple and fair. A balance of state and private sector with the state acting as a regulator based upon the values expected by society works well in my mind.

 

If I had fears for Democracy it would be that a small caucus of determined people could hijack a party by taking over its membership and then through determined and active organisation move that party significantly from the position on which it was elected, deselect elected representatives they did not like and thus complete an unrepresentative shift in the party without consultation of the electorate and previous membership.
It is a well known and well tried tactic across history.

 

Sounds like Blairism Leo !

 

Militant tendency tried but were eventually kicked out.

 

Really - did Blair build a party caucus. I know Hitler, Mussolini and various Communist regimes have - but I am wondering if I can think of a UK example offhand. I should not really worry about the UK though as we have generally moved beyond party membership as a political force.

 

According to one report today, the Labour Party has lost 30,000 members since Corbyn was elected to lead them. Seems that it is splitting in two, left and right wing. Once again it looks as if there is a political force operating within the ranks which is driving moderate members away, and Corbyn seems to be quite happy to allow it.

 

Of course he is - it will not be his supporters leaving

 

If there is a power struggle going on within the Labour Party Leo, it may just be a result of the fact that the PLP has been to the right of the grass roots membership for such a long time now. Corbyn had the support of every part of the party apart from the PLP which implies that the party is being taken over from below (which is as it should be in a democracy). Even if you only look at those votes from members who were members at the time of Gordon Brown then it still showed a majority for Corbyn. Why is that so hard to accept ?

 

Have I mentioned the Labour Party - except to acknowledge that it is not Corbyn's supporters who are leaving. Please stop putting words and thoughts into my mouth. Do you disagree that it is not Corbyn's supporters leaving or that Corbyn will not be unhappy at that? If so tell OFH as it was his post that I just agreed with

 

The report I mentioned cologne stated that 30,000 members had left the party. Little to do with the PLP, but traditional LP members not liking what is going on.