Off Topic Politics Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Archers Road said:
Blair's government introduced the minimum wage, presided over huge investment in education, health and the police, and worked tirelessly to secure a lasting peace in Northern Ireland.

Unfortunately all of these achievements have since been undermined by the conservative govts of Cameron and May.
Click to expand...

The Blair government introduced the minimum wage which helped a few but provided a basseline that employers reduced everybody else's wages down to.

They presided over huge investment (from buy now pay later) in education and health which we are still paying for now with vast interest.

All governments had been working "tirelessly" to secure lasting peace in NI. That is a throwaway line.

And all this investment in police? Someone said above that people were happier through Blair's terms than Thatcher or Major. Such happy people yet we needed more police!!!
 
Saints_Alive said:
Christ sake, having an opinion and criticising the Israel Government about its' actions in Gaza is not being "anti-semitic". People are not complaining because they are Jewish it is because what they are doing is just wrong in some people's opinion. Are we not free to have an opinion about any Government in any country in the World without accusations of being prejudiced against their whole race?.
The whole Corbyn/ Labour anti-semitic row feels like a bit of a witch hunt to me.
Click to expand...

It is.
 
ImpSaint said:
And all this investment in police? Someone said above that people were happier through Blair's terms than Thatcher or Major. Such happy people yet we needed more police!!!
Click to expand...

Maybe they were happier because they felt safer? Or maybe not. I don’t know enough to say in this particular case.

I’m just saying that is a silly statement. If the government fixes a problem, then of course the problem disappears and people are happier. Of course, maybe the problem gets worse but people are happy for some other reason. Who knows?

But just laying two those two statements like that next to each other without any linkage is useless.
 
fatletiss said:
The subject matter is serious, so not making light on this, however I do chuckle when I read the views posted.

The defence of ones own side when the fingers are pointed and vice versa is amusing.
Click to expand...


A sense of humour, and a refusal to take anything - but especially oneself - too seriously are going to be essential to see us all through the dark days ahead.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fatletiss, ImpSaint, Velcro Roy and 1 other person
VocalMinority said:
Return to 1967 borders and repatriation of Palestinians is what they've proposed for a peace deal.
Click to expand...
In full:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.


Easy enough to find, so I’m not sure why @benditlikeabanana thinks the Palestinians are so anti-peace.
 
I Sorry I Ruined The Party said:
Maybe they were happier because they felt safer? Or maybe not. I don’t know enough to say in this particular case.

I’m just saying that is a silly statement. If the government fixes a problem, then of course the problem disappears and people are happier. Of course, maybe the problem gets worse but people are happy for some other reason. Who knows?

But just laying two those two statements like that next to each other without any linkage is useless.
Click to expand...

People were happier because the 90s was a boom time and there was also a cultural revolution music and lifestyle wise. Nothing to do with Blair (or more police.)
 
ChilcoSaint said:
In full:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.


Easy enough to find, so I’m not sure why @benditlikeabanana thinks the Palestinians are so anti-peace.
Click to expand...

I think the Israeli/Palestinian peace has nothing to do with all the anti-semitism argument against Corbyn. It is political abuse of a subject trying to push the idea that being pro-Palestine automatically means you are anti-Israel with no room to ever consider you can be pro-both.

Do I think Corbyn is racist? Nope. I think he is probably one of the least racist in the house. However if anti-semitism wasn't "available" for them to attack Corbyn on they would soon find something else to take an "angle" on.

The suggestion that the right wing media and Tories are pushing this for their own gain is wayu off the mark. This is all internal from the "moderates" in Labour which the media DO support and the right wing just lets it run without needing to push it at all.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Archers Road
ImpSaint said:
I think the Israeli/Palestinian peace has nothing to do with all the anti-semitism argument against Corbyn. It is political abuse of a subject trying to push the idea that being pro-Palestine automatically means you are anti-Israel with no room to ever consider you can be pro-both.

Do I think Corbyn is racist? Nope. I think he is probably one of the least racist in the house. However if anti-semitism wasn't "available" for them to attack Corbyn on they would soon find something else to take an "angle" on.

The suggestion that the right wing media and Tories are pushing this for their own gain is wayu off the mark. This is all internal from the "moderates" in Labour which the media DO support and the right wing just lets it run without needing to push it at all.
Click to expand...
I agree entirely Imps, but my and VM’s posts were in response to a rather one-sided view of the Israel/Palestine situation.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ImpSaint
ImpSaint said:
People were happier because the 90s was a boom time and there was also a cultural revolution music and lifestyle wise. Nothing to do with Blair (or more police.)
Click to expand...


So what you are saying is that people vote Labour when they are happy (1945, 1964, 1997) and Tory when they are miserable (1951, 1979, 2010)?

There may be something in that, come to think of it.
 
Archers Road said:
So what you are saying is that people vote Labour when they are happy (1945, 1964, 1997) and Tory when they are miserable (1951, 1979, 2010)?

There may be something in that, come to think of it.
Click to expand...

So we're happy which makes us vote Labour which in time makes us become miserable, so we vote Tory which makes us happy, so we vote Labour again and so on. Somehow I don't think you agree with that. <laugh>
 
VocalMinority said:
Return to 1967 borders and repatriation of Palestinians is what they've proposed for a peace deal.
Click to expand...

they have already rejected that several times. Its in the Palestinian National Charter Article 2 not to accept any 2 state solution. The Oslo Accords in 1993 required them to change it, but at least 3 times the Palestinian Council have refused. Hamas is even more hard line and will only accept the destruction of Israel.
The Palestinians may say that they are willing for peace, but the vast % of Palestinians will not accept a 2 state solution.
 
ChilcoSaint said:
In full:
(a) Complete withdrawal from the occupied Arab territories, including the Syrian Golan Heights, to the 4 June 1967 line and the territories still occupied in southern Lebanon; (b) Attain a just solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees to be agreed upon in accordance with the UN General Assembly Resolution No 194. (c) Accept the establishment of an independent and sovereign Palestinian state on the Palestinian territories occupied since 4 June 1967 in the West Bank and Gaza Strip with East Jerusalem as its capital.

In return the Arab states will do the following: (a) Consider the Arab–Israeli conflict over, sign a peace agreement with Israel, and achieve peace for all states in the region; (b) Establish normal relations with Israel within the framework of this comprehensive peace.


Easy enough to find, so I’m not sure why [B]@benditlikeabanana[/B] thinks the Palestinians are so anti-peace.
Click to expand...

History shows that they are unwilling or unable to form their own state, 6 times they have been offered a state and 6 refusals. Its been 80 years, how many on here think they will be alive to see a Palestinian state ? The surrounding muslim states do not want a solution either, its a great rod to hit Israel with. Everyone hopes there will be a solution, but I am on the glass half empty side
 
benditlikeabanana said:
they have already rejected that several times. Its in the Palestinian National Charter Article 2 not to accept any 2 state solution. The Oslo Accords in 1993 required them to change it, but at least 3 times the Palestinian Council have refused. Hamas is even more hard line and will only accept the destruction of Israel.
The Palestinians may say that they are willing for peace, but the vast % of Palestinians will not accept a 2 state solution.
Click to expand...
I think you mean Isreal have rejected that several times.

Hamas: “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”

That's from a document Hamas released that Isreal rejected.
 
VocalMinority said:
I think you mean Isreal have rejected that several times.

Hamas: “considers the establishment of a fully sovereign and independent Palestinian state, with Jerusalem as its capital along the lines of 4 June 1967, with the return of the refugees and the displaced to their homes from which they were expelled, to be a formula of national consensus”

That's from a document Hamas released that Isreal rejected.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem stated by both sides to be their capital and one of the main issues of dispute. Difficult to see how that one can be resolved. Trump of course just wades into the middle of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back