homepage
  roll on christmas  
click here to find out more about ship of fools click here to sign up for the ship of fools newsletter click here to support ship of fools
community the mystery worshipper gadgets for god caption competition foolishness features ship stuff
discussion boards live chat cafe avatars frequently-asked questions the ten commandments gallery private boards register for the boards
 
Ship of Fools


Post new thread  Post a reply
My profile login | | Directory | Search | FAQs | Board home
   - Printer-friendly view Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
» Ship of Fools   » Ship's Locker   » Limbo   » Purgatory: UK Election 2015 (Page 2)

 - Email this page to a friend or enemy.  
Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  26  27  28 
 
Source: (consider it) Thread: Purgatory: UK Election 2015
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Now that the SNP have reneged on their principled position of not voting on things that don't affect Scotland, they look to be a real player in the next government.

I think Nicola Sturgeon got it wrong to raise that possibility, though I've only heard it discussed in relation to the NHS. AIUI, it's never been SNP policy, more of a "gentlemans agreement" by individual SNP MPs - and I suspect that if Nicola Sturgeon was to tell her MPs to vote on a clearly non-Scottish-only matter then she may well find many of her MPs finding other business they need to do that day.

The problem, of course, is deciding what constitutes an "English-only matter". Virtually anything decided for England (and Wales) has the possibility of knock-on effects in Scotland.

Though, I think there was never any problem in principal about the SNP going a UK government, because so few powers are fully devolved anyway. There would be no issues from a Scottish perspective to SNP MPs serving on the Cabinet in areas of defence, international affairs, etc. In that event, I wonder what would be the price the SNP would want to join a coalition - it's probably too soon for a further referendum, all parties have committed themselves to further devolution. From the SNP policies I would find it great if they were to ask for scrapping Trident and easing immigration controls were part of the price they asked to form a government, maybe reducing voting age to 16.

Is it still the policy of the SNP to favour independence, even though it's supposedly "the settled will of the people of Scotland to have devolution" ? That's the bigger issue isn't it? The Conservatives are in favour of the union and seem highly unlikely to be willing to govern with a party who are in favour of it being split up.

The prospect of Labour being in coallition with Plaid and the SNP is interesting for the same reason - they were also against independence. Add in the fact that Labour could be denied an outright majority because they get battered by the SNP and lose lots of Scottish seats to them, and Milliband could have real gritted teeth.

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Pergida...

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Pergida...

I don't think they'll be standing...

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Pergida...

I don't think they'll be standing...
Give it time, give it time.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by lowlands_boy:
Is it still the policy of the SNP to favour independence, even though it's supposedly "the settled will of the people of Scotland to have devolution" ?

Yes, that's still the policy of the SNP. I don't think anyone would say the referendum describes the "settled will of the people of Scotland" as though the vote marks an unchangeable decision. It's the decision of the people registered to vote last year, I think everyone agrees that that decision is "settled" for a period where either the electorate remains largely unchanged (ie: at least 10 years to allow children to grow up and reach voting age, current older voters to die and some migration) or the situation in the UK radically changes (eg: a yes vote on referendum on the UK leaving the EU). Which effectively means that the SNP are not realistically going to be able to ask for another referendum in the coming Parliament. Which, IMO, leaves open the option of the SNP participating in government with Unionist parties for this Parliament as that question will be well on the back burner. Further devolved powers may be something the SNP could ask for if asked to help form a coalition government. Whether the chance at being the larger partner in a coalition government is enough to get the "will you join us?" question passed the gritted teeth of Milliband is another matter.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
The Green Party are a joke. Witness this from last week...

Green Party Interview on BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme

In which the official Green position was to allow people to join Al Qaeda providing they don't do so in order to do anything illegal - like people join Al Qaeda for 10% off at Costa Coffee of something.

To be followed up by this from earlier this week...

Daily Telegraph Interview

In which the following is quoted...

quote:
Ms Bennett called Isil, also known as Islamic State, and Al-Qaeda are “hideous terrorist organisations” and said its supporters were illegally inciting violence.

The comments are a significant reverse on the previous Green Party position which said merely being a member of al-Qaeda, the IRA and other terrorist groups should no longer be a criminal offence.

Only weeks ago Ms Bennett publicly defended the position, telling BBC1’s Andrew Marr programme the Government must not punish people “for what they think or what they believe”.

However appearing on a question and answer sessions on Sky News, the Green leader appeared to announce a change in policy on the issues.

So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.

And some of you want them in government. Seriously if you vote for this lot you really need sectioning.

The interview is amusing for many, many reasons. I laughed like a drain. I do hope Mr Cameron gets them into the debates because I can't wait to see the Boy Millibore trying to out-left la Bennett.

Oh, and I intend to keep linking to that clip as we get closer to the election, just for laughs really.

[ 03. February 2015, 10:48: Message edited by: deano ]

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.

On one hand, a party leader says something stupid, and hurries to correct it.

On the other, a party leader says something stupid, puts it into law, keeps on defending it despite all evidence to the contrary.

Absolutely certain I know which I'd prefer. How about you?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I think her position is that membership of an organisation should not be a crime, and if membership of a specific organisation necessarily implies terrorism, then you can and should be prosecuted for the terrorist part, not the membership part.

Regarding Islamic State, I understand there are a fair number of young men who go off to Syria because they have the political awareness of the terrorists in Four Lions , and who come to their senses when they actually get to Kobane or wherever. These people have valuable intelligence and pragmatically there ought to be a mechanism for coming to an accommodation with them.

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.

You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ariel
Shipmate
# 58

 - Posted      Profile for Ariel   Author's homepage     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.

You still have time to change your mind.
Posts: 25445 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.

You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Oh I think the video speaks for itself. I don't need to rubbish the reds, sorry greens. They open their mouths and they do the rubbishing all by themselves.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
I never thought I'd say this but I've just been persuaded to vote Green.

You've fallen for Cameron's cunning plan, then. Get soemone like deano to rubbish the Greens: people like you then think they must be worth voting for: left(ish) votes splits and lets the Conservative in through the middle.
Oh I think the video speaks for itself. I don't need to rubbish the reds, sorry greens. They open their mouths and they do the rubbishing all by themselves.
The damage shown in that video is a matter of what is being said. The government has the scope to cause real damage and hardship and this one is doing just that, quite deliberately.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I've not had a chance to watch the clip (I can't view You-tube here), but I see nothing particularly objectionable to a policy that says membership of an organisation should not be a crime. That is not incompatible with a statement that a particular organisation is abhorent, that the principal activities of an organisation are illegal etc. Membership of the Conservative Party should not be illegal, even though the actions of Conservative Party leaders has been an appalling abuse of human rights and freedoms.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
So what would be the peaceful wing of ISIS Al Qaeda or the IRA?

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It doesn't matter. It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities. So, members of the real ale society should be prosecuted for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
So, members of the real ale society should be given medals for services to civilisation for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.

FIFY

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331

 - Posted      Profile for Jane R   Email Jane R   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities.
It's not even as if it hasn't happened before *cough* Northern Ireland peace process *cough*

What Cameron and co. seem to be saying at the moment is that there is no way back for (British) Muslims who run off to Syria to join ISIS, however penitent they may be and however little violence they were personally involved in. It looks good on the front page of the Daily Mail, but is it really going to help the situation? I don't think so.

[ 03. February 2015, 12:44: Message edited by: Jane R ]

Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Sioni Sais
Shipmate
# 5713

 - Posted      Profile for Sioni Sais   Email Sioni Sais   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
quote:
It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities.
It's not even as if it hasn't happened before *cough* Northern Ireland peace process *cough*

What Cameron and co. seem to be saying at the moment is that there is no way back for (British) Muslims who run off to Syria to join ISIS, however penitent they may be and however little violence they were personally involved in. It looks good on the front page of the Daily Mail, but is it really going to help the situation? I don't think so.

To stretch the Northern Ireland analogy, with ISIL etc we are currently at about the stage where we were interning paramilitary activists/terrorist suspects/suspected members of proscribed organisations in the H blocks at The Maze prison, as well as those convicted of terrorist (and other) offences. That too went down well with the tabloids, but I don't think it helped as a part of the peace process.

--------------------
"He isn't Doctor Who, he's The Doctor"

(Paul Sinha, BBC)

Posts: 24276 | From: Newport, Wales | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
It doesn't matter. It is entirely reasonable (whether you agree with the reasoning or not) to say that simple membership of an organisation is not a crime. The particular features of a particular organisation need not make any difference, whether that's the local real ale society or a violent criminal organisation. Of course, if someones activities within that organisation are illegal then they should be prosecuted for those activities. So, members of the real ale society should be prosecuted for planning to blow up trucks carrying cans of Carling, but not for their membership of the society.

But is there not a difference between an organisation that is incidentally violent and an organisation that has violence as a core part of its ideology?

Your real ale fans joined the real ale society to enjoy beer, even if some of them happen to be violent. I don't see how one can become an Islamic State jihadist without subscribing to its violent policies.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
But, the question is does that matter until such a point that a member of such an organisation actively engages in violent action - either directly in training to use weapons, or less directly by providing financial support or harbouring those who plan to/have conducted violent acts? When someone has done something like that it doesn't much matter whether they were a member of a particular organisation, whether Jihadist or a real-ale society, they've committed an act that they should quite rightly be prosecuted for. If someone never does something like that, should mere membership of an organisation itself be a crime?

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Inactive membership of an organisation may provide comfort and moral support to its active members- 'I've got all these people behind me', 'I'm doing this for people like them', and so on. Whether this justifies banning membership of these particular organsiations at this particular time, I'm not qualified to say; but I think that in principle it can be perfectly reasonable to criminalise mere membership of an organisation.

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Ricardus
Shipmate
# 8757

 - Posted      Profile for Ricardus   Author's homepage   Email Ricardus   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
I don't see how one can become an Islamic State jihadist without subscribing to its violent policies.

That's kind of the point, though - if membership implies terrorism, you can prosecute the terrorism; you don't need to prosecute membership.

(FWIW I can see Albertus' point as well - I just don't think the Greens' position is as absurd as it's been caricatured.)

--------------------
Then the dog ran before, and coming as if he had brought the news, shewed his joy by his fawning and wagging his tail. -- Tobit 11:9 (Douai-Rheims)

Posts: 7247 | From: Liverpool, UK | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Ricardus:
That's kind of the point, though - if membership implies terrorism, you can prosecute the terrorism; you don't need to prosecute membership.

Possibly. Though if the problem is jihadists travelling from Britain to Syria (where they disappear off the radar) we might be able to prove intention to join the Islamic State but not be able to prove what they get up to when they're there.
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's a balancing act between attempting to prevent terrorist acts and maintaining democratic society and human rights - in this case the freedom of association (enshrined in, for example, the European Convention on Human Rights). Clearly the ECHR contains enough leeway to allow criminalisation of membership of a small number of organisations, presumably under some form of national security justification. But, in pursuit of national security is the erosion of human rights and democratic principals too big a price to pay? It seems that the Greens would think so. I admit I certainly lean that way too, it seems absurd that we defend democracy and human rights by eroding those same things we claim to be defending.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Given that the tories have been responsible for the deaths of around 60 British citizens (if not more) due to their welfare cuts I would suggest that we should consider prohibiting membership of the Conservative and Unionist Party.

I'm with the Greens on this. Do something wrong; get prosecuted. Believe something wrong that may lead to doing something wrong? Get monitored proportionally to the danger posed.

Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It's not as if you can just go jihadist.com and set up a standing order for £2 per month to sign up though is it?

If the police want to know who has joined CAMRA recently, they can just go and ask at their office (or at least, obtain a warrant to do so)

In the midst of all the abuse scandals in the UK, there was some discussion of "The Paedophile Information Exchange". That would be unpleasant for most people to contemplate, but their aim was to campaign for legalisation of paedophilia, which is another twist. You can't make it illegal to campaign to change the law can you - otherwise all political activity would be illegal.

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047

 - Posted      Profile for Arethosemyfeet   Email Arethosemyfeet   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
It would, however, be perfectly reasonable to prevent PIE members working with children. Similarly it would make sense to prohibit ISIS and Al Qaeda affiliates being involved with running religious charities (to reduce their ability to radicalise others).
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012  |  IP: Logged
chris stiles
Shipmate
# 12641

 - Posted      Profile for chris stiles   Email chris stiles   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Possibly. Though if the problem is jihadists travelling from Britain to Syria (where they disappear off the radar) we might be able to prove intention to join the Islamic State but not be able to prove what they get up to when they're there.

This is completely orthogonal to the issue raised. They can already do this RIGHT NOW, and indeed do, without headlining their ambitions by declaring themselves a member of "The Islamic State in Iraq, Bradford Branch" first.

Criminalising membership of a particular organisation for the purposes of arresting people, really only works if you then apply it retrospectively.

Posts: 4035 | From: Berkshire | Registered: May 2007  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
So basically one week ago they stated a policy and then in the intervening week they realised their policy was stupid and so they backtracked on it.

On one hand, a party leader says something stupid, and hurries to correct it.

On the other, a party leader says something stupid, puts it into law, keeps on defending it despite all evidence to the contrary.

Absolutely certain I know which I'd prefer. How about you?

Oh I see. So manifesto pledges can be seen as "aims", "aspirations" or what have you.

In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?

Also, would membership of the Ku Klux Klan be okay as long as you don't break any laws but just sell sheets on the family plan?

Is it illegal to put a burning cross on someone's lawn? Probably trespass but that's a civil matter isn't it?

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?

Well now. Since the Green Party manifesto hasn't been published yet, we'll just have to see.

If you really want me to go through the Conservative party manifesto for 2010 point by point and prove it was nothing more than a wish-list... oh hang on. Stupid and/or impractical, did you say?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Oh I see. So manifesto pledges can be seen as "aims", "aspirations" or what have you.

In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?

Well, yes. Manifesto pledges are aspirations - until the votes are counted the opening sentence (something like "when elected to government we will ...") can't be anything else. And, certainly for a party (like the Greens) who no one honestly believes can form a majority government then manifestos describe what they will try to do from a position outside government, or within the restrictions of a coalition. And, yes, if circumstances at the time when they start to enact a policy pledge have changed such that the proposed policy is clearly not going to work then it should be ditched - that's simple common sense and pragmatism.

All of which is irrelevant, as at present (AFAIK) the Greens haven't produced a manifesto, so at present they're floating ideas and are free to change those when they write their manifesto if reaction to and discussion of those ideas shows they needed more work.

And, on this occasion, I don't see what's wrong with having a policy that boils down to upholding basic principles of human rights and democracy.

quote:
Also, would membership of the Ku Klux Klan be okay as long as you don't break any laws but just sell sheets on the family plan?

Is it illegal to put a burning cross on someone's lawn? Probably trespass but that's a civil matter isn't it?

Membership of the KKK, fine.

Actions such as wearing white sheets in public (except as a ghost costume on Halloween) and burning crosses will probably fall foul of several laws - it's basically a form of harassment and intimidation, and probably incitement.

So, people can freely join the KKK. But, their actions beyond that may be illegal (and in the case of the KKK, or Jihadists etc, the 'may' will be 'almost certainly') and should be prosecuted appropriately.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Baptist Trainfan
Shipmate
# 15128

 - Posted      Profile for Baptist Trainfan   Email Baptist Trainfan   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
All of which is irrelevant, as at present (AFAIK) the Greens haven't produced a manifesto, so at present they're floating ideas and are free to change those when they write their manifesto if reaction to and discussion of those ideas shows they needed more work.

No, but they do have a very detailed statement of their policies. They also have a Manifesto from last year's European elections.

[ 04. February 2015, 07:56: Message edited by: Baptist Trainfan ]

Posts: 9750 | From: The other side of the Severn | Registered: Sep 2009  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Doc Tor:
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
In the end it seems that you feel that a manifesto is something that doesn't have to be anything other than a wish-list, and should be changed if the policies are either stupid or impractical to implement for various reasons?

Well now. Since the Green Party manifesto hasn't been published yet, we'll just have to see.

If you really want me to go through the Conservative party manifesto for 2010 point by point and prove it was nothing more than a wish-list... oh hang on. Stupid and/or impractical, did you say?

Not much point. It all went out of the window when we had to go into coalition with a bunch of do-gooders, hippies and socialists. Pity, but I suspect we would have got more of our manifesto delivered if we had an outright majority.

Don't misunderstand me though. I think manifestos contain aspirations and general policy directions and detail and delivery is always subject to the prevailing conditions when entering government. I don't have a problem with that and I am not one of those who want manifestos to be binding contracts.

But the watermelons have some seriously wacky policies that are, on exposure to the wider general public, laughed at, along with the people proposing them. So they back tracked very quickly. They are just as opportunist as any other political party and to pretend they are somehow above grubbing for votes is a nonsense.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Doc Tor
Deepest Red
# 9748

 - Posted      Profile for Doc Tor     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
Don't misunderstand me though. I think manifestos contain aspirations and general policy directions and detail and delivery is always subject to the prevailing conditions when entering government. I don't have a problem with that and I am not one of those who want manifestos to be binding contracts.

Except for the Greens, apparently. The kettle called back, and guess what?

--------------------
Forward the New Republic

Posts: 9131 | From: Ultima Thule | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
And, on this occasion, I don't see what's wrong with having a policy that boils down to upholding basic principles of human rights and democracy.

Is not proscribing membership of explicitly terrorist organisations basic human rights? As has been said above I think that's a very arguable point.

But as Deano has pointed out (in his own inimitable way) this policy is now being seen alongside policies on making the economy smaller and destroying British identity. I don't think it's surprising that people look at these in the round and think 'the Greens are a bit bonkers'.

Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
No Doc. The watermelons promises are so stupid that I welcome their decision to change them. It's the fact that they thought their original policies were viable in the first place that is farcical.

Of course they had no choice but to change it on the hoof when exposed to public view.

It showed that they are not a serious party. They are seriously out of touch with the real world and with real people. They obviously though that because a load of wierd-beards, Guardipendant readers and Marxists liked their policies then they would be acceptable to normal folk. When the normal folk laughed at those policies they changed them.

Like I said, anyone voting for them ought to be sectioned!

[ 04. February 2015, 09:11: Message edited by: deano ]

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
But the watermelons

By which, I assume you mean the Green Party
quote:
have some seriously wacky policies
specifically upholding significant principles of democracy and human rights, namely the freedom of association
quote:
that are, on exposure to the wider general public, laughed at, along with the people proposing them. So they back tracked very quickly.
I'm not laughing. Besides, a move from "membership of organisations will not be illegal" to "membership of organisations will not be illegal, but other crimes committed as a member of an organisation will be prosecuted" isn't exactly a back track - a clarification and qualification, certainly, but it's stretching the word "back track".

quote:
They are just as opportunist as any other political party and to pretend they are somehow above grubbing for votes is a nonsense.
They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.

[ 04. February 2015, 09:33: Message edited by: Alan Cresswell ]

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
deano
princess
# 12063

 - Posted      Profile for deano   Email deano   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.

So you are saying it is refreshing that a disorganised bunch of hippies are standing for Parliament, to make the laws which will affect real people?

Okay fair enough, it's a free country and I'm all for them standing. But it is the idea of actually VOTING for them that is tragic. That someone actually believes they are worth voting for is laughable and desperately sad at the same time.

It isn't like voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party. That's a joke and funny. But voting for the watermelons in the hope they can actually influence real government policy in Parliament is a sign of a deep mental illness.

--------------------
"The moral high ground is slowly being bombed to oblivion. " - Supermatelot

Posts: 2118 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged
Karl: Liberal Backslider
Shipmate
# 76

 - Posted      Profile for Karl: Liberal Backslider   Author's homepage   Email Karl: Liberal Backslider   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by deano:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
[QUOTE]They may be a bit naive, and not as well resourced, so probably don't run statements through focus groups and PR gurus as effectively as other parties. But, some people find it refreshing to see the process by which policy ststements evolve rather than have to be content with PR consultant polished, focus group evaluated, sales pitches.

So you are saying it is refreshing that a disorganised bunch of hippies are standing for Parliament, to make the laws which will affect real people?

Okay fair enough, it's a free country and I'm all for them standing. But it is the idea of actually VOTING for them that is tragic. That someone actually believes they are worth voting for is laughable and desperately sad at the same time.

It isn't like voting for the Monster Raving Looney Party. That's a joke and funny. But voting for the watermelons in the hope they can actually influence real government policy in Parliament is a sign of a deep mental illness.

Book me into the Hartington wing then, because most Green policies seem pretty sensible and in tune with my values to me.

--------------------
Might as well ask the bloody cat.

Posts: 17938 | From: Chesterfield | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
lowlands_boy
Shipmate
# 12497

 - Posted      Profile for lowlands_boy   Email lowlands_boy   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Hoping that I'm not breaking a posting rule (I have no affiliation), I think that this

Let's factcheck the election

Seems a very good idea.

--------------------
I thought I should update my signature line....

Posts: 836 | From: North West UK | Registered: Apr 2007  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
I like an awful lot of what the Greens say. I used to be a member if the party (because, I used to say not entirely jokingly, in the inexplicable absence of a High Church Monarchist Radical Agrarian party, they were the next best thing) and would happily vote for them again- IF they had any chance of getting anywhere. The problem is that in the specific case of Westminster elections, the electoral system means that a Green vote almost always means a vote taken from the main leftwards anti-Conservative challenger, to no good effect. And the situation is so dire in this country now that the priority has to be getting the Conservatives out and a government with some shreds of humanity in, which means in practice voting Labour where they have a chance, unsatisfactory as they are in so many ways.
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Well, maybe, but Labour strike me as Tory-lite now. They have drunk the Kool-Aid of neo-liberalism.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican't:
Is not proscribing membership of explicitly terrorist organisations basic human rights? As has been said above I think that's a very arguable point.

Freedom of association is basic human right, and a vital part of a functioning democracy. We are, or should be, free to join or form any organisation - and, the more political those organisations are then the more important that freedom is for democracy.

Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Yes, they have- or rather, some of them have- there are people like Jon Cruddas who certainly haven't. I want to give Miliband a good slap and say 'look, you're an intelligent chap, you know in your heart this is all balls (no pun intended although rather apt now I think of it), just grow a pair and say what you think'.
BUT like it or not, they are just about the only viable alternative to 5 more years of torture under Cameron & even worse Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.

Sorry, AC, that's no good. All laws, especially all prohibitions, are based on drawing lines. And of course lines move- so they should. What we have to do is ensure that lines move appropriately, and that the direction of movement can go both ways if required. Your position so easily turns into a mere cop-out from the difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task of doing that.

[ 04. February 2015, 10:52: Message edited by: Albertus ]

--------------------
My beard is a testament to my masculinity and virility, and demonstrates that I am a real man. Trouble is, bits of quiche sometimes get caught in it.

Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
quetzalcoatl
Shipmate
# 16740

 - Posted      Profile for quetzalcoatl   Email quetzalcoatl   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, they have- or rather, some of them have- there are people like Jon Cruddas who certainly haven't. I want to give Miliband a good slap and say 'look, you're an intelligent chap, you know in your heart this is all balls (no pun intended although rather apt now I think of it), just grow a pair and say what you think'.
BUT like it or not, they are just about the only viable alternative to 5 more years of torture under Cameron & even worse Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).

Fair enough, yes, Osborne gives me the jitters. But I always get the sense that Labour soften us up for more Tory nonsense. In any case, I live in a safe Tory seat, so my vote is utterly meaningless. Happy days.

--------------------
I can't talk to you today; I talked to two people yesterday.

Posts: 9878 | From: UK | Registered: Oct 2011  |  IP: Logged
Anglican't
Shipmate
# 15292

 - Posted      Profile for Anglican't   Email Anglican't   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Osborne (whom I am coming more and more to beieve has, quite seriously, something literally evil about him).

His new haircut isn't that bad, is it...?
Posts: 3613 | From: London, England | Registered: Nov 2009  |  IP: Logged
Albertus
Shipmate
# 13356

 - Posted      Profile for Albertus     Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
Still manages to hide the horns (and to be clear, that's not casting moral aspersions on Mrs O)
Posts: 6498 | From: Y Sowth | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged
Alan Cresswell

Mad Scientist 先生
# 31

 - Posted      Profile for Alan Cresswell   Email Alan Cresswell   Send new private message       Edit/delete post   Reply with quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

Saying "you can join any organisation, except ... " draws a line. And, lines are dangerous, they have a habit of moving.

Sorry, AC, that's no good. All laws, especially all prohibitions, are based on drawing lines. And of course lines move- so they should. What we have to do is ensure that lines move appropriately, and that the direction of movement can go both ways if required. Your position so easily turns into a mere cop-out from the difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task of doing that.
I agree that laws mean drawing lines. And, as such, they should be discussed and examined in detail before being brought into effect - which is the role of Parliament, both Houses, through all the processes that happen there, with input from other relevant organisations (which includes the public directly or via campaign groups and the the media, but also European Courts etc). A difficult and sometimes inevitably compromised task is an apt description.

My concern with many laws passed on the basis of "national security" is that they can often get onto the statute books bypassing a lot of the procedures and scrutiny that would normally be applied, and almost always have some form of human rights implication (association, privacy etc). So, we have a law that says membership of terrorist organisations is illegal, passed through Parliament. But, who gets to decide whether a particular organisation is a terrorist group? Does that decision go through full Parliamentary procedures? The problem is that that particular line can be shifted almost at the whim of the Home Secretary.

And, just to make things clear - I actually think there are occasions when making membership of some organisations illegal is a necessary compromise, though it should be a very unusual measure. So, on that count, I disagree with the Greens. But, I can appreciate where they are coming from, and do not consider that policy to be completely barking. It is a principled position, one that would involve a small risk of appearing to legitimise some view points, but a completely sane and reasonable position to hold.

--------------------
Don't cling to a mistake just because you spent a lot of time making it.

Posts: 32413 | From: East Kilbride (Scotland) or 福島 | Registered: May 2001  |  IP: Logged



Pages in this thread: 1  2  3  4  5  ...  26  27  28 
 
Post new thread  Post a reply Close thread   Feature thread   Move thread   Delete thread Next oldest thread   Next newest thread
 - Printer-friendly view
Go to:

Contact us | Ship of Fools | Privacy statement

© Ship of Fools 2016

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classicTM 6.5.0

 
follow ship of fools on twitter
buy your ship of fools postcards
sip of fools mugs from your favourite nautical website
 
 
  ship of fools