I wonder if anyone watches "Little Britain" here. But their portrayal of bitchy Sebastian and his relationship with the Prime Minister has certainly influenced me into thinking if Tony Blair has such an aide at Number Ten!
In last night's episode, Sebastian was crooning James Blunt's "Beautiful" to a bewildered PM at the House of Commons. It was absobloodylutely hilarious. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
My geography teacher let us watch Tony Blair's speech at the Labour Party Conference last week. It was actually very good (and quite funny in places), even though it was essentially a farewell speech with an 'I haven't been as bad as you all think' tone. He kept emphasising how much he loves the Labour Party — his criticism of the Conservatives received the most applause, naturally.
Then I saw some of David Cameron's speech at the Conservative Party Conference this week. The conference introduced no new policies, but Cameron spoke a lot about protecting the environment and keeping the NHS (i.e. not privatising it), and even spoke out in favour of gay unions. Of which party is he the leader again?
(...) Cameron spoke a lot about protecting the environment (...)
The Economist depicts Cameron as a serial tree-hugger.
That alone says much about the vacuity of the political platform of the UK conservatives... Their accession to power would be a blessing for France. :twisted:
Cameron apparently describes himself as a 'modern compassionate conservative' and said that he was 'fed up with the Punch and Judy politics of Westminster'. In spite of this, he called Gordon Brown 'an analogue politician in a digital age', he said that John Prescott 'clearly looks a fool', and has described the eurosceptic UK Independence Party as 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists, mostly'.
Under Cameron's leadership, the Conservative Party have changed their logo from this:
...to this:
(The new logo reminds me of that of the supermarket chain Somerfield).
I'm not quite sure what to think of Cameron and his touchy-feely style. Have protecting the environment and safeguarding the NHS really become the Conservatives' highest priorities, or is this a façade aimed at winning voters?
Literally as well, as their new logo would suggest.
Quote:
What is Cameron's position about Iraq ?
According to TheyWorkForYou.com, Cameron voted 'moderately for' the war in Iraq (as opposed to 'quite strongly for' or 'very strongly for'). It is important to realise though that this is based on how he voted in 2003, in rather different circumstances and when he wasn't leader of the party. There is no use in speculating what he might actually have done had he been the prime minister at that time.
In a speech last year shortly before the leadership election, he described the need to establish a representative government in Iraq as a 'cause worth fighting for', and said that giving up now would be disastrous. However, some have suggested that these comments were mainly intended to attract the further right-wing members of the Conservative Party during the leadership election. His position on Iraq does not seem to be particularly emphasised in general.
Army chief declares war on Blair: 'We must quit Iraq soon'
12.10.06
The head of the Army is calling for British troops to withdraw from Iraq "soon" or risk catastophic consequences for both Iraq and British society.
In a devastating broadside at Tony Blair's foreign policy, General Sir Richard Dannatt stated explicitly that the continuing presence of British troops "exacerbates the security problems" in Iraq.
In an exclusive interview with the Daily Mail, Sir Richard also warns that a "moral and spiritual vacuum" has opened up in British society, which is allowing Muslim extremists to undermine "our accepted way of life."
The Chief of the General Staff believes that Christian values are under threat in Britain and that continuing to fight in Iraq will only make the situation worse.
His views will send shockwaves through Government.
They are a total repudiation of the Prime Minister, who has repeatedly insisted that British presence in Iraq is morally right and has had no effect on our domestic security.
Sir Richard, who took up his post earlier this year, warned that "our presence in Iraq exacerbates" the "difficulties we are facing around the world."
He lambasts Tony Blair's desire to forge a "liberal democracy" in Iraq as a "naive" failure and he warns that "whatever consent we may have had in the first place" from the Iraqi people "has largely turned to intolerance."
In one of the most outspoken interviews ever given by a serving soldier, Sir Richard also reveals:
* He was "outraged" by reports of injured soldiers recouperating in hospital alongside civilians being confronted by anti-war campaigners who told them to remove their uniforms.
* He gave Defence Secretary Des Browne a dressing down about the "unaccepatble" treatment of injured soldiers, warning him that the government was in danger of breaking the "covenant" between a nation and its Army and should not "let the Army down."
* He understands why Prince William and Prince Harry want to serve on the frontline but has not yet decided whether they will be allowed to fight in Afghanistan.
But it is Sir Richard's views of the situation in Iraq that will enrage Downing Street.
He says clearly we shoud "get ourselves out sometime soon because our presence exacerbates the security problems."
"We are in a Muslim country and Muslims' views of foreigners in their country are quite clear."
As a foreigner, you can be welcomed by being invited in a country, but we weren't invited certainly by those in Iraq at the time.
"The military campaign we fought in 2003 effectively kicked the door in. Whatever consent we may have had in the first place, may have turned to tolerance and has largely turned to intolerance."
"That is a fact. I don't say that the difficulties we are experiencing round the world are caused by our presence in Iraq but undoubtedly our presence in Iraq exacerbates them."
In comments that set him at loggerheads with Mr Blair, Gen Dannatt warns that the good intentions of 2003 have long since evaporated - pitching British troops into a lethal battle that few at home can understand.
"I think history will show that the planning for what happened after the initial successful war fighting phase was poor, probably based more on optimism than sound planning," he said.
"The original intention was that we put in place a liberal democracy that was an exemplar for the region, was pro West and might have a beneficial effect on the balance within the Middle East."
"That was the hope, whether that was a sensible or naïve hope history will judge. I don't think we are going to do that. I think we should aim for a lower ambition."
The Prime Minister has repeatedly insisted that British troops must stay until the Iraqi security forces are able to take charge - a forlorn hope as the country has slipped to the brink of civil war.
Sir Richard warned that the consequences will be felt at home, where failure to support Christian values is allowing a predatory Islamist vision to take hold.
He said: "When I see the Islamist threat in this country I hope it doesn't make undue progress because there is a moral and spiritual vacuum in this country."
"Our society has always been embedded in Christian values; once you have pulled the anchor up there is a danger that our society moves with the prevailing wind."
"There is an element of the moral compass spinning. I think it is up to society to realise that is the situation we are in."
"We can't wish the Islamist challenge to our society away and I believe that the army both in Iraq and Afghanistan and probably wherever we go next, is fighting the foreign dimension of the challenge to our accepted way of life."
"We need to face up to the Islamist threat, to those who act in the name of Islam and in a perverted way try to impose Islam by force on societies that do not wish it."
"It is said that we live in a post Christian society. I think that is a great shame. The broader Judaic-Christian tradition has underpinned British society. It underpins the British army."
General Dannatt says he has "more optimism" that "we can get it right in Afghanistan."
But he condemned the treatment of injured British soldiers, who have been forced to share wards with civilians in Selly Oak hospital in Birmingham.
Sir Richard said he confronted Mr Browne about the "covenant" between a nation and its armed forces.
"I said to the Secretary of State the army wont let the nation down but I don't want the nation to let the army down."
"It is not acceptable for our casualties to be in mixed wards with civilians. I was outraged at the story of someone saying take your uniform off'. Our people need the privacy of recovering in a military environment - a soldier manning a machine gun in Basra loses consciousness when he is hit by a missile and next recovers consciousness in a hospital in the UK."
"He wants to wake up to familiar sights and sounds, he wants to see people in uniform. He doesn't want to be in a civilian environment."
He added: "I am going to stand up for what is right for the army. Honesty is what it is about. The truth will out. We have got to speak the truth."
Shadow Defence Secretary Liam Fox said: "When I was in Iraq, soldiers told me the same thing."
"They said the reaction had gone from welcome, to consent to mere tolerance and they said that this meant we didn't have an indefinite licence to be there."
"To have one of our senior military figures speaking out on behalf of those under his commenad is a refreshing change."
"General Dannatt is completely right to say that it's a scandal ro have injured servicemen on mixed wards with civilians."
Liberal Democrat Foreign Affairs spokesman Michael Moore said: "This is the frankest assessment we have had about Iraq. It illustrates that the government has no clear strategy."
The party's defence spokesman Nick Harvey added: "This drives a coach and horses through the government's foreign policy."
_________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
TRIMDON, England May 10, 2007 (AP)
Prime Minister Tony Blair said Thursday that he will step down as prime minister on June 27, after a decade in office in which he brokered peace in Northern Ireland and followed the United States to war in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Blair, 54, will leave office as soon as a new leader is elected for the Labour Party.
"'I've been prime minister of this country for just over 10 years," he told supporters in his in his Parliamentary constituency.
"In this job, in the world of today, I think that's long enough for me but more especially for the country. Sometimes the only way you conquer the pull of power is to set it down."
Treasury chief Gordon Brown, Blair's partner in reforming the Labour Party and a sometimes impatient rival in government, was expected to easily win election a the party's new leader and become the next prime minister.
Blair's announcement is one that his Labour Party, and the nation, have been expecting for nearly three years, ever since the prime minister said in 2004 that his third term would be his last.
"Today, the beginning of the end," read the front page of The Guardian newspaper.
Blair met earlier with Cabinet members, who left No. 10 Downing Street without answering questions shouted by reporters swarming outside.
Brown has already declared he will be a candidate; at least one opponent from the party's left wing was expected to announce his candidacy Thursday afternoon.
John Burton, Blair's political representative in the northern parliamentary district of Sedgefield, said earlier that Blair would continue to represent Sedgefield in Parliament until the next national election, expected in 2009, unless he is offered "a major international or United Nations job."
The Iraq war, a police investigation of allegations that the government traded honors for political contributions and endless questions about when Blair would step down overshadowed his last term in government, after winning the third term in May 2005.
Blair has stopped short of openly endorsing Brown, a stern Scot who has long coveted the top job, but said last week that Brown would make "a great prime minister."
_________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
In his speech today, Tony Blair described Britain as 'the greatest nation on earth'. I am appalled by that assertion, as was Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described his speech as 'defensive, defiant, and even chauvinist'.
It seems almost certain that the next British Prime Minister will be Gordon Brown:
Which is rather ironic, really, considering the current situation with the Scottish Parliament. Actually, he has apparently said that he will 'refuse' to even speak to the First Minister of Scotland if it is Alex Salmond, the SNP leader — which would be an outrageous policy, in my view.
Incidentally, the Liberal Democrats have tabled a parliamentary motion to dissolve parliament and call a general election.
In his speech today, Tony Blair described Britain as 'the greatest nation on earth'. I am appalled by that assertion, as was Sir Menzies Campbell, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, who described his speech as 'defensive, defiant, and even chauvinist'.
Yes, I disliked it too. It's wrong to describe any nation like that. _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
He made Labour electable. If Andre were to recall the years when Labour was in the political wilderness, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed to have a vice-like grip on the corridors of Westminister and Whitehall. They were the natural party of government.
The Right Honourable Anthony Charles Blair is after all a politician at heart and a very savvy one at that. He realised that Labour had to steal some of the Tories' clothes in order to appeal to the electorate. In the 1997 landslide victory, the south and the southeast ditched the Tories for Labour. The Labour emerged from a party with strong working class credentials into one with a more middle-class air of respectability. If I were British, I might even had voted for the New Labour.
Nobody today would seriously contemplate the privatisation of industries that were nationalised in the wake of the war. The beauty of the Blairite government is how he had managed to retain the good bits of the Thatcherite reforms whilst infusing his government's economic agenda with a healthy dosage of social concern. By giving the Bank of England fiscal independence, interest rates move in tandem with market forces and are not cynically manipulated by the government for political exigencies.
From 1945 to 1997, average economic growth per annum was 2.7 %. From 1997 to 2007, growth rates averaged 2.8%.
But I would argue that a lot of the credit for Britain (or as Benjamin would cynically point out, southeast England)'s economic boom was largely laid down by his Tory predecessors. Besides, financial stewardship of Britain is known to be largely beyond the remit of the Prime Minister as Gordon Brown is known to jealously guard his ministry's independence.
Looking back at Blair, I would like to add in my perspective as a starry-eyed non British. I was 13 when John Major was booted out from Downing Street. One of his first foreign trips to Asia was taken in the final few months of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony and I remembered he dropping by in a kindergarten and ostensibly reading a storybook to the children.
He later dropped by in Singapore to visit, of all places, a local supermarket with a Trade and Industry Minister who had also studied in Edinburgh.
He made a speech and I thought he was a very eloquent chap when he elucidated about his plans for an 'Opportunity Society'. Boy did we have a field day trying to speak with those same plummy vowels by pronouncing 'Opportunity' in the same exact way he did.
It is a little sad that he has since been demonised by both the left as well as the right. He is obviously a very intelligent man and a very accomplished orator. One thing I enjoyed watching in the news highlights is the Prime Minister's Questions. He can be cutting at times towards the leader of the Opposition. He has all the qualities I admire in a man save for perhaps his slightly Fabian convictions.
Labour has lost its way by unceremoniously nudging Blair out of office. Remember what happened when the Tories rebelled against Margaret Thatcher. The party was plunged into a civil war of which they had only just begun to recover, albeit barely.
I just wish Gordon Brown would call for snap elections - he needs it anyway if he does not want to be accused of lacking a strong popular mandate. However, the likely scenario would be that the Labour Party would be returned to their natural political habitat - the Opposition benches.
And hopefully remain there till kingdom come. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Unfortunately, I imagine he will be remembered mostly for the war in Iraq. Ironically, if he hadn't supported and participated in the Iraq war, then he'd probably be remembered as the first British prime minister who didn't follow the United States.
loic wrote:
He made Labour electable.
I find it unfortunate that Labour have made themselves more right-wing in attempt to make themselves more 'electable'. But I'm the sort of person who votes for the Green Party, knowing full well that they're not going to win. Of course, the Green Party could make themselves more 'electable' by adopting more business-friendly policies and by not proposing such high taxes, but they won't because then they'd be compromising their principles.
loic wrote:
Looking back at Blair, I would like to add in my perspective as a starry-eyed non British. I was 13 when John Major was booted out from Downing Street. One of his first foreign trips to Asia was taken in the final few months of Hong Kong as a Crown Colony and I remembered he dropping by in a kindergarten and ostensibly reading a storybook to the children.
He's always pulling off stunts like that. Some of my friends met him a few years ago at some conference where they presented the model formula 1 racing cars that they'd made, powered by carbon dioxide and produced by computer-aided design. I wasn't there, but I'd actually had some involvement with it, because I'd produced the logo for them (since I'm an 'arty' sort of person who knew how to use Jasc Paint Shop Pro).
He also randomly turned up at my previous school one day a few years ago as well, apparently without any prior warning.
And incidentally, one of my friends had lunch with David Cameron last week because apparently he wanted to meet an 'ethnic minority' family. Again, it's a publicity stunt.
loic wrote:
It is a little sad that he has since been demonised by both the left as well as the right.
Iraq. If that hadn't happened, then he would probably have been seen as a tolerable sort of prime minister by most people.
loic wrote:
However, the likely scenario would be that the Labour Party would be returned to their natural political habitat - the Opposition benches.
Do you believe that the Conservative Party have a kind of natural right to be in government at Westminster?
loic wrote:
And hopefully remain there till kingdom come.
I'm sure that the SNP would absolutely love that, even though they wouldn't admit it.
Benjamin, I honestly believe that the Conservatives are the natural party of Government. It is like supporting a football club - you just don't ask why. You are born with inherent allegiances that are nurtured and strengthened as you grow older. God forbid if I support a rival football club one day, just as God forbid I wake up one day and decide that I am actually a loony left at heart.
On this note, GO ARSENAL!!!! _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Sometimes, I wonder if Tony Blair would still have supported the Iraq war if he had the benefit of hindsight.
But the Prime Minister is now resigned to the weary realisation that he is now damned if he does and damned if he doesn't. He gives me the impression of being perfectly content to sit back and allow history to redeem himself. Who knows, Iraq might emerge as a prosperous and peaceful society in 50 years and historians of future generations would likely take a kindlier view towards his legacy.
When the Romans pushed their original frontier into the heart of Europe in the days of yore, they must have disrupted the schedule of their new inhabitants as well. Some lives were probably taken in the process of establishing Pax Romana. But history has generally taken a benign view towards the benefit of Roman conquest and nobody today would argue against it.
This would be the same for Iraq. In a hundred years' time, people'd look upon this invasion in a different light. Tony Blair would be vindicated. His political decision would be rehabilated.
One thing though is this niggling suspicion that he lied. Actually, I think it is doubtful. He is the sort of bloke who gives me the impression of being genuinely convinced of the existence of WMDs in Saddamist Iraq. It is hence debatable as to whether Tony Blair cynically manipulated the Government into participating in a war under false pretense.
He probably waded into troubled waters with an unhealthy dosage of over-optimism. Just a year before, British troops zipped into Sierra Leone to restore a measure of order and stability. British intervention in Sierra Leone was a moderate success. Tony Blair probably transferred his Sierra Leone outlook onto Iraq and erroneously presumed that the mission would be just as straightforward.
As to he modernising Labour, this is what savvy politicians have to do. He and Gordon Brown understood that they had to reposition Labour as a moderate centre-left party whose roots still hark back to socialism. One of the key feature of Old Labour's manifesto was its commitment to renationalise all the key industries that were privatised in earlier eras.
Today, nobody would realistically argue for the renationalisation of industries such as say, telecommunications. Not unless you as a consumer are perfectly happy to pay higher rates for your mobile subscription rates and receive an inferior service in return.
What is intrinsically wrong about understanding the needs and wants of the electorate and responding to their wishes? A political party exists because it serves its people and not the ideas of its founder.
Of course, nobody can please everybody so Labour took the sensible decision of mix-matching a set of policies that was designed to please the lowest common denominator of the public. It was a formula that projected them to Government where they remain till today.
As for the Greens, I simply cannot understand the raison d'etre of such a party. Apart from the environment, are they remotely competent in anything else?
I am very sympathetic to the Greens, you know. I used to watch Captain Planet when I was younger. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Benjamin, I honestly believe that the Conservatives are the natural party of Government. It is like supporting a football club - you just don't ask why. You are born with inherent allegiances that are nurtured and strengthened as you grow older. God forbid if I support a rival football club one day, just as God forbid I wake up one day and decide that I am actually a loony left at heart.
On this note, GO ARSENAL!!!!
I find this view rather difficult to understand, I'm afraid, perhaps because I have never supported any kind of sports club or team. And although I was brought up to be generally sympathetic to a certain political party, which is the party supported by virtually the whole of my mother's family, I could not describe them as 'the natural party of government', since they have not been in power at Westminister since 1918. And I must say, if this was the main party which I supported, which it isn't, then I'd be pretty embarrassed to admit it.
loic wrote:
What is intrinsically wrong about understanding the needs and wants of the electorate and responding to their wishes? A political party exists because it serves its people and not the ideas of its founder.
I think I'd rather say that a political party exists because it promotes the beliefs of its members. Otherwise, parties might as well conduct mass opinion polls and base their policies on that, which would make all the parties the same. For example, the Scottish National Party exists to promote Scottish independence, whereas the Scottish Unionist Party exists to promote entirely the opposite, regardless of which view is more popular amongst the electorate. But maybe that sort of thing makes less sense in a de facto one-party state like Singapore.
loic wrote:
As for the Greens, I simply cannot understand the raison d'etre of such a party. Apart from the environment, are they remotely competent in anything else?
It's a bit of a myth that the Greens — or at least the Greens that I'm most familiar with, which would be the Green Party of England and Wales, and the Scottish Green Party — are concerned only with the environment. Their ideology is known as green politics, and goes back to the German Green Party in the late 1970s. The main principals of this ideology include sustainable development, social justice, participatory democracy, nonviolence, respect for diversity, and decentralisation. It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.
loic wrote:
I am very sympathetic to the Greens, you know.
I can't imagine why, since they represent political views which directly contradict most of the political views that you have expressed on this forum — the most obvious of which would be your support for neo-liberal economic policies. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have also expressed support for nuclear power.
You remind me of George Orwell who could not in the world understand the relevance of club loyalties. Like him, you would probably only gaze dispassionately at an Arsenal-Tottenham derby or a Man Utd-Liverpool clash. Heck, you are probably nonplussed that Birmingham FC has been promoted to the Premier League next season!
You'd also agree with Rudyard Kipling when he called cricket a sport played by flannelled fools.
But this is not necessarily a bad thing. As I pointed out, you are in good company.
So it is impossible for you to understand why people support a political party. I don't know why - I just get a little depressed whenever a centre-right party receives a drubbing in the polls. Of course, not all centre-right parties get onto my radar. I am vaguely familiar with the tradition, history as well as the policies of the Conservative Party of the UK, the Liberals of Australia and the GOP. I project my footballing allegiances to these parties when we talk about politics.
Quote:
I think I'd rather say that a political party exists because it promotes the beliefs of its members. Otherwise, parties might as well conduct mass opinion polls and base their policies on that, which would make all the parties the same. For example, the Scottish National Party exists to promote Scottish independence, whereas the Scottish Unionist Party exists to promote entirely the opposite, regardless of which view is more popular amongst the electorate. But maybe that sort of thing makes less sense in a de facto one-party state like Singapore.
The Greens are just focusing on a niche market and they are happy with that. On the other hand, parties such as Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have more grandiose ambitions and it is imperative that they continuously reposition themselves in order to appeal to the market.
Besides, the Greens continue to exist because there are still people who support them. Imagine a scenario where the Greens become thoroughly discredited and not a single sod votes for them in the elections. They'd have to fold up irrespective of the intensity of their beliefs.
Quote:
It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.
Then the Greens had better not use any forms of modern technology such as the railway (a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution), the mobile phone (courtesy of the telecommunications Revolution) or the Internet (courtesy of the Information Revolution). For all of these products are tangible manifestations of economic growth and it'd be sheer hypocrisy for anybody who is avowedly against economic growth on one hand to consume these products on the other.
Quote:
I can't imagine why, since they represent political views which directly contradict most of the political views that you have expressed on this forum — the most obvious of which would be your support for neo-liberal economic policies. And correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you have also expressed support for nuclear power.
Sympathy for their position does not automatically translate into unwavering support. I believe that environmentalism and businesses are natural bedfellows. Many companies have awaken to the shuddering realisation that sustainable development is also the most economically viable business model in the long run. They are responding to our worries when they adopt industrial practices that are more eco-friendly. From my point of view, I see this phenomenon as a happy marriage of economics and environment.
I don't see why they are mutually exlusive.
Personally, I am an environmentalist. I try to recycle glass and plastic as much as possible. I am against the distribution of plastic bags as a means of carrying our purchases at supermarkets. I am excited about researches done to replace petrol with an ethanol-based fuel that would power our motorcars.
I am just against any form of enviromental protection that is irrational and not consistent with the principles of market economics.
By the way, as you might already have guessed, I consider myself to be a partisan of neo-classical economics. Of course, I am not so old-fashioned as to subscribe wholly to the wisdom of Adam Smith or David Ricardo, John Maynard Keynes or Milton Friedman. A bit of common sense must be applied in analysing every situation.
Karl Marx, by the way, is definitely beyond the remit of contemplation. _________________ Hillary Clinton is an acquired taste which I have clearly yet to acquire.
Heck, you are probably nonplussed that Birmingham FC has been promoted to the Premier League next season!
I didn't even know that they had. And to be honest, I don't even know what the Premier League is.
loic wrote:
So it is impossible for you to understand why people support a political party.
Well, I understand why I support the Green Party — I have read their policies in comparison with those of other parties, and I find that I agree with them the most. However, if they were to change their policies such that I no-longer agreed with them, then I'd probably switch allegiance to the Green Socialist Alliance, or one of the others.
I tend to see my political views as being on a similar line to my religious views — it's the beliefs that count, not the organisation. If I realised that most Unitarians no-longer had a similar socioreligious ethos to me, then I would withdraw my membership from the Unitarian general assembly, stop attending Unitarian congregations, and start looking for another denomination.
loic wrote:
The Greens are just focusing on a niche market and they are happy with that. On the other hand, parties such as Labour, the Conservatives and the Lib Dems have more grandiose ambitions and it is imperative that they continuously reposition themselves in order to appeal to the market.
I wouldn't say that the Green Party are 'happy' that they are not in a position to implement their policies; it's more that their beliefs are more to them important than winning any power.
loic wrote:
Quote:
It is usually accompanied by green economics, which says that economics and human interaction are dependent on the natural world, rejects mainstream (neoclassical) economics and regards 'economic growth' as a delusion.
Then the Greens had better not use any forms of modern technology such as the railway (a byproduct of the Industrial Revolution), the mobile phone (courtesy of the telecommunications Revolution) or the Internet (courtesy of the Information Revolution). For all of these products are tangible manifestations of economic growth and it'd be sheer hypocrisy for anybody who is avowedly against economic growth on one hand to consume these products on the other.
The Green Party have often been accused of being against 'economic growth', partly I think because much of their criticism of the European Union centres around that organisation's focus on creating it. However, I don't believe that Green Party really are 'avowedly against economic growth', as you put it. Looking at their policy, it's more that they don't believe that 'economic growth' is inherently valuable — especially if it is to the detriment of quality of life, human rights, diversity, and the environment. Essentially, the Greens are strongly linked to the anti-globalisation movement.
loic wrote:
Sympathy for their position does not automatically translate into unwavering support. I believe that environmentalism and businesses are natural bedfellows. Many companies have awaken to the shuddering realisation that sustainable development is also the most economically viable business model in the long run. They are responding to our worries when they adopt industrial practices that are more eco-friendly. From my point of view, I see this phenomenon as a happy marriage of economics and environment.
I don't see why they are mutually exlusive.
The Green Party would not see the most of more 'eco-friendly industrial practices' which have been adopted by many businesses as environmentalist enough to last in the long-term.
loic wrote:
Personally, I am an environmentalist. I try to recycle glass and plastic as much as possible. I am against the distribution of plastic bags as a means of carrying our purchases at supermarkets. I am excited about researches done to replace petrol with an ethanol-based fuel that would power our motorcars.
I am just against any form of enviromental protection that is irrational and not consistent with the principles of market economics.
So essentially, you're a light green, as opposed to a dark green. There has actually been significant tension within the German Green Party between these two factions in recent years. Arguably, part of the reason for why the German Green Party (Die Grünen) and GroenLinks (in the Netherlands) have been more successful than, say, the Green Party of England and Wales, or Les Verts (in France), is because they have adopted more light green policies, whereas their counterparts in Britain and France have remained largely dark green.
He made Labour electable. If Andre were to recall the years when Labour was in the political wilderness, the Conservative and Unionist Party seemed to have a vice-like grip on the corridors of Westminister and Whitehall. They were the natural party of government.
That's true. Before 1997, it was basically Conservative government permanently, occasionaly interrupted by periods of Labour government. "Natural party of government" meaning of course that they were in power most of the time, seemed the party preferred by the majority, except for occasional flings with the Liberals, and in the 20th century, with Labour. This image has changed a bit in recent years. (Blair was the first Labour prime minister to be elected for a third term.) _________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
It's now official that Gordon Brown will become Prime Minister on 27th June. There will be no leadership contest, because the only other remaining contender, John McDonnell, was unable to get the necessary 45 nominations from Labour MPs. Gordon Brown had 308 nominations, whereas John McDonnell had only 29.
Both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats are now calling for a general election, since they believe that Gordon Brown would be an entirely unelected prime minister otherwise.
It's rather silly of the Tories and the Libdems calling for an election now. It won't be the first time a new prime minister takes over midterm. In the British system you vote for a party, after all, not for a prime ministerial candidate (although that does play a part). But that's politics, it would've been surprising if they didn't call for an election.
_________________ Toe ek jonk was, het ek al die antwoorde geken. Nou verstaan ek nie eens die vrae nie.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Join! (free) 
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
