|
Post by notanimby on Sept 2, 2013 14:05:32 GMT -1
Dennis skinner wasn't tainted by the expenses scandal, reason being, he doesn't claim any.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 21:20:58 GMT -1
I have never suggested the old idea of being skint to be labour, nota hit the nail DIRECTLY on the head it is HOW they got their wealth!! I was not meaning the wee scumbag Dr John Reid it was the other Reid I meant!! Cooke and Canavan were quite social minded I thought? Ah, yes, sorry Bormes, you meant Jimmy Reid, not the waste of space that's John Reid. Jimmy Reid's legacy can be found here:http://reidfoundation.org/common-weal/ Robin Cooke, who died before his time also, had a lot to bring to the table re Scottish independence, IMV. Denis Canavan is a stalwart supporter of the Yes Campaign. And is working to bring Labour supporters of Indy into the fold. The Yes Campaign's for those with or without party allegiances, who want the very best for Scotland post 2014.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 2, 2013 21:48:49 GMT -1
Just back on the OP re the UKE taking military action against the Syrian regime... The Westminster Tories lost the vote last Friday in Parliament. Make no mistake about this, this decision was taken by majority vote and truly reflects the mood of the majority of the UKE people. And it's come as a big WAKE UP call to David Cameron and his ilk, who're SO removed from the mood of the country it's laughable. Last Friday's vote is a turning point, I think. And Obama should take heed of it, if he continues to solicit the US's military intervention. Because just like the UKE, 70-80% of US people DO NOT WANT military action in their name. Look, we are members of the United Nations. It's there for good reason: it's their responsibility to deal with rogue states. The West simply can NOT solve centuries' worth of in-fighting in the Middle East by firing a few cruise missiles. It beggars BELIEF that some misguided politicians insult our intelligence by suggesting it as a solution. Dropping bombs is never, ever gonna be the answer to anything.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 3, 2013 0:09:44 GMT -1
Our next PM described the conflict in Syria as a civil war between "two pretty much equally unsavoury sides".
He added that the Syrian opposition included "quite a number of elements that are highly influenced by al-Qaeda".
|
|
|
Post by peony on Sept 3, 2013 17:12:29 GMT -1
Do you think Cameron and Obama see any irony in being allied with al Qaeda against the Syrian regime. Nah. Obama seems to be mostly worried about his legacy as the first black president. What a mistake that guy was. Hilary would have been better - though not necessarily more peaceable. They report that only about 9 percent of Americans support military action. I doubt the UN will do anything cause China and Russia will just veto anything that smacks of action. I see Sweden has offered unconditional asylum to any Syrian who asks. I just saw on the news that among the refugees are about 800,000 kids aged 11 or younger. Many have witnessed unspeakable horrors and will receive no counseling or help coping. There is the next generation of terrorists. Do you suppose that if we stepped in to help those kids and the adults by offering medical help, shelter, education and some sort of counseling, etc, that we might just make a dent in the next generation of terrorists? I have no idea what the answer is, but I did spend the morning talking to my senators and my representative and telling them NO BOMBS.
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 3, 2013 17:36:04 GMT -1
Do you think Cameron and Obama see any irony in being allied with al Qaeda against the Syrian regime. Nah. Obama seems to be mostly worried about his legacy as the first black president. What a mistake that guy was. Hilary would have been better - though not necessarily more peaceable. They report that only about 9 percent of Americans support military action. I doubt the UN will do anything cause China and Russia will just veto anything that smacks of action. I see Sweden has offered unconditional asylum to any Syrian who asks. I just saw on the news that among the refugees are about 800,000 kids aged 11 or younger. Many have witnessed unspeakable horrors and will receive no counseling or help coping. There is the next generation of terrorists. Do you suppose that if we stepped in to help those kids and the adults by offering medical help, shelter, education and some sort of counseling, etc, that we might just make a dent in the next generation of terrorists? I have no idea what the answer is, but I did spend the morning talking to my senators and my representative and telling them NO BOMBS. Ah peony, you obviously don't realise that firing missiles ( from a distance) using mad rhetoric and sounding hard is a lot easier than the difficult ( but much more constructive) you outline
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 3, 2013 21:15:49 GMT -1
Personally Rolo' comments and Peony's are very sensible and I find them right for me. Unfortunately despite horrific acts of brutality in many many parts of the world, neither, the US, UK France who seem to be most voiciferous here bothered their arses to step in so why bother now? Militarily I mean. Obama is letting down all those Democrats who championed him as a peace loving man. If he uses military action because he has not got the balls to stand up for what is right, that is Aid not Bombs, then he will be a failure. Guantanamo is still going, although I am not sure it was a bad idea to jail enemy combatants temporarily even there.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 4, 2013 18:09:31 GMT -1
Do you think Cameron and Obama see any irony in being allied with al Qaeda against the Syrian regime. Nah. Obama seems to be mostly worried about his legacy as the first black president. What a mistake that guy was. Hilary would have been better - though not necessarily more peaceable. They report that only about 9 percent of Americans support military action. I doubt the UN will do anything cause China and Russia will just veto anything that smacks of action. I see Sweden has offered unconditional asylum to any Syrian who asks. I just saw on the news that among the refugees are about 800,000 kids aged 11 or younger. Many have witnessed unspeakable horrors and will receive no counseling or help coping. There is the next generation of terrorists. Do you suppose that if we stepped in to help those kids and the adults by offering medical help, shelter, education and some sort of counseling, etc, that we might just make a dent in the next generation of terrorists?I have no idea what the answer is, but I did spend the morning talking to my senators and my representative and telling them NO BOMBS. Peony, I couldn't agree with you more. I'd hope the UKE and particularly Scotland, would follow Sweden's lead in opening our borders to these most deserving of refugees. We hear a great deal about 'immigrants' these days. And while I'm in favour of controlled immigration, when it comes to those seeking asylum, I'm in no doubt that the right thing to do is offer a humanitarian effort to those who, through no fault of their own, have lost homes, families and communities in the most horrific circumstances. Yes, we should look after our own people, sure. Yes, we have serious problems here that need to be solved by investing in our health and education infrastructure. But these are first world problems: we are all relatively wealthy, while such refugees have nothing at all.
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 4, 2013 21:18:23 GMT -1
Yes and there are plenty of countries NEAR them that are safe so we can help, happily, we just do not need to bring them to the UK. Wake up everyone, this TINY Island is OVERCROWDED.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 5, 2013 22:18:03 GMT -1
Yes and there are plenty of countries NEAR them that are safe so we can help, happily, we just do not need to bring them to the UK. Wake up everyone, this TINY Island is OVERCROWDED. Em no, I beg to differ. We're far from overcrowded. We have plenty of room for those who want to come here and contribute. The issue is that successive governments who've encouraged an open border policy have failed spectacularly to commit these peoples' contribution to the tax coffers to expanding our services such as NHS and education. Government tax income has swelled but services have not risen in proportion. And now this hideous coalition, aided and abetted by the UKIP nutjobs, give it mighty PR to set the indigenous people against those they deem as incomers. Wake up everyone, we're being royally played here. We can bang on ad infinitum about that tiny minority of cheating benefit claimants while losing the big picture---which is tax evasion by global conglomerates. There's PLENTY of money to go around. It's just that those and such as those keep it all to themselves.
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 6, 2013 4:50:53 GMT -1
Can UK agriculture feed the population?
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 6, 2013 7:19:30 GMT -1
Disagree Rolo we are a tiny country, Scotland with the majority of our land unsuitable for decent farming, our hill farms can have approx 1 sheep compared to the average in England of 5 sheep per acre for feeding. We HAD an abundance of fish, until UK Govet., squandered our fishing rights to suit the English Capitol. In Scotland at the moment we have a good balance of population and available useful land whereas in my post I referred to the UK being overpopulated and it IS. The world is OVERPOPULATED. Feeding someone is a temporary solution, show them how to feed themselves is a better idea?
|
|
|
Post by notanimby on Sept 6, 2013 13:06:00 GMT -1
Can UK agriculture feed the population? That depends on what they want to eat www.foodsecurity.ac.uk/issue/uk.htmlGives some figures, but farmers tend to grow cash crops, oil seed rape etc nooadays
|
|
|
Post by bormes on Sept 6, 2013 15:42:37 GMT -1
We need to encourage birth control then there will be less people for the war lords to kill!!
|
|
|
Post by ozneil on Sept 6, 2013 20:34:59 GMT -1
Thanks Nota
It would appear that UK imports 40% of food.
I would think very carefully about artificially increasing population by migrants and refugees. Certainly help them if possible.
We used to have "temporary protection visas' which allowed refugees access to the country and returned to their home land when safe to do so.
This worked very well in the Balkans wars especially Kosovo.
|
|