TJ, you could well be right, I'm guessing from how uncomfotable he looks in the Commons, that Clegg himself may also agree with you.
Chat Forum
[closed]
Get your dancing on grave boots ready
-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
rk11
The alternative IMO should have been to refuse all cabinet posts, agree a programme for the queens speech that the lib dems could support and let the tories govern as a minority government. Voting on an issue byu issue basis.
They could have extracted a fair few conditions to support a queens speech and they would have been less tarnished - especially if an issue arises to split the coalition
They couldn't have gone into coalition with labour - the maths did not work.
Teh minority government basis is how Scotland has been run for 4 yrs. it has produced a moderate government willing and able to comprimise
Posted 1 year ago # -
GlitterGary - Member
Is she dead yet?
Is she ****.............Maggie's battling on :
Maggie's winning her fight with the flu
My goodness, that woman's got some balls..........I bet the flu virus is starting to regret ever invading her body.
Apparently she's : "even chatting about the Coalition spending cuts".
That must have made for an interesting conversation. Specially as apparently, she often can't remember what she said at the start the of a sentence, by the time she reaches the end of it.
"A hospital spokesman was unavailable for comment."
The Sun should have insisted, pointing out that they were one of Rupert's papers, and therefore had a right to know how Maggie was doing.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Surf-Mat - Member
So Junkyard, you deny that Labour massively overspent?
Well Surf-Mat until quite recently, the Tories themselves denied that Labour had massively overspent.
I see that earlier Surf-Mat, you claimed you can read - so have a read of this :
Tories 'to match Labour spending'
Quote :
A Conservative government would match Labour's projected public spending totals for the next three years, shadow chancellor George Osborne has said.
He pledged two years of 2% increases.
Mr Osborne said government spending under the Conservatives would rise from £615bn next year to £674bn in 2010/11.
Of course soon after that came the global recession caused by Osborne's chums in the banking and finance sectors. It required massive government intervention, and faced with possibly the highest levels of unemployment and contraction since the Great Depression, the government successfully managed to stimulate the economy through growth in the public sector.
The result was far better than most people had imagined possible - unemployment, despite the most serious global crises for almost 70 years, never even reached the levels caused by Thatcher's recession of the early eighties.
So impressive was Labour's handling of the crises, that they went from a situation of a 22% Tory opinion poll lead, to robbing the Tories of a parliamentary majority - within 12 months.
However, Cameron and Osborn saw the credit crunch/global recession caused by their buddies as a golden opportunity to vandalise and destroy the British welfare state, social housing, the BBC, and everything else which public school educated privileged sons of multimillionaires so despise.
So they went from promising to spend even more than Labour, which they felt they needed to say to win the election, to the situation which we have today.
And the public has fallen for it hook line and sinker.........unemployment going up ? ....... its all the fault of Labour.
4.5 million waiting for affordable housing but the budget has been cut by over 50% ? ........its all the fault of Labour. Councils have to cut services and put up council tax ? ........its all the fault of Labour. And so on.........Everything is Labours fault ....... as public school hooligans go on the rampage vandalising everything they can see and touch.
Although I do think this strategy has a limited shelf-life. Every time a minister whether Tory or LibDem, appears on TV and they are quizzed by interviewers, they trot out the "its Labour's fault"......whatever the issue. Eventually the public will get "its Labour's fault" fatigue, the ConLib government is going to be in trouble then. And I don't think they have a plan B.
Posted 1 year ago # -
yes in yer face what ernie said
Ernie he - osborne-admitted he did not have one on Radio 4 this am - he was so confident it would work he had not considered what to do if it did not work - reassuring eh.
Some say osborne is arrogant, of limited ability, got where he is due to nepotism and is too cock sure of his own limited abilities ...can anyone see the punchline that is coming- can you mat
Done now honest i will try my best to resist from now onPosted 1 year ago # -
Ernie - from some opinion polls I saw it looks like the public have already seen thru this.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Two things.
I don't think smurf mat believes to his own arguments.
rkk - I'm not some die hard Tory boy (I didn't vote for them)
And the picture above, surely he should be showing her his gratitude however possible.
Secondly, the forum mirrors reality.
This thread just won't fukking die either!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Blaming previous administrations seems the norm. If I recall, Labour spent about 10 years blaming the Tories for anything and everything after 1997 with a recovering economy already underway. "we've made a good start, let us finish it", i think is how Blair put it after 4 years. Unfortunately he got side tracked by Iraq which is what Labour of recent vintage will be judged on, more than the now laughble "prudency - no return to boom and bust".
Posted 1 year ago # -
If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997, on the back of an already recovering economy with no more "boom or bust", but "prudency". Before they got distracted by Iraq, of course. Seems like an easy answer to difficult questions for any new administration.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Although I do think this strategy has a limited shelf-life.
Oh I don't know. Just to come back to the original topoic, this forum still blames Facha for everything 20 years later.Posted 1 year ago # -
Please excuse the crap double post above!
Posted 1 year ago # -
this forum still blames Facha for everything 20 years later
no she is held responsible for the legacty she left which seems reasonableSecondly, the forum mirrors reality.
This thread just won't fukking die either!!!!!!!!!!
Posted 1 year ago # -
Gladstones fault, or Disraelis, and Pitt the Younger.... bastard he was.
Don't get me started on Ethelred the Unready!Posted 1 year ago # -
“Tell everyone I’ll see them somewhere, sometime.” Roibeárd Gearóid Ó Seachnasaigh MP : 9 March 1954 – 5 May 1981.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Although Blair is recorded as saying that he admires Margaret Thatcher, he doesn't (despite trying really hard) to seem to have managed to generate QUITE the same level of spite and loathing.
That's because he was merely a Religious Fanatic in a position of power, not a Sociopath.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?
Posted 1 year ago # -
Because it is claimed by some that during a war you shouldn't do material damage to the enemy, or something very similar to that theory.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I'm interested why is the sinking of the Belgrano considered, by some, to be a war crime?
Because it was outside the Exclusion Zone, not really posing a 'threat', and the deaths of hundreds of sailors was ultimately unjustifiable, and definitely avoidable.
Whatever any politicians might say.
Posted 1 year ago # -
If i recall Labour spent years blaming the Tories after 1997
They didn't actually - far from it. In fact New Labour heaped praise on Thatcher, not least Tony Blair. And just in case anyone thought Brown would be different, this is what he did soon after moving into number 10 :
Does that ^^ look like a Labour PM blaming the Tories for everything ?
Both Blair and Brown were committed Thatcherites and where extremely reluctant to criticise anything about the Thatcher legacy. Where the **** do you get "Labour spent years blaming the Tories" ?
In the 13 years New Labour where in power the only period in which imo, they behaved in an acceptable manner, was when faced with the banker's recession, they temporarily ditched Thatcherism.
But even then, they refused to blame Thatcher for the mess Britain found itself in. Well I suppose they couldn't really, after following her economic policies for over 10 years.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Now, to be a “war crime” you have to meet certain tests, just as the majority of deaths in combat should not be treated as murder, however tragic.
Most of the tests are contained in the various Geneva conventions – dealing with treatment of the injured, Prisoners of War, and civilians (and their property) in the war zone. Under the relevant UK law, Section 50 of the International Criminal Court Act 2001, you are referred to the Article 8.2 of the Statute of International Criminal Court.
Reading this, it seems clear that there is no way attacking, or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations, however great (and tragic) the loss of life is can be a war crime.
For it to be a War Crime, under the ICC Statute, you would have to establish that the persons involved were not acting in accordance with lawful ROE or within the Geneva Conventions, Furthermore, it would appear to be extremely difficult to convict of a War Crime the “Commander in Chief”, or in Maggie’s case, political leader, who caused those ROE to be set even if, as it clearly didn’t here, one or more persons following those ROE could be charged with War Crimes.
Creating and following unlawful ROE that contradicted the Geneva Conventions could be chargeable as a War Crime and, for the political leadership, there is also the different definitions of "Crimes against Humanity", in the same statutes.
However, given again, the relevant situation: the killing of serving military personnel, who had neither surrendered or indicated a desire to surrender, as a consequence of the destruction of the military asset in which they were travelling, cannot possibly fit any category of potential transgression - even more so given the fact that military operations had taken place in the conflict -shots had already been fired, a hostile military force had invaded and used force of arms against sovereign troops and territory.
So, TJ, Fred, and others, you may not like what was done during the war but, please, if you are going to throw around the allegations of “war criminal”, please justify it with reference to the current statutes, or to those that applied in 1982 , rather than merely restating or referring to the hyperbole and ranting of Tam Dalyell and old copies of Socialist Worker
Posted 1 year ago # -
Oh be'ave yerself Labby. Sinking the Belgrano wasn't necessary; it was an act to show British military might. Your bit of waffle there proves nowt one way or the other.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So, justify your claim of war crimes!
Which of the articles of war were breached?
Posted 1 year ago # -
or ordering the attack on, a warship of a hostile power which represented a clear (although not immediate) danger to your operations
there is the rub many think the fact it posed no immediate danger makes it wrong - not the argentinians - see wiki for quotes.
I tend to think it was neither necessary nor unlawful.
Pedantically was it not a conflict rather than a war - is there any real difference?Posted 1 year ago # -
The murder of human beings who pose no threat to others is crime. This act happened during a war. Ergo, a 'war crime'. Unless you are under attack from someone, killing them can never be justified.
Thatcher ordered their deaths. Makes her a criminal. Don't start with all yer armchair lawyer bollox labby.
articles of war
That's like me saying to you 'no weapons, just fists', you agreeing, then me battering your skull in with an axe. It's bollox. There are no 'rules' in War. It's war, ffs.
Enough already. She's a War Criminal. I spose you're going to defend her support for Pol Pot and Pinnochet next?
Posted 1 year ago # -
This thread is like a metal detector but for cocks.
Posted 1 year ago # -
You should have more self-esteem crikey.
Posted 1 year ago # -
It was no war crime.
The exclusion zone applied to neutral shipping only, not to enemy combatants. Indeed, the Argentinians didn't even recognise it.
Some of their vessels had been skirting the periphery of it, popping in to mount an attack, then leaving in the mistaken belief that they wouldn't be attacked, but that was their mistake.
Posted 1 year ago # -
A cock detector you mean.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Their biggest mistake was missing the big hammer and sickle on the Russian sub.
Posted 1 year ago # -
So Fred - you really, really just cannot substantiate your claim that she's a war criminal then? so revert to the classic approach of yelling "well, its true, coz I say it is!"
Indeed, Junky makes a good point, even the Argentinians no longer claim that the sinking if the Belgramo was a war crime - so, its just the small minded, Che Guevara wearing, left wing loons with a chip on their shoulder and a Napoleon complex, like yourself Fred, who are tied to the outdated, childish thought that if they shout "war crime" loud enough, it will make it true.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Not forgetting the British quite clearly said they still reserved the right to attack threats outside their exclusion zone. The Argies and even the battle cruiser captain admit as much it was a legitimate target, and himself had orders for his ship and his exocet armed escort ships to attack any british ships on sight, regardless as to where they were.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The cock detector is flashing like crazy.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Argies = Baddies
Brits = GoodiesPosted 1 year ago # -
Regardless of wether or not she is a War Criminal by any official definition, the truth is she is responsible for the deaths of hundreds of people, in that one episode alone. And is a supporter of murderous dictators. IE, a right nasty piece of work.
You strike me as the whiny kid in school, the one who'd have no real friends, who'd talk bollocks and get beat up a lot by the rest who couldn't stand you. Probbly why you need to play with guns.
Your resorting to insults means your opinions and comments are no longer worthy of any consideration or respect. Good night.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The cock detector is flashing like crazy.
+1
Posted 1 year ago #
Topic Closed
This topic has been closed to new replies.
