BBC Blog Network

User Profile

DeimosL

Listed below are comments made by DeimosL between Sunday, 4th October 2009 and Tuesday, 17th November 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Afghanistan ifs and maybes 12:46pm on 17 Nov 2009 Maybe time Labour were straight with the electorate and put some realistic numbers on their new PR campaign. Then we might see how the new announcements are nothing more than spin and none of the underlying problems have been addressed.

It is a "bad war" and is being badly managed by our politicians and our troops are paying the price with their lives and taxpayers are paying the bills. Time Labour actually did something about this.
When politics matters... 3:09pm on 09 Nov 2009 This has nothing to do with being "anti-military". I am anti-military in that I believe it is log pat the time when the human race should have found better ways of resolving differences by killing each other. It is long past time that we spend out limited resources on arms rather than so many other far more worthwhile calls on our monies.

However, that is not the fault of those individuals who are answering the calls of out warmongering politicians. They deserve our respect for what they are doing even if we disagree with the means our politicians are pursuing actions. The failing of war is the fault of politicians.

And then when those same politicians cannot take the time to write a decent letter when one of those they called-on is killed, taken away from his family and loved ones - well it is worse than disgusting. And then to think a phone call might "patch things up".

This is not related to "anti-military" but to somebody who cannot appreciate what others are sacrificing to help him pursue his wars. It is about caring for others, about feeling "empathy".

I think a return to the times when our leaders led our armies and when it came to war they were in the front of the front lines. Maybe going back to such practice would make our leaders pursue peace a bit more.
When politics matters... 2:42pm on 09 Nov 2009 @9 "I think Brown is barely compis mentis at the moment and does not seem to be getting anywhere near the required level of support from his backroom staff - if indeed he will accept help."

He is clearly not getting much sleep so one has to "make allowances". He seems to realise that he has lost the next election and that is probably weighing heavy on his shoulders - not so much that he is losing his PM position after such a short time in power, but that he is also taking the Labour party down with him. We can only hope he does not have too many important decisions to make between now and the next election.
When politics matters... 1:52pm on 09 Nov 2009 He is PM. He is thus meant to a) check things before he signs them and b) show adequate care.

If he has a problem with his sight then he should make sure somebody checks what he does in his role as PM. In this instance he clearly did not take the trouble and was guilty of showing great disrespect. It was not the misspelt name that is offensive but the fact that he could not be bothered to check.

He should be put in a more junior role where he would receive greater supervision in his work.

(Oh, and can somebody take the trouble to check what he signed and what he committed us to when he signed the Lisbon treaty and checking what he signs it clearly "not his strong point").
So, the Czech was not in the post 11:07am on 03 Nov 2009 What would be the point of a referendum after we are already committed. We should have had one, as should any democratic country (and had ONE, not kept having them until politicians got the answer they wanted). But we did not.

Having a referendum after we are committed would be a complete waste of time and money and as such would probably suffer very poor turnout. It would not give a representative result as many people would have better things to do than travel to the polling station to register an opinion that will affect nothing.

Quite obscene that as a country which claims to be democratic we did not have a referendum as promised by Labour, but after the event is just a waste of limited time and limited money and would dive no answers.
Over to you, Foreign Secretary 12:05pm on 30 Oct 2009 That Milliband and Labour are at the level of criticising Cameron on the basis of a single Polish politician speaks volumes. That Milliband's really very strong and very aggressive critical statements are now proved wrong does mean he should immediately and unreservedly apologise.

Of course there are loads of things the Conservatives are doing wrong, but there are also loads of things Labour are doing wrong, loads of things the LibDems are doing wrong, etc. This "inter party" squabbling at the level Milliband has taken it to is just out-of-order - presumably he is doing it on the basis of throwing enough dirt and some is bound to stick (and any apology he has to make will be less prominent than the critical comments anyway).

Maybe now we can start looking into the early years of the Pope and start asking about the suitability of Blairs allegiance with such a person.
El Presidente 2:06pm on 27 Oct 2009 My personal opinion is against any EU President and definitely not Blair. However, on a more practical aspect, shortly after taking office Blair will be attending hopefully open sessions of the Iraq Enquiry. That combined with many of the families of those killed during the war will bring the issues of both the war and questions about whether Blair lied or misled the UK regarding the case for his war. If Blair is EU President, the enquiry will be reported throughout the EU and the World and will undoubtedly bring Blair and his office (and thus the EU) into disrepute. Of course different countries will reach differently (e.g. the US might not be as concerned whereas others might be more concerned as the truth emerges through the Enquiry). This will have a serious detrimental impact on the standing of the EU throughout the world.

Then one has to look at the function of the EU President. The function is to act as a point of contact for non-EU countries, to represent the opinions and wishes of the various EU countries. It is not to act as a policy maker driving through the Presidents wishes and what the President thinks should be done. It is a representation role and in the UK we have seen how good Blair is at ignoring the wishes of those he supposedly represents and ploughing on with "what he thinks is right". His character is thus totally inappropriate to such a role.

Milliband is now insisting we should support a British President to ensure that the UK stays strong in Europe and has somebody representing UK wishes. But that is not the function of the President. Role of the EU President is not to give the country of his nationality a greater say in the EU - and that argument in itself should show other countries how inappropriate Blair is. The EU President should act for all EU countries equally. If the President were to act on behalf of the country of his nationality then it makes a complete joke of the idea of the treaty to give all countries a more equal say in Europe.

And of course the UK (in Blair's time) is the country that will not join the Euro currency, opted out of so much EU human rights legislation, argues against EU working treaties, etc., etc. Blair is hardy a "pro EU" individual.

Maybe we should look at his achievements on the world since being pushed out of No 10 - as Middle East envoy. What has happened in Israel/Palestine relations since he took this office. Things seem to have gone from bad to worse. Whilst probably not his fault, he seems to have achieved nothing as the situation deteriorates further.

Personally I think that, were Blair to be appointed EU President then the UK would not leave the EU. Other countries would throw us out.

And why do we not get a say in who is appointed to this position. Even in Zimbabwe the people get to vote for who they wish to be President. With our politicians clearly not following the wishes of the people (e.g. so many countries ignoring the results of referendums on the treaty), those same politicians appointing their friend is clearly totally non democratic.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 10:11am on 23 Oct 2009 I see the BNP are now complaining they were not given the opportunity to discuss current political events and it was all about the BNP.

The BBC is paid for by the public. That public money is not there to provide a platform for the BNP. The program was about viewers/audience questions (viewers/audience being those who were in effect paying for everything). Thus, the questions those people had was about the BNPs attitudes. So nothing wrong with people using their air time to ask what was of interest to them. If the BNP don't like it they should setup their own TV station with their own money and invite other politicians in for the discussions they want. But when it is being done with our money and they accept the invite for our questions then they can jolly well answer then and like it and not gripe about it when they come across badly.

They should remember that they were not the only ones to come across badly - just look back at Straw's performance.
Nick Griffin on Question Time 09:33am on 23 Oct 2009 Only saw a bit (as it was dull and BNP guy was being "predictable" - trying to hide his despicable views).

The surprise for me (in what I saw) was how bad Straw was. After Straws performance you can see how BNP gains enough popularity to get a couple of people elected. He was evasive, incoherent, went off on tangents, missed the point. Then when BNP guy said he could not explain something because of some law, Straw claimed that as Justice Minister he had the right to waive that law for the BNP for the program. There was probably no such law and BNP just being evasive, but Straw did not seem to know that and then thought he had the right to waive that law there and then. Does Straw think he has that much power and is he has is it right that he can use it that way ?
Cameron keeps schtum on Lisbon 1:10pm on 04 Oct 2009 I don't see it as a big issue - having a retrospective vote that is. In one regard, having a vote after everything is sealed would be a waste of money and turnouts would be very low ('cos their vote will change nothing) and thus un-representative. However, there is so much anti feeling that it may help vent people's frustrations and would give the Conservatives a mandate for being tougher with the EU.

However, were Blair to become EU president then I suspect the movement to pull out of the EU would gain massive momentum to the point of becoming a possibility.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

DeimosL