Monbiot on Hazel Blears

[bogeyman]

Do you know what I really like. I like the way this government have been bringing in loads of retrospective legislation. Wouldn't it be nice to see a future administration make it illegal, retrospectively, to be a toadying hypocrite.
crime number one, penalty - death. nature of crime - being a one eyed Scottish idiot

There is a UN document called the Nuremberg Principles, which the UK and US have never accepted, which current and former cabinet members are rather uneasy about, because if adopted retrospectively, it would see some of them in the courts in the Hague on war crimes charges.

[OwlHoot]

for a worrying moment there I thought the subject indicated an entirely different discussion

Are you saying "Hazel Blear" is cockney rhyming slang?

(as in "I think he's a bit Hazel")

[bogeyman]

Are you saying "Hazel Blear" is cockney rhyming slang?

(as in "I think he's a bit Hazel")

Nah Owl, she's definitely a Joe Blunt.

[Cyberman]

Really? Who the hell are they polling then? Not the electorate I'll be bound.

I wonder who they polled to suggest we start an illegal war in Iraq.

Many of their policies have been aimed at winning over minorities in marginal seats. Those are the votes that count and thus they poll the minorities to see how they can swing the seats.
Immigration, for instance has been a vot-winner with muslim minorities as they have seen their fellow religious followers and families enter the UK. The tide has now turned because immigration policy is now losing votes, so Labour swing the other way by talking about border controls after 12 years of inaction. Simple and effective....... maybe !!

[OwlHoot]

I don't often find myself applauding George Monbiot, but never have I read such a fine demolition of a serving politician.

The comments are priceless too.

As one commenter puts it: 'Hazel Blears - The Evil of Banalty'.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...george-monbiot

Most of the venom in that article comes over to me as the author's disgust that she voted for things he disagrees with.

Would he have raised a squeek if Government policies had been different and all met with his approval, even if her voting record showed an equal absence of any rebellious streak or independent thought? Of course not.

[bogeyman]

Many of their policies have been aimed at winning over minorities in marginal seats. Those are the votes that count and thus they poll the minorities to see how they can swing the seats.

Yeah, no doubt - but I still don't understand why they toed the US line on Iraq. Everyone knew the case for war was built on utter lies, and I believe at least one unfortunate paid with his life, even before the war started.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, and can't substantiate any of this, but it does give me much pause for thought...

Iraq weapons expert Dr David Kelly reportedly warned of "many dark actors playing games" in an e-mail sent hours before he bled to death from a slashed wrist.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/3080795.stm

A post mortem revealed that Cook died of hypertensive heart disease, although the paramedics at the scene had speculated that he died of a broken neck.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/4135256.stm

Pooh pooh it if you want but so much remains buried and unanswered.

[bogeyman]

Most of the venom in that article comes over to me as the author's disgust that she voted for things he disagrees with.

Would he have raised a squeek if Government policies had been different and all met with his approval, even if her voting record showed an equal absence of any rebellious streak or independent thought? Of course not.

I suspect you are correct but it was a well-aimed and deadly blow at the vile midget anyway.

I'm off to the pub to watch the Boyos eat England alive.

[Cyberman]

Yeah, no doubt - but I still don't understand why they toed the US line on Iraq. Everyone knew the case for war was built on utter lies, and I believe at least one unfortunate paid with his life, even before the war started.

I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, and can't substantiate any of this, but it does give me much pause for thought...





Pooh pooh it if you want but so much remains buried and unanswered.

I remember at the time, all of the anti-Saddam propaganda and the information released on weapons of destruction and missile launch sites. At the time, most people believed that propaganda so I have no doubt as to their reasons for voting to invade. The propaganda was not seen as lies at the time, and there is still an underlying feeling that weapons were buried or moved to Iran. Iraq is so vast that it would be very easy to hide the weapons, and just because we did not find much does not mean they do not exist.

Personally. I was for the war from the beginning because Saddam was a tyrant who murdered possibly millions of his own people and I believed that he had the chemical/biological weapons ,and we should have disposed of him in the first war in 1991. My views, however have been tempered by alleged abuses by the western forces. Overall, I still think that getting rid of Saddam was a good thing and will bring a better peace in the long-run.

[d000hg]

Most politicians will follow the government line if they want to reach the highest office. Labour in general don't have principles. They simply do a poll, find out what is most popular at the time and make it policy. Commonsense or intelligent thought really does not enter the equation.

Thus we had declassification of cannabis, banning of foxhunting, unlimited immigration, appeasement of muslims, political correctness, unlimited credit for everybody etc etc.

On the other hand if the government do something which they think best that isn't popular, everyone attacks them for not listening to what people actually want.

However let's look at your examples. I don't think most people agree with all of those things, or even most of them. Those are mostly controversial issues where the government was criticised for its decision.

[bogeyman]

I remember at the time, all of the anti-Saddam propaganda and the information released on weapons of destruction and missile launch sites. At the time, most people believed that propaganda so I have no doubt as to their reasons for voting to invade. The propaganda was not seen as lies at the time, and there is still an underlying feeling that weapons were buried or moved to Iran.

Perhaps, but the government knew otherwise.

I have no doubt that you were all for this illegal war, but a hell of a lot of us were not, and are still very angry about it, and want to see the perpetrators brought to justice - at the Hague.

It will never happen of course. These slime bags will get away with the vilest crimes over and over again.