Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: karajorma on April 29, 2009, 04:13:23 pm
-
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8023882.stm
Gordon Brown's government has suffered a shock defeat in the Commons on its policy of restricting the right of many former Gurkhas to settle in the UK.
MPs voted by 267 to 246 for a Lib Dem motion offering all Gurkhas equal right of residence, with the Tories and 27 Labour rebels backing it.
Lib Dem leader Nick Clegg called the government's position "shameful".
Immigration minister Phil Woolas told MPs new proposals would be published before Parliament's summer recess.
In a statement, he said: "This government respects the will of the House of Commons."
He added that all outstanding applications for UK residence by Gurkhas would be dealt with by the end of May.
Serves him ****ing well right. Arrogant bastard.
People who have fought and even been injured fighting for this country have every right to settle here. Never thought I'd see the day when the Tories had a more sensible immigration policy than Labour.
-
Read about this today :D Awesome, and better still, it looks like Zombie LibDem may actually have poked it's skeletal claws through the lid of its grave.
Of course, it too little too late, but still, nice of them to wake up.
-
If they keep doing stuff like this they might be seen as a party that can get stuff done. Without the taint of Thatcher that still hangs over the Tory party.
-
Please forgive my ignorance in foreign politics, but what's wrong in Gordon Brown to make this defeat a very well deserved one?
-
The Gurkhas were bought into the UK to fight in our armies, they are a very well respected military force around the world. Gordon Brown wanted to create a policy that, when they retire, would force Gurkhas to have to apply for citizenship if they wanted to remain in the UK.
This vote basically overthrew that policy in its current form, which is, to my mind, a very good thing.
-
But, more in general, what's wrong in him?
-
It is not him as a person that is the problem any more than it was Bush as a person that was the problem in the US, it's the entire party that is struggling, like many parties that have long periods in power, the rot has started to set in, the current Labour Government is starting to sound like the end days of Thatcher/Majors Government, where ministers keep slipping off the leash (in one unfortunate case, whilst wearing suspenders and with an orange in his mouth).
I can't really celebrate the blow to Brown himself, as such, since at the moment, we face the horrifying prospect of electing Conservatives at the next election, and frankly, I'd rather have a poorly run Labour.
-
Me too. But Brown really needs a kick in the arse so that he stops making such stupid decisions.
-
The British political situation reminds the Italian situation of early 2008, when we had to choose between our version of the Labour party (poorly, poorly run) and the party founded by Mr. Uber-guilty-of-who-knows-how-many-crimes Silvio Berlusconi. You should know how it ended. :ick:
It's quite weird when political choices are led by the "They're both bad, but X is not as bad as Y so I guess I'll vote X" thought... :wtf:
-
Makes you wonder why no-body who actually could do a good job runs for office.
(And then realize it's precisely because of s*** like this.)
-
What do you mean?
-
I guess he's refering to the fact that politicians aren't the best guys in circulation. I might be wrong. :nervous:
-
You do be correct.
-
I got that bit. What I didn't get was when you said that it was **** like this that was the reason why no one good runs.
-
Who would want to be grouped with the kind of people politicians are made out to be?
-
More importantly, with all the **** that goes on in politics, and how morals tend to get shot to hell, it's not much of a surprise that it's usually the scum who run for office.
-
People who earn a lot with nearly minimal efforts and hardly risk their lives when working can't be that good.
-
People who earn a lot with nearly minimal efforts and hardly risk their lives when working can't be that good.
This is why people run for office. They think it's a princely job, like Mobius.
It's not. The salary is crappy and the public pressure immense. The benefits are practically unending, of course, but the exposure and the risk are enormous. The after-job opportunties are good, though.
Contrast this with being a company CEO. The salary is, in fact, princely. The pressure is much reduced, the benefits similarly unending, your exposure and risk are minimal, and your after-job opportunities are almost identical.
So the really smart people run businesses in the real world, rather than go into politics.
-
The salary is not crappy. Earning several thousand € per month only to transfer heat to a chair and doing something else is convenient. Salary for politicians depends on the countries they live in, so discussing this might not be a wise choice (this thread is about British politics and politicians, afterall).
-
The salary is not crappy. Earning several thousand € per month only to transfer heat to a chair and doing something else is convenient. Salary for politicians depends on the countries they live in, so discussing this might not be a wise choice (this thread is about British politics and politicians, afterall).
As opposed to tens of millions per year? Yes, it is crappy.
-
That assumes that those politicians would automatically rise to CEO though. Considering the general level of incompetence I doubt most of them would ever get above middle management.