Politika u UK

[Prospero]

 

 

mada su se korigovali 

 

 

St George would have been let into England under Ukip's rule

 

Turkey-born St George would have been considered a 'skilled migrant', as Patrick O'Flynn states: 'I guess dragon-slaying is a skill'

Edited April 23, 2015 by Prospero

[Budja]

Da, Indijci se mnogo lakse integrisu u Britaniju ili Kanadu nego recimo Poljaci ili Srbi. Sigurno. Slicnija je kultura. Kultura Indije je slicnija kulturi Britanije od Poljske.

 

 

Jebala te imperija, jebo te zal za imperijom, nema ti imperije 60 godina, nabij je sebi u dupe.

 

Ali kako je iskusno zaobisao Pakistance.

[MancMellow]

Ali kako je iskusno zaobisao Pakistance.

 

sibicarska fora :D

[MancMellow]

1 good read

 

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/generalelection/methodology-for-the-electionsetc-com-forecast/

[Budja]

 

 

While Ukip accused the establishment of “cultural self-loathing”

 

Autosivinizam, bato!

[MancMellow]

nova britanska politička misao

 

 

 

“But for too long I think we have lived with a political and cultural establishment which has shown a sort of disdain for England and doubted Britain as a whole and has discouraged pride in it.

 

Blair kad je objavio povlačenje

 

 

 

He acknowledged his government had not always lived up to high expectations but said he had been "very blessed" to lead "the greatest nation on earth".

 

nečuven primer "self-loathing"-a

Edited April 23, 2015 by MancMellow

[MancMellow]

:D

 

[MancMellow]

wow...just wow. Sarah Vine, žena Tory MP-a i piše za Daily Mail: "The North and then Scotland will then leech us until we die".

 

 

 

Inače, ono što je Buđa govorio:

 

 

Blame attaches first to the Tories. For one thing, they have repeatedly talked up the SNP, adding to the latter’s momentum. Tory grandees sniff at the suggestion, insisting that the Nats didn’t need to be bigged up, they’ve been getting bigger all by themselves. In which case, why was George Osborne’s first spin on the seven-way leader’s debate – and remember, this is a man who does not choose between jam and marmalade in the morning without thinking through the political implications – praise for the performance of Nicola Sturgeon? The Tories’ narrow and obvious calculation is that the SNP takes seats from Labour, so a stronger SNP is better for them.

The Osborne bouquet for Sturgeon was unusual for being so direct. The preferred method has been roundabout, aiming simply at inflaming nationalist sentiment. The bar was set low and early by David Cameron the morning after the independence referendum result. Instead of issuing a 7am message of healing and national reconciliation, he immediately declared that the real issue raised by the democratic renaissance of Scotland was … England. He implied that there could be no progress, even on honouring the “vow” he had just issued with the other Westminster leaders, until the perennial English question had been solved first.

 

 

The sheer speed of the apparent betrayal, the confirmation of the age-old nationalist caricature of unionists – and the English – as perfidious, cast the 55% who had voted no as suckers. Many decided right then that they would not be fooled again. They switched from Labour, who had partnered the Tories in the ill-conceived Better Together alliance, to the SNP. And they have never looked back.

But the insults have continued, amplified in the echo chamber of the Tory-cheering press. Sturgeon has been cast as “the most dangerous woman in Britain”, with any suggestion that the SNP might use its democratically won seats in the House of Commons depicted as a “coup”. All of this has a twin purpose: to anger Scots by making them feel like strangers in their own country – so pushing them closer to the SNP – and to stir English voters who might fear an SNP tail wagging a governing Labour dog.

Edited April 24, 2015 by MancMellow

[Mister No]

Ne znam da li je ovo bilo disktirano negdje na forumu već.

I iskreno može ići na puno tema...

 

http://www.economist.com/news/europe/21648697-western-balkans-peace-some-go-abroad-look-war-fight-good-fight?fsrc=rss%7Ceur

 

What is striking is the degree to which, apart from their religions, most Balkan fighters are so broadly united: against liberalism and the West.

 

 

Sa jedne strane je zanimljiva potreba balkanaca da idu gdje se god puškara u svijetu, ali autor je potpuno promašio fudbal.

[MancMellow]

autor zna odlično šta radi. realno, vi™ ste ovde (namerna) kolateralna šteta, pa čak donekle i ovi srbi u donecku

Edited April 24, 2015 by MancMellow

[bigvlada]

Why is the UK government so afraid to speak of Armenian genocide?
Giles Fraser
Britain’s strategic relationship with Turkey has been more important than telling the truth. If Armenians are to find closure, we must recognise their suffering

Ottoman soldiers posing in front of hanged Armenians, 1915. Photograph: AFP/Getty Images

Friday 24 April 2015 15.08 BST

Jesus’s preaching was predominantly directed at his fellow Jews. It was St Paul who later directed this message outwards towards the wider world. Which is why Paul’s birthplace in Tarsus, near the Mediterranean coast in south-eastern Turkey, has always attracted missionaries, looking for inspiration. And it was also why missionaries were among the first to report back on the true extent of the Armenian genocide.

In the early fourth century, the Armenians were the first people to adopt Christianity as their official religion. In 1914 there were 2 million Armenian Christians living in Turkey. By 1922, there were only 400,000 left. What happened to these people has been largely forgotten, or denied, or ignored – except, of course, by the Armenians themselves, who have continued to pass on their horrendous stories of rape, death squads and forced conversions.

There is no doubt what happened was genocide. The Armenians were branded as an enemy within by the Ottoman government, which used the cover of the first world war to systematically dispose of more than 1 million people, forcing great columns of humanity to march off into the Syrian desert to die of heat, starvation and disease. Speaking to his generals some 25 years later, Adolf Hitler said: “I have sent my Death’s Head units to the east with the order to kill without mercy men, women and children of the Polish race or language. Only in such a way will we win the Lebensraum that we need. Who, after all, speaks today of the annihilation of the Armenians?”

The term genocide was coined in the early 1940s by a Polish Jewish lawyer, Raphael Lemkin, as a way to capture in law the extent of Nazi atrocity. “I became interested in genocide because it happened so many times,” he explained in an interview with CBS. “First to the Armenians, then after the Armenians, Hitler took action.” So why is it so difficult for many western governments – ours included, Israel’s included – to use the “g” word when it comes to Armenia?

Barack Obama promised to say the “g” word when he became president. But he deliberately hasn’t. And the UK government has used every manner of evasion – including trying out the preposterous argument that because the term genocide was adopted by the UN in 1948, it couldn’t be applied retrospectively. It withdrew this argument when it was pointed out that this would mean the Holocaust itself wasn’t genocide. Now the official line is one of studied avoidance.

The real answer to our avoidance of the “g” word is less than 30 miles up the road from Tarsus: the massive Incirlik airbase, used by the US air force and the RAF. From here, US and UK forces are easily deployed throughout the Middle East. Speaking in the House of Lords in 1999, Baroness Cox came clean: “Given the importance of our relationships (political, strategic, commercial) with Turkey, and that recognising the genocide would provide no practical benefit to the UK … the current line is the only feasible option.” It is worth noting that the foreign secretary at the time was Robin Cook – and remember his “ethical foreign policy” speech in 1997?

For many governments, the denial of the genocide of the Nazis is itself a crime. Yet when it comes to the Armenians, genocide avoidance (because the evidence is too unequivocal for denial) remains semi-official policy. Little wonder the Armenians find it difficult to move towards closure on this issue.

Back in Tarsus, the home of Christianity’s greatest missionary, the faith Paul once proclaimed has now been eradicated. Some of those who survived the forced march into the desert settled in places such as Aleppo in Syria and Mosul in Iraq, where they built Armenian churches – churches that have once again been reduced to rubble by Bashar al-Assad’s barrel bombs and Islamic State’s murderous caliphate. The very least the British government can do is to acknowledge the extent of their suffering by calling it what it is.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/belief/2015/apr/24/why-uk-government-so-afraid-speak-armenian-genocide

[Budja]

 

Looking relaxed and confident, Nicola Sturgeon gave another top flight television performance this evening. That’s not so surprising - Evan Davis is one of our more sympathetic interviewers, and there was an evident rapport between the pair. Given the scheduling and intended audience, Davis couldn’t and didn’t grill Sturgeon on Scottish NHS waitings times, as Eddie Mair did so effectively earlier in the afternoon. The main news lines inevitably emerged around post-election cooperation and the vexed question of EVEL (or in this case SVEL, Scottish votes for English laws).

While her protestations about “using SNP influence responsibly” and “offering the hand of friendship” to voters outside Scotland are now familiar to seasoned Sturgeon-watchers, an interview like this also serves the purpose of introducing the First Minister to middle England, and perhaps those wavering voters who may be bounced into supporting the Tories by fear-mongering about “the SNP threat”. 

Sturgeon looked anything but threatening tonight, whether deliberately and firmly distancing herself from former SNP leader Gordon Wilson’s description of the “southern cancer” of Westminster domination, or inadvertently. There was a rather charming and very human moment towards the end of the interview when Davis asked her if she was “the most powerful woman in Britain” and Sturgeon looked genuinely embarrassed at the suggestion. 

 

 

Bice veselo.

 

Statistike daju konzervama 5-6 poslanika viska sa cime, uz LibDemse, mogu da se slikaju. No, tada ce krenuti kuknjava do neba. Izgleda da glasace to sve manje plasi:

 

 

 

A new poll from ComRes and BBC Newsnight has found 55% believe the leader of the party with most MPs should become prime minister, while a third - or 34% - think it should be the leader who can form a partnership of the largest number of MPs including those from smaller parties.

 

No, zabavno je u kampanji da je LibDemsima kao najjace oruzje ostao "koalicioni potencijal", mi nismo ekstremisti. Takoreci, Rasim Ljajic.

[MancMellow]

 

Statistike daju konzervama 5-6 poslanika viska sa cime, uz LibDemse, mogu da se slikaju. No, tada ce krenuti kuknjava do neba. Izgleda da glasace to sve manje plasi:

 

Pazi, a ne pisem ovo da bi ih jinxao, ja sam ubedjen da ce Tory osvojiti bar 10 poslanika vise od Labour. Ali, mislim, i dalje nedovoljno. Daleko su oni od 288 poslanika sto je prva realna cifra za izbegavanje non-confidence vote-a (288 + 25 + 1/2 + 9) 

 

LibDems su postali smehotres, njihove crvene linije su blurrier than Obama's. No, vidi ovo. recimo (recimo)

 

Tory.........................290 (sto je otprilike najbolja realna opcija za Tory), 

LibDems....................26 

Ukip.............................2 

DUP.............................9 

Zajedno..................327

 

znaci samo 4 vise od working majority i samo 1 vise od parliamentary majority 

 

S druge strane, ako udju u dil sa Labs (za sta je u bazi sigurno bar malo veca podrska), 

 

Labour.......................258 (sto je otprilike najgora realna opcija za Labour)

SNP.............................54 

LibDems......................26 

Zajedno....................338

 

sto je vec mnooogo bolja vecina i puno stabilnija vlada, pogotovu kad se uzme u obzir da ce, zlu ne trebalo, moci da zahvate i od SDLP (2 u najgorem slucaju) Velsana (3) i Green (1), sto je onda zajedno 344, odnosno da vlada skoro nikako ne moze da padne ako je dogovor Labour i SNP na iole cvrstim nogama.

 

A ovo je otprilike najbolje cemu Tory mogu da se nadaju na izborima. Matematika prosto govori da ce Cameron jako tesko do reizbora, a do stabilne vlade skoro nikako. Politika (i to u ovom po Tories najboljem scenariju) govori da bi LibDems trebalo sa Tory (jer dilovi sa SNP mogu po njih da budu mnogo skuplji nego po Labour, no, opet, sa druge strane imaju 1 Ukip, mislim LibDems i Ukip...). Ali svi znamo da pri sastavljanju koalicija matematika igra jos vazniju ulogu. 

 

Sinn Fein uzima 4 i ne ucestvuje u radu parlamenta i 1 je "Mr. Speaker"

Edited April 27, 2015 by MancMellow

[Hamlet Strašni]

A koje su šanse da SF u nekoj na ivici žileta situaciji uđe u parlament i bude neki kingmaker?

[MancMellow]

Mislim nikakve. Mislim.