MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 
Politics, The Final Frontier (Politics)
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 104, 105, 106  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The banning of the BBC's Modi documentary by Modi has led to some fascinating reactions. Opposition to the programme (not the banning) is widespread, high and low, but always couched in terms of the BBC's (and Britain's) "colonial mindset". What none of them realise is that it's far worse than that. Neither the BBC nor the British care tuppence about India but enjoy making and watching programmes about the wickedness of foreign rulers.

The usual Mumbai Hampstead types were opposed to the banning but the real absentees were the Muslims. They seem to have no voice these days. All two hundred million of them. Al-Jazeera's no less predictable outrage (to the banning not the programme) raised more interesting points:

1) Given the nature of electronic media, more Indians are likely to watch the programme because of the banning
2) India is now ranked 150 (out of 180) in terms of 'press freedom'. And yet it probably has more press -- including news channels -- than any other country in the world.
3) The Indian government controls the media by the very simple device of lavishing government advertising on friendly outlets and denying it to oppositional ones. The Times of India routinely has its first four pages devoted to government puffs. Our own Times at least has the decency to have such things in supplements, and even those are paid for by foreign despots.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

So Jack Straw, the foreign secretary at the time, decided that the British needed to investigate riots that happened in India, because of concerns for his Muslim consituents, I hasten to add, not because of colonial mindset but because of our close bond between the two countries. Rather strangely it doesn't seem to have had the desired bonding effect as it was done without the permission of the Indian govt at the time, and the Straw report blames Modhi, whilst the Indian judiciary went on to clear him.

Next up the British investigation into the Mumbai terror attacks. Turns out it wasn't Muslim fanatics that killed the 164 victims, right? It must have been an inside job, bit like 9/11 and 7/11. Also the Indians are about to publish their investigation into Grenfell, fair play to the Indian investigators, they used their experience of slum landlords to crack on and complete it quicker than we ever could. That should bring us closer.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I trust you all spotted the next war. The Philippines have long been (a) anti-American and (b) too unstable to go in for foreign adventures. That's all changed with the return of Ferdinand & Imelda Marcos (or whatever his name is). Anyway he's invited the Americans back (they were thrown out of their Filipino bases years back) and now the two of them are finally going to stand up to China.

Who years back invaded the Philippines by occupying islands in her coastal waters and building new ones (yes, really), then excluding Filipino fishermen from doing what they've been doing since time immemorial i.e. fishing in Filipino waters. I haven't got much faith in either America or the Philippines but at least the Chinese won't just swan along on their South China Sea expansionism without the occasional diplomatic note.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

One has grown used to dictatorial regimes banning Facebook, Twitter and whatnot but Pakistan has just gone that extra mile by banning Wikipedia. Some of the entries were, they claimed, anti-Islamic. Though it won't say which ones or how they should be changed.

The tech industry in Pakistan (apparently a high-growth sector, who knew?) has pointed out that no foreign tech firms (or anyone else for that matter) will come to Pakistan without being able to look things up. Unfortunately the Pakistan government will find itself in a very Islamic position -- nobody gave a monkeys before about Wikipedia but militant Islam will be up in arms if the ban is lifted without ... um... whatever it is not being changed. And Pakistani Muslims are always up in arms about something or other.

And since Wikipedia doesn't have that much control over itself, being mob-handed, that's it for Pakistan. It was nice while it lasted.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

India has responded magnificently be refusing a visa to a Pakistani-born Australian cricketer. So that's the end of India's dominance of cricket. It wasn't nice while it lasted.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Brazil is on the cusp of disaster. It has elected a leftist president and he is determined to start redressing the gigantic divide between rich and poor in that country. Which, just to compound his problem, pretty much coincides with how whites and blacks divide in that country. What is not compounding his problem is that, as luck would have it, a leftist president is in power at the moment in the USA so he needn't worry about those bastards upsetting everything.

So what's the disaster that is looming? Well, right now Brazil can't afford to do anything about helping the poor. There are just too many things going on in the world -- and that have been going on in the world for the last few years -- that makes it impossible to do anything except 'batten down the hatches and steady as she goes'. Brazil just doesn't have the kind of sophisticated economy that allows it to ride out these temporary troughs and help the poor.

Notice what happens in Britain, which does have such an economy. For years the government has been careering around hurling money like a drunken sailor at anyone made poor (we're talking relatively here) by anything from Brexit to COVID to Ukrainian price shocks, and Britain hasn't missed a beat. Sure, there's inflation, everyone's on strike, prime ministers are falling like drunken sailors but basically... nothing.

If Brazil tries any of that, I promise you very soon the currency will be worthless, people will be dying in their millions, military juntas will be stalking the land, Joe Biden will be stalking the land.... But if anyone can say, "Sorry, poor people, no can do, not right now," old Lula can. He's quite impressive in his way. Will he? I don't think so but here's hoping so.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

It has elected a leftist president and he is determined to start redressing the gigantic divide between rich and poor in that country


Maybe he now feels the need to redress this as he clearly didn't in his first stint?
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

According to Al-Jazeera, it was his first two stints and he did. Though I'm inclined to your view in the sense that governments do not have much effect on this kind of thing. It's the trying-to that does the harm and the not-allowing-them-to-try-to that does even more harm. I have watched religiously yet no-one has ever managed to explain -- or even tried to explain -- whether Lula's arrest (for corruption) was justified or not. I only have the impression that he wasn't corrupt by Brazilian standards but probably was in general.

They've got even worse problems in Peru where one third of the population are white, rich and live in Lima, while two-thirds are non-white, poor and live in Peru. I have watched religiously yet no-one has ever managed to explain -- or even tried to explain -- whether the first non-white, poor, Peruvian president's arrest (for trying to overthrow the state) was justified or not. I only have the impression that he wasn't dictatorial by Peruvian standards but probably was in general.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The big problem from my point of view is that the only explanations you ever get are either from foreign journalists who are always left wing, or domestic academics who are always left wing. The non-explanations are therefore presumably careful ignoral i.e. both Lula and El Presidente were bang at it.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I was intending to have a flutter on the SNP leadership race.

The most popular candidate according to opinion polls appears to be Dont Know, closely followed by Someone Other Than the Above, Undecided, and Can You Tell Me Who Is Running. All, no doubt, good candidates, but lacking the wow factor that I normally opt for.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The front runner appears to be 'of South Asian heritage' which since the Scots Lab leader is also 'of South Asian heritage' means they will soon be like us here in London, led by a person of South Asian heritage. But at least we here in London actually are mostly of South Asian heritage (I include West Indians because they all look the same to me), they don't even have an accredited South Asian tartan in Scotland.

Just goes to show the lack of native talent.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

The SNP have just hit the UKIP buffers. You are probably too young to remember them but this was another single issue party that had an amazing run of success, combining a popular issue with a charismatic leader, then couldn't do anything right and just as swiftly disappeared. (Though admittedly after its single issue had been achieved.)

The SNP have put up three candidates for charismatic leader:
1. The South Asian referred to above who is clearly disliked in the party, and who starts blustering as soon as he is put under pressure.
2. A very nice woman who alienated her supporters by going on the telly and telling the world that she was an unreconstructed Christian then compounded the error by not standing by her dubious guns.
3. A not-so-nice woman who, on being questioned about the doubtful behaviour of her chief aide, simply ran away! Shades of the Scottish Labour leader hiding in a sweet shop to avoid the press. And look what happened to them.

The last time all this happened the SNP chose John Swinney, a colourless but safe pair of hands. This stopped them advancing and he had to be swiftly replaced. With any one of the above, they will be retreating. A single issue party cannot be seen to be retreating since they will be eaten alive by the other, multi-issue, parties. Unless a substantial number of Scots are fervently in favour of the single issue, to the exclusion of all others. We are about to find out.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think it went wrong with Sturgeon, who actually fogot it was a one issue party, and started to believe that the SNP was both a movement for independence and a sort of European or Nordic social democratic party. It simply isn't. Social attitudes are the same in Scotland as everywhere else in Britain, and the SNP has no Social Democratic history or base, it's more a case of a loose coalition of folks across all classes that likes to blame Westminster for its problems.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a rallying call "The metropolis doesn't understand our needs", it's when you go all "The metropolis does understand the needs of transgender folk within our patch" that it goes wrong.

She should have stuck to the Cost of Living Crisis, or the NHS.

It's not the fault of the helpless three, they are trying to sort out her mess, with no time to prepare.
Send private message
Mick Harper
Site Admin

In: London
View user's profile
Reply with quote

I think it went wrong with Sturgeon, who actually fogot it was a one issue party, and started to believe that the SNP was both a movement for independence and a sort of European or Nordic social democratic party.

True but she had little choice given that the electoral system actually forced the SNP to be the government. Since they were essentially replacing the Labour Party, they had to become the Labour Party.

It simply isn't. Social attitudes are the same in Scotland as everywhere else in Britain and the SNP has no Social Democratic history or base, it's more a case of a loose coalition of folks across all classes that likes to blame Westminster for its problems.

I agree it started life as 'The Tartan Tories' but I think we must give them (her, according to you, Salamander according to me) credit for taking the party faithful along with them. Until now there has been little evidence of ideological splits.

There is absolututely nothing wrong with a rallying call "The metropolis doesn't understand our needs", it's when you go all "The metropolis does understand the needs of transgender folk within our patch" that it goes wrong.

Honestly, Wiley, I don't think transgenderism (or the like) is the problem -- as the swift demise of the Bible-thumping candidate showed. Isn't it more "the metropolis doesn't understand our needs... whoops, we are the metropolis."

She should have stuck to the Cost of Living Crisis, or the NHS.

Well, she did 99% of the time. And who is not to say that she would even have got transgenderism through with the old charisma. Only the zealots care about the issue one way or the other.

It's not the fault of the helpless three, they are trying to sort out her mess, with no time to prepare.

The mess is more because she knew, they know, everyone knows that Westminster only has to sit on its hands over the Referendum and the SNP has nowhere to go for the next five, ten years except to govern Scotland. That is, run the NHS, cope with the cost of living crisis and do all the other 101 things that make you unpopular.

Unless you have a charismatic leader. Remember Boris? As you say, Scotland is as dopey as the rest of Britain.
Send private message
Wile E. Coyote


In: Arizona
View user's profile
Reply with quote

Mick Harper wrote:

Honestly, Wiley, I don't think transgenderism (or the like) is the problem -- as the swift demise of the Bible-thumping candidate showed. Isn't it more "the metropolis doesn't understand our needs... whoops, we are the metropolis."


Average folks whether pro or anti (it doesn't matter), are saying that these are way down their list of priorities, anybody that isn't spending their time on cost of living, economy or state of NHS is seen as in La La land unless, that is, you live in Scotland, where it's OK to talk about Independence as it will, in their minds of many folks, help solve, or make worse, the other big 3 issues.
Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Reply to topic Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 84, 85, 86 ... 104, 105, 106  Next

Jump to:  
Page 85 of 106

MemberlistThe Library Index  FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   RegisterRegister   ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group