Mo Mowlam Dead

[Kurashima]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4126986.stm

I await Eulogies, criticisms, and amusing jokes, though hopefully not in equal measures.

[ChubbyChecker]

I never thought much of her to be honest. Though obviously it's a shame she's dead.

[Stew]

How eloquently put Kura...

She was, on the whole, a well liked politician, which seems qite rare these days.

[Dreadnought FTW]

:'(

[Embroglio]

she had cool hair

[MAdnRisKy]

yeah a good bloke mo mowlan, done a lot for the country.

[Stew]

Originally Posted by MAdnRisKy

yeah a good bloke mo mowlan, done a lot for the country.

Dude, she was a she.

[Proteus]

I wish some rubbish Labour politicians would die for a change.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

Actually a labour peer died the other day, but no one gave a shit.

Have they removed him from the chamber yet?

[Cannon_Fodder]

nah hes still proping up the others that are about to fall



shame about mo tho, who will take her place writing in zoo :/

[Marilyn Manson]

It's a shame neither her nor Cook were competitors in 'Who Will Die First?' Someone could have gotten a lot of points from this last month.

[vampire_lestat]

it should've been Gerald Ford .

[the_dastardley_chihuahua]

apprently she once told ian paisley to '**** off'. which is pretty cool. but she was also a nulabour minister, which isnt.

[Yahwe]

Gordon Brown got another one i see.

[Weeks]

I liked Mo. RIP.

[Marilyn Manson]

Mo was definetley the best thing to happen to Redcar, since, well, ever.

[pyirt]

I don`t think Jerry Adams will shed a tear. During the Northern Island peace talks, Mo was the Northern Island secretary that authorised the bugging of the car Jerry Adams and other Sinn Fein members were using. Afterwards Mr Adams said "I feel as if I`ve been shafted".

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by pyirt

Afterwards Mr Adams said "I feel as if I`ve been shafted".

He wasn't impying that was a bad thing, you know.

[Dante Hicks]

I'm fairly glad she's dead.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm fairly glad she's dead.

any reason that elevates her over any other MP?

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'm fairly glad she's dead.

If I shot Tony Blair, George Bush, Thatcher, Putin and Castro, would you be shuddering in orgasm?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

any reason that elevates her over any other MP?

She was a minister.

But no, nothing that elevates her beyond her immediate colleagues.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

If I shot Tony Blair, George Bush, Thatcher, Putin and Castro, would you be shuddering in orgasm?

I don't feel Castro fits in that list.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I don't feel Castro fits in that list.

I thought you didn't like statist queer-bashers?

Ian Paisley, then?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

I thought you didn't like statist queer-bashers?

There's a lot of people I don't like, but that doesn't quite equate them to Putin or Bush or what-not. It's not a "Love" vs "Shot Through The Lungs" dichotomy.

Ian Paisley, then?

I'd be fairly pleased if he died, but I wouldn't advocate / support his murder. My mother would though, the Catholic tramp that she is.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's a lot of people I don't like, but that doesn't quite equate them to Putin or Bush or what-not.

I'm struggling to see how Castro is qualitatively all that different to Putin. Castro has just had decades more experience over Putin. Oh, and Putin controls a more important country than Cuba. Same goes for the others.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I'd be fairly pleased if he died,

I thought that if we killed off a load of high-ranking reactionaries, your pleasure might be able to be multiplied to the extent where you would actually orgasm. I mean, you're "fairly pleased" by lowly Mo dying.

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

but I wouldn't advocate / support his murder.

Jesus. I would. I'd ****ing whoop.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

There's a lot of people I don't like, but that doesn't quite equate them to Putin or Bush or what-not. It's not a "Love" vs "Shot Through The Lungs" dichotomy.

explain exactly why Fidel Castro is preferable to Tony Blair.

edit:

Originally Posted by Marilyn Manson

Jesus. I would. I'd ****ing whoop.

seconded.

[Marilyn Manson]

Originally Posted by Phang

explain exactly why Fidel Castro is preferable to Tony Blair.

Castro says he's in favour of Socialism whereas Blair doesn't. This makes him preferable to Blair, obviously.

[LHC]

She wasn't very hot.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

explain exactly why Fidel Castro is preferable to Tony Blair.

Castro has done a hell of a lot more good than Blair.

Castro has gone wrong many times but some of his crimes/errors can be attributed to the situation he and his country is in. If Britain was being blockaded by (say) France, if the French intelligence services had actively attempted to kill Blair on numerous ocassions, if the French government supported terrorist attacks on Britain then I might have some sympathy if Blair then (say) imprisoned some of his enemies.

This does not make these measures alright of course, but actions must be understood in the light of the context they occur in. "Being mildly evil" when your situation is pretty ****ing dire is somewhat more understandable than being mildly evil when you're in a position of power. This should be fairly obvious.

Of course some other acts (e.g. homophobic laws, etc) are completely criminal but unsurprising given the region. "Our" (i.e. the United States & Britain) allies in the region have worse records on this and other issues.

There are other factors of course - if you look at foriegn intervention for instance and compare Cuban intervention in (say) Angola versus British involvement in Iraq then the former comes out favourably.

Originally Posted by MM

I thought that if we killed off a load of high-ranking reactionaries, your pleasure might be able to be multiplied to the extent where you would actually orgasm. I mean, you're "fairly pleased" by lowly Mo dying.

It doesn't really work like that. If someone is murdered it rarely ends well (no pun intended). In terms of assasinations and what-not then there's only a handful of examples I can think of which led to practical benefits. If you killed Ian Paisely (for instance) all that would happen would the retards in the UVF et al would get a bunch of new recruits. If you killed Tony Blair you'd get some extra "war on terror" stuff.

What is the consequences of Mo dying? A backlash against cancer?

Originally Posted by MM

Castro says he's in favour of Socialism whereas Blair doesn't. This makes him preferable to Blair, obviously.

This is silly, as you're well aware.

[Yahwe]

dante dear.

you really are turning into a condescending little shit.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

This does not make these measures alright of course, but actions must be understood in the light of the context they occur in. "Being mildly evil" when your situation is pretty ****ing dire is somewhat more understandable than being mildly evil when you're in a position of power. This should be fairly obvious.

it is obvious. But I find it hard to group Castro in with Blair, evil-wise. I don't like everything Blair has done, of course not, but life is mostly better, and the ways in which it has been made worse (civil liberties) are almost all moves supported by all of mainstream British politics - and either accept this as justification or retract your 'unsurprising given the region' caveat about Castro.

In Cuba, on the other hand, the problem is far more severe. Human rights are few, and there isn't even a sense of security as recompense. Castro has done some great things, but insofar as he is able, so has Blair. Castro introduced public healthcare? Great. Blair couldn't, because we already had it, but he's done a hell of a lot to make it better. Castro's provided excellent education for Cuba? marvellous. Blair's done what he can to make it even better here.

To draw some sort of point from that paragraph, Blair has done more good, considering his means, than Castro has, and Blair has done less evil, considering his means, than Castro has.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

it is obvious. But I find it hard to group Castro in with Blair, evil-wise. I don't like everything Blair has done, of course not, but life is mostly better

Life is almost exactly the same as before Blair. There are some very minor changes (i.e. student fees vs non-student fees, increase in spending on the NHS vs reduced spending, some devolution) but they really are peripheral changes. Obviously we also foriegn intervention too, which I've mentioned.

and the ways in which it has been made worse (civil liberties) are almost all moves supported by all of mainstream British politics - and either accept this as justification or retract your 'unsurprising given the region' caveat about Castro.

It wasn't an excuse for him, merely that it's unsurprising. It's unsurprising some people who grew up in abusive households in our society murder or rape, but this does not make it OK. The situation of homosexuals in Cuba (and elsewhere) is unsurprising but it is still very depressing.

In Cuba, on the other hand, the problem is far more severe. Human rights are few

I'd really need for you to define this more fully before I could comment. When you say "few", what do you mean? Cuba is not a totalitarian society. Yes, people who protest / demonstrate are routinely jailed (again, far less so that in some countries to which we give support - even as close as Turkey) and this is fundamentally wrong and evil. The people doing the jailing would, ideally, face serious criminal charges for their actions. But this is not the same as saying "human rights are few" (unless you mean something specific).

Castro has done some great things, but insofar as he is able, so has Blair. Castro introduced public healthcare? Great. Blair couldn't, because we already had it

What "great" things has Blair done?

But anyway, your point about "not being able to do things which has already been done" is formally correct but slightly strange. I cannot claim to be a better physicist than Einstein because he (among other things) developed the Theory of Relativity and I did not. The fact that I could not have done so is somewhat irrelevent when handing round props.

edit : Or perhaps more directly, "Well Blair couldn't have won WW2 since it's already finished, so therefore you can't include that as a postivie for Churchill"

[Weeks]

Mo Mowlam dies.
GD starts a 'who's better? Tony Blair or Castro?' debate.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Toccata & Fugue

I assume this is some sort of joke.

I assume you are some sort of tabloid reader.

Dante;

edit : Or perhaps more directly, "Well Blair couldn't have won WW2 since it's already finished, so therefore you can't include that as a postivie for Churchill"

I'm not saying it's not a positive for Castro, I'm saying that Blair's achievements have to be judged against a different standard. Upon taking power, Castro had much to do and did some of it, whereas Blair had little to do and did almost all of it.

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

Dante; I'm not saying it's not a positive for Castro, I'm saying that Blair's achievements have to be judged against a different standard.

I agree. Which is why my original post was that Castro was out of place in the list that Manson gave.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

I agree. Which is why my original post was that Castro was out of place in the list that Manson gave.

so you're in favour of people who build and destroy their countries on a large scale rather than a small scale?

[Dante Hicks]

Originally Posted by Phang

so you're in favour of people who build and destroy their countries on a large scale rather than a small scale?

Did I say that?

Manson posted a list of :

Tony Blair, George Bush, Thatcher, Putin and Castro.

Now, to me Castro does not fit this list. The others are, to use your terms, to be judged by different standards. You're the only one who brought into "why is Castro favourable to Blair" which was not my point at all (although I'm happy to discuss that of course).

edit : But to answer your question, when comparing individuals I'd say someone who achieved a lot of good and did some evil things is probably preferable to someone who did very little good and some evil things.

[MAdnRisKy]

Originally Posted by Stew

Dude, she was a she.

reeeeeeeally

[1-X]

I didn't know her first name was Marjorie until today. Maybe it'll be asked in a trivia game someday, or perhaps a hard question on 'who wants to be a millionaire'.

[Phil^]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

Castro has done a hell of a lot more good than Blair.

There was a poll somewhere, cant remember where but on it, uk businessman ranked hitler above blair as their most impressive leader of all time
I found that rather amusing personally

edit: found it. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2005/08/18/blair_poll/

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Phang

I assume you are some sort of tabloid reader.

Are you saying education standards are improving, or that Blair is honestly trying to improve education standards?

[vampire_lestat]

I dislike Blair because I have to pay for my education. Thus I will dance on his grave.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by Dante Hicks

edit : But to answer your question, when comparing individuals I'd say someone who achieved a lot of good and did some evil things is probably preferable to someone who did very little good and some evil things.

why is good quantifiable and evil not?

because surely you can't claim blair has done more to oppress his people than castro has

[Phang]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Are you saying education standards are improving, or that Blair is honestly trying to improve education standards?

both.

By every measurable standard that I am aware of this is the case, and it is only in this country that increasing pass rates are actually seen as a problem.

Oh, and Lestat? Top-up fees and tuition fees are great because it means only people who benefit from them pay. Imagine the backlash if road tax or tobacco tax was absorbed into income tax

[vampire_lestat]

True, but if I have to pay to go to uni i'd like it to be performance related, ie no fee for first, some for 2:1, most of it for 2:2 and full fee's if you drop out or fail.

[Phang]

Originally Posted by vampire_lestat

True, but if I have to pay to go to uni i'd like it to be performance related, ie no fee for first, some for 2:1, most of it for 2:2 and full fee's if you drop out or fail.

fortunately, the people running the country aren't quite so stupid.

[vampire_lestat]

explain why that is a bad idea. It acts as an incentive to work hard, and performance is rewarded.

[Yahwe]

Originally Posted by Phang

it means only people who benefit from them pay.

the country benefits.

fool.

[Phang]

if it was, say, the army, paid education and performance bonuses would make sense.

unfortunately, these people don't go and work for the common good, they go and work for japanese banks or american accountants or german engineering firms or whoever the hell else. Not only do they not contribute to the nation (tax aside), they harm the balance of payments.

Of course an educated workforce is a great boon, but it's not like they're all sitting there working towards some enlightened altruistic end.