Friday, December 16, 2005
Nadolig LLawen A Blwyddyn Newydd DDa
It’s that time of year again Christmas Holiday, and due to the university structure I’m off home. So no free internet so posts will be a bit sparse for the next month.
Going to be a busy holiday booked in for an operation on Monday (19th) and have to write a report, revise and start on my dissertation so I am going to be preoccupied.
Hope you all have a great Christmas and a Happy New Year and all being well I shall see you in January.
Bye for now.
Taffia Don
¶ 9:40 PM 2 comments
links to this post
It’s that time of year again Christmas Holiday, and due to the university structure I’m off home. So no free internet so posts will be a bit sparse for the next month.Going to be a busy holiday booked in for an operation on Monday (19th) and have to write a report, revise and start on my dissertation so I am going to be preoccupied.
Hope you all have a great Christmas and a Happy New Year and all being well I shall see you in January.
Bye for now.
Taffia Don
Thursday, December 15, 2005
15/12: PMQ'S
Well it was the much anticipated (well it was by me) second blooding for David Cameron today.
And I think that I can be fairly assured in saying that Punch and Judy are alive and well, with countless snide remarks at the Liberal Democrats including some by David Cameron. In fact it seemed like the only point that the two leaders could agree on today. Not entirely sure of how successful they were however, I am sure that Cameron would be glad to divert some media attention off his performance and on to the performance of some new party leader.
It is reminiscent of something that I was taught in my first year of university about the cartel between labour and conservatives, with the determination to keep the liberal democrats as the third party of British politics. Yes they have to accept that they will loose power eventually but they know that they will be heir apparent at the next transfer of power, a strong third party – achieved via growing support base, or alteration in the electoral policy thus becomes undesirable for both the major parties.
Any way, onto the interchanges, which saw what is possibly Blair’s shortest answer to date, (damn, I can’t remember what it was), but it was roundabout two words. Cameron tried a very interesting strategy he tried to put a wedge in between Blair and his backbenchers – admittedly it wasn’t the most original strategy – however I think it was more effective than past times.
Cameron cleverly, and I am not sure I can adequately describe how he did it, managed to say that Blair was no longer part of the labour party because he had become devoid of it. This spurred Blair into a repost accentuating the difference between the two over education but never the less these early exchange killed Blair’s vocal support (which was only subsequently to be heard yelling ‘good bye Charlie’).
However, Blair was not so impotent with regard to attacking Cameron as he was last week and managed to input some snide remarks including a remark that Cameron spent hours practicing a quip at Blair.
I did strike me today thought that the subjects that David Cameron is choosing to engage in are not the most contentious political issues, education reform; free trade; and, tariffs. All area that we can assure consensus, we want better education, we want people in the third world to be better off etc… therefore is Cameron really an effective opposition. He needs to quickly develop some footing that shows him as such, after all if he agrees with the government on every thing what is the point of voting conservative if your going to get people with the same values conducting the same policies – might just as well stay at home.
As I said more serious issues were proposed by the liberal democrats, UUP? (Rev. Ian Paisley’s party whatever acronym it is), and someone from the SDLP I believe. The first raised the issue on renditions and a point that has baffled me, if the purpose of renditions is not to take a suspect to be tortured in a foreign country what is the point of them? And finally with regard to the Northern Irish parties why the Store Mont spy prosecutions were dropped. Decent questions that were either ridiculed, in regard to the liberal democrats, or unsatisfactorily answered with regard to the others.
Overall impression is that PMQ’s is getting back to the normal Punch and Judy politics although it is obvious that Blair doesn’t want to be seen as the first to cast a stone at the opposition for fear of being seen to break this informal coalition and working relationship that seems to have emerged.
¶ 3:26 AM 0 comments
links to this post
And I think that I can be fairly assured in saying that Punch and Judy are alive and well, with countless snide remarks at the Liberal Democrats including some by David Cameron. In fact it seemed like the only point that the two leaders could agree on today. Not entirely sure of how successful they were however, I am sure that Cameron would be glad to divert some media attention off his performance and on to the performance of some new party leader.
It is reminiscent of something that I was taught in my first year of university about the cartel between labour and conservatives, with the determination to keep the liberal democrats as the third party of British politics. Yes they have to accept that they will loose power eventually but they know that they will be heir apparent at the next transfer of power, a strong third party – achieved via growing support base, or alteration in the electoral policy thus becomes undesirable for both the major parties.
Any way, onto the interchanges, which saw what is possibly Blair’s shortest answer to date, (damn, I can’t remember what it was), but it was roundabout two words. Cameron tried a very interesting strategy he tried to put a wedge in between Blair and his backbenchers – admittedly it wasn’t the most original strategy – however I think it was more effective than past times.
Cameron cleverly, and I am not sure I can adequately describe how he did it, managed to say that Blair was no longer part of the labour party because he had become devoid of it. This spurred Blair into a repost accentuating the difference between the two over education but never the less these early exchange killed Blair’s vocal support (which was only subsequently to be heard yelling ‘good bye Charlie’).
However, Blair was not so impotent with regard to attacking Cameron as he was last week and managed to input some snide remarks including a remark that Cameron spent hours practicing a quip at Blair.
I did strike me today thought that the subjects that David Cameron is choosing to engage in are not the most contentious political issues, education reform; free trade; and, tariffs. All area that we can assure consensus, we want better education, we want people in the third world to be better off etc… therefore is Cameron really an effective opposition. He needs to quickly develop some footing that shows him as such, after all if he agrees with the government on every thing what is the point of voting conservative if your going to get people with the same values conducting the same policies – might just as well stay at home.
As I said more serious issues were proposed by the liberal democrats, UUP? (Rev. Ian Paisley’s party whatever acronym it is), and someone from the SDLP I believe. The first raised the issue on renditions and a point that has baffled me, if the purpose of renditions is not to take a suspect to be tortured in a foreign country what is the point of them? And finally with regard to the Northern Irish parties why the Store Mont spy prosecutions were dropped. Decent questions that were either ridiculed, in regard to the liberal democrats, or unsatisfactorily answered with regard to the others.
Overall impression is that PMQ’s is getting back to the normal Punch and Judy politics although it is obvious that Blair doesn’t want to be seen as the first to cast a stone at the opposition for fear of being seen to break this informal coalition and working relationship that seems to have emerged.
Tuesday, December 13, 2005
13/12: COMMENT REPLY
Above is 'Wonkotsane's' comments on a previous post, and I thought I would reply – additionally I have the time to reply – which is always a bonus.
With regard to your first point I admit I was wrong at the time of writing the post I was of the understanding that the British Olympic Committee suggested that there should be a Team GB after reading the news story today (BBC) I have become aware that the English FA suggested the idea.
As for England being overlords of Wales I believe that I am correct in that assertion, the Acts of Union 1536 and 1543 annexed Wales into England rather than unifying the two countries, therefore legally speaking Wales is a province of England as opposed to being a country in any true sense of the definition. Although we can refer to the Welsh Nation as nation has different connotation as opposed to ‘state’ or ‘country’.
With regard to Parliament (Westminster) it is the English Parliament that is generally considered to be the British Parliament. Welsh representatives were allowed to sit in the parliament once they were admitted as part of one of the acts of union, but this was defiantly a development of the role of the English parliament rather than the creation of a new institution for the role.
As for your comments with regard to how I moan about England are treating us badly, I do encourage you to show me any instance where such sentiment was conveyed in my blog. England are the most gracious overlord, and make no mistake they are our overlords, and that is the part that I object to, I don’t believe that I have ever claimed that Wales is less well off under England’s rule than they would be otherwise. I just Wales to be independence with all the implications that this action infers – does this really sound like I am a Welshman with a begging bowl out.
I agree with your belief that the Campaign for an English Parliament is a good idea and probably the only way that Welsh devolution can progress. However, your assertion that the Welsh assembly is an indicator of progress towards independence and makes Wales less reliant on Westminster is simply bizarre. I would remind you that London has its own assembly (with much the same power as the Welsh assembly) and I think you would agree that this is not a move towards the independence of England’s Capital.
My political affiliation is no fixed, and like most people I very between different parties on different issues, but I don’t support Plaid Cymru as a nationalist party I find them tiresome and toothless with regard to Nationalist issues, as they are still espousing “self determination within Europe” when they change to “independence” I might reappraise my position.
If you want further clarification please feel free to comment again.
¶ 11:53 PM 8 comments
links to this post
Firstly, the English were not asked whether they wanted to be part of Team GB - the English FA made the decision without asking or listening to fans, clubs or players.
Secondly, how can England be overlords of Wales? It may have escaped your attention but Wales has its own assembly, England doesn't. The government in Westminster is the British government, not an English government. You can tell the difference because it's actually called the UK Parliament and it consists of members from all four home nations, not just England.
I wish you the best of luck with independence along with the SNP in Scotland. I don't particularly wish to see the UK split up but with the Scottish Raj showing no signs of allowing England any form of self-government, the Barnett Formula looks set to stay so the sooner we get shut of the insolvent cling-on's draining English taxes and whining about how we are treating them so badly the better.
As a side note, I presume you are a Plaid Cymru supporter. I wonder if you are aware of the interest they are taking in the Campaign for an English Parliament? At least they can tell the difference between English and British even if your average Welshman can't see further than their own begging bowls.
Above is 'Wonkotsane's' comments on a previous post, and I thought I would reply – additionally I have the time to reply – which is always a bonus.
With regard to your first point I admit I was wrong at the time of writing the post I was of the understanding that the British Olympic Committee suggested that there should be a Team GB after reading the news story today (BBC) I have become aware that the English FA suggested the idea.
As for England being overlords of Wales I believe that I am correct in that assertion, the Acts of Union 1536 and 1543 annexed Wales into England rather than unifying the two countries, therefore legally speaking Wales is a province of England as opposed to being a country in any true sense of the definition. Although we can refer to the Welsh Nation as nation has different connotation as opposed to ‘state’ or ‘country’.
With regard to Parliament (Westminster) it is the English Parliament that is generally considered to be the British Parliament. Welsh representatives were allowed to sit in the parliament once they were admitted as part of one of the acts of union, but this was defiantly a development of the role of the English parliament rather than the creation of a new institution for the role.
As for your comments with regard to how I moan about England are treating us badly, I do encourage you to show me any instance where such sentiment was conveyed in my blog. England are the most gracious overlord, and make no mistake they are our overlords, and that is the part that I object to, I don’t believe that I have ever claimed that Wales is less well off under England’s rule than they would be otherwise. I just Wales to be independence with all the implications that this action infers – does this really sound like I am a Welshman with a begging bowl out.
I agree with your belief that the Campaign for an English Parliament is a good idea and probably the only way that Welsh devolution can progress. However, your assertion that the Welsh assembly is an indicator of progress towards independence and makes Wales less reliant on Westminster is simply bizarre. I would remind you that London has its own assembly (with much the same power as the Welsh assembly) and I think you would agree that this is not a move towards the independence of England’s Capital.
My political affiliation is no fixed, and like most people I very between different parties on different issues, but I don’t support Plaid Cymru as a nationalist party I find them tiresome and toothless with regard to Nationalist issues, as they are still espousing “self determination within Europe” when they change to “independence” I might reappraise my position.
If you want further clarification please feel free to comment again.
Friday, December 09, 2005
9/12: AND WHOSE FAULT IS THAT.
The link above connects you with Rhodri Morgan and Peter Hain’s argument that describing how a referendum for further devolved powers would be un-win-able.
The main gist of the argument is that they would “not win an election in the current climate”
Translated from political speak that reads “we can’t win because we’re failing Wales and we can’t hide it”
Labour has fundamentally failed to show that Wales governing itself is viable, through their inadequacies or at worst incompetence; they have polluted the public against the idea of giving the clowns in charge any more power.
They have failed to establish and foster a positive political image for the assembly and they have to accept responsibility for disenfranchising people from Cardiff Bay and derision Welsh politics.
Is the climate against Devolution or against an ineffectual and incompetent Labour regime gaining more power? My money is on the latter.
¶ 8:39 AM 0 comments
links to this post
The main gist of the argument is that they would “not win an election in the current climate”
Translated from political speak that reads “we can’t win because we’re failing Wales and we can’t hide it”
Labour has fundamentally failed to show that Wales governing itself is viable, through their inadequacies or at worst incompetence; they have polluted the public against the idea of giving the clowns in charge any more power.
They have failed to establish and foster a positive political image for the assembly and they have to accept responsibility for disenfranchising people from Cardiff Bay and derision Welsh politics.
Is the climate against Devolution or against an ineffectual and incompetent Labour regime gaining more power? My money is on the latter.
Wednesday, December 07, 2005
7/12: PRIME MINISTERS QUESTIONS.
Well I has to be said that it wasn’t exactly the most formidable PMQ’s that I have ever watched but it was interesting nevertheless, and possibly one of the quietest, Cameron’s early rebuff of the labour chief whip saw to that.
Now is attacking the chief whip really putting an end to ‘Punch and Judy’ politics? I think that it depicts a more intelligent type bickering. Rather than a complete change in the mentality of the commons during the PMQ’s debate.
Blair really did look taken aback by Cameron’s approach, ending up impotent to even point a finger, Cameron’s “grand new consensus” as Blair described it certainly put him on the back foot – a place that he will not be next week I assure you. Blair ended up vehemently attacking Alex Salmond, SNP leader, in what can only be described as frustration at his inability to land hits on his new sparring partner.
However to what extent is the “grand new consensus” going to be holistic? Or even a consensus? Cameron was very careful to point out in his opening question that he wants to see the good elements of the bill passed into law? What does he consider the good bits to be and more importantly what are bad points in the bill. I’m sensing that Conservative support for the education bill will not be so straight forward.
There is something to be said for the approach that Cameron is taking however, this considered approach to politics, supporting some government policy will automatically mean that any attacks on government policy are much more effective especially in the eyes of the public as they are already forming an opinion of Cameron as a considered leader, consciously or not, any attack that he does launch will automatically make people take not of the issue and will automatically bring it to the publics attention much more quickly.
Over all I say that Cameron’s performance was fair, originally after watching it I didn’t think that he would see out this parliamentary term, however, after watching Blair’s first time at the dispatch box in his capacity as leader of the opposition Cameron defiantly looks more at home.
The real acid test however will be next week, Blair will be prepared for him and then we will get a better measure of the two. I’m looking forward to it.
¶ 11:56 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Now is attacking the chief whip really putting an end to ‘Punch and Judy’ politics? I think that it depicts a more intelligent type bickering. Rather than a complete change in the mentality of the commons during the PMQ’s debate.
Blair really did look taken aback by Cameron’s approach, ending up impotent to even point a finger, Cameron’s “grand new consensus” as Blair described it certainly put him on the back foot – a place that he will not be next week I assure you. Blair ended up vehemently attacking Alex Salmond, SNP leader, in what can only be described as frustration at his inability to land hits on his new sparring partner.
However to what extent is the “grand new consensus” going to be holistic? Or even a consensus? Cameron was very careful to point out in his opening question that he wants to see the good elements of the bill passed into law? What does he consider the good bits to be and more importantly what are bad points in the bill. I’m sensing that Conservative support for the education bill will not be so straight forward.
There is something to be said for the approach that Cameron is taking however, this considered approach to politics, supporting some government policy will automatically mean that any attacks on government policy are much more effective especially in the eyes of the public as they are already forming an opinion of Cameron as a considered leader, consciously or not, any attack that he does launch will automatically make people take not of the issue and will automatically bring it to the publics attention much more quickly.
Over all I say that Cameron’s performance was fair, originally after watching it I didn’t think that he would see out this parliamentary term, however, after watching Blair’s first time at the dispatch box in his capacity as leader of the opposition Cameron defiantly looks more at home.
The real acid test however will be next week, Blair will be prepared for him and then we will get a better measure of the two. I’m looking forward to it.
7/12: SIMPLY GRAND
Today TaffiaDon has broken through the 1000 hit barrier, and considering that’s since 2nd November 2005 I’m very pleased with that.
Many thanks to every one who reads this blog.
¶ 9:56 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Many thanks to every one who reads this blog.
Tuesday, December 06, 2005
6/12: NEW CONSERVATIVES?
Well by now I am sure that you will all be aware that Her Majesty’s Opposition has had a change in leadership, David Cameron is the latest person to hold the post.
Listening to his speech, I suppose you could call it his acceptance speech, it all sounds very promising, an end to ‘Punch and Judy politics’ etc… sounds like a move that has long been needed for the improvement in the quality of debate in the commons. Also having a leading with no past (politically speaking) means that there will be no more of Blair’s tirades “when he was in charge of this department …” which make PMQ’s farcical at times.
Considering that he has been accused of all style and no substance – think of it, name one policy that he has expressed, as far as I can see he has only declared his principles so far – He has already eluded to policies that I am vehemently opposed to that is to say “changing the way we look” with regard to female representation (before anyone starts I am not opposed to women MPs) but this expression suggests that the conservatives are thinking about going down the all women short list route, which I am fundamentally opposed to.
I believe in meritocracy I want my elected representative to have their job because they were the best person for the job not because they were the most representative of the sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity etc… the best person for the job should have the opportunity to enter the ballet paper, representatives after all are just that representatives not embodiment of their constituents.
DOES CONSERVATISM MATTER FOR WALES?
The Conservatives I believe are the smallest party in the assembly, behind Plaid Cymru, and the Liberal Democrats in opposition.
So what does this matter or is it just simply an example of cultural imperialism that I have mentioned below with regard to the London Media pushing what they regard to be an important party onto the different political climate in Wales.
What I will say is that the Conservatives role in Wales for the first time since I have been alive (b. 1984) has the opportunity, due to the fact that this leader cannot be associated with Thatcher and the attacks on Welsh mining communities, has a chance to make Conservatives relevant in Wales for the first time probably in living memory. We have already seen inroads at the last general election and it will be interesting that the first benchmark for Cameron’s regime will be the Assembly elections (in addition to the Scottish Parliamentary elections) in 2007.
I shall be watching Mr Cameron with great interest.
¶ 6:03 PM 0 comments
links to this post
Well by now I am sure that you will all be aware that Her Majesty’s Opposition has had a change in leadership, David Cameron is the latest person to hold the post.Listening to his speech, I suppose you could call it his acceptance speech, it all sounds very promising, an end to ‘Punch and Judy politics’ etc… sounds like a move that has long been needed for the improvement in the quality of debate in the commons. Also having a leading with no past (politically speaking) means that there will be no more of Blair’s tirades “when he was in charge of this department …” which make PMQ’s farcical at times.
Considering that he has been accused of all style and no substance – think of it, name one policy that he has expressed, as far as I can see he has only declared his principles so far – He has already eluded to policies that I am vehemently opposed to that is to say “changing the way we look” with regard to female representation (before anyone starts I am not opposed to women MPs) but this expression suggests that the conservatives are thinking about going down the all women short list route, which I am fundamentally opposed to.
I believe in meritocracy I want my elected representative to have their job because they were the best person for the job not because they were the most representative of the sex, sexual orientation, race, religion, ethnicity etc… the best person for the job should have the opportunity to enter the ballet paper, representatives after all are just that representatives not embodiment of their constituents.
DOES CONSERVATISM MATTER FOR WALES?
The Conservatives I believe are the smallest party in the assembly, behind Plaid Cymru, and the Liberal Democrats in opposition.
So what does this matter or is it just simply an example of cultural imperialism that I have mentioned below with regard to the London Media pushing what they regard to be an important party onto the different political climate in Wales.
What I will say is that the Conservatives role in Wales for the first time since I have been alive (b. 1984) has the opportunity, due to the fact that this leader cannot be associated with Thatcher and the attacks on Welsh mining communities, has a chance to make Conservatives relevant in Wales for the first time probably in living memory. We have already seen inroads at the last general election and it will be interesting that the first benchmark for Cameron’s regime will be the Assembly elections (in addition to the Scottish Parliamentary elections) in 2007.
I shall be watching Mr Cameron with great interest.
6/12: ENGLAND ALONE (WITH NORTHERN IRELAND)
It is decided the 2012 ‘British’ Olympic football team will be a simple re-branding of the England football team – with a token Northern Ireland player to act as scapegoat for London media to place undue levels of blame for ‘Britain’s’ defeat in 2012.
I have to admit that I am glad that the FAW shunned this proposal that could have seen an increase in ties with our English overlords at a time when we a demanding increased separation between the two.
I’m reluctant to portray this as the beginning of a great cultural gulf between the two countries as we are still subject to a great deal of cultural imperialism by England and London in particular.
However, the decision not to opt for greater integration is very pleasing; like wise with the single welsh police force (as opposed to a cross border force) we are beginning to more clearly define our borders with England, and create an element of separation between ourselves and our occupiers.
This can only bode well for the future independence of our country.
¶ 6:00 PM 3 comments
links to this post
I have to admit that I am glad that the FAW shunned this proposal that could have seen an increase in ties with our English overlords at a time when we a demanding increased separation between the two.
I’m reluctant to portray this as the beginning of a great cultural gulf between the two countries as we are still subject to a great deal of cultural imperialism by England and London in particular.
However, the decision not to opt for greater integration is very pleasing; like wise with the single welsh police force (as opposed to a cross border force) we are beginning to more clearly define our borders with England, and create an element of separation between ourselves and our occupiers.
This can only bode well for the future independence of our country.
6/12: A NEW DAWN
Well not literally, it’s the middle of the night – well very early morning.
Taffia Don has finally got its new face, many thanks must go to Rhys Wynne for his help with the code, he is to thank for more than his fair share of the work that went into this website.
And for his efforts I am grateful.
So this is it what do you think?
¶ 4:52 AM 2 comments
links to this post
Taffia Don has finally got its new face, many thanks must go to Rhys Wynne for his help with the code, he is to thank for more than his fair share of the work that went into this website.
And for his efforts I am grateful.
So this is it what do you think?
Monday, December 05, 2005
5/12: THE RED CRYSTAL
What risk would Red Cross agents be under if they went out under this unidentified flag? The Red Cross / Crescent enshrines a certain amount of protection, not enough but more, changing images in this turbulent world will surly put peoples lives at risk.
¶ 8:12 PM 0 comments
links to this post
The BBC reports that the International Committee of the Red Cross is meeting today to discuss the idea of creating a neutral image separate from the Red Cross and the Red Crescent organisation.
Now a hollow square on its point what does that represent?
First of all I have to object to the idea of moving away from the Red Cross, which I believe finds its origins with the Swiss flag, which was seen to stand for impartiality and fairness, and was subsequently inverted for distinction between the organisation and the Swiss state.
It may be said that the Red Cross has assumed a religious overtones especially with the adoption of a red crescent for Arab / museum countries, and Israel imposition of a red Star of David (which remains unrecognised by the international body, but why is this issue?
Surly the work that these organisations stands by itself, work that it undertakes in every corner of the world, indiscriminately, to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t go to any one and as them to fill out a form of religious belief before it decides which flag to use in order to aid them.
The image of the organisation is not the issue, it’s the effectiveness of the organisation the timeliness of the aid, and I doubt that survivors of the tsunami or the earth quake cared who was able to give them aid just glad that aid was received.
So does the image matter – and if the image matter what the hell is a red square balancing on its corner saying – what is intrinsically helpful about this symbol?
Why when there are hundreds of symbols representing aid / medicine do they have to fabricate an image that has no meanings – the only possible benefit that it has no previous associations I believe.
But what about this symbol (I’ve made it red for the Red Cross to consider) it’s the global symbol, or the international symbol for medicine. I know that the Red Cross operates in areas other that medicine but the benefits of having a symbol that is associated with helping people must surely be a benefit.
Now a hollow square on its point what does that represent?
First of all I have to object to the idea of moving away from the Red Cross, which I believe finds its origins with the Swiss flag, which was seen to stand for impartiality and fairness, and was subsequently inverted for distinction between the organisation and the Swiss state.
It may be said that the Red Cross has assumed a religious overtones especially with the adoption of a red crescent for Arab / museum countries, and Israel imposition of a red Star of David (which remains unrecognised by the international body, but why is this issue?
Surly the work that these organisations stands by itself, work that it undertakes in every corner of the world, indiscriminately, to the best of my knowledge it doesn’t go to any one and as them to fill out a form of religious belief before it decides which flag to use in order to aid them.
The image of the organisation is not the issue, it’s the effectiveness of the organisation the timeliness of the aid, and I doubt that survivors of the tsunami or the earth quake cared who was able to give them aid just glad that aid was received.
So does the image matter – and if the image matter what the hell is a red square balancing on its corner saying – what is intrinsically helpful about this symbol?
Why when there are hundreds of symbols representing aid / medicine do they have to fabricate an image that has no meanings – the only possible benefit that it has no previous associations I believe.
But what about this symbol (I’ve made it red for the Red Cross to consider) it’s the global symbol, or the international symbol for medicine. I know that the Red Cross operates in areas other that medicine but the benefits of having a symbol that is associated with helping people must surely be a benefit.
What risk would Red Cross agents be under if they went out under this unidentified flag? The Red Cross / Crescent enshrines a certain amount of protection, not enough but more, changing images in this turbulent world will surly put peoples lives at risk.
Sunday, December 04, 2005
4/12: Taffia Shop
The more astute of you would notice that there has been a slight alteration to the sidebar of this blog – that as the title suggests is a link to Cafépress.com where I have established a shop to sell Taffia Don Apparel.
I hope you will all have a look and give me some feedback regarding its contents even if shopping there isn’t on the foremost of your minds.
Many thanks
¶ 1:19 AM 0 comments
links to this post
I hope you will all have a look and give me some feedback regarding its contents even if shopping there isn’t on the foremost of your minds.
Many thanks
Friday, December 02, 2005
2/12: Operation 'Filibuster'
I have previously commented on Geoff Hoon's Filibuster antics
However, it seems that filibusting has become a new labour policy, with a similar tactic being employed by Andrew Dismore (labour MP for Hendon) to prevent a bill that would clarify the level of force one may use against intruders in the home.
It should be noted at this stage that I am not aware of the content of the bill and therefore cannot say that his assertions that the bill is confused and would be ineffective are correct or incorrect - however I is not my intention to support the bill, solely criticise filibusting
As people who have read this blog previously may be aware, I have several key political dislikes, primarily party whips, however, I am also annoyed by disrespect to proper parliamentary procedure or even attempts to invalidate parliament (parliament being not just central but key to my political beliefs).
The question is this – what right does this one MP have, to prevent the majority will of all our elected representatives from prevailing?
No I can’t think of any, it’s just another way of making parliament ineffectual and gradually corroding the integrity of the parliament itself, as it stifles debate, if this MP believed that the bill lacked the necessary clarity why didn’t he ask for amendments or alternatively rejected this motion and encourage others to do so while encouraging a more comprehensive bill to be introduced, In stead of using these spoiler tactics.
Additionally, there is in this article this sentence:
“For fortification Mr Dismore - co-chairman of the All-Party Wine and Spirit Group - drank only from a cup of water.”
It is my personal opinion that filibusting shows disregard for parliament, however, this action is empirical evidence of disregard for parliament as eating and drinking are forbidden within the House of Commons, the one exception being during the budget, where the chancellor is allowed to sip water.
2/12: UN backing?
I’m currently researching the United Nations Human Rights declarations for my Researching Politics - Reform of the UN module when I happened across this
Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities
Which at (gone) 2 am is very interesting to myself, and not just because of its use for my module...and presentation on the 12th December - which is why I’m going to go very quiet for a while.
Your all smart so you can probably ascertain that I’ve copied and pasted those sections that I thought were most relevant - except Article 9, that was included party for the reason I’ve just stated and partly because I like the idea of having blue helmets in Wales
But one has to wonder is Westminster fulfilling its commitments to the Welsh Language. I previously thought – and I’m expecting rebukes for this - that those campaigning for a new Welsh Language act were simply nationalist pushing for there rights. Which I’m sure they are but are they also people who are trying to force government to comply with United Nations declarations and conventions?
This for me is especially true if you look at article 4 section 2. is the government’s failure to ensure that welsh speakers can partake their economic life through the medium of Welsh by not introducing an extended language act in contradiction to this?
I’m sure that I am under qualified to answer, but it is an interesting point to wonder. I’m sure that I will revisit this document in the future perhaps to discover the answer.
¶ 2:12 AM 0 comments
links to this post
Declaration on the Rights of Persons belonging to National or Ethnic, Religious or Linguistic Minorities
Which at (gone) 2 am is very interesting to myself, and not just because of its use for my module...and presentation on the 12th December - which is why I’m going to go very quiet for a while.
1. States shall protect the existence and the national or ethnic, cultural, religious and linguistic identity of minorities within their respective territories and shall encourage
conditions for the promotion of that identity..Article 41. States shall take measures where required to ensure that persons belonging to minorities may exercise fully and effectively all their human rights and fundamental freedoms without any discrimination and in full equality before the law.2. States shall take measures to create favourable conditions to enable persons belonging to minorities to express their characteristics and to develop their culture,
language, religion, traditions and customs, except where specific practices are in violation of national law and contrary to international standards.3. States should take appropriate measures so that, wherever possible, persons belonging to minorities may have adequate opportunities to learn their mother tongue or to have instruction in their mother tongue.4. States should, where appropriate, take measures in the field of education, in order to encourage knowledge of the history, traditions, language and culture of the minorities existing within their territory. Persons belonging to minorities should have adequate opportunities to gain knowledge of the society as a whole.The specialized agencies and other organizations of the United Nations system shall contribute to the full realization of the rights and principles set forth in the present
Declaration, within their respective fields of competence.
Your all smart so you can probably ascertain that I’ve copied and pasted those sections that I thought were most relevant - except Article 9, that was included party for the reason I’ve just stated and partly because I like the idea of having blue helmets in Wales
But one has to wonder is Westminster fulfilling its commitments to the Welsh Language. I previously thought – and I’m expecting rebukes for this - that those campaigning for a new Welsh Language act were simply nationalist pushing for there rights. Which I’m sure they are but are they also people who are trying to force government to comply with United Nations declarations and conventions?
This for me is especially true if you look at article 4 section 2. is the government’s failure to ensure that welsh speakers can partake their economic life through the medium of Welsh by not introducing an extended language act in contradiction to this?
I’m sure that I am under qualified to answer, but it is an interesting point to wonder. I’m sure that I will revisit this document in the future perhaps to discover the answer.
SUPPORT TAFFIA DON: MERCHANDISE
DAILY CARTOON
- WE SHALL REMEMBER THEM
- 08/06/07 – THEATRE REVIEW
- 02/06/07- THE WELSH LANGUAGE IS BEING OVER PROMOTE...
- 22/05/07 – IS THIS THE SWIFTEST RENEGED PROMISE IN...
- 22/05/07 – QUESTION, DOES PETER HAIN’S LEFT HAND K...
- 11/05/07 - LIB DEMS CRY FOUL
- 10/05/07 - ABHORRENT MADNESS, ABHORRENT DISCRIMINA...
- 10/05/07 – CONGRATULATIONS S4C
- 10/05/07 – COALITIONS
- 10/05/07 – BLAIR ANNOUNCES HIS RETIREMENT
ARCHIVES
- June 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- November 2007
- Current Posts
- SMILING UNDER BUSES
- BRITISH NATIONALISTS IN WALES WATCH
- BIG STICK SMALL CARROT WORLD
- WALES COMMENT
- INSIDE SWANSEA COUNCIL
MAP
