• Family

    • Ala Abbas
    • Clairwil
    • Daily Rhino
    • Leon Green
    • Liberal Conspiracy
    • Sajini W
    • Sid’s blog
    • Sonia Afroz
    • Sunny on CIF
  • Comrades

    • 1820
    • Angela Saini
    • Aqoul
    • Bartholomew’s notes
    • Big Sticks, Small Carrots
    • Blairwatch
    • Bleeding Heart Show
    • Bloggerheads
    • Blood & Treasure
    • Butterflies & Wheels
    • Campaign against Honour Killings
    • Chicken Yoghurt
    • Clive Davis
    • Daily Mail Watch
    • Dave Hill
    • Derek Wall
    • Dr StrangeLove
    • Europhobia
    • Faith in Society
    • Feministing
    • Harry’s Place
    • IKWRO
    • Indigo Jo
    • Liberal England
    • Matt Murrell
    • MediaWatchWatch
    • Ministry of Truth
    • Natalie Bennett
    • New Humanist Editor
    • New Statesman blogs
    • open Democracy
    • Our Kingdom
    • Robert Sharp
    • Rupa Huq
    • Septicisle
    • Shiraz Socialist
    • Shuggy’s Blog
    • Stumbling and Mumbling
    • Though Cowards Flinch
    • Tory Troll
    • UK Polling Report
  • In-laws

    • Aaron Heath
    • Ariane Sherine
    • Desi Pundit
    • Get There Steppin’
    • Incurable Hippie
    • Isheeta
    • Neha Viswanathan
    • Power of Choice
    • Real man’s fraternity
    • Route 79
    • Sakshi Juneja
    • Sarah
    • Sepia Mutiny
    • Smalltown Scribbles
    • Sonia Faleiro
    • The Langar Hall
    • Turban Head
    • Ultrabrown






  • Technorati: graph / links

    Happy elections


    by Sunny on 4th May, 2007 at 10:00 pm    

    In short: the Scottish National Party did great, Labour floundered but not as badly as they thought, Conservatives did as well as they could have hoped, the Liberal Democrats too did badly, the BNP got nowhere and we should all be celebrating. Or maybe… who cares about local elections anyway?
    Either way the weekend is here and I’m looking forward to some sunshine and catching up on my reading. I’m sure Katy or Clairwil will come along soon with the weekend thread, so this is not that. You can discuss what you folks want here… if anyone is still around on this Friday evening?



      |     |   Add to del.icio.us   |   Share on Facebook   |   Filed in: Current affairs




    94 Comments below   |  

    1. Clairwil — on 4th May, 2007 at 10:13 pm  

      I’m still in a state of shock! I’ve got a Green and an SNP councillor. Still two Labour, but any swing against Labour in Scotland is a miracle.

      Sadly Terry Kelly is still with us.

    2. Clairwil — on 4th May, 2007 at 10:14 pm  

      Oh and wasn’t May 3rd meant to be ‘BNP day’? Wankers.

    3. Leön — on 4th May, 2007 at 10:22 pm  

      Er so this is not the weekend thread?! Back to the red wine methinks…

    4. Vikrant — on 4th May, 2007 at 10:25 pm  

      Conservatives did as well as they could have hoped, the Liberal Democrats too did badly

      Hahaha…. that hardly covers it. Tories whipped Labour ass all over Northern England. I reckon they are in a much better position to make a dash for Westminster in 2009.

    5. Sunny — on 4th May, 2007 at 11:24 pm  

      Do I really want the Tories back in 2009? I’m not so sure.

    6. Gump — on 5th May, 2007 at 12:22 am  

      Tories would be dissapointed they didn’t take key targets, pleased with the increase in councillors but dissapointed they didn’t move on from 40%.
      “Mixed bag” is an admission from LD.
      Everyone predicted a kicking for Labour, but it didn’t happen to the same extent. IF, yes IF, they had held on in Scotland, they would have thought it wasn’t that bad. Increasing their national vote by one percent, albeit to 27%, was much better than most people thought.
      With a Wales majority gone, an Lab-LD coalition will see them in power. I think that’s most likely.
      The fact that Scotland is gone is a mjor setback, but as to what if any coalition is formed….it’s not that clear.
      Con. are not doing any deals. LD said no to a referrendum, so unless the SNP change the wording of the strive for a referrendum, it’s going to be an interesting few weeks.

    7. Anas — on 5th May, 2007 at 12:52 am  

      Oh and wasn’t May 3rd meant to be ‘BNP day’? Wankers.

      That was a typo, they meant ‘SNP day’ but were too stupid to figure it out.

    8. Election 2007 - Some Reflections — on 5th May, 2007 at 1:42 am  

      [...] Summary of the Election? Sunny also has a nice summary: [...]

    9. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 12:46 pm  

      Vikrant

      ‘Tories whipped Labour ass all over Northern England.’

      In Liverpool, Manchester and Newcastle the Tories still have no councillors. Hardly constitutes a whipping.

      Sunny

      ‘Do I really want the Tories back in 2009?’

      No, you don’t. Neither do I, and neither should any self-respecting human being in the country. They are imbeciles of the highest order.

    10. A Councillor writes — on 5th May, 2007 at 4:23 pm  

      The Tories did very well, but the further north you go, the very well declined to pretty well and then to above average. I would comment that when you have no councillors on an authority, it can be damn hard to come back. There are some signs that they might get a seat or two back on Manchester in the future, but there are also signs that they might get wiped out of Sheffield. In the Northern authorities where they didn’t get wiped out (Leeds, Bradford etc), they are doing quite OK again.

      Labour had a bad night, but they had some bright spots such as increasing their hold on Nottingham.

      The Lib Dems had a bad night as well, but mainly in the South against the Tories. They held their own or did well in many places where they had MPs and in some where they don’t (Hull, Northampton).

      The BNP had an *awful* night compared to what was being forecast for them. They lost over 50% of their vote in the ward I represent, which looked like their people not turning out rather than switching.

      I spent most of the day helping one of our threatened wards, which we held with a small increase in majority, which I was particularly pleased about as our young Asian candidate was standing on his work record as a councillor over the last three years and our opponents were playing biraderi/mosque politics.

      Oh and I got to see George Galloway using a megaphone through the sunroof of a Mercedes. Sadly, no egg or tomato shops were to hand :-)

    11. Don — on 5th May, 2007 at 5:36 pm  

      I stood as a paper candidate (against the mayor, who strolled in uncontested in the last election) and managed to poll about a quarter of the vote.

      For the non-political (on this site?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paper_candidate

      It was good to see him having to door-step in his own ward for the first time in eight years. Most of my own time was spent in target wards (where we got a clean sweep, although the council is still Tory controlled).

      I stood as a LibDem (and that doesn’t make me a bad person) because Labour have more or less thrown in the towel in this area and I am genetically unable to contemplate a Tory ‘representing’ me without a fight.

      If the LibDems had a national party and a leadership remotely worth promoting we could have done some serious damage. Still, locally we can just keep slogging away at unexciting nuts&bolts issues and hope to build.

      Clairwill #2, yup. Tomorrow belongs to me. Not.

    12. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 6:26 pm  

      @Naxal:

      I know i’m going OT. But would you care to explain your handle “Naxal 1849″?

    13. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 6:47 pm  

      Vikrant

      What do you mean by handle? You mean nickname?

    14. Sunny — on 5th May, 2007 at 7:11 pm  

      Don, well done mate!

    15. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 7:32 pm  

      @ Naxal: yep.

      @Don: Which council? I’m writing Wikipedia entires for each council…. like: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Surrey_Heath_council_election_2007

    16. Rumbold — on 5th May, 2007 at 7:46 pm  

      Good for you Don.

      “Oh and I got to see George Galloway using a megaphone through the sunroof of a Mercedes. Sadly, no egg or tomato shops were to hand”

      Ha ha. You should always be prepared.

      Clarewil: “Sadly Terry Kelly is still with us”.

      You would miss him if he was gone. He would not be able to name his blog ‘Councillor Terry Kelly; I’m a socialist’.

    17. Rumbold — on 5th May, 2007 at 7:47 pm  

      Sorry, Clairwil. I seem to be turning into Terry Kelly.

    18. ZinZin — on 5th May, 2007 at 7:54 pm  

      Rumbold you have a long way to go before you become TKmax . If you want to become TKmax, better start eating those deep fried mars bars.

    19. Rumbold — on 5th May, 2007 at 8:04 pm  

      Are you throwing down the gauntlet ZinZin? Do they sell Terry Kelly masks anywhere?

    20. ZinZin — on 5th May, 2007 at 8:12 pm  

      Throwing down the guantlet? I’ve been doing that a lot lately and I’m not the assertive type at all.

      Today for example I told my brother that I could get full time employment before the end of September. A tenner is riding on the outcome.

      Don’t accept that challenge I don’t want you to have a heart attack in the process. After all TKmax looks like Jabba the Hut. You never see them in the same room.

    21. Don — on 5th May, 2007 at 8:36 pm  

      Thanks, Sunny, Rumbold.

      Vikrant, Tynedale. It’ll be nice to have you back, staying for the summer?

    22. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 9:22 pm  

      Vikrant

      I don’t really want to go into too much detail or my identity may be revealed.

      But Naxal is a shortened form of Naxalite* - my father was a Punjabi Naxalite in the 70s.

      1849 is the year that the Sikhs lost their Kingdom.

      That’s it.

      * Naxalites are militant Marxist-Leninists: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naxalites

    23. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 10:27 pm  

      I know what a Naxalite is :P. Was curious about 1849 date…. So you are some Communist Khalistani? A strange breed indeed.

      @Don:

      Hexham Gilesgate 1 Barry Pickering Con 311 Elected
      Donald James Stewart LD 91

      Not bad!

      Been voluteering on Wikipedia to cover these elections. I’ve almost single handedly mainted http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections%2C_2007. Just started an entry on ur council, but got bored the half way (have to sympathise with me, been punching in numbers for over 6 hrs now!).

      Will complete it tmrrw.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tynedale_Council_election_2007

    24. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 10:28 pm  

      It’ll be nice to have you back, staying for the summer?

      Yea, before moving to the vast and flat cornfields of Mid Western United States for Uni.

    25. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 10:30 pm  

      The link would be: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_local_elections%2C_2007

    26. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 10:40 pm  

      Yes, The Communist Party of Khalistan (Marxist-Leninist).

      How about yourself? RSS? BJP? Congress? New Labour?

    27. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 10:55 pm  

      Communist Party of Khalistan (Marxist-Leninist).

      Isnt that oxymoronic? Communist party fighting for a theocratic state?

      As for my political inclinations….

      Congress?
      No way.

      RSS?
      Not after this ( http://www.pickledpolitics.com/archives/668 )

      BJP? Yep boy. BJP and Tories.

    28. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:06 pm  

      It will not be a theocratic state.

      ‘BJP and Tories’

      That’s a shame. Both exemplify the worst in human nature and have proved themselves inadequate as progressive political parties.

    29. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:13 pm  

      C’mon BJP nor the Tories blow up airplanes…..

    30. Vikrant — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:18 pm  

      It will not be a theocratic state.

      Then pray tell me why do u need a Khalistan if it were not to be a theocracy…. Anyways Khalistan movement is dead. You are wasting your time. Punjab is only 60% Sikh. Indian Union is brutally status quoist. No matter what Chauhan says you wont see Khalistan in next 50 yrs atleast. Only time Khalistan was could have been formed was in 1984.

    31. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:23 pm  

      No, they don’t need to with Congress blowing up all the planes: http://www.amazon.com/Soft-Target-Intelligence-Service-Penetrated/dp/1550282239

      However, that you can support the Tories when their most infamous campaign slogan read, ‘If you want a nigger for a neighbour vote Labour’ is rather telling.

      As for the BJP, they are a laughable lot. Never did ‘reclaim’ the land of Pakistan…oh well.

    32. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:29 pm  

      Vikrant

      Your ignorance knows no bounds.

      Khalistan isn’t about theocracy or simply righting the wrongs of 1984.

      It is about righting the wrongs of 1849 and 1947.

      The first phase of the Khalistan movement is indeed dead, as is Dr Chauhan by the way, but as long as successive Indian Governments ignore the issues that affect Sikhs (water diversion, farmer suicides, justice for 1984, investment in Punjab, employment in Punjab etc) the second stage will not be far away.

      It will be different though: the movement will be led by intellectuals, not preachers.

    33. A Councillor writes — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:40 pm  

      Naxal: Whilst I have deep suspicions about the “new reformed” Tory party myself and have certainly heard a selection of unsavory comments from their members, the “if you want a n*gger for a neighbour” comment came from one campaign in one election and was certainly not the policy of the Tory party even then. I can think of similar, but more less reported behaviour from both of the other parties. Hardly strikes me as a sound basis to always avoid the Tories, there are much sounder.

    34. Naxal 1849 — on 5th May, 2007 at 11:51 pm  

      A Councillor writes

      Indeed, there are an abundance of reasons not to vote Tory. But the reason I cited that example is because Vikrant is an ‘ethnic’ and, as an ‘ethnic’, he should have deep reservations about a party whose members came up with such gems as I quoted.

      I also agree with you regarding New Labour and Lib Dem. They are all generally a bunch of complete imbeciles…but the Tories are easily the worst of the lot.

    35. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2007 at 2:44 am  

      Naxal 1849,

      Just curious.

      I take it you live in the UK? Are you not a bit of an Irish American in a way? Harking back to what should have been. Do you intend to stay in the UK or are you going to go back to what sounds like an incredibly complicated political, and perhaps religious, situation?

      Oh, by the way, I’ll not be offended if you think my ignorance of Khalistan knows no bounds, ’cause you’d be 100% right.

      I just sort of wonder how you can be so pro Labour, and yet still dream of Marxist-Leninism. It is a puzzle to me. Especially given the usual communist view on religion. Still.

      BTW, it is no bad thing that people like you are writing here, we need more controversy, not less.

    36. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 8:37 am  

      Naxal i wont engage youmuch, but the concerns you raise are soo pathetic….

      but as long as successive Indian Governments ignore the issues that affect Sikhs (water diversion, farmer suicides, justice for 1984, investment in Punjab, employment in Punjab etc) the second stage will not be far away.

      Same isssues also affect 975 million other Indians. Punjabis and Sikhs are not interchangable terms especially when 40% of them are Hindus. As for water issues, almost every petty regional nationalist in India will cry hoarse about how the federal govenment is giving “step-motherly” treatment to his state.

      As for farmer suicides have you heard of Vidarbha? That place exemplifies the decay and death that has been wrought on Indian agriculture. It is a result of years of governmental mismanagement and bureaucratic neglect but most importantly it has been aggravated by unimginative farmring. For years my friend, Indian government poured its resources into granaries of Punjab and Haryana at the cost of other regions. If Punjabi farmers are commiting suicides despite being most irrigated state in India, then it is something Punjab govenment must look into.

      Also it doesnt help that Punjabi and Haryanvi farmers have sucked the ground water tables dry.

      Face it, most leaders of Khalistan movement were pot-smoking Jatts propped up with Pakistani help. There is no genuine case for a Sikh state. All Khalistanis did was amplify petty griviences that are no different from those voiced by other regionalists. Sikhs and Hindus have shared culture and ethnic origins.

    37. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 8:39 am  

      Lastly it is not for you as a British Sikh to decide on Punjab’s fate. Indian Sikhs have already showed there support for the Union through various assembl elections held after 1993. Why didnt Akalis and BJP trounce Congress in the recent Punjab elections?

    38. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 9:31 am  

      douglas clark

      Let me address your points and answer your questions one by one.

      Yes, I live in the UK. I understand why you call me an Irish American.

      (For the record, I am an ardent supporter of IRA-Sinn Fein and have supported their cause to unite Ireland under the tri-colour since the Troubles began. Yes, this includes supporting their bombing campaigns on the mainland).

      However, a more accurate description of my stance would be to compare the situation of the Sikhs to that of the Jews at the end of the 19th century and the intellectual Zionist movement that was a by-product of that situation.

      If the Jews managed to re-create Israel, there is no reason why we should not be able to manage to re-establish the Sikh State.

      I will indeed ‘go back’. This is not my home, nor can it ever be.

      What on earth makes you think I support the Labour party? It was under a Labour government that the catastrophic Radcliffe line was drawn. As for their recent record in foreign affairs, the less said about it the better.

      As for being able to balance Marxist-Leninism and religion it is not as ‘out-there’ as you think.

      Don’t forget there is such a thing as Christian Socialism.

      My idea of ‘Sikh Socialism’, if you like, is similar to that of Arab Socialism but I really haven’t the time to go into it now.

      Hope that helps.

    39. Rumbold — on 6th May, 2007 at 9:38 am  

      Naxal 1849: “For the record, I am an ardent supporter of IRA-Sinn Fein and have supported their cause to unite Ireland under the tri-colour since the Troubles began.”

      That does not surprise me one bit.

      What do you think about all those Sikhs who fought bravely for the British Empire? The Sikhs contributed disproportionately to Britain’s imperial forces and many of them have good reason to be very proud. I suppose though that armchair revolutionaries would not have much truck with that.

      Vikrant: Are you a Marathi (or is it Maratha?)?

    40. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:07 am  

      Vikrant

      But you are forgetting, I don’t give a damn about 975 million Indians.

      I have admitted that Punjab was an agricultural capitalist success in the 60s and 70s, but please don’t forget that is was Sikh farmers who put food in the mouths of Indians at a knock down rate.

      There are a number of reasons for farmer suicides, but neither the central or state government give a damn - that’s my point, it’s time people step in who do care.

      You said: ‘Face it, most leaders of Khalistan movement were pot-smoking Jatts propped up with Pakistani help.’

      Well, some were, some weren’t. Some, like the Babbar Khalsa, were actually propped up by the Indian Government who were quite happy to see Punjabi Hindus killed to discredit the movement (please see Joyce Pettigrew’s ‘The Sikhs of the Punjab’ for more details).

      ‘There is no genuine case for a Sikh state.’

      Yes there is. Historical, economic, social and religious factors must be considered. You have considered nothing and just shot from the hip a regurgitated polemic that is getting tiresome.

      ‘All Khalistanis did was amplify petty grievances that are no different from those voiced by other regionalists.’

      If you call the theft of a sovereign state, genocide, arbitrary discrimination and mass rape ‘petty grievances’ then you should have no qualms about the lovely treatment meted out to Hindus in Pakistan.

      ‘Sikhs and Hindus have shared culture and ethnic origins.’

      Culture and ethnicity mean little to me.

      ‘Lastly it is not for you as a British Sikh to decide on Punjab’s fate.’

      It is not for you, a Tory-boy who has a soft spot for Hindu chauvinism, to decide on the fate of the Sikh Nation. I have more of a right to do that than you.

      For your information, I despise the Akali Dal more than anyone.

    41. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:12 am  

      Rumbold

      You are a curious creature.

      Sikhs fighting for the British Empire should have been used as a strong leverage for an independent state when it became clear that the British were going to leave.

      As stated previously; Sikh leaders ‘messed up royally’.

      You should also note that Sikhs contributed disproportionately in getting rid of the British too.

    42. Rumbold — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:26 am  

      For what its worth, I do think that a Sikh state should have been created in 1947, apart from anything else as a thank you (there were peoples who had done less for the British who were treated far better), and it also might have acted as a check on India-Pakistan conflict, as both would have had to have taken it into account. Now though, a separate Sikh state seems impractical, given the perceived lack of support for it.

      India should have been given its independence after the first world war.

    43. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 1:20 pm  

      @Rumbold: I’m both a Marathi and a Maratha from my mother’s side. Marathi is an ethnicity while Maratha is a caste. Paternally speaking i’m a Rajput.

      @Naxal: We’ve driven this thread off topic, care to continue at Claiwil’s political open thread?

    44. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 1:24 pm  

      I have more of a right to do that than you.

      As an Indian passport holder i have more stake than you….

      You should also note that Sikhs contributed disproportionately in getting rid of the British too.

      Chokes

      If you can call a lone Bhagat Singh disproportionate…. Remember 1857 honey?… Independence movement drew people from all ethnicities and religions including Sikhs. But i would be a travesty to suggest more contribution from any group… least of all Sikhs.

    45. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 1:25 pm  

      But you are forgetting, I don’t give a damn about 975 million Indians.

      So you want to establishment of a state where people like you dont give a damn for 40% of the population… quite illuminating.

    46. Rumbold — on 6th May, 2007 at 1:41 pm  

      I never knew there was a difference. Thank you Vikrant.

    47. Sunny — on 6th May, 2007 at 2:31 pm  

      So you want to establishment of a state where people like you dont give a damn for 40% of the population… quite illuminating.

      Khalistanis make me laugh. They apparently care for Sikhs, without paying too much attention to Sikh principles. Rather like the Hizb lot too. All that bhang in the lassi…

    48. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 6:23 pm  

      Vik

      ‘We’ve driven this thread off topic, care to continue at Claiwil’s political open thread?’

      No, you have driven it off topic. And, it appears, you wish to continue to do so.

      ‘As an Indian passport holder i have more stake than you.’

      It depends what you mean by this.

      If Punjab goes, so will Kashmir, and other groups will be spurred on to secede. Also, if Punjab goes, your army’s morale would be decimated. In addition, this would mean an end to cheap agricultural produce.

      It would indeed be an unmitigated disaster for India. Which is why the centre is so desperate to hang on to it.

      But Punjab is not your concern because you are a trumped up little kid from Bombay. I’m sure the Indian film industry would survive. Unfortunately, it always does.

      ‘If you can call a lone Bhagat Singh disproportionate’

      Your ignorance is truly supreme. Never heard of Mohan Singh? Udham Singh? The Babbar Akalis? The Ghadar Party? You need a crash course in history you stupid little twit.

      ‘So you want to establishment of a state where people like you dont give a damn for 40% of the population… quite illuminating.’

      I don’t give a damn about Indians. Many Hindu Punjabis, on the other hand, served Ranjit’s Sikh State with great distinction and will be welcome to serve the neo-Sikh State.

      Sunny

      ‘They apparently care for Sikhs, without paying too much attention to Sikh principles.’

      Another arbitrary comment with no intellectual basis whatsoever.

      This comment exemplifies your cerebral simplicity. Sikh principles are neither here nor there - what is required to suit any given circumstances is what must be done. Banda Singh was no great ‘Sikh’, nor was Ranjit; however, they both understood the political climate of the time and did what was necessary to establish rule.

      ‘All that bhang in the lassi…’

      Again you resort to childish insults when your argument is exhausted - and it gets exhausted very quickly.

    49. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 6:56 pm  

      You need a crash course in history you stupid little twit.

      Yeah…. yeah…. dont get me started on this. I know my history better than those propaganda sheets you call history.

      It would indeed be an unmitigated disaster for India. Which is why the centre is so desperate to hang on to it.

      Desperate to hang on? Khallis like you are the desperados here….

      I don’t give a damn about Indians. Many Hindu Punjabis, on the other hand, served Ranjit’s Sikh State with great distinction and will be welcome to serve the neo-Sikh State.

      Yeha… I’m sure they’ll be glad to serve your Sikh state given that “Sant” Bhindranwale exhorted every Khalli to murder 32 Hindus.

      if Punjab goes, your army’s morale would be decimated. In addition, this would mean an end to cheap agricultural produce.

      10-15% of Indian army is made up of Sikhs. I dont think keyboard warriors from Southall can take on them.

      But Punjab is not your concern because you are a trumped up little kid from Bombay.

      I grew up in Leicester and Surrey Heath. Punjab shouldnt be your concern since you are not even an Indian.

    50. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:07 pm  

      Given that you didn’t even know who Udham Singh was and had never heard of the Ghadar Party I think I beat you hands down when it comes to who knows their history.

      Let’s not talk about desperation. You may find yourself severely embarrassed. How many Hindu women did you sell into sexual slavery to Afghan invaders? And who, invariably, got them back for you?

      Bhindranwale has nothing to do with this conversation. He is irrelevant.

      The very fact that you randomly brought is name up shows that your argument is capitulating.

      He was not an ideologue.

      The backbone of your defence against Pakistan and the only reason you are able to hold Kashmir is the Sikh Regiments.

      If they go, your military morale will collapse.

      ‘Punjab shouldnt be your concern since you are not even an Indian.’

      You’re right, I’m not Indian.

    51. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:21 pm  

      Look i know many rural Sikh Jatts had perfectly convincing economic reasons to be unhappy with the Indian state in 1970’s… But that doesnt explain the religious ferver and vitriol with Khullis opposed the Indian state.

      Bhindranwale’s war wasnt against Hindus or Brahmins or even the Indian state, it was a war against modernity, secularism and what he percieved to be decadence. He was Sikh version of OBL. Bhindranwale gave a religious angle to the legitimate economic greviences of Punjabis (both Hindu and Sikh).

      Religious angle made the conflict personal. It pitted a Sikh against a Hindu, a Punjabi vs Punjabi, a brother vs brother. It gave Bhindranwale a vehicle for social mobilisation, an organisational network or Gurudwaras and a moral justification for the orgy of violence he unleashed on Punjabi Hindus.

      I fail to understand how seemigly rational and intelligent individuals got talked into a movement that was so suicidal, so thoughtless, so contrary to the Panth.

      Movements like Khalistan and Hindutva were born out of rejection of socialist-secularist values spoon fed by the Nehruvian India. Both were born out of need to “protect” tradition against decadence. While Khalistan ebbed in 1994. 1992 was the watershed year for Hindutva, but 15 years on Hindutva is falling apart. The mass hypnosis of religious movements is short lived. Religious passions dissipate as quickly as they appear.

      Face it, Khalistan movement is dead. Buried 12 feet under. Popular support for Khalistan has all but vanished amongst Indian Sikhs. Dont you have any better thing to do with your life?

      Khalistanis like you are out to change the world and the people around you, but you’ll realise only people you end up changing are yourselves.

    52. Jai (Singh) — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:25 pm  

      Naxal 1849,

      =>”Sikh principles are neither here nor there - what is required to suit any given circumstances is what must be done.”

      You are a hypocrite of the highest order. You claim to act in the name of Sikhs, yet you violate the very principles that the Khalsa was founded on. How dare you claim to act for Sikhs when your conduct, your ideas, indeed your interpretation of Sikhism itself contravenes everything noble, decent and pure that Guru Gobind Singh stood for, everything he taught, everything that he lived, fought and died for.

      Even worse than a mere hypocrite, you are a religious hypocrite, and if you had an awareness of even the basics of Sikh history and theology then you should know what a dim view the Gurus took of paakhandis like you.

      God help you, because if you do not realise the false path you have taken in this life, you will very rapidly be made aware of it when your soul is put on trial by God shortly afterwards.

      I suggest you take control of your ego, get off this website before you embarrass yourself further, learn a little humility and practice some sincere introspection before you take any further actions whatsoever in the name of Sikhs. Because trust me, “brother”, I sure as hell don’t recognise you as any kind of Sikh in the true sense of the word, and neither would the Gurus. Sunny Hundal is not a pious follower of the Khalsa Panth in its strict form, but he has never claimed to be, yet he is far more of a Sikh in terms of his compassion, his integrity and his fundamental decency than you are at this point in your earthly life.

      It would be a very good idea for you to place a little less importance on the actions of people like Banda Singh Bahadur and Maharajah Ranjit Singh, and considerably greater emphasis on the actions, teachings and example of truly heroic figures such as Guru Gobind Singh.

      Your intentions are well-meaning, but you are following — and being “inspired” by — completely the wrong role models.

      If you are sincere in your cause then take a few steps back and genuinely consider what I have said. If not, it is of course entirely your prerogative; however, we all reap what we sow, and the full force of the ramifications of your actions will be made clear to you by God sooner or later. Even if you don’t learn this lesson until shortly after your own death.

      At which point, all this worthless talk of “neo-Sikh States”, “Banda Singh”, “Ranjit Singh” etc will turn to dust.

      Consider this a reality check.

      Waheguru Ji Ka Khalsa, Waheguru Ji Ki Fateh.

    53. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:31 pm  

      How many Hindu women did you sell into sexual slavery to Afghan invaders? And who, invariably, got them back for you?

      STFU. Do you even know what you are talking about? Well done, you are fast evaporating any lingering admiration this Maratha has for Sikhs, who saved Maratha women after the Maratha clans were vanquished at Panipat by the Afghans. At Panipat my friend, no Maratha male was left standing, approximately 10% of Maratha population was killed or enslaved. Plus if it handnt been for Marathas and Afghans mutually destroying each other at Panipat, you wouldnt have got your historical Sikh state you seem to long for…

      I wouldnt get into dick sizing exercises with you, all I’d ask is what were your great Jatt warriors doing in 1857?

    54. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:35 pm  

      hey Jai nice to see you…. how have you been?

    55. Sunny — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:44 pm  

      This comment exemplifies your cerebral simplicity. Sikh principles are neither here nor there -

      Ha ha! I gave you rope, you hung yourself. Sikh principles are irrelevant are they? Funny that.

      Banda Bahadur and Ranjit Singh are neither here or there since you are neither. You’re just some Khalistani from the UK trying to argue a case you haven’t even thought through yourself.

      You’ll get nowhere, and thankfully most Sikhs in the UK have realised that most ‘Khalistanis’ are simply power hungry clowns more interested in acting out their bigoted agendas than being good Sikhs and setting an example. Any wonder that outside the AKJ clique, most think they’re a joke.

      Vikrant: Well done, you are fast evaporating any lingering admiration this Maratha has for Sikhs

      Why are you taking guidance on Sikhs from this fool?

    56. Vikrant — on 6th May, 2007 at 7:52 pm  

      I’m sorry Sunny, but most British Sikhs i’ve grown up around turned out to be blabbering baboons like Naxal. But then Indian Sikhs i met over last year were completely different bunch. In Bombay hardly anyone knows what Khalistan is…..

    57. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2007 at 8:30 pm  

      Naxal 1849,

      Post 38.

      Thanks for taking the time to reply. I am a bit saddened to see that you are on the side of terrorists.
      If folk vote for independence, then I think they should have it, but not as a consequence of bombing campaigns and the like.

    58. Sunny — on 6th May, 2007 at 8:31 pm  

      hardly anyone knows what Khalistan is…..

      Khalistan is the world.

    59. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 9:39 pm  

      Vikrant

      Your entire speech about Bhindranwale was about as useful as a BLT at Friday Prayers.

      If you can read, I suggest you look at my previous post regarding Bhindranwale.

      He is now, in 2007, irrelevant.

      Also, I know you belong to a caste-ridden faith but please can you stop referring to Sikhs with a caste prefix. We don’t.

      Jai (singh)

      I seriously suggest you take some reading lessons. There are plenty of classes going.

      When did I ‘interpret Sikhism’ on this thread or any other? Answer: never. Hence your first paragraph was like your life: pointless.

      ‘you are a religious hypocrite’

      When did I claim to be a religious man? Answer: never.

      Get an adult to read my posts and he will tell you that I am outlining political solutions to political problems. Religion hasn’t come into it.

      ‘if you do not realise the false path you have taken in this life…’

      Who died and made you God?

      I have also never claimed to be a Khalsa Sikh or to represent anyone but myself.

      RE: your comments about Sunny - more sycophancy. Sunny, do you pay these losers or something?

      ‘It would be a very good idea for you to place a little less importance on the actions of people like Banda Singh Bahadur and Maharajah Ranjit Singh, and considerably greater emphasis on the actions, teachings and example of truly heroic figures such as Guru Gobind Singh.’

      Why? does it irk you that I wish to see the Sikh State re-established? If yes, why?

      ‘Your intentions are well-meaning, but you are following — and being “inspired” by — completely the wrong role models.’

      Conjecture.

      ‘and the full force of the ramifications of your actions will be made clear to you by God sooner or later’

      I’ll take my chances. By the way, has anyone ever told you that you sound like a firebrand Evangelical preacher? A bad one.

      Sunny

      Again, some reading lessons wouldn’t go amiss. When did I say Sikh principles are ‘irrelevant’? Answer: never.

      douglas clark

      ‘I am a bit saddened to see that you are on the side of terrorists.’

      Who are the ‘terrorists’?

    60. Don — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:42 pm  

      Naxal,

      I have no view of the validity of your claims, but you are hijacking quite a lot of threads. It’s starting to get annoying. I’m sure you feel strongly about this, but maybe you could stay on one vaguely relevant thread where those who want to engage with you could do so? And stop popping up everywhere?

      Consider it a polite request.

    61. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:51 pm  

      Don

      If you re-read this entire thread, you will see that it was not me who started the debate about Sikh separatism.

      I was sticking to the topic, others ‘hijacked the thread’.

      Consider this a polite request: stop acting like the internet police but, if you insist on being internet cop, then at least get your facts right.

      I believe message 29 is where your ‘investigation’ should begin.

    62. douglas clark — on 6th May, 2007 at 10:59 pm  

      Naxal 1849,

      I do not see the point you are trying to make re terrorism. Indiscriminate bombings of folk is just plain wrong. Prior to 1968 it had been nearly a lifetime since the previous ‘troubles’ in Northern Ireland. There was a democratic process in place and the Republican side should have stuck to it. I think that allying yourself with terrorism in a democratic state is never justifiable on political, ethical or moral grounds. It undermines whatever other arguements you might have. As I understand it, both sides in Northern Ireland have now eschewed the use of the bullet and the bomb. So what the hell was the point?

    63. Don — on 6th May, 2007 at 11:01 pm  

      How am I being a cop? I’m just a little bored by every thread being turned into a monologue. I merely suggested that you resrict it to one area. For those who care.

      And don’t give me the ‘they started it’ routine. I get get that every day from the kids, I don’t give a damn who started it. It’s just disruptive.

    64. Refresh — on 6th May, 2007 at 11:14 pm  

      Hello Councillor

      “Oh and I got to see George Galloway using a megaphone through the sunroof of a Mercedes. Sadly, no egg or tomato shops were to hand ”

      Surely you wouldn’t consider violence against another citizen. And if you would perhaps you should explain your reasons.

    65. Naxal 1849 — on 6th May, 2007 at 11:25 pm  

      douglas

      The problem arises when a state engages in the discriminate killing of a people.

      With regard to Northern Ireland, the disgraceful way that the Catholic community was treated by the British Government, and the Protestant community within Northern Ireland, was also within a democratic setting.

      What do you want them to do? Just sit there and take it, in their own country?

      Or do they grow some balls and fight for their civil and human rights?

      Don’t forget that Nelson Mandela was labelled a ‘terrorist’ before recently but you wouldn’t dare call him that now.

      ‘So what the hell was the point?’

      Sinn Fein-IRA stated their point on a number of occasions: the only way to bring the dismal situation of Catholics in NI to the fore was to start a bombing campaign on the mainland. Simple.

      As for the power sharing agreement, Gerry Adams is no fool - he knows that the Catholic population will out-breed (pardon my terminology) the Protestant one and create a sizable majority. With Sinn Fein in government they will, in twenty years of so, be in a position to call for a plebiscite on uniting with Ireland.

      This is, of course, being optimistic (from a Nationalist point of view). If this doesn’t happen then the day that the IRA decommissioned will go down as the saddest day in the history of Ireland.

    66. ZinZin — on 6th May, 2007 at 11:31 pm  

      Refresh
      GG was probably informing the voters that if they voted for the councillor they would go straight to hell.

    67. Don — on 6th May, 2007 at 11:58 pm  

      OK, growing balls involves blowing up people doing their bloody shopping, right?

      ‘the only way to bring the dismal situation of Catholics in NI to the fore was to start a bombing campaign on the mainland. Simple.’

      Well, as long as it’s simple that’s ok. Tosser.

    68. douglas clark — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:13 am  

      Naxal 1849,

      You’ll probably not remember this, but when the British Army first went into Northern Ireland it was welcomed by the Catholic community. There is no doubt there was structural injustice, but I do not think the bombing strategy moved the process forward one inch. In fact, it probably slowed it down. It has taken damn near 40 years to get to a situation where we have power sharing.

      A comparably disadvantaged group were homosexuals, who have made bigger advances in a similar time scale without once reverting to mob violence.

      You do not have to pick up a gun, or plant a bomb in a democracy, unless your intention is to subvert it for other reasons. Terrorism is the resort of fools who would rather see their brand of totalitarianism than someone elses’, and damn the human cost.

      Given the demographics that you mention, and the economics of Eire, the border freedoms of EU membership, and significant moves in equality legislation, I wonder if it was not just a lot of psychopaths getting their jollies with a Nationalist, or come to that Unionist, cover.

    69. Sunny — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:16 am  

      Hence your first paragraph was like your life: pointless.

      Clearly Naxal has no time for cheap shots. Anyway, the next thread he disrupts he will be banned, I too am getting bored with him. Barking dogs are entertaining only for so long.

    70. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 10:23 am  

      Don

      ‘OK, growing balls involves blowing up people doing their bloody shopping, right?’

      It involves attacking a country’s economy.

      Your resort to insults further illustrates your inability to coherently argue a point.

      douglas clark

      Bloody Sunday put a stark end to the honeymoon.

      Of course it slowed the peace process down, but peace isn’t what the Sinn Fein-IRA wanted; they wanted a united Ireland.

      Your comparison with homosexuals is laughable, at best. There is no ‘institutional’ (no anti-homosexual laws, for example) homosexual discrimination in this country. People in the 18th century were openly gay and at the same time MPs (Matthew Gregory Lewis to name but one).

      ‘You do not have to pick up a gun, or plant a bomb in a democracy, unless your intention is to subvert it for other reasons.’

      You really think that vote power can lift you out of poverty and put an end to institutional discrimination? Let me guess; you are a middle class, middle aged, wealthy, white male. Your grasp of reality is poor.

      ‘Terrorism is the resort of fools who would rather see their brand of totalitarianism than someone elses’, and damn the human cost.’

      Terrorism is the resort of the desperate who have no voice or power, even within a democratic setting.

      No doubt some of the IRA were nutters with a cause, but the bulk of them were motivated by ideology.

      Sunny

      As stated before, I started off this conversation talking about Tory Councillors in the North of England and was diverted by others.

    71. soru — on 7th May, 2007 at 12:14 pm  

      Of course it slowed the peace process down, but peace isn’t what the Sinn Fein-IRA wanted; they wanted a united Ireland.

      And what the UVF wanted was a united Britain. If you think the IRA terror campaign was right, but the UVF wrong, how do you make that distinction?

      Or do you support both, and think it is only right and natural that the question of where lines should be drawn on a map of the EU should be settled by asking ‘who has a stronger stomach’?

    72. Rumbold — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:08 pm  

      “People in the 18th century were openly gay and at the same time MPs (Matthew Gregory Lewis to name but one).”

      While it is at least probable that Lewis (who never married) was homosexual, there is little firm evidence in this or any other case.

    73. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:13 pm  

      ‘And what the UVF wanted was a united Britain’

      The problem with fictional colonial entities is that they sooner or later collapse.

      Look at the way Scotland is going.

      All of Ireland belongs to the Irish, not Britain.

      ‘If you think the IRA terror campaign was right, but the UVF wrong, how do you make that distinction?’

      The IRA were fighting an anti-imperialist war. The UVF wanted to perpetuate colonialism.

      Britain has no right to draw lines on the maps of Ireland, the sub-continent or Iraq (watch this space).

    74. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:25 pm  

      Terrorism is the resort of the desperate who have no voice or power, even within a democratic setting.

      You won’t have any objection to being blown apart when some twat from Leeds decides to detonate himself next to you on a bus then? At least they’ll have expressed themselves.

    75. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:35 pm  

      Anyway, I remember talking to a man in the know, who told me about how a bunch of ex Naxalites forsook their extremist left wing dogma and because right wing religious nationalists nutcases, maybe this Naxal 1849 is one of those. Curious name for a Khalistani, after all, it was the Naxalites who stood up to the communlaism of the Khalistanis back then and got bullets in teh head — great methods for freedom, it will tell you all you need to know about these people.

      Advice — go back to Punjab and do your campaigning there, if you have the balls, or take to the streets here and bash up some people at a Vaisakhi parade, write screeds supporting terrorism, or just sit back, put Braveheart on the DVD and watch it in peace.

    76. Anas — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:47 pm  

      Terrorism is the resort of the desperate who have no voice or power, even within a democratic setting.

      Bullshit, terrorism is used mainly by the strong to oppress and prevail over the weak, by powerful states such as the US and Israel.

    77. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:51 pm  

      You mean even in your dictionary it doesnt apply to those who blow themselves up on planes and trains Anas? Wow.

    78. douglas clark — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:56 pm  

      Naxal 1849,

      “Of course it slowed the peace process down, but peace isn’t what the Sinn Fein-IRA wanted; they wanted a united Ireland.”

      Well, forty years later and after all the violence, they’ve had to compromise. Bloody, and I mean that quite literally, waste of time.

      On your guesses about who I am, it’s a bit of a curates egg. I am not rich, I am certainly not middle class, I am middle aged, if you stretch the upper limits of that definition a bit, and I am white.

      What is quite odd is that you should try to categorise me into some sort of pigeonhole. The components of who I am that matter to me are not any of the four you listed. Nor, I would suggest, should they matter to you. Still and all, I suppose I started it by asking where you were coming from.

    79. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 1:59 pm  

      What is quite odd is that you should try to categorise me into some sort of pigeonhole.

      Right wing religious nationalist proto-fascists tend to do that, and they are more or less the same across the board, whatever their background. This guy is one of them, and a chauvinist too, as he has displayed enough times. Check it out, what a spectacular troll, manages to turn a thread about local elections round to his own spluttering agenda, full of the prissy self righteousness and pomposity narcissm that all of them show.

    80. douglas clark — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:00 pm  

      Second thoughts. OK, I admit it, I’d quite like to be younger and richer, but wouldn’t we all?

    81. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:03 pm  

      I would.

    82. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:07 pm  

      Jagdeep

      ‘You won’t have any objection to being blown apart when some twat from Leeds decides to detonate himself next to you on a bus then? At least they’ll have expressed themselves.’

      We are talking about principles, not hypothetical situations. Please do try to get that into your head.

      ‘maybe this Naxal 1849 is one of those….’

      And maybe you are a cross-dresser who spends his days consuming copious amounts of narcotics and alcohol and spends his nights curb crawling for rent boys.

      Maybe.

      Anas

      Are you one of those whinging Muslims who can’t stop blabbering about the poor little Palestinians? If yes, put a sock in it.

      douglas clark

      I must say that I have enjoyed debating with you, you seem like a sound and knowledgeable bloke - even if we don’t agree on most things. Apologies if I came across as rude.

    83. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:10 pm  

      ‘Right wing religious nationalist proto-fascists tend to…’

      And you are having a go at me for pigeon holing?

      You really are a joke Jagdeep. Lay off the booze.

    84. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:27 pm  

      Naxal, you’ve shown by your comments exactly what you are, a foaming at the mouth extreme right wing religious nationalist proto fascist. The irony of someone using the moniker ‘Naxal’ and then spluttering extreme right wing religious nationalist chauvinism makes me think that you are really chopped up and conflicted in your head, all your smart arse references to lay off the booze shows you have the wit and originality of dissing of a dead termite, and you’re a lousy little troll.

    85. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:30 pm  

      We are talking about principles, not hypothetical situations. Please do try to get that into your head.

      Get this into your head, King of Pomposity and obfuscating half witted abstractions, there are plenty of ‘voiceless’ people in the world who don’t resort to killing innocent people. The missing ingredient is an ideology and morality that deems it legitimate to kill innocent people that makes terrorism occur. Proto fascists romanticise the slaughterer and killers of children, women and men, because it affirms their violence and sense of self. All proto fascists and apologists for terrorism are like that.

    86. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:39 pm  

      douglas clark I must say that I have enjoyed debating with you, you seem like a sound and knowledgeable bloke - even if we don’t agree on most things. Apologies if I came across as rude.

      *slurp slurp slurp* arse kisser

      You apologise for coming across as rude? That’s your modus operandi you selectively ass kissing obnoxious troll. Read through all of your deliberately offensive in tone and chauvinist posts, you disingenuous troll.

    87. Sid — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:43 pm  

      I always thought the Naxalites were a purely Bengali phenomenon. I didn’t know there was historical overlap between the Naxals and the Punjab. A potted history or a reference thereof wouldn’t go amiss, anyone?

      In any case, I’m hugely enjoying the seething pit of contradictions lovingly nurtured by Naxal 1849.

    88. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:45 pm  

      google is your friend Sid

      http://www.flonnet.com/fl2221/stories/20051021005402000.htm

    89. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 2:47 pm  

      In the early 1980s, the Khalistan Movement sounded the death knell for the naxalite movement. Not known for their policy of negotiation or appeasement, the Khalistanis eliminated all those who stood up to them. Acting on Jarnail Singh Bhindrawale’s assertion to get rid of all those who denied the existence of God,the Khalistanis killed communists of all shades systematically. The ones who embraced the Khalistan Movement were, however, spared.

      Hmmmmm…..I wonder…..

    90. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:07 pm  

      First thing’s first: I tried to keep to the topic of the thread from post one (where I spoke about Conservative Councillors in the North of England).

      After being ‘warned’ to stay off the Punjab topic - that Vikrant initiated - I did.

      We were discussing Northern Ireland.

      However, Jagdeep now wants to talk about Khalistan and the Punjabi Naxalite movements again.

      If I engage him, I will no doubt be ranted and raved at for ’steering the thread off topic’ (even though it is him, and Vikrant, who cannot let it go).

      I will respond to you Jagdeep, but I may get banned for doing so.

      Here goes: ‘you are an extreme right wing religious nationalist proto fascist’

      On deep reflection, all political labels are useless. Right, Left, centre-right are all pointless terms. As is your convoluted one above. I wonder, do you even understand half of the things you write?

      ‘there are plenty of ‘voiceless’ people in the world who don’t resort to killing innocent people’

      Yes, these are Tibetans, Aboriginies and indigenous Americans. Look where it got them.

      ‘*slurp slurp slurp* arse kisser. You apologise for coming across as rude?’

      No, I apologise IF I came across as rude. Your analytical skills are appalling.

      As for your copy and paste job (message 89), do you actually have any idea what my ideology is? Or are you simply drawing on an oversimplified history that wikipedia has furnished you with to make sweeping inferences like ‘you are a fascist, duh’?

      You really are a simpleton. If you think that I am some supporter of Bhindranwale or am in any way associated with the 1980s struggle you are sorely mistaken.

      That you cannot see beyond the 1980s and Bhindranwale speaks volumes for your ignorance.

    91. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:23 pm  

      Naxal, Sid nailed you — a seething pit of contradictions. I think you’re all of those things, an obnoxious and pathetic little troll, a right wing religious chauvinist nationalist, you’re deliberately obnoxious and offensive, and you have a prickly little persecution complex. You basically piss on your own shoes, then whine like a savant when people call you for pissing on the floor.

      Oh yeah, and you’re a proper little selectively ass kissing troll too.

    92. douglas clark — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:44 pm  

      Jagdeep,

      Thanks for putting up the link at 88. They can’t even agree between themselves. If David T ever wearies of following the schisms and splits in the left in the UK, there seems to be enough here to keep him entertained for another lifetime.

      It is interesting that one of their factions does seem to be engaged in the democratic process, with apparently very little success. Says it all, really.

      My arse, which seems to be the subject of intense speculation here, remains unlicked, thank goodness….

    93. Naxal 1849 — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:49 pm  

      ‘a seething pit of contradictions’

      Are we not all full of contradictions? Is that not part of human nature? Is that not what makes people, especially women, interesting?

      Is it not contradictory that an Old Labour government sustained Empire at the beginning of the 20th century? Is it not contradictory that people moan about Israel but are silent about far worse countries?

      Anyway, I tire of arguing with a man who struggles to piece together coherent sentences and uses words that he doesn’t understand.

      Go to the pub and drink yourself into a stupor, that is, if you haven’t already.

    94. Jagdeep — on 7th May, 2007 at 3:59 pm  

      Naxal, I understand every word I use, I’m not drinking (are you? Or maybe smoking crack?), and your fall back tone is the kind of hilarious pompous fart persona not seen since Colonel Blimp walked on the stage. You can get away with condescending to teenagers on other message boards, but not here, to people like me, comprendez? That just doesnt wash, you come across as a sullen and conceited little troll. You’re deliberately offensive, aggressive, rude and obnoxious, so just shut up and put up with being exposed for your half wit idiocies and pomposity. If you can’t take it don’t large it so much like an obnoxious little troll all the time.

    Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

    Pickled Politics © Copyright 2005 - 2007. All rights reserved. Terms and conditions.
    With the help of PHP and Wordpress.