h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

PM Gordon Brown has refused to have talks with the Dalai Lama.

Away from all the waffle, buried in this link is the real reason -

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2006564/Beijing-Olympic-Games-Dalai-Lama-calls-for-boycott-of-opening-ceremony.html

"He accepted the Prime Minister did not want to receive him at Number 10 for “economy reasons”."

Quite. Has the Prime Minister abandoned an ethical foreign policy in pursuit of cheap goods from China?

That'd indicate he had an ethical foreign policy to begin with, surely?

Realpolitik in action methinks.

I'm having trouble reconciling these two statements:

Linked article: "The Dalai Lama is due to meet the Prime Minister at Lambeth Palace, the official residence of the Archbishop of Canterbury. "

OP: "PM Gordon Brown has refused to have talks with the Dalai Lama."

You wouldn't be indugling in a bit of tabloid spin yourself SWL by any chance?

<>

<>

isn't true, from the link you quote. wtf?

Apologies. I misread the link.

By the way, you missed "useless" out of your title

did TB not say exactly the same thing as well? but then he is his adviser if you believe mrs blair

Does *anyone* believe Mrs. Blair? She is, after all, a lying thieving Scouser.

Gordy has been told to f*** off three times in the last month. He tells us he's "listening to the people".

F*** off he is. If he was, he'd resign. What a .

RF

no one else has said it so i guess it falls to me to be the unpopular guy.

is democratically elected leaders talking to religious whackjobs really an ethical imperative? so far as i'm aware the dalia lama has been elected by no one and can not thus be said to represent anyone.

Well Gordon 'Bottler' Brown ran away from an election so he wasn't really elected to be PM.
Anyway it is a moot point as one of his own government took a TV news reporter aside earlier today and described Gordon Brown as being like Michael Foot, so Bottler is finished!

he was however elected by his constituency as an MP, and enjoys the confidence of his party and the house as PM, which is essentially an election, however temporary the result might be.

the dalai lama can claim no such legitimacy.

not every country in the world is democratic, and those that arn't are not all evil despotic cess pits,

the dali lama was the legitimate head of state of tibet up to the chinese invasion

as was the shah of iran before the revolution

just because a figure is not elected dosn't mean they don't represent thier people

the queen represents us all over the world and gordy talks to her on a regular baisis

This post has been removed.

"Gordy has been told to f*** off three times in the last month."

Brian Cowen recently used that word in Dáil Éireann.

TRiG.

"Gordon Brown enjoys the confidense of his party and the house"...strewth we must be talking about a differant Gordon Brown here.
Someone gets described as being like Michael Foot by their someone in the same government due to them being a liability, not due to being a great leader.

And just for accuracy, Gordon Brown wasn't elected by the Labour Party to be Prime Minister. There wasn't a leadership contest.

Anyway, he seems determined to do a John "I'm still here" Major now, and hang on until 2010.

RF

taff. you can't be serious. not in the 21st century.

'just because a figure is not elected dosn't mean they don't represent thier people'

Just to emphasise, Antigravitas:

>>And just for accuracy, Gordon Brown wasn't elected by the Labour Party to be Prime Minister. There wasn't a leadership contest.<<

I agree, the Dalai Lama is not the most legitimate of representatives. But he is *a* representative, and I believe he has said that, if Tibet gained some kind of independence, he would work towards democracy.

If we only ever talk to elected representatives we won't get that far, because, in the real world, we have to deal with countries that don't have them.

the question wasn't whether we should deal with them, much less that we do, but whether it was ethical to do so. (or not do so as the header post was constructed.)

my personal opinion is that our elected representatives should not deal face to face with autocrats, dictators and self appointed captains of tooth fairy gangs. we have bureaucrats to do that sort of dirty work. worth adding that 'apex meetings' are a late 20th century contrivance less to do with the actual business of government than showboating, and the idea that these 'events' do something that wouldn't have happened as a result of their goons meeting ours, is somewhat naive.

and 'elected unopposed' doesn't reduce to 'not being elected'. further, in westmister systems the prime minister is effectively elected by enjoying the confidence of the house.