The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".
The real world doesn't work like that.
You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.
It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.
Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.
He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.
Shame.
To be fair, Corbyn did in fact call Bin Laden's death a tragedy. Even with the whole quote in context, he comes across terribly. Iraq War was a tragedy, tick; attack on Afganistan, not convinced, but can see where he is coming from; 9/11 was a tragedy, tick; death of Bin Laden in disputed circumstances is not a tragedy. It may be unfortunate or a bit meh. But it absolutely isn't yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. And it absolutely isn't something that is anyway comparable to the other three, let alone the one he seems to have put on the top with his turn of phrase.
I'm not a Corbyn apologist
But yeah you are correct. What I was saying is that Cameron took something true and valid, as you've pointed out, and twisted it to the point where it became something it's not.
Cameron said: "He thinks the death of Bin Laden was a tragedy (OK sort of true but not really, but we let that pass.). No. A tragedy is 3000 people dying in the twin towers."
Did he then say and Corbyn also thinks this? No. No he didn't. He just took the one bit and used it as a stick. It's politics, sure yeah whatever. But I hate it.
Have to say I would find it extremely hard to know which way to vote as an MP. Not basing it on my personal view, but on the weight of evidence and what I think best represents my constituency and my country etc.
The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".
The real world doesn't work like that.
You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.
It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.
Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.
He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.
Shame.
i thought his "terrorist sympathiser" comments were a mistake, as of course you cant apply that to the vast majority of MPs planning to vote against strikes today
it was a party political point pretty bluntly expressed (probably related to the by election tomorrow)
its not strictly wrong to call Crbyn and McDonnell "terrorist sympathisers" when you look at the history and pronouncements of the pair over hamas, hezbollah and the IRA though is it?
all polling says that this is a huge negative for corbyn with working class voters, and a day ahead of oldham that's what the comment is aimed at
Did you forget to include ISIS this time? You usually accuse Corbyn of being sympathetic to that as well.
I'm not sure i do very often, but i think my point you highlighted is valid.
By admitting it's valid to draw that conclusion doesn't mean I agree with it btw.
The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".
The real world doesn't work like that.
You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.
It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.
Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.
He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.
Shame.
i thought his "terrorist sympathiser" comments were a mistake, as of course you cant apply that to the vast majority of MPs planning to vote against strikes today
it was a party political point pretty bluntly expressed (probably related to the by election tomorrow)
its not strictly wrong to call Crbyn and McDonnell "terrorist sympathisers" when you look at the history and pronouncements of the pair over hamas, hezbollah and the IRA though is it?
all polling says that this is a huge negative for corbyn with working class voters, and a day ahead of oldham that's what the comment is aimed at
Did you forget to include ISIS this time? You usually accuse Corbyn of being sympathetic to that as well.
I'm not sure i do very often, but i think my point you highlighted is valid.
It's valid. As are all of the quotes I used. They are also wilfully intellectually lazy and/or cynical distortions. That was my point.
To use airstrikes on Syria for political point scoring? Pretty awful in my book.
Just to add to that, I normally find titaniumbean's contributions to be excellent and thought provoking so I don't want to sound like I'm having a pop at him. I'm sure Tighty wasn't either. More of a general observation on a few heated discussions in the past couple of pages.
this just seems as said, like they are fitting their points to a pre made decision.
at what point is legal even a thing. we have a home office that 'know drugs are dangerous BECAUSE they are illegal', sick logic brah.
we have allies who refuse to conform to international law because they love to torture and oppress other people and take no responsibility for it whilst constantly furthering self serving aims all across the world in the names of 'democracy and defending the nation'.
Whilst Corbyn has managed to often come off a bit idiotic, the media attention he has garnered, and the approach/attitude methods of Cameron only lead me to support JC more and truly hope DC dies in a big grease fire. I am a terrorist sympathiser and I clearly hate the UK right? because I don't want to kill foreign civilians or go to war on the basis of the other big kids said we should and they like totally wanna bomb some stuff, come join us it's fun.
Stating that we are going to bomb them to WIN and then use absolutely zero forethought to have it all fall into place as a lovely peaceful democratic country is just utterly mind numbing. Not learning from our past mistakes of bombing to win and then enabling the region to be even more unstable, whilst selling arms to appalling regimes we back and calling our own countries opposition the 'terrorist sympathisers' is absolutely disgusting.
we really dont want anyone from whatever political viewpoint to "die in a big greasefire" do we?
nor do we need to call anyone a warmongering douchebag, however spelt
much like Woodsey trolling, which is unwelcome for someone who is a professional and softly spoken sensible man (when you meet him), it spoils what is an informative thread
this thread has over a thousand replies and 20,000 views and i dont think a post has ever been deleted off it. its an oasis of manners and civility that we can cultivate further, hopefully
lets keep it that way.
This. A thousand times this. It's a place where people on both sides of the debate often reconsider and change their views based on what other people said. That literally never happens when it becomes hostile.
The problem is of course that any PM has to pragmatic. No PM can realistically turn round and say for example "I have principles and therefore I wont have any dealings with China because of their human rights record".
The real world doesn't work like that.
You have to deal with and trade with regimes that you don't like.
It's easy to take cheap shots on twitter.
Cameron has become the king of the cheap shots. And usually knowingly cynical ones at that. Remember the letter to the Treasury during the election? Saying that Corbyn called Bin Laden's death a tragedy? This latest terrorist sympathisers nonsense? Today he went for some odd "women raping, muslim murdering, medieval death cult" type soundbite in the commons debate. Sakes.
He increasingly talks like a Sun editorial. It's bizarre. I used to think he was a man of some honesty and integrity. I honestly don't know what to think any more. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely I guess.
Heard someone suggest that there should be a short knowledge test before voting. If you answer all the questions correctly, your vote counts for more because you have a more informed opinion. So as an example, maybe if the general knowledge test was today, perhaps a question could be 'who is the President of Syria?'. Even if it meant that people would try and game the system by studying just before voting, it would have the desired effect, because they would indeed have a more informed vote.
What do you think of this idea?
Not a lot tbh
Where is the study coming from? Daily Mail front pages?
There wasn't a study, it was just an idea someone suggested in an interview. I don't actually agree with it myself, but thought it was an interesting discussion topic.
Why do you not think a lot of the idea?
To put it another way - given the clear levels of ignorance and stupidity in a lot of the general population - why is democracy a good thing?
Because reasons
Without wanting to trot out the old Churchill quote it really is the best of all the bad options. Anything else is just open to (even more) abuse by those in power.
Got home at 5am or so, called my friend on Skype who runs a underground site and basically said "I want to gamble, can you get me some money on that site" he said unfortunately there was no action running.
Great post. Agree your enthusiasm is so infectious.
Pardon my naivety, but what is an "underground site'? I suspect I know what you mean, but not really sure if I do.
Indeed. Moral relativism is an ugly beast. Is one way of life worth less than another?
I find it incredibly hard to hear a convincing argument on why bombing Syria makes British people or indeed any people more safe. Cameron seemed to be saying it was up to us to do "our bit" but our bit of what exactly? What is the end goal here?
That said you can't do nothing here. Or at least it feels like you can't or shouldn't. But what, exactly, do you do? I admit I have no idea, and I suspect neither does anyone else really.
I saw the reaction to Livingstones comments, and again the reaction seemed disproportionate, he made a very very valid point about Iraq/Blair our stated goals and real intentions, and the fact we failed to achieve pretty much anything except for Western economic benefits whilst also creating ourselves an even greater problem and threat, and yet because he seems like a twat alot of the time we focus on that not on the point he makes.
If he chooses to use his platform to attack his enemies rather than make his point as clearly and coherently as possible then fair enough, he is entitled to do so if he wishes. But he can't then expect people to not notice.
I agree with the point he was trying to make, but I disagree fundamentally with the way in which he made it. I find him an objectionable **** and his approach is so divisive it, in my view, harms rather than helps the cause he is supposedly fighting for.
The result of the US Presidential Election next year is almost as important for us as anything else in British politics next year. Agree or disagree?
Disagree - it is more important. US interest rates impact our economy more than anything our government does. And then there is foreign policy.........!
Show Posts
