The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[MintTrav]

Barry - There is far more than one approach to foreign relations. Japan and Switzerland are two obvious examples. You can hardly say the current way of doing things is particularly effective. Falklands is an incredibly emotive topic, as many people know people who served and/or died in that war. But I find it hard to say that some form of negotiations over their sovereignty wouldn't be at least sensible. Same with many of Corbyn's points. He's saying there is more than one way of looking at this. And, quite often, he's right.

My comments have not been in relation to the Falklands, I don't particularly have a dog in that fight. In fact, for the most part my comments have been on security within Britain, not foreign policy (I appreciate the two are very closely linked). It's specifically the 'not pressing nuclear button even if we had it' and the 'police shoot to kill' comments so soon after Paris that I object to with Corbyn. The first one being simply a huge balls up in terms of game theory, the second one being horrifying to me given Britain is a big terror target. I don't know much about Japan or Switzerland in that respect if that's what you meant?

I have a feeling we might be juggling and confusing a few issues at this stage, apologies if so.

Didn't we deal with this already? Corbyn never took the approach ascribed to him by some parts of the media:

In his leader’s report to the NEC, he said: “As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot-to-kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend. But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.”

Labour sources said Corbyn’s remarks......were designed to show that he would abide strictly by the law in authorising the use of force against terrorists. In the first place, “proportionate” force covers circumstances where non-lethal force is appropriate. The strongest example is the shooting by armed police of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who were wounded but not killed.
 
In the second place, “strictly necessary force” covers circumstances such as the Bataclan shootings in Paris on Friday, where lethal measures by security forces are required to protect life. Corbyn would authorise this force in such circumstances.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-allow-shoot-to-kill-exceptional-circumstances

How many times does mint and others have to post the exact quotes before anybody other than the few of us believe it?

Isn't there a chance that some of  these clarifications of what Corbyn meant are basically just spin that's been suggested to him after he's caused a PR problem?

Okay, just read it as far as the end of quote of his words, ie to the end of the paragraph ending with 'Paris'.

[TightEnd]

Corbynterpretation [n]: The inevitable process of debate, after Jeremy Corbyn is interviewed, over what he actually meant. Does the Labour leader believe the killing of Osama bin Laden was a tragedy, or not believe this? Would he like Britain to negotiate with Daesh or would he be opposed to that happening? Would he, or would he not, abandon the Falkland Islands? As in, ‘Well, that’s a matter of Corbynterpretation’ or, ‘No, no, those remarks have been totally misCorbynterpreted.’

In order to Corbynterpret [v] one must first consider 1. Whether the Labour leader brought up the disputed view himself (invariably not) 2. Whether the Labour leader clearly said ‘yes’ after somebody asked him whether he held this view (invariably not) and 3. Whether the Labour leader clearly said ‘no’ after somebody asked him if he held this view (invariably not). Thereafter, you’ll just have to wing it. These are debates which can be neither won nor lost.

[DungBeetle]

The question that pops into my head, is what was Corbyn trying to achieve with that statement?  It was a speech so presumably not an answer to a question so he had time to draft it.  What was his thinking when after Paris he decided to go with

"As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot-to-kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend"

Nothing wrong with the statement in itself, but why did he feel it necessary to say that in that context?  He must know that people and the press will immediately think/insinuate he's thinking about the rights of the terrorist when he should be focusing on the victim?  

It just feels like he wants to use any situation to get his pacifist views out there even though he must know he'll get grief for it.  I simply don't understand why he would phrase his speech like that in the context of the recent events.  It just makes no sense - certainly no sense politically.

[Doobs]

Barry - There is far more than one approach to foreign relations. Japan and Switzerland are two obvious examples. You can hardly say the current way of doing things is particularly effective. Falklands is an incredibly emotive topic, as many people know people who served and/or died in that war. But I find it hard to say that some form of negotiations over their sovereignty wouldn't be at least sensible. Same with many of Corbyn's points. He's saying there is more than one way of looking at this. And, quite often, he's right.

My comments have not been in relation to the Falklands, I don't particularly have a dog in that fight. In fact, for the most part my comments have been on security within Britain, not foreign policy (I appreciate the two are very closely linked). It's specifically the 'not pressing nuclear button even if we had it' and the 'police shoot to kill' comments so soon after Paris that I object to with Corbyn. The first one being simply a huge balls up in terms of game theory, the second one being horrifying to me given Britain is a big terror target. I don't know much about Japan or Switzerland in that respect if that's what you meant?

I have a feeling we might be juggling and confusing a few issues at this stage, apologies if so.

Didn't we deal with this already? Corbyn never took the approach ascribed to him by some parts of the media:

In his leader’s report to the NEC, he said: “As we have seen in the recent past, there are clear dangers to us all in any kind of shoot-to-kill policy. And we must ensure that terrorist attacks are not used to undermine the very freedoms and legal protections we are determined to defend. But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris.”

Labour sources said Corbyn’s remarks......were designed to show that he would abide strictly by the law in authorising the use of force against terrorists. In the first place, “proportionate” force covers circumstances where non-lethal force is appropriate. The strongest example is the shooting by armed police of Lee Rigby’s killers, Michael Adebolajo and Michael Adebowale, who were wounded but not killed.
 
In the second place, “strictly necessary force” covers circumstances such as the Bataclan shootings in Paris on Friday, where lethal measures by security forces are required to protect life. Corbyn would authorise this force in such circumstances.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/17/jeremy-corbyn-allow-shoot-to-kill-exceptional-circumstances

How many times does mint and others have to post the exact quotes before anybody other than the few of us believe it?

He didn't post the exact quote at all.  Here it is.

"I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often can be counterproductive. I  think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can.
There are various degrees for doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.
Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening? That’s got to be the priority.”

He posted the after event "clarification", and by clarication I mean "rewrite to sound more elector friendly".

[DungBeetle]

Even more damning when you look at the question he answered:

"Mr Corbyn was asked by BBC political editor Laura Kuenssberg whether he would be happy to order police or the military to shoot to kill if there was a similar attack on Britain's streets."

He just can't help himself.  His pacifist principles must come first even when citizens are being slaughtered it seems.

And people wonder why he gets such grief.

[MintTrav]

Jeez, is there any point?

[DungBeetle]

Jeez, is there any point?

Not really if you're going to post misinformation to defend Corbyn!

[horseplayer]

Jeez, is there any point?

None at all

Has been a good thread but time to leave it for good (mean it this time)

[TightEnd]

don't really see why

some people see one thing in corbyn, some another, you see that every day on this thread

some people like some policies, some like others.

same for principles and world views

thats politics. if a party leader convinces more people than the other parties, he'll end up PM

if he doesn't he'll be replaced

twas ever thus

[MintTrav]

Jeez, is there any point?

Not really if you're going to post misinformation to defend Corbyn!

Defend? He is the one with the correct approach, making the sensible statements. Does that need 'defence', as if he has done something wrong? There might be clarification, but not it's not defence. How you twist words.

What misinformation? The two statements say the same thing. This whole discussion is due to misinformation by the right-wing press, lapped up by those who either want to believe it or can't see through it.

I would prefer a leader who is reluctant to use lethal force unless necessary to someone with a gung-ho attitude but, from this and other themes in this thread, we obviously differ on that.

[DungBeetle]

Jeez, is there any point?

None at all

Has been a good thread but time to leave it for good (mean it this time)

Not sure why people are getting on their high horse here (to excuse the pun).  Let's look what happened.

Someone mentioned Corbyn's "shoot to kill" disaster.  Mint replied that Corbyn actually said:

"But of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris."

However, Doobs showed us that this was the sanitised version to save face after the event.

What actually happened was Corbyn was asked if he would be happy with a shoot to kill policy if terrorists were murdering unarmed UK citizens.

His response with a lot of waffle was essentially "no".  Or at least he couldn't bring himself to agree with it.

I'm really not sure why on earth the Corbyn supporters are feeling in any way hard done by here.  Corbyn's initial response is disgraceful in my opinion, and I'm sure many people would agree with me.  In answer to a question yesterday, if the Police/Army feel they don't have the backing of the potential PM to shoot dead armed terrorists as they kill dozens of civilians how can that be anything other than a threat to national security?

The Corbyn supporters need to stop blaming the press and look at their own man's utter shortcomings.

[DungBeetle]

Jeez, is there any point?

Not really if you're going to post misinformation to defend Corbyn!

Defend? He is the one with the correct approach, making the sensible statements. Does that need 'defence', as if he has done something wrong? There might be clarification, but not it's not defence. How you twist words.

What misinformation? The two statements say the same thing. This whole discussion is due to misinformation by the right-wing press, lapped up by those who either want to believe it or can't see through it.

I would prefer a leader who is reluctant to use lethal force unless necessary to someone with a gung-ho attitude but, from this and other themes in this thread, we obviously differ on that.

The two statements absolutely do not say the same thing.  Whether you decided to post the "spun" restatement deliberately or by accident instead of the car crash interview you'll have to tell us.

[DungBeetle]

"I would prefer a leader who is reluctant to use lethal force unless necessary to someone with a gung-ho attitude"

Pretty sure shooting dead terrorists who are executing unarmed civilians isn't classed as "gung-ho".

[MintTrav]

"I would prefer a leader who is reluctant to use lethal force unless necessary to someone with a gung-ho attitude"

Pretty sure shooting dead terrorists who are executing unarmed civilians isn't classed as "gung-ho".

Are you deliberately pretending not to understand?

[DungBeetle]

"I would prefer a leader who is reluctant to use lethal force unless necessary to someone with a gung-ho attitude"

Pretty sure shooting dead terrorists who are executing unarmed civilians isn't classed as "gung-ho".

Are you deliberately pretending not to understand?

Any comments on the difference between the two Corbyn statements or are you going to continue to pretend they are identical?

Consider the below scenario:

Chief of Police Dung "Jeremy - there are terrorists in the West End.  They are executing dozens of civilians.  I want to dispatch the snipers to resolve this with lethal force"

Corbyn response 1:  "of course I support the use of whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required to save life in response to attacks of the kind we saw in Paris"

Corbyn response 2: "I am not happy with a shoot to kill policy in general, I think that is quite dangerous and I think it can often can be counterproductive. I  think you have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where you can. There are various degrees for doing things as we know. But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing.  Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening? That’s got to be the priority"

How do you think I feel in terms of backing after the 2 responses?