The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[david3103]

this is from the guardian

its a bit academic and a bit wordy, but i wondered what people think?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/17/jihadism-western-policy-jeremy-corbyn-isis?CMP=share_btn_tw

its an attempt to decry the notion that "it is mall the west's fault" which underpins the notion that we got policy badly wrong on iraq and afghanistan and sowed the seeds of ISIS

Decent article and pretty fair I think.

I don't think he challenges the notion that our policy may have been wrong or that it might have helped sow seeds etc. I think he just draws attention to the fact that it isn't the only causal and that it shouldn't be used as a reason to do nothing.

He also mentions hand wringing from Corbyn and that's what I detest about all the responses to ISIS - the right also appears to just hand wring and spout some rhetoric without actually bringing forward a plan to deal with a problem (whether we're one of the causals or not)

They make the more centre leaning lefties sound positively hawkish, probably out of the embarrassment they feel at Corbyn as a leader and appointments like Ken Livingstone.

As the days go by, I'm more disappointed by Corbyn and the words of that nirvana fallacy article speak more loudly to me.

Finally got around to reading this. Thought it was pretty awful tbh. It's the exact position he's decrying just from the other side of the street. He offers no answers, but seems to suggest that it's a region inherently in conflict and we should just try and pick off the worst bits of it like some kind of imperial flyswatter. And the concept that you can bomb an ideology is so inane it barely merits comment.

Maybe it's early but its morally absent academia really annoyed me.

It is a region inherently in conflict, certainly since 1948 which is quite a long time.

I don't look at bombing as 'bombing an ideology'- I look at it is as an attempt to kill as many of the mouthpieces for the ideology as possible. I also think it's too indiscriminate and not too smart but I don't really question the fact people want to kill as many of 'them' as possible.

I think talking about ideologies is too abstract - these are people, more nihilist than islamist, and whilst nihilism may attract a certain number of people it's unlikely to really catch on in terms of a mass movement unless 'good' people do nothing

Don't particularly disagree with you on any of that. I think he's sort of conflating two things though. The idea that we should or shouldn't act in response and the fact that the US government in particular has funded groups in the past to overturn leaders they didn't like in the region who then made things worse. You can do one while decrying the other.

All the evidence I've read is the source of the ideology is Saudi Arabia. Nobody is bombing that.

I'm gonna read it again and see if I was tired and emotional when I read it :-)

Likewise

Lost credibility when I read this sentence
It takes moments to weave a tale of counterproductive geopolitical vandalism, starting from US support for the mujahideen against the Soviets in Afghanistan, via the chaos of post-Saddam Iraq, pausing to condemn blind eyes turned and arms sold to Saudi Arabia, whence the theology of infidel-murder pullulates.

It just reminded me why I don't read the Grauniad. Fifty words, around 120 syllables and ends with a word that people, normal everyday people, just would never use.
Added nothing in way of insight on the IS problem and heaped more abuse and accusations of being out of his depth on Corbyn

We knew the problem was complex, thanks for pointing that out.
We all knew that JC was out of his depth. Fuck, I think he knows too.

[TightEnd]

Jeremy Corbyn’s popularity plummets after Paris attacks http://bit.ly/1I6BaSV 

(its tough for opposition politicians to get it right in times of security risk...)

[TightEnd]

!

[ripple11]

!

Normally it's "I can't speak for Jeremy but........."

[kukushkin88]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

A Conservative government.

[david3103]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

A Conservative government.

Correlation does not equal causation.

At the risk of appearing insensitive, these figures mean very little without some detail on those who are malnourished and/or using food banks.

[kukushkin88]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

A Conservative government.

Correlation does not equal causation.

At the risk of appearing insensitive, these figures mean very little without some detail on those who are malnourished and/or using food banks.

Correlation does not equal causation but it' s a pretty strong indicator most of the time. My assumption is that those who are using the food banks and are malnourished are those who cannot afford to eat. Who do you think this applies to?

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the Day

Is the ideal government a balance of left and right? A mix of socialism for some aspects, with free market capitalism for others? Would a goverment on the extreme left be just as disasterous as one on the extreme right?

I'm not asking is left or right better btw, just whether we need the centrist balance.

[DungBeetle]

Question of the Day

Is the ideal government a balance of left and right? A mix of socialism for some aspects, with free market capitalism for others? Would a goverment on the extreme left be just as disasterous as one on the extreme right?

I'm not asking is left or right better btw, just whether we need the centrist balance.

Certainly.  I personally think having a small Government is better in the long term for everyone, but clearly the ultra right wing of having no welfare state at all (for example) would be pretty disastrous.  Ditto having no taxation and trying to get private individuals to fund a travel network.

[david3103]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-34777348

A Conservative government.

Correlation does not equal causation.

At the risk of appearing insensitive, these figures mean very little without some detail on those who are malnourished and/or using food banks.

Correlation does not equal causation but it' s a pretty strong indicator most of the time. My assumption is that those who are using the food banks and are malnourished are those who cannot afford to eat. Who do you think this applies to?

I didn't make an assumption. I believe that those who are using the food banks are in need of assistance and are deserving of that help. I don't see the correlation between a government elected to power six months ago and an increase of at most 15%** in cases of malnourishment over a period that ended before that election.

And before you just mark it down as being the Cameron/Osborne effect where are your figures for the years before 2010?

Finally, where is the evidence that shows that the malnourishment is actually linked to poverty? Eating disorders also cause this, as can poor dietary choices.

**More than 2,000 cases of patients with malnutrition were recorded by 43 hospital trusts in a single year.
There were 193 "episodes" of malnutrition in 12 months at Salford Royal NHS Foundation Trust alone, according to new figures.
Freedom of Information (FOI) figures show a rise of 259 between the 43 trusts compared with three years

259 as a percentage of 1742 (being the smallest number that can increase by 259 to over 2000)

[TightEnd]

Question of the Day

Is the ideal government a balance of left and right? A mix of socialism for some aspects, with free market capitalism for others? Would a goverment on the extreme left be just as disasterous as one on the extreme right?

I'm not asking is left or right better btw, just whether we need the centrist balance.

related to this Barry you might like this

Someone should really teach Europe's moderates how to tweet http://econ.st/1T6F18S 



a majority of voters are either side of the middle, the biggest groups of tweeters are hard to either left or right (more left than right)

something we saw a lot of in GE15...

[DaveShoelace]

Question of the Day

Is the ideal government a balance of left and right? A mix of socialism for some aspects, with free market capitalism for others? Would a goverment on the extreme left be just as disasterous as one on the extreme right?

I'm not asking is left or right better btw, just whether we need the centrist balance.

related to this Barry you might like this

Someone should really teach Europe's moderates how to tweet http://econ.st/1T6F18S 



a majority of voters are either side of the middle, the biggest groups of tweeters are hard to either left or right (more left than right)

something we saw a lot of in GE15...

Yep love stuff like this, thanks for sharing, and completely makes sense

[AlunB]

Social media is by its nature a bit polarising in opinions.

It's like how you rarely get anything other than a 4/5 or 1 star review.

[DaveShoelace]

Q of the day

Policies aside, how important is it to you that our leader is strong willed and wont get pushed around?

To give an extreme example, in recent months, Bernie Sanders allowed protestors to storm a talk he was giving:



Donald Trump commented on how that made him weak:



And then last week, the same thing happened to Trump, and he did what he said he would do, ie. not allow them to protest:



Forget the particular issue that was being protested for the purpose of discussion here. How comfortable could you be if your elected leader didn't stand up for themselves in situations like this?

[nirvana]

I love America, anyone who shouts some kind  of tagline repetitively almost invariably gets a load of cheers. Americans love shouting so much it hurts..we prefer more sophisticated put-downs I think.

Also, they are literally the world's worst chanters when it comes to showing your support

U S A is the obvious one but it's always a three syllable repetitive dirge - we in Europe have some great and witty supporter songs. I suppose we have 'you're gonna get your fuckin ead kicked in' to balance things up a bit but generally we are so much smarter than them