The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[nirvana]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

[arbboy]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

I think he just went for it off the cuff tbh.  Was very impressive.

[sonour]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Wow. That was very powerful.

[AlunB]

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.

[AlunB]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

I think he just went for it off the cuff tbh.  Was very impressive.

100% scripted. Also almost a total rip off of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6S7Imc9p9g but less witty

[MintTrav]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

I think he just went for it off the cuff tbh.  Was very impressive.

Definitely scripted. I couldn't list two dozen of Ireland or Britain's leading artists and philosophers from the last couple of centuries without pen and paper and a bit of Googling, whereas he rattled off the French ones without even hesitating to think at any point. Being pre-written doesn't lessen it.

[nirvana]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

I think he just went for it off the cuff tbh.  Was very impressive.

100% scripted. Also almost a total rip off of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6S7Imc9p9g but less witty

Yep, Neill certainly giving more than a passing nod to this. Still probably bears repeating quite frequently I think

[AlunB]

Excellent tirade at the start of 'This Week' by Andrew Neill tonight

Incredible.  You think that was scripted?  He looked really emotional like he was freelancing it totally off script.

Probably I reckon, but he's an eloquent man and if he had an outline in mind he might've just gone for it. Whichever it was it was definitely unequivocal and from the gut.

I think he just went for it off the cuff tbh.  Was very impressive.

100% scripted. Also almost a total rip off of this https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C6S7Imc9p9g but less witty

Yep, Neill certainly giving more than a passing nod to this. Still probably bears repeating quite frequently I think

Indeed. Though it felt like he really really wanted this to go viral. Maybe I'm just too cynical.

[TightEnd]

the actual article is behind a times paywall, but as we mentioned oldham the other day

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4618773.ece

[nirvana]

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

[AlunB]

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.

[nirvana]

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 :-)

[horseplayer]

We all know why Saudi will never be bombed or even discussed

[AlunB]

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

[TightEnd]

a great payoff