The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[nirvana]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

How is bombing Syria going to stop these ***** who want to machine gun down 100s of innocents though?

1. Without checking I believe 7 of the 9 Paris terrorists were home grown. Bombing Syria *might* have have meant there were only 7 of them.

2. These people WANT to die so they can fuck off to paradise and start working through their 72 virgins. Every bomb that kills 1 jihadist will cause 10 new eager young recruits to take their place.

If I saw one piece of credible evidence that bombing Syria might rid the world of the cancer that is ISIS I wouldn't be opposed so vehemently. But such evidence simply does not exist,

I think the thinking would be that without ISIS and the land they now occupy then the terrorists in place already in Europe would have no-one to impress or nothing to notionally fight for - no caliphate, no struggle is one school of thought.

Given we're probably not going to go full on police state here or there in the near future, we can probably bomb/notionally degrade or do .... ?

What would you actually do in this situation. I only ask because I wrestle with this stuff. Pulling out altogether and leaving ISIS to have a fight to the death with the regional powers (such as they exist now) is I suppose a legitimate option. Is this what you think we should do ?

[titaniumbean]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

How is bombing Syria going to stop these ***** who want to machine gun down 100s of innocents though?

1. Without checking I believe 7 of the 9 Paris terrorists were home grown. Bombing Syria *might* have have meant there were only 7 of them.

2. These people WANT to die so they can fuck off to paradise and start working through their 72 virgins. Every bomb that kills 1 jihadist will cause 10 new eager young recruits to take their place.

If I saw one piece of credible evidence that bombing Syria might rid the world of the cancer that is ISIS I wouldn't be opposed so vehemently. But such evidence simply does not exist,

I think the thinking would be that without ISIS and the land they now occupy then the terrorists in place already in Europe would have no-one to impress or nothing to notionally fight for - no caliphate, no struggle is one school of thought.

Given we're probably not going to go full on police state here or there in the near future, we can probably bomb/notionally degrade or do .... ?

What would you actually do in this situation. I only ask because I wrestle with this stuff. Pulling out altogether and leaving ISIS to have a fight to the death with the regional powers (such as they exist now) is I suppose a legitimate option. Is this what you think we should do ?

IF they are trying to impress a man in the sky why does killing one 'leader' do anything other than inspire more people who see rampant bombing by foreign powers only interested in oil achieve what we want (assuming what we want is 'defending our nations....' )

If they are mentally deranged lone wolfs or rambos from Europe why does killing people in Syria or Iraq or insert foreign country we've fucked up through 'intervention' help?



In answer to what to do now, I would just have to guess as fuck knows seems a good response. maybe if we had legitimate thought involved earlier rather than short term personal/national gains in mind in every decision we've ever made we maybe wouldn't be in such a mess.

if every country stopped pretending killing foreign civilians protects 'the people at home' we might have a start.  we should at the very least be trying to learn from our many past mistakes rather than sticking our head in the sand and sending our ever evolving methods of death to where foreign people live.


The whole region is fucked up, the whole concept of imposing borders miles from our countries and expecting people to do as they are told whilst at the same time we relentlessly fuck them over is not a solid foundation for any kind of peace anywhere.

Our allies in the region are often times as bad as the terrorists and yet they get free passes. Honesty and actual good intent is required but we'll never get that from our self serving pleb politicians and the money men behind them.

I guess the answer is we should use the nukes first......

[nirvana]

I remember being strongly opposed to the war in Iraq but in this situation I feel totally different. When we have folk bowling round European cities spraying bullets into families eating their dinner it's a clear attack on our way of life and needs to be dealt with. Sure thing a plan for the future is ideal, contemplating how the infrastructure in Syria can be re-generated would be cool. However after being attacked we should be more concerned about repelling the immediate threat.

A leader's first job is to protect their people and to that end see how Putin roles here? Unleashed an holy mother of god backlash costing IS millions. Don't think they will be downing another Russian holiday jet anytime soon. It's times like these where Corbyn is highlighted at his most ineffectual. There are good ideas, there are valid points and then there's the real world where idealism often doesn't fit. I think Maggie would have been supreme in this situation.

How is bombing Syria going to stop these ***** who want to machine gun down 100s of innocents though?

1. Without checking I believe 7 of the 9 Paris terrorists were home grown. Bombing Syria *might* have have meant there were only 7 of them.

2. These people WANT to die so they can fuck off to paradise and start working through their 72 virgins. Every bomb that kills 1 jihadist will cause 10 new eager young recruits to take their place.

If I saw one piece of credible evidence that bombing Syria might rid the world of the cancer that is ISIS I wouldn't be opposed so vehemently. But such evidence simply does not exist,

I think the thinking would be that without ISIS and the land they now occupy then the terrorists in place already in Europe would have no-one to impress or nothing to notionally fight for - no caliphate, no struggle is one school of thought.

Given we're probably not going to go full on police state here or there in the near future, we can probably bomb/notionally degrade or do .... ?

What would you actually do in this situation. I only ask because I wrestle with this stuff. Pulling out altogether and leaving ISIS to have a fight to the death with the regional powers (such as they exist now) is I suppose a legitimate option. Is this what you think we should do ?

IF they are trying to impress a man in the sky why does killing one 'leader' do anything other than inspire more people who see rampant bombing by foreign powers only interested in oil achieve what we want (assuming what we want is 'defending our nations....' )

If they are mentally deranged lone wolfs or rambos from Europe why does killing people in Syria or Iraq or insert foreign country we've fucked up through 'intervention' help?



In answer to what to do now, I would just have to guess as fuck knows seems a good response. maybe if we had legitimate thought involved earlier rather than short term personal/national gains in mind in every decision we've ever made we maybe wouldn't be in such a mess.

if every country stopped pretending killing foreign civilians protects 'the people at home' we might have a start.  we should at the very least be trying to learn from our many past mistakes rather than sticking our head in the sand and sending our ever evolving methods of death to where foreign people live.


The whole region is fucked up, the whole concept of imposing borders miles from our countries and expecting people to do as they are told whilst at the same time we relentlessly fuck them over is not a solid foundation for any kind of peace anywhere.

Our allies in the region are often times as bad as the terrorists and yet they get free passes. Honesty and actual good intent is required but we'll never get that from our self serving pleb politicians and the money men behind them.

I guess the answer is we should use the nukes first......

I don't really believe this is about impressing a man in the sky. Impress is a bad word but I think, at a basic level,  this is about (mostly) young men wanting to show other men how committed they are to whatever the cause of their tribe is. Finding somewhere they belong and a place where they can live out some sick brutalist fantasy. It's kind of like football hooliganism, notched up a fair bit tbf.

Just smack em up - nuke point most sensible so far

[TightEnd]

this is interesting (for political machination junkies liek me)

I thought Corbyn was good on the marr show this morning. made his case well

Jeremy Corbyn said in the interview he'll decide whipping on Syria bombing. But PLP rules suggest it's decided by Shadow Cabinet.

[doubleup]

^
Is that your shadow taking the picture of those rules? 

[TightEnd]

Mike Smithson ‏@MSmithsonPB

New YouGov/Election Data poll finds just 23% approving of Corbyn ad LAB leader. 52% say disapprove. Cameron 37% approve 42% disapprove

Fewer than ½  GE2015 LAB voters tell YouGov/Election Data poll that they approve of Corbyn as leader. Split 46% approve to 28% disapprove

The YouGov Election Data poll had sample of 6,304 and finds that approval of Corbyn increases with level of education attainment

[TightEnd]

Not Dave Shoelace's question of the day

The Shadow Chancellor in a speech yesterday described UKIP as "an evil influence on our society" is he right?

whether he is right or not what should mainstream parties do to win back the 3.88m votes UKIP won in May 2015?

thats two questions.

[DaveShoelace]

Not Dave Shoelace's question of the day

The Shadow Chancellor in a speech yesterday described UKIP as "an evil influence on our society" is he right?

whether he is right or not what should mainstream parties do to win back the 3.88m votes UKIP won in May 2015?

thats two questions.

I actually was going to post about this anyway.

My question was more about John McDonnell and this quote from Farage, which obviously is a deflection, but I did kinda agree with him.

As to question 2. I actually think the problem is mostly Labours. IMO Labour see their voterbase as being liberals, when I actually think it's more accurate to think of them as working class. Working class people arguably feel they have the most to lose as a result of immigration, so when they believe immigration is a problem, UKIP seem to speak to them more. Even though Corbyn is a socialist, I can only see this exodus of former Labour voters to UKIP increasing as long as he is in charge, because he obviously is seen as wanting to bring more of the Syrian refugees over than Cameron does.

[RickBFA]

Not Dave Shoelace's question of the day

The Shadow Chancellor in a speech yesterday described UKIP as "an evil influence on our society" is he right?

whether he is right or not what should mainstream parties do to win back the 3.88m votes UKIP won in May 2015?

thats two questions.

He's misguided to call UKIP "an evil influence on our society".

He might not like them or what they stand for but he is insulting nearly 4m people who voted for them.

Hardly the way to win voters confidence back.

Perhaps he should look at his own party's shortcomings and why they are losing support hand over fist before spouting this kind of nonsense.

PS I'm not a UKIP supporter.

[TightEnd]

Andrew Neil ‏@afneil

Looks like Mr Corbyn is allowing Labour MPs a free vote. After all that kerfuffle. Cameron now certain to win Syrian vote.


(not sure certain is correct, though?)

[titaniumbean]

Not Dave Shoelace's question of the day

The Shadow Chancellor in a speech yesterday described UKIP as "an evil influence on our society" is he right?

whether he is right or not what should mainstream parties do to win back the 3.88m votes UKIP won in May 2015?

thats two questions.

I actually was going to post about this anyway.

My question was more about John McDonnell and this quote from Farage, which obviously is a deflection, but I did kinda agree with him.

As to question 2. I actually think the problem is mostly Labours. IMO Labour see their voterbase as being liberals, when I actually think it's more accurate to think of them as working class. Working class people arguably feel they have the most to lose as a result of immigration, so when they believe immigration is a problem, UKIP seem to speak to them more. Even though Corbyn is a socialist, I can only see this exodus of former Labour voters to UKIP increasing as long as he is in charge, because he obviously is seen as wanting to bring more of the Syrian refugees over than Cameron does.

Agreed.


This graphic I found very interesting -

Click to see full-size image.

Whilst this article is absolutely spot on-

From Foreign Policy by Rosa Brooks - The Threat is Already Inside

[TightEnd]

[TightEnd]

The case for and against British air strikes on Syrian territory http://econ.st/1Ik2lz4 

Click to see full-size image.

[kukushkin88]

Has Cameron stated whether Tory MP's will be allowed a free vote? If he has I might have missed it.

[DaveShoelace]

Agreed.


This graphic I found very interesting -

Click to see full-size image.

I presume 1970-1992 is almost exclusively Northern Ireland related for UK? What about all the early Spanish ones?