The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[horseplayer]

So even the tories think Cameron has had a bad 12 months.

Yes he will retain power (if he wants it) but these policies are not going to be beneficial long term to anyone bar a few.

Thought the Corbyn party political bit on bbc1 last night was good. He looks natural and at home on building sites, in offices and talking to people as humans on the streets.

Rare for a politician, was also good to have at least a few minutes detailing his policies ..

[TightEnd]

for the record, i don't think the government is having a great time. in the background, coming to the foreground, is a lot of economic turbulence which osborne's projections can't afford either

the reason i post a lot on corbyn is i find the politics of it fascinating. a hard left membership, a centre-left parliamentary party, the two jarring against each other

for example yesterday corbyn's head of policy resigned. means nothing on a 5 year view with 2020 in mind, but still speaks to a lot of fights behind the scenes

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2016/01/neale-coleman-walks-out-team-corbyn-and-simon-fletcher-could-be-next

"Roy Hattersley: "I think the situation [for Labour] is now is worse than the 1980s." #newsnight

Shirley Williams predicts moderates will split from Corbyn-led party: "“Eventually there will be a new party of the centre left" #newsnight

Roy Hattersley on Labour under Corbyn: "The leader is less susceptible to reason than Michael Foot was" #newsnight

  

[AlunB]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

As to Cameron, I think he's the most cynical PM we've ever had. I'm not sure he truly believes anything. He flat out lied and wilfully misrepresented things he can't possibly have thought to be true throughout the election campaign without breaking stride.

[Jon MW]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

As to Cameron, I think he's the most cynical PM we've ever had. I'm not sure he truly believes anything. He flat out lied and wilfully misrepresented things he can't possibly have thought to be true throughout the election campaign without breaking stride.

I think it depends on what you mean by it.

I don't think that Corbyn will lead to foreign armies invading Britain and the country falling - but you could see Corbyn agreeing to joint sovereignty over the Falkland Islands and Gibraltar and not really fighting for the UK if Scotland wanted another independence referendum - all 3 of these could definitely be classed as 'National Security' in one way or another.

Obviously he might fight against all these things - but as has been said before, people's perception of him is the problem he has more than anything.

[AlunB]

Yeah I think that's a fair point Jon. His view on what is correct for the nation's long-term security is different to Cameron's. But I think it's rather generous to suggest that's the image David Cameron is trying to draw in voters minds.

[DaveShoelace]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

In the way I said in the same post, in that his brand of pacifism is a threat when its him in charge of defending us. By the same token I would be a threat to national security if that was my responsibility, because I also don't have it in me to make hard choices like that, but I recognise our elected leaders do need to be more pragmatic.

[MintTrav]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

In the way I said in the same post, in that his brand of pacifism is a threat when its him in charge of defending us. By the same token I would be a threat to national security if that was my responsibility, because I also don't have it in me to make hard choices like that, but I recognise our elected leaders do need to be more pragmatic.

We could as easily say that Cameron wanting to extend Trident is a threat to national security.

[Jon MW]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

In the way I said in the same post, in that his brand of pacifism is a threat when its him in charge of defending us. By the same token I would be a threat to national security if that was my responsibility, because I also don't have it in me to make hard choices like that, but I recognise our elected leaders do need to be more pragmatic.

We could as easily say that Cameron wanting to extend Trident is a threat to national security.

That's where perception comes in - they could both say the same about each other; but it's what the public think that makes a difference.

[TightEnd]

Yeah I think that's a fair point Jon. His view on what is correct for the nation's long-term security is different to Cameron's. But I think it's rather generous to suggest that's the image David Cameron is trying to draw in voters minds.

It definitely is, whether cynical or not

the uk middle ground is pro-deterrent, anti-Irish nationalism, anti-ISIS, pro-falklands (70%+ in 2014 polling, even before you take into account Islanders views)

Corbyn has expressed a lot of views on these issues that don't chime with the uk middle ground voter, but do with the new party members that voted him in

Obviously Cameron is trying to paint a picture in voters minds, soundbites on nightly news etc  (which might cover PMQs for a minute or less)

the tory party is a machine to try to win elections.

the corbyn labour party doesn't look to be (in its strategies, policies, leanings). the idealism is currently overriding the pragmatism by a long way 

that idealism is nowhere more stark than on issues of national security, foreign policy etc etc

Corbyn's essential problem, not that he seems to care, is you can't possibly imagine him being PM in a time of foreign policy crisis

[DaveShoelace]

But surely Cameron doesn't really think it's true? "A threat to national security."

I do think he thinks that is true. Pretty certain there are folks in this thread who think it's true. I think it's true.

Really? That surprises me.

In the way I said in the same post, in that his brand of pacifism is a threat when its him in charge of defending us. By the same token I would be a threat to national security if that was my responsibility, because I also don't have it in me to make hard choices like that, but I recognise our elected leaders do need to be more pragmatic.

We could as easily say that Cameron wanting to extend Trident is a threat to national security.

We could, and we should. Not endorsing a pacifist does not mean a complete endorsement of arming ourselves to the hilt. The prospect of becoming like America is just as horrifying. Like most things a centrist approach is (IMO) the thing to strive for.

[Doobs]

Cameron has been successful in having attention diverted from his government's programme to the detail of what is happening inside the Labour Party. Tighty has pointed out several times that time spent on the ins and outs of the Labour Party is time not spent holding the government to account.

Or, as Isabel Hardman of The Spectator put it today:

‏@IsabelHardman
"Every Commons session I've sat in on this week has seen MPs across House uniting to knock stuffing out of Labour. Including Labour MPs....which is interesting, but does mean Cameron could announce he'll spend entire NHS budget on building a Death Star without opprobrium."

This strategy may be appealing, but getting behind Corbyn is a losing strategy too.  As he can't be deposed because of the new make up of the party, it is a genuine Hobson's choice situation for those that remain in the Party.  

[AlunB]

Cameron has been successful in having attention diverted from his government's programme to the detail of what is happening inside the Labour Party. Tighty has pointed out several times that time spent on the ins and outs of the Labour Party is time not spent holding the government to account.

Or, as Isabel Hardman of The Spectator put it today:

‏@IsabelHardman
"Every Commons session I've sat in on this week has seen MPs across House uniting to knock stuffing out of Labour. Including Labour MPs....which is interesting, but does mean Cameron could announce he'll spend entire NHS budget on building a Death Star without opprobrium."

This strategy may be appealing, but getting behind Corbyn is a losing strategy too.  As he can't be deposed because of the new make up of the party, it is a genuine Hobson's choice situation for those that remain in the Party.  

There is a mini-market shop near me called Hobson's Choice.

[AlunB]

Tighty - Agreed. I meant it was generous to suggest Cameron was being as sophisticated in his reasoning as Jon was. I think he's going for maximum scare factor.

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.

And I say that very much not as a Corbyn supporter. I'm not one.

[DaveShoelace]

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.

[horseplayer]

I find it amazing that somebody supporting pressing a button to blow up the enemy is seen as the normal stance.

I somehow get the feeling if it ever got to that stage the world would be beyond repair anyway.