The UK Politics and EU Referendum thread - merged

[AlunB]

"For what it's worth I can't help but think Corbyn get's bad press for no other reason that the media are fearful of him, because he actually does support real change and that is what is needed.  The current system doesn't work, indeed it probably never has but we just accept it. "

What policies does Corbyn bring to the table that create "real change".  If it's just old fashioned socialism then it has been tried before.  I think the media focus on Corbyn because he's box office in a car crash way.  Constantly making headlines of the wrong sort.

I agree the current system isn't working well, but that's to do with globalisation in my opinion.  Tax havens.  Outsourcing of jobs to low wage economies.   Tax avoidance.  Multinational companies having Government over a barrel leading to the ludicrous situation where tax credits subsidise corporates paying low wages.

These can be fixed under capitalism to a certain extent.  Politicians just need to do their jobs.  But that brings us to your point about poor weak politicians which I also agree with.

Good post

[DaveShoelace]

horrifying to me given Britain is a big terror target.

So why aren't we questioning why that's the case?  There are countless countries in the new modern world that we live in who don't have these issues.  Mostly because they themselves are not perpetrators of terror.  Britain is a peddler of War.  I think if memory serves me correctly we have been at War in one way or another for the last 100 years.  

Not denying that nor am I saying we shouldn't question it, but the reality is that as of Thursday January 21, 2016, we are a terror target and (in reference to the debate we were having when I said that) that is likely to be the case at such a time that Corbyn would become our new leader. His pacifism would do us little good with the reality we are in.

Now, not going to war in the future with countries not posing an immediate military threat might be a good way to changing things, but in terms of home defence we need pragmatism.

[DaveShoelace]

Well obviously using "little englander" and "supremacist" in your opening post is frictional at best, but to answer your question:

lol, I'm sure our new friend didn't mean it like this and this is not directed at him, but so many times over the years new accounts start posting on here to this effect:

New account: You are all a bunch of pricks
Blonde regulars: Oi, no we ain't.
New account: Wow, it's a bit clicky at Blonde.

[AlunB]

Hope he/she continues to post though. More voices in this tread would be a good thing. Although a few more rational right wingers might be nice

[DungBeetle]

Well obviously using "little englander" and "supremacist" in your opening post is frictional at best, but to answer your question:

lol, I'm sure our new friend didn't mean it like this and this is not directed at him, but so many times over the years new accounts start posting on here to this effect:

New account: You are all a bunch of pricks
Blonde regulars: Oi, no we ain't.
New account: Wow, it's a bit clicky at Blonde.

Haha - fair   I just had visions of me supporting nuclear arms one minute and the next I'm burning crosses.

[PokerBroker]

Supremacist was probably wrong apologies on that front, but there is this mentality on these shores to believe that we're right and everyone else is wrong. 

I don't have the quote to hand sure it's been posted here, but Corbyn's view of Bin Laden - for me the clincher in that was what he said after the bit that was taken in context but blown out of proportion has actually happened.   We are in more danger with Bin Laden dead than alive imo. 

I fear though that once the issues in the middle east come to a head - and they will - maybe not in our lifetime but it will happen.  We'll just move on to somewhere else. 

The situations with Falklands and Gib for example and even Ireland.  Where do Britain get off? 

Being pragmatic isn't always the answer. 

[RickBFA]

Hi,

I'm new to posting here but I have been a voyeur of the forum for quite some time.  I visit a number of web forums but tend not to sign up as:

a) I t wastes so much of my time
b) It's bad for the blood pressure

This thread though has really intrigued me though, and what comes through is the "little Britain/Englander" or supremacist view.  It's like some people have ingrained ideas and they refuse to take a wider view of the world.  

I mean no malice but no doubt my views will upset a few people.  Please be assured that is not my intention.  

I should also state that I am not a Labour supporter, I despise the conservatives, I see the Lib Dems as irrelevant.  There probably isn't a party that reflects my views.  Indeed, it is for that reason that I firmly support the implementation of PR.  It is far too difficult in 2016 to simply say Red Left/Blue Right.  

For what it's worth I can't help but think Corbyn get's bad press for no other reason that the media are fearful of him, because he actually does support real change and that is what is needed.  The current system doesn't work, indeed it probably never has but we just accept it.  

So a few questions:

Why should Britain have nuclear weapons but Iran shouldn't?  (Please try and answer this without saying we'd be a target for Iran)  
Who exactly is this mythical enemy we are fighting that we need this deterrent for?
Surely the foreign policy that has been courted by successive Governments is responsible for current security problems?
Pretty sure we all agree there are problems with the EU, but taking us out leaves us at the mercy of a loony fringe who continue this ongoing cycle?

The number of capable politicians we have is shockingly bad, and this applies cross party.  I look at some of them on a regular basis and I genuinely think who ties these peoples shoe laces on a day-to-day basis.  

Welcome to the thread.

I wouldn't have characterised this thread like that personally (perhaps I cant see the woods for the trees) as I think there are a wide range of views here with lots of interesting and educational stuff.

Feels relatively friendly and civilised for a thread on politics to me.

[/list]

[PokerBroker]

Well obviously using "little englander" and "supremacist" in your opening post is frictional at best, but to answer your question:

lol, I'm sure our new friend didn't mean it like this and this is not directed at him, but so many times over the years new accounts start posting on here to this effect:

New account: You are all a bunch of pricks
Blonde regulars: Oi, no we ain't.
New account: Wow, it's a bit clicky at Blonde.

Yeah not my intention.  There has been good debate and probably why I bit the bullet and signed up. Although some lines of thought have me shouting WTF!!! (on both sides)

I blame much of the general level of debate on the media, they are culpable.  Good Journalism is dead.   Fear and reprisal rules the roost.  

[PokerBroker]

I have an appointment booked in, but hopefully I'll get a chance to have another look in later on. 

[AndrewT]

One reason why politicians (and many others) argue for nukes is because nukes are something that big, important countries have and Britain is a big, important country. We must be right? - we won that big war 70 years ago and totally kicked the Argie's backsides 30 years ago. We have that permanent seat on the UN Security Council like our global equals the US, Russia and China (though who let those French pricks in I don't know - Brigitte Bardot must have slept with someone important to get that).

We can't let piffling, minor, ethnic countries like Iran have them because it devalues our nukes. In the same way you don't like seeing some common little prick wearing the same nice coat you wear.

Vote UKIP.

[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

[horseplayer]

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?

[Jon MW]

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?

[DaveShoelace]

I stand corrected on the shoot to kill thing if that's the case. I must have missed it or purposely ignored it the previous time. Could be spin as Jon says but I'll take it at face value.

[TightEnd]

as i quoted from rifkind's spectator article this morning

http://www.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/corbynglish-as-a-second-language/

Corbyncoherence [n]: Why all this happens with Jeremy Corbyn, and not really with any other politician alive. Thanks to his ability to speak with peerless Corbyncoherence, the Labour leader can simultaneously enable his critics to think he has said something utterly astonishing, and his defenders to firmly believe he has not. Opinion is divided as to whether this is a deliberate strategy, or something he does Corbynvoluntarily [adj].


the bloke ties himself in knots, then advisers try and explain afterwards

its no wonder you can take so many interretations from his utterances and why he himself becomes the story

all self-inflicted