General Election 2017

[darrenm]

2 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

For example even JC couldn't not go to war if one of our NATO allies got attacked - he has no other answer than "let's stop going to war". Even the most peaceful countries in the world prepare for war in peacetime, Corbyn should be under no illusion that we're any different.

I once did jury service. I considered it my duty in the bedrock of democracy that I gave the defendant every opportunity when deliberating on their guilt. Lots wanted to just send him down, I held firm until I was fully convinced by others that he was guilty. Once I was fully convinced I was perfectly happy to then return a guilty verdict, knowing the consequences for the defendant. 

[jon_c]

1 minute ago, darrenm said:

I once did jury service. I considered it my duty in the bedrock of democracy that I gave the defendant every opportunity when deliberating on their guilt. Lots wanted to just send him down, I held firm until I was fully convinced by others that he was guilty. Once I was fully convinced I was perfectly happy to then return a guilty verdict, knowing the consequences for the defendant. 

Are you Henry Fonda?

[darrenm]

5 minutes ago, jon_c said:

Are you Henry Fonda?

I'm afraid that's gone over my head

[bickster]

1 hour ago, StefanAVFC said:

I still think they'd jump into a coalition with Labour though. As a Lib Dem, I'm a bit unsure on Farron's tactics here. 

As a Lib Dem, I thought you'd be aware that the tactic has always been to say what you think wavering voters want to hear, then when all else fails (as it will). jump into bed with whoever has the most votes if a coalition is needed and wahey, cabinet pay! and sod the consequences. It has been that way most of my life

I never trust a word the Tories say

I'm twice as sceptical about anything that slithers from a Lib Dem politicians mouth

 

[blandy]

45 minutes ago, Davkaus said:

 

I think you're being more than slightly facetious.

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10426/theresa_may/maidenhead/votes

How Theresa May voted on Foreign Policy and Defence #

• Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseasShow votes9 votes for, 2 votes against, between 2003–2015
• Consistently voted for the Iraq warShow votes5 votes for, 0 votes against, 1 absence, between 2002–2003

https://www.theyworkforyou.com/mp/10133/jeremy_corbyn/islington_north/votes

How Jeremy Corbyn voted on Foreign Policy and Defence #

• Consistently voted against use of UK military forces in combat operations overseasShow votes1 vote for, 8 votes against, 1 absence, between 2002–2015
• Consistently voted against the Iraq warShow votes0 votes for, 6 votes against, between 2002–2003

You perhaps missed my lame attempt - it was a party point, not an individual one. a Labour PM and Labour Government decided to do war on Iraq. The thing that is essentially at the root of (one of) the factors in the terrorist attacks, according to JC. So my facetious point was JC saying "ooh, you don't wanna elect a Labour gov't, what with them being all war-y an' that" 

[Rodders]

18 minutes ago, darrenm said:

I'm afraid that's gone over my head

 

Watch 12 Angry Men. 

[peterms]

56 minutes ago, blandy said:

Corbyn (and a few of his chums) din't just talk to the nasty men to get them to stop being nasty. They (peacefully) supported their cause. Making out that Jezza and Diane only talked to the IRA and Sinn Fein because they wanted to bring about peace is absolute rubbish. It's rewriting history. His repeated refusal, even now, to condemn the IRA echoes that history.

Sounds like you've been reading the dreadful Alex Massie, Pete.  He did a piece accusing Corbyn of rewriting history on this.  Ironically, Massie wrongly claimed (or rewrote history) that Corbyn was on the board of Labour Briefing, so that he could attribute to Corbyn responsibility for things he didn't actually write.  A tv interviewer recently tried to press the same accusation, and seemed baffled by Corbyn explaining that he had been a contributor but not an editor, because it didn't fit her prepared line of attack.

Corbyn supported the cause of a united Ireland, as did the IRA (and Nelson Mandela...).  He did not support the tactics pursued by the IRA.  To say he won't condemn them is wrong.  A recent interview tried to get him to condemn them without also saying that the violence employed by the British state was wrong.  When he wouldn't issue a unilateral condemnation, that was presented as a kind of endorsement of IRA violence.  It's a cheap debating trick, not a serious point. 

It was very helpful that Corbyn and others spoke with Sinn Fein.  Only by demonstrating the possibility of successful political engagement could Adams and McGuinness very slowly build the case with the IRA hardliners that the armed struggle was not the right course of action.  Of course Corbyn and friends weren't the only ones doing the talking - people like Whitelaw and Thatcher held meetings with both Sinn Fein and the IRA, though for some reason we never hear about that, despite it being another helpful and necessary step in the slow journey away from violence.

[magnkarl]

54 minutes ago, StefanAVFC said:

He didn't say it was the one factor.

I'd be interested to find what other points he's argued is the cause for this and other terror attacks then? To me it seems like he's too busy blaming foreign policy to realise that there are a whole bunch of other factors involved. There are so many countries in the world that didn't bomb anywhere but still get targeted by terrorists. Scapegoatism at its best really.

[hippo]

11 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'd be interested to find what other points he's argued is the cause for this and other terror attacks then? To me it seems like he's too busy blaming foreign policy to realise that there are a whole bunch of other factors involved. There are so many countries in the world that didn't bomb anywhere but still get targeted by terrorists. Scapegoatism at its best really.

Problem is there has to a foreign policy, and policies at home and abroad will somewhere have someone who is opposed to them. You can't have a foriegn policy that pleases everyone - much as most us would like it.

I think he raises a valid point though.

[magnkarl]

2 minutes ago, hippo said:

Problem is there has to a foreign policy, and policies at home and abroad will somewhere have someone who is opposed to them. You can't have a foriegn policy that pleases everyone - much as most us would like it.

I think he raises a valid point though.

Yeah, it's part of the problem for sure. But it isn't be all end all. He didn't offer explanation into any other areas that contributed to the problem because he's trying to make it into a political point. He could've done that in a much better way - none of these two candidates are very good at speeches, debates or the like.

[StefanAVFC]

3 minutes ago, hippo said:

I think he raises a valid point though.

A point shared by the ex-head of MI5.

Obviously foreign policy isn't the sole factor but it is a definite factor.

[andym]

10 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

I'd be interested to find what other points he's argued is the cause for this and other terror attacks then? To me it seems like he's too busy blaming foreign policy to realise that there are a whole bunch of other factors involved. There are so many countries in the world that didn't bomb anywhere but still get targeted by terrorists. Scapegoatism at its best really.

"Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform."

That came right after he said "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone" and right before "And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre."

I don't think Corbyn is much cop really, but it's pretty clear he isn't solely blaming western foreign policy. And i think he's probably right on this. Meddling in the middle east hasn't caused this current spate of terrorism, as those Isis words removed like to say, they hate us and our way of life, and they would be trying to kill us anyway. But its been easy for them to use western bombing as a recruitment tool and increase the number of people who want to hurt us, and the power vacuums created by us messing around in Iraq, Libya etc have given them room to expand militarily.

Be interesting to see how he does when questioned by Andrew Neil tonight, should give him the chance to expand on his speech and if he has any balls, fight back at the predictable Tory "terrorist sympathiser, blaming Britain for those kids deaths" bullshit. It would also be nice if he mentioned our grubby relationship with Saudi Arabia, and what that influence that has had on the spread of terror.

[magnkarl]

Just now, andym said:

"Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform."

That came right after he said "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone" and right before "And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre."

I don't think Corbyn is much cop really, but it's pretty clear he isn't solely blaming western foreign policy. And i think he's probably right on this. Meddling in the middle east hasn't caused this current spate of terrorism, as those Isis words removed like to say, they hate us and our way of life, and they would be trying to kill us anyway. But its been easy for them to use western bombing as a recruitment tool and increase the number of people who want to hurt us, and the power vacuums created by us messing around in Iraq, Libya etc have given them room to expand militarily.

Be interesting to see how he does when questioned by Andrew Neil tonight, should give him the chance to expand on his speech and if he has any balls, fight back at the predictable Tory "terrorist sympathiser, blaming Britain for those kids deaths" bullshit. It would also be nice if he mentioned our grubby relationship with Saudi Arabia, and what that influence that has had on the spread of terror.

Yeah I read this exact article too, however he doesn't say what these other issues are. He keeps harping on about foreign policy. It's too easy to put this wave of terrorism down to foreign policy as the main trigger point when it's obviously a whole set of very strong principles that drive these maniacs to do what they do.

It's like saying "My foot hurts because of my shoe. I know there are other issues causing my foot to hurt but the shoe is the problem that I am focusing on." Taking troops out of the war now would still lead to the same issues.

It's arguing a political point, nothing else. It's bound to be a policy that gains him support amongst the pacifists of the nation - nothing new to see here.

[HanoiVillan]

13 minutes ago, andym said:

"Over the past fifteen years or so, a sub-culture of often suicidal violence has developed amongst a tiny minority of, mainly young, men, falsely drawing authority from Islamic beliefs and often nurtured in a prison system in urgent need of resources and reform."

That came right after he said "Those causes certainly cannot be reduced to foreign policy decisions alone" and right before "And no rationale based on the actions of any government can remotely excuse, or even adequately explain, outrages like this week’s massacre."

I don't think Corbyn is much cop really, but it's pretty clear he isn't solely blaming western foreign policy. And i think he's probably right on this. Meddling in the middle east hasn't caused this current spate of terrorism, as those Isis words removed like to say, they hate us and our way of life, and they would be trying to kill us anyway. But its been easy for them to use western bombing as a recruitment tool and increase the number of people who want to hurt us, and the power vacuums created by us messing around in Iraq, Libya etc have given them room to expand militarily.

Be interesting to see how he does when questioned by Andrew Neil tonight, should give him the chance to expand on his speech and if he has any balls, fight back at the predictable Tory "terrorist sympathiser, blaming Britain for those kids deaths" bullshit. It would also be nice if he mentioned our grubby relationship with Saudi Arabia, and what that influence that has had on the spread of terror.

This is an excellent post IMO. 

[jon_c]

1 hour ago, Rodders said:

 

Watch 12 Angry Men. 

You should, because it's a great film. 

[hippo]

31 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Yeah, it's part of the problem for sure. But it isn't be all end all. He didn't offer explanation into any other areas that contributed to the problem because he's trying to make it into a political point. He could've done that in a much better way - none of these two candidates are very good at speeches, debates or the like.

Trying to be impartial 

But I would say JC has enhanced his standing so far, where to be honest TM has gone backwards. She will still win of course - but I think her performance thus far will have rung alarms in the Tory Party. Be staggered if she is leader at the time of the next election.

[jon_c]

When discussing government policy as a motivating factor for terrorists. I've always wondered why there are no major attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on any of the former Yugoslavian states, after all they had a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Muslim's. It goes to show how little the motivations are religious or political. And it's just mainly nut-jobbery. 

[peterms]

How much is a knighthood?

Quote

Ellis, under his full name of Sir Herbert D Ellis, has donated £66,666 to the Tories this month. He received a knighthood under David Cameron’s government.

 

[RimmyJimmer]

16 minutes ago, jon_c said:

When discussing government policy as a motivating factor for terrorists. I've always wondered why there are no major attacks by Islamic fundamentalists on any of the former Yugoslavian states, after all they had a campaign of ethnic cleansing against Muslim's. It goes to show how little the motivations are religious or political. And it's just mainly nut-jobbery. 

Good point well made....but the 'like' was for 'nut jobbery' 

[mjmooney]

One thing that really makes me laugh (albeit bitterly) is this idea that Labour policy swinging back to the left has made it unelectable. THE OPPOSITE IS TRUE. The party's move to the centre right under Blair was what led to the party's total collapse in Scotland - and thus giving it a mountain to climb in UK elections.