General Election 2017

[magnkarl]

13 minutes ago, peterms said:

No, you hit "copy without attribution" too early.

One giveaway is that it's  "Splendid isolation", rather than "spendid" isolation.  But if you dont know what you're talking about, you wouldn't recognise that.

Your point on splendid and spendid? I seem to have triggered you pretty badly. Let's take your word for history as truth though. I'm not sure if you're quite sure what you are arguing now.

Splendid isolation (the word that was used) used to emphasize the isolation of a person or thing. Also known as Britain isolating itself while the other countries of Europe caught up. I didn't invent that term, it's widely used.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[magnkarl]

14 minutes ago, HanoiVillan said:

I confess I'm lost. I don't see what this period of British history, fascinating though it doubtless is, has to do with 'a policy and world order that has drastically reduced deaths around the globe'. For a start, I can think of two fairly significant conflicts in the years subsequent to 1914 without trying particularly hard at all. 

There's not too much to it mate, I just tired to say that isolationism isn't a good alternative to our current foreign policy. I then quoted this era as a good example as it errupted into the Boer war (extremely unpopular on the world stage) and then WW1. It then went through the sandblaster a couple of times and now I'm not sure what point is being argued anymore on here.

Edited May 26, 2017 by magnkarl

[ChrisVillan]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't mean that you have to try to belittle them.

HA! 

[peterms]

12 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

Your point on splendid and spendid? I seem to have triggered you pretty badly. Let's take your word for history as truth though. I'm not sure if you're quite sure what you are arguing now.

Splendid isolation (the word that was used) used to emphasize the isolation of a person or thing. Also known as Britain isolating itself while the other countries of Europe caught up. I didn't invent that term, it's widely used.

The phrase that is taught is "Splendid Isolationism".

Your plagiarism of the wrong phrase shows that you plagiarise, and that you don't know much about what you are copying.

Your claim that "I seem to have triggered you pretty badly" is, sorry to advise, incorrect.  You'd have to try a great deal harder, and be very much more competent in argument, to approach that.  But if the thought motivates you, you're welcome to any pleasure it gives you.

[HanoiVillan]

16 minutes ago, magnkarl said:

There's not too much to it mate, I just tired to say that isolationism isn't a good alternative to our current foreign policy. I then quoted this era as a good example as it errupted into the Boer war (extremely unpopular on the world stage) and then WW1. It then went through the sandblaster a couple of times and now I'm not sure what point is being argued anymore on here.

Well firstly, thank you for explaining the point, I've got it now.

However, I have to say I disagree, on two levels. Firstly, a quick glance around suggests that this term 'splendid isolationism' refers to the balance of power between great powers in Europe, rather than engagement with the wider world. This is logical, as given that Britain had the largest empire the world had seen since Genghis Khan at the time, 'isolationist' doesn't seem like a very good description for its foreign policy. Yet it's engagement outside the borders of Europe that is relevant to this discussion on the Middle East. 

Secondly, I disagree that Jeremy Corbyn is proposing 'isolationism', as opposed to a less-belligerent foreign policy. Britain is not going to become Bhutan if he wins the election. Choosing to sit out a war every now and then is not the same as withdrawing from the world and shouldn't be seen that way. 

[Jon]

'Splendid' work over the last free pages mr Mountie.  Enjoyed it immensely 

[Awol]

6 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

 I disagree that Jeremy Corbyn is proposing 'isolationism', as opposed to a less-belligerent foreign policy. Britain is not going to become Bhutan if he wins the election. Choosing to sit out a war every now and then is not the same as withdrawing from the world and shouldn't be seen that way. 

I'd say Corbyn is keener on unilateralism than isolationism, a subtle difference.

For example I believe that in power he'd very quickly pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament in the fervent hope that others would see the light and follow his enlightened lead. Ludicrous and almost charmingly naive but I think that's the root of his evasion on saying the words he personally commits to replacing Trident and falls back on a stick line about party policy - it can be changed. 

Similarly his refusal to withdraw his remark about NATO being a "Frankenstein" project. Say what he needs to say about membership being party policy but throw up nebulous criteria for the future employment of national military force. Instead of 'Article 5 is the cornerstone of UK security' (which it is) he speaks of whether there is a 'direct threat' to UK security. If a conflict broke out he could keep that debate running in Parliament indefinitely to prevent the UK honouring its treaty obligations. Unilateralism. 

Whatever he has had to say recently for expedience sake to align with his youthful groupies, Corbyn's record shows where he stands on the EU (a position I agree with). Again unilateralism over multilateralism.  

He's can't abide dissent, is testy under pressure, surrounds himself with sycophants who share his anti western prejudices, reinforce his ideology and insulate him from challenging voices within his own Parliamentary party - which is now an irrelevance.

Sound familiar? He's Stalin to Trump's Hitler.

[blandy]

16 hours ago, peterms said:

Well, he has. 

Here, for example.

But as I said earlier, interviewers tend to play the game dictated by tory central office, seeing if they can get him to condemn only IRA violence,  knowing that he will give a more rounded denunciation of violence on all sides, hoping to present that as being in support of IRA violence.

It's a pathetic, childish game.  Don't fall for it.

Thanks. That's something at least, then. Their "useful idiot" finally able to just about, sort of, voice some condemnation, long after the peace has been brought about.

the massive problem I have with Corbin is nothing to do with the media, it's to do with my perception that amongst many other flaws he essentially sets his policies and views around how he wants the world to be, not around how it is. So for example, sticking with Ireland, he wanted a united Ireland. So all his actions and speech etc. all fell under that mindset. This meant that the IRA, Sinn Fein, republican heavies could do far more than any peaceful person would find acceptable, without reprimand or criticism from JC and his chums. He took their side, shared their aims and let their methods slide. Same with Palestine. Because of his support for a Palestinian state, he turns a blind eye to the behaviours of Hamas, anti-semites and other various numpties.

nuclear subs is another one. He sees that a nuke free world is the ideal, so his view on the uk is get rid of trident. No nuance, no recognition of other nations actions.

all 3 of the examples I've picked, I've no issue with the ultimate thing he wants, it's his actions and methods and blind spots brought about by his worldview that are the problem. He's an idealist, who because, or maybe in spite of, these strong ideals makes some serious misjudgements.

his performance during this election has become more polished, more "don't scare the horses" and he's performing better than T. May, by a mile. I'm still appalled at the thought of either of them being PM.

im somewhat surprised that quite a few people are prepared to overlook or fail to acknowledge corbyns serious weaknesses. He's a wrong 'un.

[markavfc40]

Fallon gets stitched up a treat here. He had one thing in his mind which was slating Corbyn and it backfired big time.

 

[Awol]

12 minutes ago, markavfc40 said:

Fallon gets stitched up a treat here. He had one thing in his mind which was slating Corbyn and it backfired big time.

 

Shown in the past he will say literally anything he's told to regardless of its relationship to actual facts.

It's not easy for a Minister to distinguish themselves as being particularly untrustworthy in this Cabinet, but Fallon gives Hammond a run for his money. 

Lizards. 

[a m ole]

9 hours ago, magnkarl said:

 

Just because someone has a different opinion to you doesn't mean that you have to try to belittle them.

Triggered.

[Dodgyknees]

Lol.

 

Quote

 

Britain is more unsafe because of its involvement in the Iraq war, David Cameron said, as he promised his foreign policy would not be dictated by the US if he became prime minister.

The Conservative leader endorsed a report by his party's policy group on security issues, which said: "We need to recognise that a central element of foreign policy - the intervention in Iraq - has failed in its objectives so badly that the threat to this country is actually greater than it was before it began."

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/britain-less-safe-because-of-iraq-war-says-cameron-429223.html

 

 

[ChrisVillan]

16 minutes ago, a m ole said:

Triggered.

Ribbet. 

[chrisp65]

2 hours ago, markavfc40 said:

Fallon gets stitched up a treat here. He had one thing in his mind which was slating Corbyn and it backfired big time.

 

The trouble for Fallon is that he has fallen in to this trap, on TV and radio, multiple times over the last couple of weeks. Radio 4 managed to get him to say all manner of contradictory rubbish a week or so back to prove he wasn't like Corbyn. He managed to suggest Corbyn was week because he wouldn't nuke first and ask questions later.

That's Fallon's problem.

Our problem (as a nation), is that the vast majority of people don't watch the news or analyse the politics to that level.

Strong n stable. Yep, that's the slogan I like. That's about the level of political thought.

So hats off to the foreign worker brought in by the tory party to come up with that one.

 

[markavfc40]

1 hour ago, chrisp65 said:

The trouble for Fallon is that he has fallen in to this trap, on TV and radio, multiple times over the last couple of weeks. Radio 4 managed to get him to say all manner of contradictory rubbish a week or so back to prove he wasn't like Corbyn. He managed to suggest Corbyn was week because he wouldn't nuke first and ask questions later.

That's Fallon's problem.

Our problem (as a nation), is that the vast majority of people don't watch the news or analyse the politics to that level.

Strong n stable. Yep, that's the slogan I like. That's about the level of political thought.

So hats off to the foreign worker brought in by the tory party to come up with that one.

 

 

I think that was certainly the plan mate but I am not so sure it has played out as the Tories had hoped and I don't think that strong and stable rhetoric is going to wash going forward.

They clearly felt this was an election that could simply be played out as a choice between May and Corbyn. They didn't bargain on the fact that May would be such a disaster in front of the cameras when probed and that when you look a little deeper you find that the likes of Fallon and Hammond are just as incompetent. 

They also clearly didn't bargain on the fact that their manifesto, which for the most part contained f all, would still prove to be a disaster due to the one thing it did contain of any significance which was how they proposed to fund social care.

I don't think the campaign could have gone any worse for them. Even in light of the tragic events in Manchester, which you'd have thought would give them an opportunity to be seen as the tough no nonsense on crime and terror party, all it as shown up is their cuts in policing and when they try to be opportunistic by slating Corbyn for questioning our foreign policy they have tripped themselves up as the likes of Cameron and Johnson have previously said exactly what Corbyn is saying now.

The one thing they wanted to brain wash us with, strong and stable, is the exact thing they have shown themselves not to be and despite much of the press trying to hide it from the masses I think plenty of us have now seen them for what they are.

Edited May 27, 2017 by markavfc40

[HanoiVillan]

5 hours ago, Awol said:

I'd say Corbyn is keener on unilateralism than isolationism, a subtle difference.

For example I believe that in power he'd very quickly pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament in the fervent hope that others would see the light and follow his enlightened lead. Ludicrous and almost charmingly naive but I think that's the root of his evasion on saying the words he personally commits to replacing Trident and falls back on a stick line about party policy - it can be changed. 

Similarly his refusal to withdraw his remark about NATO being a "Frankenstein" project. Say what he needs to say about membership being party policy but throw up nebulous criteria for the future employment of national military force. Instead of 'Article 5 is the cornerstone of UK security' (which it is) he speaks of whether there is a 'direct threat' to UK security. If a conflict broke out he could keep that debate running in Parliament indefinitely to prevent the UK honouring its treaty obligations. Unilateralism. 

Whatever he has had to say recently for expedience sake to align with his youthful groupies, Corbyn's record shows where he stands on the EU (a position I agree with). Again unilateralism over multilateralism.  

He's can't abide dissent, is testy under pressure, surrounds himself with sycophants who share his anti western prejudices, reinforce his ideology and insulate him from challenging voices within his own Parliamentary party - which is now an irrelevance.

Sound familiar? He's Stalin to Trump's Hitler.

This is a thoughtful post - thanks. I suppose I'm less troubled by him than you on the basis that I a] don't think he'll win, and b] think he would be constrained by a parliamentary party which have a totally different opinion on this topic. One thing I would point out is that if you changed the gender pronouns and removed 'share his anti western prejudices', your penultimate paragraph would be an even better description of May than it is of Corbyn. 

5 hours ago, blandy said:

Thanks. That's something at least, then. Their "useful idiot" finally able to just about, sort of, voice some condemnation, long after the peace has been brought about.

the massive problem I have with Corbin is nothing to do with the media, it's to do with my perception that amongst many other flaws he essentially sets his policies and views around how he wants the world to be, not around how it is. So for example, sticking with Ireland, he wanted a united Ireland. So all his actions and speech etc. all fell under that mindset. This meant that the IRA, Sinn Fein, republican heavies could do far more than any peaceful person accept without reprimand or criticism from JC and his chums. He took their side, shared their aims and let their methods slide. Same with Palestine. Because of his support for a Palestinian state, he turns a blind eye to the behaviours of Hamas, anti-semites and other various numpties.

nuclear subs is another one. He sees that a nuke free world is the ideal, so his view on the uk is get rid of trident. No nuance, no recognition of other nations actions.

all 3 of the examples I've picked, I've no issue with the ultimate thing he wants, it's his actions and methods and blind spots brought about by his worldview that are the problem. He's an idealist, who because, or maybe in spite of, these strong ideals makes some serious misjudgements.

his performance during this election has become more polished, more "don't scare the horses" and he's performing better than T. May, by a mile. I'm still appalled at the thought of either of them being PM.

im somewhat surprised that quite a few people are prepared to overlook or fail to acknowledge corbyns serious weaknesses. He's a wrong 'un.

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not overlooking or failing to acknowledge Corbyn's problems, but I'm not prepared to pretend that I rate them equally either. One of them will be PM on June 9th. 

[magnkarl]

5 hours ago, blandy said:

Thanks. That's something at least, then. Their "useful idiot" finally able to just about, sort of, voice some condemnation, long after the peace has been brought about.

the massive problem I have with Corbin is nothing to do with the media, it's to do with my perception that amongst many other flaws he essentially sets his policies and views around how he wants the world to be, not around how it is. So for example, sticking with Ireland, he wanted a united Ireland. So all his actions and speech etc. all fell under that mindset. This meant that the IRA, Sinn Fein, republican heavies could do far more than any peaceful person accept without reprimand or criticism from JC and his chums. He took their side, shared their aims and let their methods slide. Same with Palestine. Because of his support for a Palestinian state, he turns a blind eye to the behaviours of Hamas, anti-semites and other various numpties.

nuclear subs is another one. He sees that a nuke free world is the ideal, so his view on the uk is get rid of trident. No nuance, no recognition of other nations actions.

all 3 of the examples I've picked, I've no issue with the ultimate thing he wants, it's his actions and methods and blind spots brought about by his worldview that are the problem. He's an idealist, who because, or maybe in spite of, these strong ideals makes some serious misjudgements.

his performance during this election has become more polished, more "don't scare the horses" and he's performing better than T. May, by a mile. I'm still appalled at the thought of either of them being PM.

im somewhat surprised that quite a few people are prepared to overlook or fail to acknowledge corbyns serious weaknesses. He's a wrong 'un.

This.

The most troublesome part of Corbyn for me is his flagrant disregard for what Hamas is. It's like he's blind to antisemitism in his own party and abroad. Historically turning a blind eye to such areas hasn't led to many good things. 

The above video is nothing short of frightening. Our "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations that bomb and maim people. He can't be ambiguous in his language when describing people like this and at the same time say he doesn't want conflict. Hamas and Hezbollah are two of the most battle hardened and conflict active organisations in the world and his blatant refusal to realise that is more shocking to me than his IRA connections.

[darrenm]

6 hours ago, Awol said:

pursue unilateral nuclear disarmament in the fervent hope that others would see the light and follow his enlightened lead. Ludicrous and almost charmingly 

Quite a few other countries don't have nukes. We'd be the same as them? How is it ludicrous?

He's can't abide dissent, is testy under pressure, surrounds himself with sycophants who share his anti western prejudices, reinforce his ideology and insulate him from challenging voices within his own Parliamentary party - which is now an irrelevance.

 

He's had plenty of pressure for the past 2 years and much more so now. Never seems testy under pressure to me. Neil pushed him pretty hard last night and he was anything but testy.

What anti-western prejudices. I share his views, am I anti-western?

Surely not abiding dissent in your own party is the requirement of a good leader?

6 hours ago, blandy said:

nuclear subs is another one. He sees that a nuke free world is the ideal, so his view on the uk is get rid of trident. No nuance, no recognition of other nations actions.

He's an idealist, who because, or maybe in spite of, these strong ideals makes some serious misjudgements.

his performance during this election has become more polished, more "don't scare the horses" and he's performing better than T. May, by a mile. I'm still appalled at the thought of either of them being PM.

Trident is utterly pointless. We're a services based country with little man syndrome. We're getting more irrelevant all the time. What's the point of nukes to defend against some imaginary nuclear superpower that wants to wipe us off the planet?

im somewhat surprised that quite a few people are prepared to overlook or fail to acknowledge corbyns

serious weaknesses. He's a wrong 'un.

Yet despite those weaknesses he's won 2 leadership elections with an increased majority, then brought the election back from a wipeout to apparently pretty close, all in the face of a public largely told what to think by a right wing media. Perhaps your personal appraisal is a bit off?

[blandy]

2 hours ago, HanoiVillan said:

I can only speak for myself, but I'm not overlooking or failing to acknowledge Corbyn's problems, but I'm not prepared to pretend that I rate them equally either. One of them will be PM on June 9th. 

Fair comment, HV. This thread is good because (for the most part) people have discussed their views and thoughts in an open and civil manner. I certainly don't claim I'm "right" or anyone else is wrong - I only put forward what I think.

On the IRA stuff, (generally) there's been quite a bit of contradiction from Corbyn and his followers - "he talked to the IRA as part of a peace initiative" v "I didn't talk to the IRA" and "I went to a memorial for all the people killed" v "I went to honour those killed fighting for a united Ireland", and as the interviewer yesterday stated, the IRA people said he had nothing to do with and his name never came up in any peace process, he met them as a supporter of their aims.

No doubt he's a bit wiser, maybe since those IRA times, but there has been a bit of a re-writing of history by him and his supporters - that's what I mean about people rather overlooking or excusing or failing to acknowledge al the times he's been wrong - and there are many.

I think, in terms of my hope for how the election turns out, that neither the Tories not Labour have a majority, and whoever forms a government has to do so based on an ethos of consultation, involving multiple parties and people in Government to stop the ideologies of either the bonkers tory right or the more bonkers Labour folk.

[blandy]

1 hour ago, magnkarl said:

This.

The most troublesome part of Corbyn for me is his flagrant disregard for what Hamas is. It's like he's blind to antisemitism in his own party and abroad. Historically turning a blind eye to such areas hasn't led to many good things. 

The above video is nothing short of frightening. Our "friends" from Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organisations that bomb and maim people. He can't be ambiguous in his language when describing people like this and at the same time say he doesn't want conflict. Hamas and Hezbollah are two of the most battle hardened and conflict active organisations in the world and his blatant refusal to realise that is more shocking to me than his IRA connections.

This week they murdered 3 people in Palestine.

Quote

Three men accused over the killing of a leader of the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas have been put to death by the group in the Gaza Strip