UK Politics & Current Affairs Discussion & DIY Home Improvement Thread

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

They just wanted to replace the establishment with a different establishment. Or something. They weren't voting for more democracy if I recall correctly.

No one ever is. The establishment always find a way....

 

In other news, it looks like the current border arrangements with France are becoming more strained. Now the UK has voted to leave, the French authorities are becoming bolder about the 'Le Touquet treaty'. Now they have to support of a leading opposition leader for the French election next year and the general consensus is, 'if the UK want to leave the EU, this treaty should be torn up and the UK can sort its' own border situation out'. Even though the treaty has no reference to the EU and is exclusively between France and the UK.

 

Looks like 'The Jungle' could be coming to Dover, that'll cheer up the UKIP fraternity, especially since it is on their island all of a sudden, not stuck in the Calais Blindspot. Not like Remain campaigners warned them it was going to happen....

[Clem Fandango]

Blairites are at least realistic Mel. Corbyn has done nothing but foment disunity and infighting within the Labour party. He's not as bad as Livingstone but that's not saying much.

I don't care about that. I just want to see him in the election wrecking torries, plus he says he's gonna stop the state turning off pensioners' heating or whatever. I don't know what you mean by 'realistic' like the only way to win the election is to be as right wing as possible? Well if you're fine with that why even vote Labour, why not just vote for one of the existing right wing parties?

 

You think he's antisemetic or something which I don't get either. You're worried he'll cut off support for Israel? That is a good thing for Israel, it means they can't continue an indefinite war effort and will have to rely on mediators. Are you worried Tel Aviv is going to be over run by crazed Palestinians and burnt to the ground? Because that's definitely not going to happen. I really don't get it, why support the war at all? If the US was occupying Mexico, and the left, why would that result in the US being destroyed? Do you think the Palestinians- women children and all- are going to storm the streets of Israel on a single minded mission of revenge if the tanks are ever out of view?

[sivispacem]

I don't care about that. I just want to see him in the election wrecking torries, plus he says he's gonna stop the state turning off pensioners' heating or whatever. I don't know what you mean by 'realistic' like the only way to win the election is to be as right wing as possible? Well if you're fine with that why even vote Labour, why not just vote for one of the existing right wing parties?

I think the issue is that much of Labour's core vote, or what was Labour's core vote, simply don't give a sh*t anymore.

 

Jeremy is very, very popular with a few groups of people; young, middle-class, educated, idealistic left-wing students and young adults; the trade unionists; and the last vestiges of the hard left who were politically active last time Labour was going through such a crisis. None of these represent a significant enough proportion of the electorate to really broaden Labour's appeal. Much of their historic core vote has detected to UKIP or given up political participation entirely. They failed to capitalise on the huge disenfranchisement with the Tories in tye local elections and seen Labour almost entirely wiped out in Scotland. I have no reason to suspect very nearly the entire parliamentary party are lying when they say that feedback from local members about Jeremy's performance has been negative. It's not as if there aren't people on the left of the party also making these comments; it's hardly an issue just isolated to Blairites. Tom Watson and Angela Eagle are hardly on the right of the party.

 

Why can't we just have an actual f*cking centrist party? With the Tories pulling right and Labour pulling left, there's a massive gulf in the middle that just isn't catered for. And people wonder why political disenfranchisment is at an all time high.

[Clem Fandango]

Jeremy is very, very popular with a few groups of people; young, middle-class, educated, idealistic left-wing students and young adults; the trade unionists; and the last vestiges of the hard left who were politically active last time Labour was going through such a crisis. None of these represent a significant enough proportion of the electorate to really broaden Labour's appeal..

 

The same could be said of Bernie Sanders. I still don't get it, Corbyn is labour leader which means he'll be one of two people that have a shot at Prime Minister. The choice is between him and some other guy, even if the public hate Corbyn (most people are probably indifferent) they'll probably hate the torry guy as well. AFAIK he doesn't have especially sh*t approval ratings.

 

I think if Corbyn is leader during the GE they stand a better chance of winning than with anybody else, same with Sanders in the US. There's no real response to someone saying they're going to make things easier for people.

[sivispacem]

The same could be said of Bernie Sanders.

It could, and as with Bernie he's more likely to polarise the electorate. The same could be said about literally any individual who represents an extreme viewpoint in any political organisation. They are, by definition, polarising.

 

I still don't get it, Corbyn is labour leader which means he'll be one of two people that have a shot at Prime Minister. The choice is between him and some other guy, even if the public hate Corbyn (most people are probably indifferent) they'll probably hate the torry guy as well.

The question is, who is more likely to win? Nothing we've seen so far suggests that Labour will be able to reverse their losses in the 2015 election, especially given their collapse in Scotland. If Jeremy isn't seen as being capable of winning a general election- and amongst many even in his own party he isn't- then there's not really any point in his leadership continuing. Ask yourself this- do you think Jeremy has done anything so far which will convince significant people who voted Conservative in the 2015 election to vote Lsboir, or to convince a significant number of people who didn't vote to?

 

I think if Corbyn is leader during the GE they stand a better chance of winning than with anybody else

Based upon what?

[CBH]

Blairites are at least realistic Mel. Corbyn has done nothing but foment disunity and infighting within the Labour party. He's not as bad as Livingstone but that's not saying much.

Pardon? Blairites spend all their time shouting about how they have to look, act, and sound like tories, or else they won't win. So they do look, act and sound like tories, and they don't win. They sound realistic to you?

 

 

 

 

I think the issue is that much of Labour's core vote, or what was Labour's core vote, simply don't give a sh*t anymore.

Labour's core vote is working class socialists. For the past 25 years the party has ignored them and chased tory demographics.

 

 

Jeremy is very, very popular with a few groups of people; young, middle-class, educated, idealistic left-wing students and young adults; the trade unionists; and the last vestiges of the hard left who were politically active last time Labour was going through such a crisis. None of these represent a significant enough proportion of the electorate to really broaden Labour's appeal. Much of their historic core vote has detected to UKIP or given up political participation entirely.

This is a fantastically bad analysis, you're just relying on the stereotypes non-left people bandy about to legitimise the concerns of real life, overwhelmingly poor and quite often disabled leftists: Lefties are all middle class kids with student rail cards! You should know better than to do this, your account has a special GTAF smert persun medal.

 

Then some rubbish about how Corbyn's other supporters must be "Hard-left", as if people on the hard left believe in parliamentary politics instead of shooting people.

 

The biggest error that you're making is that you fail to connect Labour losing it's traditional voter base with the fact that it openly declared it didn't care about them. And, having made that mistake, you're also incapable of seeing that it will take some time for them to earn it back, through sincere hard work. They quite literally need to rebuild the labour movement.

 

What will not entice old school labour voters to start voting again, would be a return to trying to out tory the tories. Nobody goes "I'm a socialist, so I'll vote for privatisation and dole cuts."

 

 

They failed to capitalise on the huge disenfranchisement with the Tories in tye local elections and seen Labour almost entirely wiped out in Scotland. I have no reason to suspect very nearly the entire parliamentary party are lying when they say that feedback from local members about Jeremy's performance has been negative.

Damn that Corbyn, he lost Scotland with his lefty time machine antics.

 

 

It's not as if there aren't people on the left of the party also making these comments; it's hardly an issue just isolated to Blairites. Tom Watson and Angela Eagle are hardly on the right of the party.

Nor are they on the left, Eagle loves a nice bit of war and a cuppa.

 

 

Why can't we just have an actual f*cking centrist party? With the Tories pulling right and Labour pulling left, there's a massive gulf in the middle that just isn't catered for. And people wonder why political disenfranchisment is at an all time high.

This last bit is funny. For one you're reinforcing what you said previously, that socialists disenfranchised by labour moving rightwards would somehow be pleased by an even more right wing party.

 

Then there's the fact you believe in centrism. Here's how centrism works: The right wing party, while already in power, goes further right. Their main opposition decides "The country has gone further to the right, we look ultra-left, we better move to the centre ground!" - which is a move rightwards. Then the Right wing party, in power again, moves yet rightwards. Their main opposition decides "The country has gone further to the right, we look ultra-left, we better move to the centre ground!" again. And again. And again. The cycle continues until the heat death of the universe.

 

So You have, on the right, the Eat Babies Alive Party. And slightly to their left, perpetually concerned about the need to look sensible and centrist instead of leftist, is the Painlessly Euthanize Babies Before Eating Them Party.

 

The Anti Baby Eating part of the population does not vote, which is why the Eat Babies Alive Party manages to get a secure majority with merely 24% of the electorate. In this world there are MPs for the Painlessly Euthanize Babies Before Eating Them Party who want to eat them alive, and they are described, somehow as "Moderates". Moderate baby eaters.

 

And also, even if we lived in a world where bourgeois politics operated without the ratchet effect; centrism would still be impossible. Classes have different interests. Where one is thriving, the others must be constrained, and given the balance of power between classes this means even an attempt to create mutually beneficial compromise requires that bourgeois fingers be broken. The Bourgeois want the entire world. The reason workers were ever upset in the first place was they couldn't get a big enough slice to live as dignified people. So if you want to balance their class interests, you are going to spend the entire time stopping the Bourgeois from stealing the whole thing, while the workers remain pacified. In other words, "centrisism" as something that could be in a fixed position is accidentally a cheap knockoff leftism.

 

Ignoring this is the reason liberal worldview is worthless.

[CBH]

The same could be said of Bernie Sanders. I still don't get it, Corbyn is labour leader which means he'll be one of two people that have a shot at Prime Minister. The choice is between him and some other guy, even if the public hate Corbyn (most people are probably indifferent) they'll probably hate the torry guy as well. AFAIK he doesn't have especially sh*t approval ratings.

 

I think if Corbyn is leader during the GE they stand a better chance of winning than with anybody else, same with Sanders in the US. There's no real response to someone saying they're going to make things easier for people.

Sanders is a bait and switch candidate though, he exists to funnel anyone remotely leftist back into supporting a democrat party candidate, and then vanish thirty seconds before the polling stations open in the hope they'll vote Hillary.

 

Corbyn is somewhat different. He's still funnelling people into a garbage organisation that honestly wants burning down, but the difference is it's an actual attempt to reform it. I love seeing all the cool-Britannia spice girls imperialist throwbacks throw big strops over him.

[Morpheus72]

Why can't we just have an actual f*cking centrist party? With the Tories pulling right and Labour pulling left, there's a massive gulf in the middle that just isn't catered for. And people wonder why political disenfranchisment is at an all time high.

 

I find both Labour and the Conservatives to be the worst of both worlds. There's no party for social conservatives like me who wouldn't mind paying a bit more tax as long as it's spent helping the most disadvantaged people in the country. I voted for Labour in 2015 only because I thought Ed Miliband had some sensible economic policies, but out of all the parties on offer I agree with UKIP most often. I also find them more genuine and honest as people and I like that they aren't politically correct (I just disagree with the laissez faire economics). Perhaps with enough working class support they can change and become something different, but I'm not counting on it...

Edited July 5, 2016 by Morpheus72

[sivispacem]

Labour's core vote is working class socialists.

Well, a segment of Labour's core vote is- or was- working class socialists, though one wonders exactly how large a core that represents. I assume what you're suggesting here is that the "broad church" approach adopted to try and cater to people other than working class socialists was a mistake? On that note, how far do you think appealing predominantly to working class socialists is going to get the Labour party today? Party membership is only marginally higher than it was under Blair.

 

 

For the past 25 years the party has ignored them and chased tory demographics.

And yet now we have a Labour leader with probably the strongest socialist credentials of any since James Callaghan, and possibly before; with the near unanimous backing of the trade union movement and huge support amongst Labour's grassroots membership. And exactly what has that achieved since Corbyn took the helm in September last year? Well, we had no gain in overall councils controlled in the 2016 Local elections; a decline in councilors, and this despite the Doctor's strike and widespread discontentment with austerity policies. A Labour candidate won the London mayoral election, but the 2016 Scottish elections see a nearly 10% swing away from Labour; they lose 13 seats, mostly to the Tories, and get relegated to third party (in case you're blissfully, unaware, that was the Scottish decimation I was referring to). And that in probably the most Socialist-aspiring part of the UK, one that's had a majority (or strong minority) Social Democratic administration for nearly 10 years.

 

So if it's a failure to appeal to the core vote since the early 90's that's plagued the Labour party, why aren't they doing better?

 

 

This is a fantastically bad analysis, you're just relying on the stereotypes non-left people bandy about to legitimise the concerns of real life

Funny you say that, because it's a narrative even the Morning Star runs:

 

 

As has been widely acknowledged across the mainstream media, students and young people formed a large part of Corbyn’s support base and energetic activist team.

 

Students flocked to support Corbyn because he is politician who has always been on our side. From opposing the introduction of tuition fees, voting against every attempt to increase them and making his support for free education central to his election campaign.

http://www.morningstaronline.co.uk/a-92a5-Students-must-mobilise-in-support-of-Corbyn

 

So, sardonic baiting aside, even media outlets strongly supportive of Corbyn recognise the student voice as a large proportion of his support base.

Or is that just another attempt by "non-left people" to reinforce "stereotypes"?

 

 

 

Then some rubbish about how Corbyn's other supporters must be "Hard-left"

Come on, you full well know the meaning of the term "hard left". Leaning towards traditional Socialism, Marxism, Trotskyism as opposed to Social Democracy. Now, I know that's the direction your own political views lean in, but I don't mean it as a term of offence. I mean, prominent activists involved with Momentum have been members of the AWL have they not, so there's clearly some degree of support from radical far-left organisations.

 

Radicalism isn't explicitly violent either. Come on, you must know enough Cold War European history to be able to produce a laundry list of "revolutionary" Marxist-Leninist political organisations that didn't go around car bombing banks or kidnapping politicians.

 

 

And, having made that mistake, you're also incapable of seeing that it will take some time for them to earn it back, through sincere hard work. They quite literally need to rebuild the labour movement.

Fair point, though it does beg the question how sizeable this supposed Socialist bloc actually is in British society. Lots of interesting polling on the issue.

 

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/02/23/british-people-view-socialism-more-favourably-capi/

 

It doesn't particularly surprise me that Socialism is viewed more positively than Capitalism. If someone asked me which was more positive I'd probably plump for Socialism too. What is interesting, though, is that according to that YouGov polling, less than half of Labour voters consider themselves Socialist:

 

 

The demographics are interesting too.

 

 

 

Damn that Corbyn, he lost Scotland with his lefty time machine antics.

Slow claps and a woosh parrot for you, methinks.

 

 

Ignoring this is the reason liberal worldview is worthless.

Oh guide me, sage arbiter of all truth in the world. Please explain to me more about how your subjective interpretation of global social order is infallibly and unquestionably true.

Actually, scratch that, you might think I'm doing something other than taking the piss.

[Eutyphro]

If you think Angela Eagle would do better than Corbyn in a general election then you are pretty deluded. Corbyn isn't as unpopular as the establishment wants him to be, and Melchior is right there is no reason he couldn't win a general election. Corbyn has been demonized by the establishment since day one, and the coup attempt by the Blairites has nothing to do with either his chance at winning a general election, or the referendum result. Corbyn winning an election is probably the last thing they'd like to see.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

All I know about the Corbyn Vs Eagle situation is, Labour will not survive as a viable alternative to the Tories as they're gonna split, soon....

 

Their membership and nomination process is what is at fault. The ability to join and vote for £3? No wonder they got thousands of new members in the run up to Corbyn's vote. The system was flawed so tactical block voting took the vote for Corbyn.

 

Every day, we look more and more like UKIP will become the opposition at the 2020 election.... Miserable yet?

[BRITLAND]

There's talk of Owen Smith now challenging Corbyn. I think the PLP are picking someone who they think stands the best chance of beating Corbyn if he doesn't decide to step down. If the PLP were to have a Blairite or Brownite like Alan Johnson, Chuka Umunna or Yvette Cooper they obviously fear it won't go their way. They're best picking someone who can unite the Labour party and prevent another split than winning an election that is four year away.

http://news.sky.com/story/1722116/may-wins-first-tory-vote-as-fox-and-crabb-out

Stephen Crabb and Liam Fox are out of the Conservative leadership race. Theresa May secured over half the votes(165/329). I expect Gove will be eliminated on Thursday unless a miracle happens and it'll be Theresa May vs Andrea Leadsom in the battle for no.10.

[sivispacem]

If you think Angela Eagle would do better than Corbyn in a general election then you are pretty deluded.

I'm not so sure. I don't particularly care either way, given that the fragmentation of the Labour party serves my personal political interests very well. Like I've already said, Corbyn enjoys a huge level of grassroots support but we have yet to see anything even beginning to resemble evidence that he can translate 200,000 new party activists into a parliamentary majority. And it doesn't really matter whether he can or can't if his entire party wants to stitch him up. After all, they're elected representatives of the party too, with their own democratic mandates.

 

the coup attempt by the Blairites

We're not talking a handful of people here, we're talking four fifths of the parliamentary Labour party. I'm utterly perplexed why people insist on repeating this narrative; are we now saying that 80% of the Labour party are Blairites, including huge numbers of people who explicitly aren't? Or are they all unfortunate pawns in a game orchestrated by some faceless and so far nameless bastard?

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

I don't think it's a faceless individual. More, the general consensus of the Westminster group.

 

Corbyn was always an experiment in terms of leadership, but it quickly became obvious that experiment failed. Corbyn is an activist, but has no leadership qualities and I feel the PLP is trying to push the idea of a long term leadership, instead of a short term activist.

 

It is 4 years to the next General Election, can you imagine what will be left of the party if they don't get a leader now?

[sivispacem]

I was taking issue predominantly to the pejorative categorisation of those who oppose Corbyn in the party as "Blairites", when in reality it's the overwhelming majority of the PLP, most of whom are categorically not.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Ah, irony and crossed wires....

 

Yup, we'll blame the Blairites then. Although the Chilcot report might put their idol behind bars.... (Even though something tells me he is going to escape the noose in the final report.)

[sivispacem]

Chilcot won't apportion criminal or civil liability; it's not going to put anyone in prison.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

But he can recommend action. That would be enough to ruin Blair.

[sivispacem]

Not civil or criminal action, he can't. The report does not apportion civil or criminal liability which precludes it from recommending further measures. The most it can do is recommend further investigation, which potentially wouldn't be bound by the same restrictions on apportioning liability.

 

The general consensus amongst people in the security community seems to be that the report will be damning towards the representation of poor quality intelligence estimates as factual, and criticise the policy of pursuing intelligence with the express purpose of fitting a preexisting narrative, but stop short of accusing senior figures of lying.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Looks like the actual result. Poor intelligence lead to a war that wasn't legally justified.

 

Blair was lied to by intelligence services, he passed those lies onto government and they totally screwed up the post Saddam years.

 

Doesn't look good for the Vicar of St Albion, basically he's a conduit for lies he didn't question....

[Svip]

Drop the word 'legally', that's not how wars work. The word illegal suggests there would some sort of court where instigators of this war could be tried and punished. You know such court does not exist, and particularly not on the merit of the war itself, if anyone is going to be punished over this at court, it is going to be anything but the justification of the war.

 

But a war that wasn't justified is a valid accusation. A casus belli is what people and the international community at large would deem appropriate for instigating hostile acts. Since such a casus belli was in practical terms fabricated or flimsy at best, the international community and the public should look upon the decision to go to war with disgust, and should - rightly so - hamper relations between those who initiated and those who looked on.

 

But a war cannot be illegal.

[sivispacem]

Looks like the actual result.

The findings are largely a vindication of views that many of us in the community have held for years. I still remember a long weekend spent at the house of one of the other students in my Master's degree reading the whole of the Butler report.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36721645

 

Summary mercilessly cribbed from there:

 

The UK chose to join the invasion of Iraq before the peaceful options for disarmament had been exhausted. Military action at that time was not a last resort.

 

The judgements about the severity of threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction - known as WMD - were presented with a certainty that was not justified.

 

Intelligence had "not established beyond doubt" that Saddam Hussein had continued to produce chemical and biological weapons.

 

Policy on Iraq was made on the basis of flawed intelligence assessments. It was not challenged, and should have been.

 

The circumstances in which it was decided that there was a legal basis for UK military action were "far from satisfactory".

 

There was "little time" to properly prepare three military brigades for deployment in Iraq. The risks were neither "properly identified nor fully exposed" to ministers, resulting in "equipment shortfalls".

 

Despite explicit warnings, the consequences of the invasion were underestimated. The planning and preparations for Iraq after Saddam Hussein were "wholly inadequate".

 

The Government failed to achieve the stated objectives it had set itself in Iraq. More than 200 British citizens died as a result of the conflict. Iraqi people suffered greatly. By July 2009, at least 150,000 Iraqis had died, probably many more. More than 1m were displaced.

 

 

The report sets out lessons to be learned: It found former prime minister Tony Blair overestimated his ability to influence US decisions on Iraq; and the UK's relationship with the US does not require unconditional support.

 

It said ministerial discussion which encourages frank and informed debate and challenge is important. As is ensuring civilian and military arms of government are properly equipped.

 

In future, all aspects of any intervention need to be calculated, debated and challenged with rigour. Decisions need to be fully implemented.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

Agreed, but all the way upto the actual invasion, the Blair government was trying to get the war legally justified in terms of exhausting all other options. Right up to the point of getting clarification from the attourney general.

 

I never thought the war needed legal justification, but it is how the Blair government tried to portray it.... They failed, both in terms of judgement and committal of forces.

 

The war wasn't justified, nor should it have gone ahead.

[Svip]

 

CETA is now apparently going to be voted on by the national parliaments after all, and some are already speculating this is a consequence of the Leave result of the UK EU referendum. If this is true, then we are already reaping the benefits of the referendum. Well, not the UK (yet), but the rest of us.

[GTA_stu]

Would be nice to see people actually have to face consequences for reckless deceitful actions that caused so much damage and loss of life.

[Svip]

Would be nice to see people actually have to face consequences for reckless deceitful actions that caused so much damage and loss of life.

Haha. Consequences are only for ordinary citizens.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

 

Would be nice to see people actually have to face consequences for reckless deceitful actions that caused so much damage and loss of life.

Haha. Consequences are only for ordinary citizens.

It could be ordinary citizens causing consequences in court soon. The families of those British forces personnel that were killed have vowed to consider their next move. Court seems an inevitable prospect for many....

 

Good luck to the families I say!

[sivispacem]

I can see a civil prosecution being on the cards, but none of the conclusions of the inquiry really suggest criminal culpability. Anyone who dreams of seeing Blair at the Hague is, and always has been, a fantasist.

[Creed Bratton]

I can see a civil prosecution being on the cards, but none of the conclusions of the inquiry really suggest criminal culpability. Anyone who dreams of seeing Blair at the Hague is, and always has been, a fantasist.

It would be fun as hell though. I've always enjoyed watching Hague trials and I can't help but wonder how a trial for what happened in Iraq would go.

[Uncle Sikee Atric]

The problem is, to get Bliar there, you would have to put Dubya before the Hague as well. You are more likely to meet the four horseman before that would happen.

 

A civil case does seem a plausible conclusion though....