Politics Thread (encompassing Brexit) - 21 June 2017 onwards

[Buce]

3 minutes ago, Countryfox said:

 

He's only using NINE Visible Panties !! ...   no wonder we can't trace him ! ...   

 

I reckon it must be buy-one-get-one-free at The Fox tonight...

[Rogstanley]

2 minutes ago, Webbo said:

Because you're using a VPN. 

 

Crazy. I don’t think free vpn’s give you a consistent IP do they? So for my IP to be consistent I would presumably have to pay for a VPN service. Funnily enough I’ve been considering setting up a vpn for the house for the sake of privacy, but the idea that I would do that just to post on here is a bit far fetched, don’t you think?

 

Anyway, I’m off for a bit. Have a good weekend 

[Countryfox]

Just now, Buce said:

 

I reckon it must be buy-one-get-one-free at The Fox tonight...

Yup ... p1ssed as a fart ...   and now its time to go ...   g'night all ! ...    

[Sharpe's Fox]

[Buce]

 

£50 million backing for a new centrist party:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

[Sharpe's Fox]

37 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

£50 million backing for a new centrist party:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/apr/07/new-political-party-break-mould-westminster-uk-brexit

Awful politics practised by awful people. Will go nowhere, thankfully, since 85% of people voted for anti-neoliberal manifestos at the last election. There is no appetite for neoliberalism in the UK.

[Buce]

1 minute ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Awful politics practised by awful people. Will go nowhere, thankfully, since 85% of people voted for anti-neoliberal manifestos at the last election. There is no appetite for neoliberalism in the UK.

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/07/opportunity-knocks-for-new-party-will-anybody-dare-open-door

[Sharpe's Fox]

2 minutes ago, Buce said:

 

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/apr/07/opportunity-knocks-for-new-party-will-anybody-dare-open-door

Wow is Andrew Rawnsley still around? I would of thought he would have been binned after he predicted Tim “Ban Buggery” Farron would be the next Leadet of the Opposition. Of course in the end the Lib Dem’s got about 6% in the polls while about 90% of the population rejected their Eurononce neoliberal joke politics. Happy days.

[Beechey]

Well, Assad's forces just gassed and killed at least 70 men, women and children. That's a direct result of our inaction in 2013.

People will continue to call on Iraq as a reason why we should never act, and children will continue to be slaughtered.

 

That's the fourth time they've now used chemical weapons on their own people.

Edited 8 April 2018 by Beechey

[Alf Bentley]

31 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Awful politics practised by awful people. Will go nowhere, thankfully, since 85% of people voted for anti-neoliberal manifestos at the last election. There is no appetite for neoliberalism in the UK.

 

You view the Tories as anti-neoliberal?! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980". Sounds pretty Toryish to me. 

 

I presume you're imagining that the Far Left are going to have control of Brexit, not the Tories and right-wing nationalists? Stalin and Thatcher dancing hand-in-hand into an anti-EU communist future, with Uncle Joe leading the waltz? 

 

Can't see this new party getting anywhere due to our electoral system, though. First-past-the-post means that, unless you have very localised support (like SNP, Plaid), you need a massive breakthrough nationwide to even get 1-2 MPs.

In the 1980s, the SDP tried this. They had former cabinet ministers on board, plus quite positive media courage. They managed about 25% of the vote at a national election.....and got about 6 MPs (mainly big names who were already MPs).

Likewise with UKIP. Didn't they poll about 12-15% nationwide in one general election....and got zero MPs, apart from Carswell, who'd already been a popular local Tory MP.

 

The only circumstances in which I could see such a centrist party getting significant support is if Brexit happens, is an utter disaster and they go big on being anti-Brexit. Even then, all they'd probably achieve, like the SDP, is to keep the Tories in power as they'd get a lot more votes from Labour. Anyway, under that scenario, a rise in support for Corbyn and/or the Far Right is much more likely than a surge to the centre.

[Sharpe's Fox]

31 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

You view the Tories as anti-neoliberal?! 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoliberalism

"Neoliberalism or neo-liberalism refers primarily to the 20th-century resurgence of 19th-century ideas associated with laissez-faire economic liberalism. Those ideas include economic liberalization policies such as privatization, austerity, deregulation, free trade and reductions in government spending in order to increase the role of the private sector in the economy and society. These market-based ideas and the policies they inspired constitute a paradigm shift away from the post-war Keynesian consensus which lasted from 1945 to 1980". Sounds pretty Toryish to me. 

Selected quotes from the Conservative manifesto in 2017:

“We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism.”

“Without the obligations and duties of citizenship, society would not function.”

“We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals.”

 

Fact is May is a authoritarian one nationer who believes in equality of outcome and wants a white, Anglican ethnostate. Personally I’d describe her as almost a Stalinist. But she didn't win the election outright so we still have neoliberalism even though 90% voted for parties who aren’t neoliberal.

[Alf Bentley]

12 minutes ago, Sharpe's Fox said:

Selected quotes from the Conservative manifesto in 2017:

“We do not believe in untrammelled free markets. We reject the cult of selfish individualism.”

“Without the obligations and duties of citizenship, society would not function.”

“We know that our responsibility to one another is greater than the rights we hold as individuals.”

 

Fact is May is a authoritarian one nationer who believes in equality of outcome and wants a white, Anglican ethnostate. Personally I’d describe her as almost a Stalinist. But she didn't win the election outright so we still have neoliberalism even though 90% voted for parties who aren’t neoliberal.

 

Sounds like a great party espousing the sort of state-centralist conservative nationalist socialism you believe in.

I'd join up if I were you. I wouldn't even waste time comparing that rhetoric to their record in govt over the past 40 years.

That "Big Society" initiative was particularly successful in combating selfish individualism and promoting the obligations and duties of citizenship, don't you think?

 

So, it must be the DUP leading the way with the neoliberalism? Nothing to do with the majority of Tory MPs and members being rampant Thatcherites?

If they're still in power come the Brexit wonderland, May will be straight under the bus, Gove will throw a few populist bones to the masses, lots of anti-immigrant nationalism will be stirred up as a distraction and it'll be full steam ahead with neoliberal Project Singapore. The "austerity years" will be remembered nostalgically like the 7 years of plenty. 

 

Good to see that the traditional close bonds between the conservative Left and the conservative Right are alive and well, though. I see a role for you as a more humorous Peter Hitchens.

Or maybe Theresa will invite you to take over at No. 11, with @Webbo as Home Secretary and @MattP as Foreign Secretary? A Conservative-Nationalist-Socialist dream team? 

 

[Strokes]

1 minute ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

Sounds like a great party espousing the sort of state-centralist conservative nationalist socialism you believe in.

I'd join up if I were you. I wouldn't even waste time comparing that rhetoric to their record in govt over the past 40 years.

That "Big Society" initiative was particularly successful in combating selfish individualism and promoting the obligations and duties of citizenship, don't you think?

 

So, it must be the DUP leading the way with the neoliberalism? Nothing to do with the majority of Tory MPs and members being rampant Thatcherites?

If they're still in power come the Brexit wonderland, May will be straight under the bus, Gove will throw a few populist bones to the masses, lots of anti-immigrant nationalism will be stirred up as a distraction and it'll be full steam ahead with neoliberal Project Singapore. The "austerity years" will be remembered nostalgically like the 7 years of plenty. 

 

Good to see that the traditional close bonds between the conservative Left and the conservative Right are alive and well, though. I see a role for you as a more humorous Peter Hitchens.

Or maybe Theresa will invite you to take over at No. 11, with @Webbo as Home Secretary and @MattP as Foreign Secretary? A Conservative-Nationalist-Socialist dream team? 

 

In @Sharpe's Fox‘s defence he is saying people didn’t vote for neoliberalism and parties are elected based on the promises in their manifestos at that present, not the past or future. 

 

[Alf Bentley]

7 minutes ago, Strokes said:

In @Sharpe's Fox‘s defence he is saying people didn’t vote for neoliberalism and parties are elected based on the promises in their manifestos at that present, not the past or future. 

 

 

OK, OK, I'm sorry I forgot you, mate. You're appointed Minister of Defence in the new Unholy Alliance government. 

 

Politics certainly won't be boring over the coming months, that's for sure.

[Strokes]

3 minutes ago, Alf Bentley said:

 

OK, OK, I'm sorry I forgot you, mate. You're appointed Minister of Defence in the new Unholy Alliance government. 

 

Politics certainly won't be boring over the coming months, that's for sure.

I don’t have a clue who what I support any more, I’m mucking fuddled.

[leicsmac]

3 hours ago, Beechey said:

Well, Assad's forces just gassed and killed at least 70 men, women and children. That's a direct result of our inaction in 2013.

People will continue to call on Iraq as a reason why we should never act, and children will continue to be slaughtered.

 

That's the fourth time they've now used chemical weapons on their own people.

 

If they're smart, they'll mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and a few other places where the big boys (whether East or West) decided to intervene and it resulted in nothing but pain, suffering and death for everyone concerned - at least in the short term and often in the long term.

 

Don't think anyone is saying that Assad isn't a nasty piece of work and that the world wouldn't be a better place if he wasn't in charge considering what he's up to, but intervening has shown, time and time again, that it causes more problems than it solves for everyone.

[Beechey]

3 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

If they're smart, they'll mention Iraq, Afghanistan, Korea, Vietnam and a few other places where the big boys (whether East or West) decided to intervene and it resulted in nothing but pain, suffering and death for everyone concerned - at least in the short term and often in the long term.

 

Don't think anyone is saying that Assad isn't a nasty piece of work and that the world wouldn't be a better place if he wasn't in charge considering what he's up to, but intervening has shown, time and time again, that it causes more problems than it solves for everyone.

In what bizarre-o world was our involvement in Korea a bad one? Or Afghanistan, where there was already a civil war ravaging the country? I'd happily state both the Republic of Korea and Afghanistan are much better off now than they were when the West intervened. Are you saying we should just allow anyone to use chemical weapons with absolutely no repercussions?

Edited 8 April 2018 by Beechey

[Beechey]

Christ, does this man have a consistent view on anything at all?

 

 

[leicsmac]

Just now, Beechey said:

In what bizarre-o world was our involvement in Korea a bad one? Or Afghanistan, where there was already a civil war ravaging the country?

Are you saying we should just allow anyone to use chemical weapons with absolutely no repercussions?

Korea turned ugly when Russia and the US decided to carve it in two in the name of realpolitik without the consent of the Korean people, resulting in two authoritarian states that promptly started shooting at each other, intervention to try to sort that out, and all the associated trouble since (SK has only been truly democratic for the last thirty years, and even that is a little shaky sometimes). Classic example of intervention leading to bad unanticipated consequences.

 

The Russians tried to intervene in Afghanistan in the 80's and it became their Vietnam - again, with all the associated trouble. That particular patch of land has been a hotspot for centuries though, as you hinted at.

 

If you have an option that stops Assad from using chemical weapons that kills less people overall than will die from him doing his twisted act with chemical weapons, then I'm all ears. People aren't somehow more dead because they got killed by a WMD rather than simply being shot.

 

2 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Christ, does this man have a consistent view on anything at all?

 

 

On this we totally agree.

[Beechey]

1 minute ago, leicsmac said:

Korea turned ugly when Russia and the US decided to carve it in two in the name of realpolitik without the consent of the Korean people, resulting in two authoritarian states that promptly started shooting at each other, intervention to try to sort that out, and all the associated trouble since (SK has only been truly democratic for the last thirty years, and even that is a little shaky sometimes). Classic example of intervention leading to bad unanticipated consequences.

 

The Russians tried to intervene in Afghanistan in the 80's and it became their Vietnam - again, with all the associated trouble. That particular patch of land has been a hotspot for centuries though, as you hinted at.

 

If you have an option that stops Assad from using chemical weapons that kills less people overall than will die from him doing his twisted act with chemical weapons, then I'm all ears. People aren't somehow more dead because they got killed by a WMD rather than simply being shot.

 

On this we totally agree.

Ah I misunderstood your point then, I thought it was solely on the grounds of intervention rather than everything that led to that intervention being necessary. South Korea at the time was actually significantly less developed than North Korea, which seems almost paradoxical to think about now.

 

You are right about WMD not necessarily being more deadly than bullets, but using chemicals to kill rather than bullets means you can do it easier, from distance, with no casualties yourself. To kill a bunch of civilians in a rebel held town with bullets, you'd need to fight your way into it, rather than just dropping a single bomb from 15,000 ft. It provides absolutely no deterrent and is internationally banned for a reason. Nations which respect international rules should stand up for them.

[Sampson]

25 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

 

16 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Korea turned ugly when Russia and the US decided to carve it in two in the name of realpolitik without the consent of the Korean people, resulting in two authoritarian states that promptly started shooting at each other, intervention to try to sort that out, and all the associated trouble since (SK has only been truly democratic for the last thirty years, and even that is a little shaky sometimes). Classic example of intervention leading to bad unanticipated consequences.

 

The Russians tried to intervene in Afghanistan in the 80's and it became their Vietnam - again, with all the associated trouble. That particular patch of land has been a hotspot for centuries though, as you hinted at.

 

If you have an option that stops Assad from using chemical weapons that kills less people overall than will die from him doing his twisted act with chemical weapons, then I'm all ears. People aren't somehow more dead because they got killed by a WMD rather than simply being shot.

 

On this we totally agree.

Korea turned ugly when Fascist Japan invaded it prior to WWII and exploited their resources for the Japanese economy at the ruin of the Korean economy, not after WWII.

 

But they split it in 1945 on the back of the Second World War after Korea had been annexed by Fascist Japan.

 

Then in 1950 the Soviet backed North Korea invaded the South.

 

What exactly do you think we should've done? Left Korea in the hands of the imperialist Japanese empire? Ignored the invasion of the South by the North and let the whole nation of Korea be run by the oppressive Invasion of the Body Snatchers type state where one family dictates your life as the North still is?

 

You make it all sound so easy - let's just not get involved and it will all work it's out for itself.

 

South Korea is the Economic powerhouse it is and the wealthiest country with the best quality of life in mainland Asia because of Western intervention and because the West defended it and guaranteed it's independence first from Japan and then later the Soviet backed and then later Chinese backed North.

 

That's not "Western propaganda" or whatever, it's just what it is. The West have butchered many interventions but intonating that because of this intervention never works and then using Korea as that example is strange. As South Korea is one place intervention most definitely has worked.

 

Edited 8 April 2018 by Sampson

[leicsmac]

4 minutes ago, Beechey said:

Ah I misunderstood your point then, I thought it was solely on the grounds of intervention rather than everything that led to that intervention being necessary. South Korea at the time was actually significantly less developed than North Korea, which seems almost paradoxical to think about now.

 

You are right about WMD not necessarily being more deadly than bullets, but using chemicals to kill rather than bullets means you can do it easier, from distance, with no casualties yourself. To kill a bunch of civilians in a rebel held town with bullets, you'd need to fight your way into it, rather than just dropping a single bomb from 15,000 ft. It provides absolutely no deterrent and is internationally banned for a reason. Nations which respect international rules should stand up for them.

Yeah, perhaps I should have been a bit clearer on that. My point is that the decisions made by the big boys regarding other countries often have far-reaching and unintended consequences, so such decisions need to be really carefully considered.

 

I'm with you on the second paragraph, but again - I'm stumped for a solution that will end up saving more lives than it costs.

 

 

1 minute ago, Sampson said:

We've been through this before but how the hell do you view Korea as the 

 

But they split it in 1945 on the back of the Second World War after Korea had been annexed by Fascist Japan.

 

Then in 1950 the Soviet backed North Korea invaded the South.

 

What exactly do you think we should've done? Left Korea in the hands of the imperialist Japanese empire? Ignored the invasion of the South by the North and let the whole nation of Korea be run by the oppressive Invasion of the Body Snatchers type state where one family dictates your life as the North still is.

 

You make it all sound so easy - let's just not get involved and it will all work it's out for itself.

 

South Korea is the Economic powerhouse it is and the wealthiest country with the best quality of life in mainland Asia because of Western intervention and because the West defended it.

 

 

Why did they (the US and Russia) split it in the first place? To suit themselves. Once WWII was done and Japan had been stripped of her empire (one intervention that was made defensively and was definitely justified IMO) they could easily have just granted Korea its own single sovereign state again as per pre-1910, but the Cold War was beginning and they both needed proxy states...so that happened.

 

All of what you mention afterwards - the war that followed and having to intervene to help SK out, the seventy-odd years of tension since and SK's long and painful journey to democracy, indeed aided by billions of dollars of US aid and materiel - is a result of that single decision. And culpability for that resides solely in the hands of those who made the decision in the first place.

 

I do not believe, not for a second, that the pathway chosen was the one that resulted in the least suffering and death for the Korean people.

[Sharpe's Fox]

Everyone knows that the US betrayed the Soviet Union and intervened when the revolution in Korea was almost won. The west was happy to see Korea split in two, with one half sanctioned to the point where it has been run by a hereditary Stalinist military dictatorship for 70 years, rather than a united Korea run by and for the Korean working class.

[Sampson]

27 minutes ago, leicsmac said:

Yeah, perhaps I should have been a bit clearer on that. My point is that the decisions made by the big boys regarding other countries often have far-reaching and unintended consequences, so such decisions need to be really carefully considered.

 

I'm with you on the second paragraph, but again - I'm stumped for a solution that will end up saving more lives than it costs.

 

 

Why did they (the US and Russia) split it in the first place? To suit themselves. Once WWII was done and Japan had been stripped of her empire (one intervention that was made defensively and was definitely justified IMO) they could easily have just granted Korea its own single sovereign state again as per pre-1910, but the Cold War was beginning and they both needed proxy states...so that happened.

 

All of what you mention afterwards - the war that followed and having to intervene to help SK out, the seventy-odd years of tension since and SK's long and painful journey to democracy, indeed aided by billions of dollars of US aid and materiel - is a result of that single decision. And culpability for that resides solely in the hands of those who made the decision in the first place.

 

I do not believe, not for a second, that the pathway chosen was the one that resulted in the least suffering and death for the Korean people.

Ok so you honestly think huad we just let Korea be an independent country that Stalin wouldn't have just puppeted Korea as he did with Eastern Europe following WWII? Eastern Eutpe was granted it's independence in 1945 but look what happened to it within about a year. Why did he block offers for The Marshall Plan in the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe and North Korea then when the US offered it aid?

 

At the same time many of the things the West had to leave to Stalin was as appeasement to the Soviet Union playing the biggest role in the war and because it was economically on its knees after the red of millions of deaths and homeless following the Nazi invasion, but they instead rejected Western financial aid and continued to puppet Eastern Europe and South East Asia for it's resources.

 

Again, if you are Truman discussing post-war treaties with Stalin? What would you have done with Korea instead? It's so easy to just say these things are bad without offering an alternative. Realpolitik is a fact of lif.e. Denying its essentialness is far more dangerous than partaking in it.

Edited 8 April 2018 by Sampson

[breadandcheese]

I think the issue is that when the West doesn't take action, a message of retreat is sent regarding our standards of acceptability and a nasty vacuum develops.

 

The question is why Assad has used chemical weapons on his own people in a war he is winning, in a suburb of Damascus that he is on the verge of taking?  The answer is because he can, even after he signed a treaty with the US to say that he would dispose of all his chemical weapons.

 

The simple answer is because he can. He knows the West won't stand up for the universal principles and institutions that we once did. He knows an emboldened Russia will have his back in any diplomatic fallout and tell any manner of half truths to disguise it. I've said on other threads but I fear the retreat of Western values. We may get it wrong with our foreign policy, but if you look at the alternative (Russia, other regional power structures) it is invariably worse.

 

It's a right shitstorm and should be a source of shame that over the last few years in the Middle East the West has done little whilst we've seen mass human rights abuses and genocide by ISIS on the yazidi and we've seen Geneva conventions ripped up by the use of chemical weapons with no punishment.

 

Our impotence in the West is leading to some nasty events. It should be no surprise when countries flout international laws and conventions.