Senate The UK Politics discussion

Cameron has been in a pickle over this for years now. I hope he had a long think about which side he wants to bomb this time. And I hope his 70,000 loyal Cameronistas do him proud.

 

Or just bomb them all.

 

I don't follow UK politics that much, but...

Labour eventually revolted against Tony Blair (who was otherwise very popular) because he took them to war in Iraq (and wished they themselves hadn't been caught up in war mania, for the most part)... right?

Now, the new Labour leader is against escalating a war in Iraq/Syria... so the Labour Party wants to get rid of him, because it's war mania time?


Now, I personally have been wanting us to do something more in Syria for a while now, since 2011/2012. But that's coming from my compassion for the Syrian people, and from how I carefully thought about how we should respond. The newfound drive for more intervention I do NOT like, because it feels more like raw emotion, like that old "war mania", and more fuelled by fear and in some cases hatred... not by logic or compassion. And I don't like where that might lead.

And I do admire Corbyn for sticking to his principles, and not being swept up by this, from what I've heard. Isn't that what the people wanted? A politician with principles, who's reluctant to go to war?

 

When do people go to war because of compassion and logic? Isn't war the result of a breakdown of those things?

 

When there's no longer an alternative, to stop something horrible happening. Like the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Syria (mostly by Assad). And it wasn't our reason for going into WWII, but to stop the Holocaust would have been a just reason too.

 

Well of course with WW2 but we have to be careful not to read the present into the past. We didn't get into WW2 for altruistic reasons. We got into it because it was in our national interest to do so due to being attacked by another world power.

And yes, civilians have died under Assad. Do you think going to war in Syria will kill fewer civilians or more? I'm not saying we shouldn't. I'm just saying war is a very dreadful thing. It is not nice. It is not noble. It is absolutely destructive, sometimes resulting in outcomes exactly at odds with intent, no matter how noble and well meaning. You can go in there with the noblest intentions and war is still war in the end. It involves shedding blood, even innocent.

We've already spawned numerous monsters over in the ME,Daesh and Al-Qaeda to name just two, because of war or playing one side of the other through proxy conflicts. Are you sure getting into another war won't spawn more not less?

 

I would simply point out to Vivec, the recent expert on UK affairs and probably Corbynista, that there's a reason the Tories have been in power more than Labour...

 

Not very often a speech brings Parliament to applause but here is Hilary Benn's speech to the Commons last night:



Is this the next Labour leader?

I was having this conversation with someone yesterday and I do agree there is something honourable about Corbyn's honesty and his unwillingness to abandon everything he's believed in for the past 50 years to try and get his hands on power.

I mean, I think his opinions are as nutty as a fruitcake and his supporters are away with the fairies. I also think he'll take the Labour Party to oblivion should he be leading it during the general election but I do agree there is something quite noble about Corbyn.

 

Not at all. From what I understand, most if not all Britons save a few wicked companies (probably those bastards at Pret) want 70% income tax rates, nationalised industry, complete disarmament, etc.

 

I agree his views are completely bonkers but I admire him for sticking with those views rather than abandoning his principles in the pursuit of power.

Though I suppose, given he was elected primarily on the back of these opinions he can't do anything other than stick to his opinions.

 

Ender, your sense of British superiority is as meaningful as VLM's sense of science superiority. You're not British; VLM's not a scientist. You're an Australian and being a Britaku doesn't make you any more of an expert on British politics.

 

Not likely, sadly. He's basically pissed off most of the Labour membership.

 

Mustafar, Mr Benn voted both in favor for the Iraq war (which was an unmitigated disaster) and for the intervention in Libya (which is turning out to be an unmitigated disaster). What possesses you to think that he would make a good leader, especially now that he's making A THIRD mistake?

 

So, 3 years of bombing to be and many magically found billions down the U-bend in military munitions and ops costs all for some hazy aim lacking definition. No one in their right mind would sign up to project manage this.

Anyone else got a sense of deja vu?

I'm also hugely tired of the wussy lingo, stuff like 'degrade'. Reality? The aim to 'go over there to kill them all' - if you can't be honest about what the pursuit of war is - killing the other side before they can you and all their friends - then why bother? Similarly, magical missiles that never kill civilians or innocents.

 

There's sticking to your principles and then there's holding onto antiquated and outdated ideas when you should be learning and growing.

 

It could be said the Tories have yet to overcome their attachment to Thatcher, while Labour are similarly still hooked on Blair.

Nonetheless, politics has to move on and not look back. Labour's got two options at this point: Work on a new identity, likely with a new leader, unless Corbyn throws a few curveballs no one has spotted, in 2-3 years, time enough before the next election and actually be aggressive in their politics and not the incredibly pliant mice they have been for the last 5 years. Or they go the route the Tories took pre-2010 of reincarnating Blairism in a new leader, with an ongoing remnant either more batty or opposed. Which will it be?

As the show Banzai put it: Place your bets now!

 

Couldn't you argue that they're both the same thing, only one is framed more positively than the other?

 

Learning from how badly the last two foreign ventures went?

 

I wasn't making a specific point about him per se but about the larger point that holding to principle is honorable. To a point it is but not entirely. Americans learned from WBush that inflexibility and commitment to principles created more tragedy than necessary in Iraq.

 

Vivec you are allowing for the philosophical distinctions made by Blair and Bush right?

Please tell me you don't support Corbyn?

 

I support whatever the weabrit dislikes.

 

from weabrit to neebrit.

 

Right, so the reason you're talking a bit of cod**** is that you're basically licking the tip of an iceberg.

You do realise that for example, Mr Corbyn's party exists here too, right? And that Mr Corbyn's party here is facing the same ideological conundrum between wanting to be about Big Ideas, and being elected - between socialism and democratic liberalism, etc?

Labor here is basically at the Miliband Labour stage, without a cheap suited git who hasn't moved on from the 20s to hang their 'future' on.

 

I loved my 20s. Great times. I don't blame him for staying there.

 

Jezza has passed his first electoral test with flying colours;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-35003152

Very comfortable hold for Labour in Oldham. UKIP a poor second place.