The Politics Thread

[Danno]

Amazing Hillary Benn, you ain't getting that 16-1 I recommended last week now on him being next leader.

Although he's probably lose in the run off in 2021 to Owen Jones.

Genuinely thought Hillary Benn was a woman until I saw your post and googled him

[The Doctor]

Morals?

 

Why have we allowed ourselves to be blackmailed over oil. We should've invested in alternative energy 40 years ago when we realised it was a problem. AND we should still be doing it now.

We have been investing and indeed still are (8 nuclear power plants opened in the last fourty years, deal just agreed with China to expand our nuclear power stock, green subsidies to support installation of domestic solar panels and wind turbines) but research doesn't just progress because you threw money at it, and the daft ramblings of the likes of greenpeace have helped prevent moving more to genuinely viable sources of energy (nuclear is without doubt the safest form of power on the market at the moment and is viable to power a country, unlike solar or wind.

Still, we take more of our oil from the North Sea and Norway, so that's not massively relevant to the ME debate.

[Mark_w]

Thought there were some really good points made on both sides of things from what I caught. Hilary Benn's speech in particular was fantastic, as were most of the speeches I heard and I do think they've made the right decision. Although it must be said labeling people involved in that debate terrorist sympathizers, heckling people making speeches about such a delicate and difficult issue, or indeed labeling anyone, who has clearly made an incredibly difficult decision with the best of intentions, immoral really isn't very helpful.

[ozleicester]

I wonder what plans are in place to assist the displaced persons as a result of the bombings, has this been a part of the debate?

 

The Aussies just drop the bombs and then lock refugees on prison islands.

[Jon the Hat]

I wonder what plans are in place to assist the displaced persons as a result of the bombings, has this been a part of the debate?

 

The Aussies just drop the bombs and then lock refugees on prison islands.

 

I don't know if you have noticed, but there has been a civil war going on for 5 years.  The idea that our bombing campaign is going to make any difference to the refugees situation is just not credible.  There are already millions of refugees in neighbouring countries, and there are a lot of efforts going into helping them.  The UK has spend £1Bn on it for a start.

[Jon the Hat]

As I have posted a few pro-extending the bombing comments, I feel I should clarify my position.  I support the government here, partly as I don't think there is a sensible distinction between bombing IS in Iraq or Syria, and it makes us look like idiots, and partly because I think we should be part of the coalition here.  Our allies - the real ones - want us in there, and we have more of a voice in terms of developing the strategy than sitting outside.  That doesn't mean I am 100% sure this is going to help, but I think on balance it makes more sense, and it send the signal that we are not going to stand by and watch IS kill our citizens.

[Buce]

Odd how nobody mentioned what the Mail led with yesterday.

Apparently, Osbourne is relying on rising immigration to balance the books.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341170/Migration-DOUBLE-Cameron-s-tens-thousands-target-tackle-deficit-amid-claims-PM-given-borders.html

[Webbo]

Odd how nobody mentioned what the Mail led with yesterday.

Apparently, Osbourne is relying on rising immigration to balance the books.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341170/Migration-DOUBLE-Cameron-s-tens-thousands-target-tackle-deficit-amid-claims-PM-given-borders.html

I'm too clever to be brainwashed by the rightwing press.

[BlueSi13]

The correct decision was made IMO.  As others have mentioned I can't quite believe the level of fuss that has been made over it considering we were already bombing them over the (now non-existent) border in Iraq and providing reconnaissance, intelligence and training for those in Syria.

 

As for Hilary Benn, what a truly inspiring speech.  He'll be giving the Conservative HQ something to ponder going forward me thinks as that is what a leader should look and sound like.  But that's if he survives to see off Corbyn of course, the media is reporting that he has already been receiving death threats following his speech.  A new kinder form of politics indeed.

[Thracian]

Odd how nobody mentioned what the Mail led with yesterday.

Apparently, Osbourne is relying on rising immigration to balance the books.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3341170/Migration-DOUBLE-Cameron-s-tens-thousands-target-tackle-deficit-amid-claims-PM-given-borders.html

 

 

There's nothing wrong with controlled levels of immigration that the infrastructure can cope with so long as there's an effective points system of qualification that ensures we are importing people who are committed to being allies of this country and who are likely/willing/able of offer benefits to justify their being here. 

Furthermore all the border administration/checking etc should be carried out by people who have demonstrably shown they are allied to this country.  

There also needs to be proper, verified checks of documentation/qualifcations etc with strict assurance that any documentation found to be materially false would mean the right to be here would be ended.

Everyone admitted should show that they can speak English competently.

Immigrants should enhance the UK not pose a threat to its wellbeing and if there is any doubt about that the application should be refused.

In terms of asylum seekers from the Middle East they should be resettled in appropriate Arab countries, and our commitment should be in helping to fund that process in specific, verifiable ways.

The very notion of free movement should be ended because the impact of that policy has already been utterly disastrous both here and elsewhere in Europe and the problem looks likely to get worse before it gets better.

The UK should leave the EU and renegotiate how best to remain an ally within the European community and one of its major trading partners while continuing to develop trading partnerships with countries in other parts of the world where possible and prudent.   

[ramboacdc]

As I have posted a few pro-extending the bombing comments, I feel I should clarify my position.  I support the government here, partly as I don't think there is a sensible distinction between bombing IS in Iraq or Syria, and it makes us look like idiots, and partly because I think we should be part of the coalition here.  Our allies - the real ones - want us in there, and we have more of a voice in terms of developing the strategy than sitting outside.  That doesn't mean I am 100% sure this is going to help, but I think on balance it makes more sense, and it send the signal that we are not going to stand by and watch IS kill our citizens.

Thank you for clarifying your position on this. can i just ask a theoretical question however. If IS was to spread into Turkey for arguments sake. would you still say there would be non sensible distinction between where we bomb them, and say we should actively attack a NATO member? 

 

me myself, i cant see how how more bombs will help. you want them gone, we are a lot better trained than them and have a lot more men. boots on the ground, sort the shit out and leave. let them have their civil war but get rid of Daeash.

what does annoy me is we intervened in the lybian civil war just so we could depose that dictator yet wont do it to syria's for some reason. I don't think we should get involved in either of them countries affairs. 

[lgfualol]

The correct decision was made IMO. As others have mentioned I can't quite believe the level of fuss that has been made over it considering we were already bombing them over the (now non-existent) border in Iraq and providing reconnaissance, intelligence and training for those in Syria.

As for Hilary Benn, what a truly inspiring speech. He'll be giving the Conservative HQ something to ponder going forward me thinks as that is what a leader should look and sound like. But that's if he survives to see off Corbyn of course, the media is reporting that he has already been receiving death threats following his speech. A new kinder form of politics indeed.

I think the fuss is because Iraq asked us to help, whereas Syria didn't.

It feels like another one of those things where we try to kill them off, kill a bunch of civilians and then another group will rise from the ashes to hate the west just as much as the last guys. Repeat.

Hopefully there is more of a plan this time. Dont think so though.

[Fox92]

Also the fuss because we've seen it didn't work before (in Iraq). Did we actually achieve anything bombing them?

[The Horse's Mouth]

The Russians are doing a far better job than we're going to do anyway, so pointless

[Frank to be]

So our first strikes have been to remove IS from control over the oil fields. Priorities, priorities.

[Thracian]

The correct decision was made IMO.  As others have mentioned I can't quite believe the level of fuss that has been made over it considering we were already bombing them over the (now non-existent) border in Iraq and providing reconnaissance, intelligence and training for those in Syria.

 

As for Hilary Benn, what a truly inspiring speech.  He'll be giving the Conservative HQ something to ponder going forward me thinks as that is what a leader should look and sound like.  But that's if he survives to see off Corbyn of course, the media is reporting that he has already been receiving death threats following his speech.  A new kinder form of politics indeed.

 

 

I still hear no plan for what happens after the bombing. How the final outcome should be managed.

 

IS have fermented such widespread hatred in the region and beyond that there's no chance the fundamentalist aims of their supporters will be ended or that their opponents will trust anyone connected with them or cease to continue seeking revenge for the horrors of what has gone before.

 

There needs to be a workable end game and that will need genius rather than bombs because nothing has persuaded the Arab communities to live peacefully together so far and trying to accommodate Shia and Sunni in the same community is like trying to merge Muslims and Christians.

 

It only works on the surface and for so long. There'll never be any real trust. Secularist administration is a fine concept but too many vested interests will weigh too heavily against it and people simply aren't good at being fair, unbiased and even handed with Erdogan being a classic example. 

 

And even if they are, it'll likely be perceived as weakness and others will try to take advantage for their own ends. 

[Thracian]

So our first strikes have been to remove IS from control over the oil fields. Priorities, priorities.

 

So our first strikes have been to remove IS from control over the oil fields. Priorities, priorities.

 

 

 

So it should have been. The Russians have already been doing that, with the idea of making it hard for the IS army to remain mobile at all.    

[Ross-Kemp]

So it should have been. The Russians have already been doing that, with the idea of making it hard for the IS army to remain mobile at all.

Exactly, and if they don't have access to the oil, their funds will soon become very limited too.

[Captain...]

So our first strikes have been to remove IS from control over the oil fields. Priorities, priorities.

 

It's as good a target as any, controlling the oil is of strategic importance for Daesh (let's follow Cameron's lead here), they are a militia and controlling things like oil will support their regime.

 

Thank you for clarifying your position on this. can i just ask a theoretical question however. If IS was to spread into Turkey for arguments sake. would you still say there would be non sensible distinction between where we bomb them, and say we should actively attack a NATO member? 

 

me myself, i cant see how how more bombs will help. you want them gone, we are a lot better trained than them and have a lot more men. boots on the ground, sort the shit out and leave. let them have their civil war but get rid of Daeash.

what does annoy me is we intervened in the lybian civil war just so we could depose that dictator yet wont do it to syria's for some reason. I don't think we should get involved in either of them countries affairs. 

 

I kind of agree here, dropping a load of bombs will do some damage but it won't destroy Daesh, they want their holy war on Syrian soil, in some ways just give it to them, steam in there with tanks and when their god doesn't deliver holy justice to the infidels, all will see they have been following false doctrine and expose the whole movement for the crock of shit it is.  Or we all  get sent to hell, one way or another it will be done with.

 

The only condition is that it is done in collaboration with the Arab League, we will help clean this mess up, but they have to take ownership of it.

 

Anyway it's all  pretty depressing, we have been taken to war again by these people that are supposed to speak for us, I don't remember war mongering being part of any party manifesto, so let's just enjoy the show and hope our intelligence service continues to get lucky against domestic terror threats, because I feel like a big bullseye has just been painted on London.

[ramboacdc]

It's as good a target as any, controlling the oil is of strategic importance for Daesh (let's follow Cameron's lead here), they are a militia and controlling things like oil will support their regime.

 

 

I kind of agree here, dropping a load of bombs will do some damage but it won't destroy Daesh, they want their holy war on Syrian soil, in some ways just give it to them, steam in there with tanks and when their god doesn't deliver holy justice to the infidels, all will see they have been following false doctrine and expose the whole movement for the crock of shit it is. 

 

The only condition is that it is done in collaboration with the Arab League, we will help clean this mess up, but they have to take ownership of it.

 

Anyway, we have been taken to war again by these people that are supposed to speak for us, I don't remember war mongering being part of any party manifesto, so let's just enjoy the  show and hope our intelligence service continues to get lucky against domestic terror threats, because I feel like a big bullseye has just been painted on London.

i agree with this too and the PM said it not two months ago!

it does seem strange that a lot of people don't agree with this yet it swept through the commons with ease. could make politics very interesting if there is now unrest in this country due to it. 

[Sol thewall Bamba]

So our first strikes have been to remove IS from control over the oil fields. Priorities, priorities.

Easy to see why though, deny mobility and cut off their main source of income. Not everything is a conspiracy theory. 

[Jon the Hat]

Thank you for clarifying your position on this. can i just ask a theoretical question however. If IS was to spread into Turkey for arguments sake. would you still say there would be non sensible distinction between where we bomb them, and say we should actively attack a NATO member? 

 

me myself, i cant see how how more bombs will help. you want them gone, we are a lot better trained than them and have a lot more men. boots on the ground, sort the shit out and leave. let them have their civil war but get rid of Daeash.

what does annoy me is we intervened in the lybian civil war just so we could depose that dictator yet wont do it to syria's for some reason. I don't think we should get involved in either of them countries affairs. 

 

If IS spread to Syria we would be obliged to help Turkey defeat them under the NATO agreement.  Taking your point though, assuming the UN passed a resolution encouraging military action I think you would attack IS wherever they were.

[Frank to be]

Easy to see why though, deny mobility and cut off their main source of income. Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

It's not going to make an immediate impact. IS have got lots of money already and will keep receiving more in donations. It's a minor long term annoyance for them, it doesn't make Syria any safer today or tomorrow or next month, but it's apparently our primary concern after rushing to war.

[lgfualol]

Easy to see why though, deny mobility and cut off their main source of income. Not everything is a conspiracy theory.

How do we stop our oil buds Saudi Arabia and Qatar funding them tho

[Captain...]

At least we aren't rushing in and taking a more considered approach this time...

 

Oh wait, how long did they wait after the vote to launch the first air-strike? Looks like we are doomed to make the same mistakes over and over again in the Middle East.

 

Rush in, cause chaos, leave, repeat.