Huw_Dawson
Member
Why can't you just say "no, it's not OK"?
UK General Election - 8th June 2017 |OT| - The Red Wedding
- Thread starter Jezbollah
- Start date
- Status
Why can't you just say "no, it's not OK"?
Has that been shown on the news at all during this election?
PJV3
Member
Because he hasn't used the attack to scapegoat anyone, just talking about a different approach to foreign policy.
It's blown up on Twitter a bit but that's about it so far.
https://twitter.com/AJScattergood/status/867497144420380673
That's the clip of the Manchester Officer telling her about the dangers of the cuts and how less officers on the street meant a reactive force with very little counter terrorism intelligence.
Because it is okay! How he did it is fine. This is politics - we do not expect people to be perfect, but we do expect people to talk about how they'd do things differently.
Because no-one here thinks it wasn't okay. And everyone knows if Farron had given that speech you'd be praising him to the rafters and talking about it shifting numbers in lib / lab seats.
Seriously man, I'm not sure exactly why you're posting like this but it's coming across in a rallybad way and definitely not how you normally talk. I appreciate your posts re the lib dems, and the enthusiasm you have for your party, but right now it's coming across in a really bad way. It feels like you were built up to attack this speech no matter what it said, and god damn it you are attacking it! ;-)
Maybe just have a rest for a bit? No-one here is going to change their vote based on any of our conversations, so if it's really getting to you make some party calls or something?
Spuck-uk
Banned
If that was the other way round, it would have been front page on the Telegraph/Sun/Mail in a heartbeat already.
I think this is what I agree with as slimey as it feels - it hasn't even been a week since the attacks but politicians should acknowledge it because the issues that are causing these problems are political.
I don't want a PM who wants to bury their head in the sand when talking about big problems in case they appear insensitive. Side note: I am VERY aware that due to myself or any of my family members being involved in the attack, I can be detached in my opinion. I think that people who feel it's too insensitive have just as much a point.
But these issues are rearing their head more and more frequently and time has become of the essence now and as a nation, politically, people should have to face incredibly relevant topics such as cuts to Police funding and Anti-Terror intelligence.
As Danger said, talking about it is not "Using it to win an election", it's just that these cuts now reflect badly on the party in power.
Huw_Dawson
Member
But that's still not saying "no, it's not OK." Which is what I would expect.
"It is not OK that a political leader uses a terrorist attack to try and win a general election."
OR:
"It is OK that a political leader uses a terrorist attack to try and win a general election."
We know this is the garden path we're on. We know that Corbyn gave this speech to help win the general election, and we know that the reason he gave the speech was because of the terrorist attack.
So the question is is it OK that he did that?
I believe "no". A tragedy should never be exploited for political gain. It demeans our democracy.
Jeremy Corbyn believes "yes". A tragedy can be exploited for political gain, as long as it delivers him into Number 10.
This is why this is a big deal to me. This is the conclusion I came to after thinking over the speech from the excerpts last night. Other people will disagree - either they'll say that as long as Jezza wins, he can do whatever is needed, or they'll say that there's a semantic difference between using a terror attack as a basis to making an argument and abusing a terror attack to make your argument more relevant. I don't believe there is, but we're into the world of individual morals at that point.
What I do hope though is that by arguing this point, I've at least illustrated to folks why what Corbyn did today was controversial - both sides of a debate should be heard!
I have to bow out to get work done anyway, but honestly I'll just passionately defend a point if I think it's worth defending. That's the way I am - lots of you Labour types on here (and other liberals and Conservatives) can be the same way, you're just less persistent. :^)
What I have learned though is that lots of folks have a different assessment of the morality behind Corbyn's speech to me. I don't think I understand why, but it's good to know it's something that people believe. That helps me consider my own views.
OverBlood 3
Banned
and Boris Johnson was quoted saying something similar to Corbyn after the 7/7 attack. I can't seem to get the link to post but it's on the guardian as 'How Boris used to argue like Corbyn, that Iraq War increased terror threat'
Huw_Dawson
Member
Iraq was a catastrophe! Nobody will ever debate otherwise! It was an example of a war not fought in the national interest, but instead fought on liberal interventionist principles that backfired horribly.
Don't play the victim here.
I still can't see the logic that condemns Corbyn's speech but applauds Farron's response. Both use the Manchester bombing as a backdrop and both were made with the intention of electoral gain.
Whether Corbyn is right or wrong is up for debate, but THIS inconsistency makes you look dishonest. THIS is why you were accused of opposing Corbyn out of party loyalty.
Again, how can a self described realist have a problem with this?
I haven't kept up with the thread, but heard the tail end of Corbyn's speech earlier and thought it was pretty good. Holy shit at some of those latest polls as well - I'm feeling more hopeful by the day.
The absolute tragedy of Manchester does appear to be​ acting as a lightning rod, I guess understandably, and unfortunately for her, May's record looks like dog shit with all the police cuts.
I guess this is also where social media can really have an affect as people say and share things online that no politician can afford to say with out looking opportunistic.
Listening to 5 live earlier and they were reading a lot of texts of people now uncomfortable voting Tory and going Labour or UKIP.
The absolute tragedy of Manchester does appear to be​ acting as a lightning rod, I guess understandably, and unfortunately for her, May's record looks like dog shit with all the police cuts.
I guess this is also where social media can really have an affect as people say and share things online that no politician can afford to say with out looking opportunistic.
Listening to 5 live earlier and they were reading a lot of texts of people now uncomfortable voting Tory and going Labour or UKIP.
I've seen both clips. Pretty damning. May was useless as Home Secretary..
Spuck-uk
Banned
Tim Farron (Westmorland and Lonsdale) (LD): As has been mentioned already, the spectre of the 2003 Iraq war hangs over the debate in this House and in the whole country. In 2003, the late and very great Charles Kennedy led the opposition to the Iraq war and he did so proudly. That was a counterproductive and illegal war, and Daesh (ISIS) is a consequence of the foolish decision taken then.
~2015
Life comes at you fast, etc.
~2015
Life comes at you fast, etc.
Coriolanus
Banned
you can if you adopt newspeak.
Wrestlemania
Banned
Daffy Duck
Member
Talking about what we can afford, why is Theresa not saying scottish uni fees have to rise inline with those in England and also saying people in Scotland now have to pay for prescriptions?
OverBlood 3
Banned
Exactly so when Farron says he disagrees with Corbyn and the buffoon Boris says it's 'monstrous' they both actually agree with Corbyn that there's a link between our foreign policy and terrorist activity in our country.
The public agree with him too.
The public agree with him too.
Huw_Dawson
Member
I'll close on this point, as it rounds out the discussion.
Imagine for a second you are Tim Farron. Corbyn is about to make a speech on foreign policy. A journalist puts a mic to your face and asks "what's your view"?
Whatever you say is the quote that journalists will use as the Lib Dem view on Corbyn's actions.
So at that point, Farron could:
1. Lie and say he thought Corbyn doing this speech was a grand idea
2. Refuse to comment
3. Be honest and say it's a bad idea.
At that point, Farron has been drawn into giving a response. By Corbyn's actions during the general election campaign, everyone is forced to respond, because a dead cat has been dropped in the room. And it's not just Farron that gave a response - the Tories, SNP, Greens and others all gave theirs. The crux of my point: By Corbyn's actions, Farron was forced to respond.
So no, it's not terribly fair to criticise Farron for this. He as a party leader is required to respond to the actions of another party leader, especially when those actions are likely to be controversial.
You come across hugely party biased
OverBlood 3
Banned
Well Nicola Sturgeon said
Instead Tim Farron jumped on the bash Corbyn train and ignored what he was saying while secretly agreeing with him.
Instead Tim Farron jumped on the bash Corbyn train and ignored what he was saying while secretly agreeing with him.
I'm disgusted with you Huw to be honest. You're saying things like "Corbyn's gone on stage today and told folks that the terrorists are right" and that he's "using" ie. exploiting a terrorist attack - but as a campaigning Lib Dem, you know full well he's not saying anything that isn't entirely consistent with his entire history as a politician. What you're saying here about this is every bit as unfair as Boris Johnson saying Corbyn attempted to "justify" the bombing. He did no such thing!
In fact, he explicitly stated that the blame can only lie with the perpetrators. Repeatedly.
As you're probably repeating such sentiment to other people, I'd ask you to reconsider this actually.
To posit the possibility that our misadventures in places like Iraq and Libya only make the threat greater is no crime, in fact, it is a virtue to be voicing such thoughts at a time when politicians - feeding off of understandable public passion - might seek to curb our own rights, or wage a punishing response on some far flung land and a people, many of whom will have had nothing to do with it. It is the responsible thing to say and this just further enshrines Corbyn as someone willing to say the kinds of things that others in the political elite will not when it comes to military action.
We latched on to the French and American led intervention in Libya, possibly because we saw in it a chance to foster the Arab Spring, and a chance to remove Gaddafi - but just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq - the planning for the aftermath wasn't there and we've left much of the country a wild west for feudal militias. It's one of the conduits via which people drown trying to desperately reach European shores. What did we really achieve and how did it further British interests? How, after three wasteful military campaigns, are we any better placed to deal with a situation like Syria and IS? I'm sorry, but the stalemate there between the American/Western supported groups and the Russian backed regime is something we probably shouldn't aspire to get too deeply involved in either.
As for where negotiating can begin and end -- obviously you can't negotiate with people who join these groups purely to annihilate people in suicide bombings, but you can isolate and influence people, stem the flow of resources and people, cut off money, incentivise people to leave such groups and down their weapons, offer an ideological alternative and hope of a different reality. Do you honestly think Syria is going to be a warzone forever? That it's going to be this way until every even remotely sympathetic daesh supporter is put beneath the ground? As with all conflict of this sort, it will rumble on until circumstances will allow it no longer. Until people are sick of the death and dying, and until people can learn to hope and live for the sake of living instead of just living for the glory of dying.
How in fucks name does some kid - a young adult - go from being born here, his family having found refuge here, go through our educational system, having friends and family and a life here - only then to go down some kind of lost, dark path where he ends up bombing children? I mean, there's no right answer to that question. There's no reasoning the unreasonable. The mere existence and foregrounding of this violent, insane ideological strain of thought - the mere fact that things like this happen - it's always going to attract susceptible minds, and if those minds have the education and the means, things like this can and will happen again.
The debate should be about how we minimise the risk of that, and Corbyn is absolutely right. We do that through being a responsible actor on the world stage, and by investing in the defense and intelligence apparatus, as well as the public services that keep us safe from harm, that prevent and prosecute serious crime, and that keep us healthy - both in body and mind.
Foreign interventionism as embodied by the almost unilateral "war on terror" has been a failure and it has made the world a much more dangerous place. We wasted trillions of pounds on it while allowing our infrastructure and societal cohesion to crumble and buckle. We can build a better Britain and a better future for Britain, but we need to start prioritising the things that matter to make that happen.
In fact, he explicitly stated that the blame can only lie with the perpetrators. Repeatedly.
As you're probably repeating such sentiment to other people, I'd ask you to reconsider this actually.
To posit the possibility that our misadventures in places like Iraq and Libya only make the threat greater is no crime, in fact, it is a virtue to be voicing such thoughts at a time when politicians - feeding off of understandable public passion - might seek to curb our own rights, or wage a punishing response on some far flung land and a people, many of whom will have had nothing to do with it. It is the responsible thing to say and this just further enshrines Corbyn as someone willing to say the kinds of things that others in the political elite will not when it comes to military action.
We latched on to the French and American led intervention in Libya, possibly because we saw in it a chance to foster the Arab Spring, and a chance to remove Gaddafi - but just like Afghanistan, just like Iraq - the planning for the aftermath wasn't there and we've left much of the country a wild west for feudal militias. It's one of the conduits via which people drown trying to desperately reach European shores. What did we really achieve and how did it further British interests? How, after three wasteful military campaigns, are we any better placed to deal with a situation like Syria and IS? I'm sorry, but the stalemate there between the American/Western supported groups and the Russian backed regime is something we probably shouldn't aspire to get too deeply involved in either.
As for where negotiating can begin and end -- obviously you can't negotiate with people who join these groups purely to annihilate people in suicide bombings, but you can isolate and influence people, stem the flow of resources and people, cut off money, incentivise people to leave such groups and down their weapons, offer an ideological alternative and hope of a different reality. Do you honestly think Syria is going to be a warzone forever? That it's going to be this way until every even remotely sympathetic daesh supporter is put beneath the ground? As with all conflict of this sort, it will rumble on until circumstances will allow it no longer. Until people are sick of the death and dying, and until people can learn to hope and live for the sake of living instead of just living for the glory of dying.
How in fucks name does some kid - a young adult - go from being born here, his family having found refuge here, go through our educational system, having friends and family and a life here - only then to go down some kind of lost, dark path where he ends up bombing children? I mean, there's no right answer to that question. There's no reasoning the unreasonable. The mere existence and foregrounding of this violent, insane ideological strain of thought - the mere fact that things like this happen - it's always going to attract susceptible minds, and if those minds have the education and the means, things like this can and will happen again.
The debate should be about how we minimise the risk of that, and Corbyn is absolutely right. We do that through being a responsible actor on the world stage, and by investing in the defense and intelligence apparatus, as well as the public services that keep us safe from harm, that prevent and prosecute serious crime, and that keep us healthy - both in body and mind.
Foreign interventionism as embodied by the almost unilateral "war on terror" has been a failure and it has made the world a much more dangerous place. We wasted trillions of pounds on it while allowing our infrastructure and societal cohesion to crumble and buckle. We can build a better Britain and a better future for Britain, but we need to start prioritising the things that matter to make that happen.
PJV3
Member
I don't know. People might like the idea and vote for it.
It'd derail the thread but realism has never really "ruled" as a doctrine, mostly because there is no such thing as the national self-interest. Foreign/military policy is made by political actors with political interests. Those then determine how states act.
Best example is Japan in the runup to World War II. Settling a non-aggression pact with the Soviets despite the Tripartite Pact with the other Axis was realism, but Pearl Harbor was anti-realism. "Realist" assessments knew the war was a bad idea the whole time, but it was done for more obscure reasons having to do with Japan's fractured governance structure at the time (Emperor playing against his own cabinet as well as Army-Navy rivalries)
As I said, I've missed some of the thread today, but I think for a large amount of voters the 'dead cat' in your analogy are the events of Monday night. I was surprised that Corbyn has come out and taken it head on with his perspective, but vast parts of the country will not see him as scoring political points but actually addressing the issue at hand. They'll then be asking why it's considered un-PC for him to do so. So, I think it will work in his favour tbh.
As I said, I was surprised to hear him addressing it on the first day back on the campaign - I thought it would be too toxic myself - but I can see it from both sides.
Edit: as pointed out above, the fact that it's entirely consistent with his political past gives him extra protection from allegations of point scoring.
As we're closing, I'll just agree with some of the others that generally you're a decent egg, Huw, but I honestly don't see what there is for a Lib Dem to be upset about here other than the fact Farron didn't make the speech first and get the kudos for it.
PJV3
Member
The smart thing would be to say the speech is light on substance and left it at that.
Royal_Phalanx
Member
It's impossible to argue that going into Iraq left it a better place after we came out than before we came in.
Camp Freddie
Member
As a lib-dem voter, I have to agree.
I generally despise political speeches in the wake of tragedies, since they generally lead to polarised knee-jerk responses.
My guess is that Farron thought calling Corbyn irresponsible was a safe play, compared to having to ad-lib a nuanced response to a complex question on terrorism, foreign policy and electioneering.
And remember the context of his fumbling over theological definitions of sin versus the belief that the state should be secular and liberal. I think he was going for a strong NOPE! to avoid being seen as a dilly-dallying namby-pamby liberal trying to see both sides when people are literally dead.
But seeing Corbyn's speech, it's actually okay. I'm still not sure I trust Corbyn on international politics, but whoever wrote that speech did a good job of highlighting important issues without being a dick about it. The message was that terrorists are evil and responsible for their own actions, but we need different strategies for stopping them. People trying to spin it as justifying terrorism are claiming something that just isn't in the speech.
I wonder what Corbyn will say to the inevitable, "Would you talk to ISIS?" question. I think that will tell us more about his views and suitability for leadership than any pre-rehearsed speech.
I suspect Libya would be another Syria if we hadn't intervened. But our intervention and quick withdrawal presents the West as an easy scapegoat for everyone in the region to hate.
You're being intellectually dishonest, and going by the decent quality of your previous posts I can't believe that you're not aware of it.
PJV3
Member
Your question made me realise how badly the Tories are doing that this is even getting asked, a few weeks ago I was just thinking about his replacement and if the labour party would be viable.
The answer to your question is probably lots of very dull peace talks and conferences that the US will make pointless.
Huw_Dawson
Member
What about the following is a wankerish comment? He got asked after the speech for his thoughts and gave this comment:
Which is pretty much what I've been saying.
No, I am not. I'm laying the situation in front of you. It's up to you to make a judgement on that, not me.
JonathanEx
Member
So Corbyn will be on the Andrew Neil interview, 7pm tonight. I'm sure he'll get asked about opportunism then and have a chance to respond.
Not that I shall be watching. It is lovely and very much pub weather. Poor political hacks watching it for lines when they'd rather be drinking, OR, they'll not care and be drinking.
May's was 2.9million viewers (amusingly presumably less than how many saw her on the One Show fluff interview), let's see how well this does.
Not that I shall be watching. It is lovely and very much pub weather. Poor political hacks watching it for lines when they'd rather be drinking, OR, they'll not care and be drinking.
May's was 2.9million viewers (amusingly presumably less than how many saw her on the One Show fluff interview), let's see how well this does.
Jezbollah
Member
Hi Spuck, sorry I couldnt post the link earlier (was flying back home from Glasgow. love that city). - but here it is:
https://www.theguardian.com/busines...spending-plans-ifs-general-election-manifesto
Coriolanus
Banned
Hope he keeps it simple ala: "It's not opportunism, it's the truth."
So it seems like in this election Ukip are running less candidates, keeping their heads down and trying not to rock the Tory hard brexit boat. Meanwhile the lib dems are campaigning hard against Corbyn?
This is why I'll never see a progressive government in my lifetime I guess.
This is why I'll never see a progressive government in my lifetime I guess.
May lying
More lies. YAY!
- Status
Similar threads
- x2