The Political Thread

[JayzusB.Christ]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but haven't Cameron's lot done exactly what Isis want them to do? By bereaving innocent citizens they're pretty much guaranteeing isis fresh anti-West recruits.

The whole thing seems to lack any real direction, and can only result in more terrorist attacks.  Bombing a country won't make much difference to an international organisation that operates without any deference to national boundaries.

It just smacks of 'you blew up our people - well, two can play at that game', and can only serve to deepen divisions between Islam and the West (which, again, seems to be exactly what Isis wants).

[JayzusB.Christ]

PS I don't have an alternative solution.  I'm just not sure whether bombing Syria is a solution at all.

[Dandontdare]

From the Archbishop of Canterbnury's speech in the Lords:

"our bombing action plays into the expectation of ISIL and other jihadist groups in the region, springing from their apocalyptic theology. The totality of our actions must subvert that false narrative, because by itself it will not work.

If we act only against ISIL, globally, and only in the way proposed so far, we will strengthen their resolve, increase their recruitment and encourage their sympathisers."

and yet he still voted yes.

[Jim_Campbell]

Can't help but wonder if Call-Me-Dave has badly misjudged the public mood on this one. Been following a discussion on a community FB page for my town, which is both small and large 'c' conservative, and literally no one is in favour of military action.

Slightly more surprising is that everyone seems against it for the same, eminently sensible reasons: it won't work; it'll strengthen the IS 'Western war on Islam' narrative; it will inevitably kill innocent people; and how come we can find millions of pounds for this when we're told there's no money for police, nurses or libraries...?

Cheers

Jim

[Professor Bear]

A Yougov poll that found nearly 70 percent of the population agreed with Jeremy Corbyn's foreign policy, so Yougov titled the results "Labour has lost touch with popular opinion" and qualified their own data by saying it was obviously wrong.  The Guardian ran the polls and accompanying "analysis" not once, but twice - the second time claiming it was a different set of polls conducted by a different Yougov employee than the first, despite utilising exactly the same data and having tracts of the analysis that were repeated verbatim.

Polls will prove Call Me Dave is on the side of public opinion even if he isn't.
Especially if he isn't.

[IndigoPrime]

The more you look at this mess, it feels like a combination of shit:

- A proxy war, so NATO and the Russians don't have to go at it for real. They can air their grievances by bombing people they don't like.
- An actual war, which is generally profitable for corporations and the wealthy.
- A means of distracting the public from all the other crap going on in key countries (USA; UK; France; Germany), not least economically.
- Lots of career politicians yelling SOMETHING MUST BE DONE rather than recognising they are public servants.
- Countries misjudging the situation AGAIN in a region that comprises lots of people who fucking hate each other, yet assuming they'll all get along fine in Daves Big Ground Troops Buddy System.

This is a hideous fucking mess, and I just hope it doesn't get any worse.

and how come we can find millions of pounds for this when we're told there's no money for police, nurses or libraries...?

Yep. Funny, isn't it, how a cash-strapped country can always find billions of pounds to waste on war? Trident is an utter waste of time, but still we're spending billions on it. What is it even for? Which state-sized actor would DARE to start anything nuclear? How would Trident even be an effective deterrent if one did? And for those muppets arguing "But what if ISIL set off a dirty nuke or something in London?", how would Trident work then? You cannot bomb an ideal. Mind you, NewsThump summed that up nicely with David Cameron to make case for bombing Climate Change.

[Professor Bear]

Trident does actually make sense if you accept that Britain is the rogue state too big for its boots.  How many countries on Earth could roll over the British army by dint of numbers alone?  It makes sense for such a militarily vulnerable power to have a doomsday weapon.

[IndigoPrime]

Who'd invade? The Volgs?

[JOE SOAP]

Who'd invade? The Volgs?

The Duchy of Grand Fenwick are just waiting...

[ZenArcade]

Latest (Pravda) Guardian headline: Cameron warns of a lengthy campaign.  That is Cameron hands his arms dealing chums a lengthy profit window.
Hillary Benn is beneath contempt. I have heard few voices amongst the public giving any support to this juryrigged murder exercise; but so what, does anyone for a moment think these cynical fucks care what we think. Z

[The Legendary Shark]

I believe they're secretly terrified of what we think. Luckily, they have their pals in the media to pump us all full of acceptable thoughts and opinions.

[Professor Bear]

The kippers aren't too happy about the unambiguous Labour victory in Oldham West, citing everything from a rigged postal vote to Labour flooding the area with immigrants to vote for them.

[Tjm86]

The kippers aren't too happy about the unambiguous Labour victory in Oldham West, citing everything from a rigged postal vote to Labour flooding the area with immigrants to vote for them.

Unambiguous?  Not to read half the reporting on this.  'Falling majority', 'low turnout', 'Corbyn rejected' .... 

[IndigoPrime]

The spin is incredible—and absurd. By-elections always have terrible turnout. Still, at least the main BBC story appears to provide some actual context (noting that the majority was lower, but the party got a higher vote share than at the GE), and The Guardian for a second dropped its anti-Corbyn bullshit with "Labour sweeps to conclusive victory". The Telegraph, naturally, is falling over itself to paint this victory as a "minimum". OK, so what should Corbyn have done yesterday? Won 17 by-elections? Staged a coup? Won Strictly?

[Professor Bear]

The problem is that the media got ahead of themselves and have been reporting for weeks how this was a test of Corbyn's leadership, so they're now victims of the narrative they created.  The end result of slanted reporting at this stage will simply be to cement the British media establishment's ingrained bias as a running joke and further make Corbyn some kind of plucky underdog story - and we all know how much people hate plucky underdog stories.