|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 12, 2024 11:13:31 GMT
I just wish it wasn't Sunak doing the supporting. You and me both. I do think automatically opposing anything the other side does is a far too easy trap to fall into - something Starmer seems very attuned to.
Overall, given where Labour are in the polls, its difficult to challenge the efficacy of Starmer's tactics given current circumstances. However, as is the case with all political tactics/strategies, the downside/negative side of them always come back to bite you in the longer term.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 12, 2024 11:13:42 GMT
The reason why Thatcher received a Falklands war bonus in 1983 is because no one could have envisaged long term cnd pacifist Michael Foot doing anything other than cave to the Argentinean dictatorships invasion.I'm not trying to address the merits of the war , just the perception. No, thats too simple an explanation, there was a lot going for the Falklands war. British territory had been seized by a tin pot dictator. This was a national insult. The locals spoke english. There was media of the plucky governors last stand. Nothing happened at once but nor was there delay, there was buildup. There were air raids over thousands of miles involving multiple refuelling. The news had daily MOD bulletins. We saw ships being readied and waved off by crowds. Drama whether the US would help, but this was really a UK only expedition for a british cause. Engagements began, ships were sunk, planes lost. Daily coverage. The onboard reporters 'counted them out and counted them back in'. It was a last Hurrah for british forces which had been about to be scrapped, a sort of admission we could never do this again, but we were doing it. Princes going to war, Andrew had a rather good reputation then fighting for his country. And we won, in the end is was an amazing victory. Not least because of the speculation it could so very easily have gone the other way. Thatcher was credited with a personal victory not simply for being PM at the time, but for making a personal decision to fight against military advice. Unlike Galtieri, of course, who also made a personal decision to invade the Falklands, and then lost.
In comparison firing a few rockets at land because the americans tell us to is nothing. Bunging a few rounds to Ukraine and some dosh is nothing. Thatcher beat the americans telling her not do, and then the Argentinians. Suez rehabilitated.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 12, 2024 11:19:49 GMT
Regarding the horizons scandal it is now being dealt with promptly because it's politically expedient. Actually, I still sniff dealy in the air so as to push final resolution past the election date and the billion pound bill if true compensation is given for the next government to find. This is totally the PROVABLE awareness, but any responsible management of the post office would have been aware of these problems all the way back 2000-2005. And the governments then were very interested in the post office because it was losing money and both lab and con were thinking of privatisation. This does not need the government to make new laws or expedite legal reviews. All it needs is for the PO to stop fighting cases and publicly admit it was wrong. Oh and supply the evidence. It seems this is all going to come out eventually, what is still being fought is to prevent final compensation this government.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 12, 2024 11:24:36 GMT
Do you think relations with Egypt ( consulted by this coalition about last nights action) would suffer if we abandon defence of its Canal revenues ? US needs to keep Egypt sweet, they are going to end up with a million Gazan refugees to manage.
|
|
|
Post by crossbat11 on Jan 12, 2024 11:25:42 GMT
lululemon
You must do better with what appear to be bizarre attempts at poster ingratiation.
You seem utterly immune to the tone and nature of some of the posting that you urge us to philanthropically embrace. If I remember rightly, you invited us to find our inner sainthoods and to value Trevor's perspective provision too. You found it valuable and indispensable, despite his often personal, offensive and bullying behaviour towards other posters. Which I don't recall you ever criticising, incidentally.
You probably haven't noticed jib's regular references to senile old gits and his importation of dodgy internet sources . Or you may have, but so value the perspective he provides, and because you share his views about the Lib Dens, that you think this is a price worth paying to keep the site real.
I actually quite object to your describing people who think this style of posting is not in kilter with the site's ethos as "bullies", intent on driving people away just because we don't like their political views. I'm entirely even handed on this issue and have made the same points about some of Graham's, nickp's and steve's posts in the past.
I must admit, I find your haughty and pious dismissals of those of us who criticise this style of posting quite offensive
And to prove my objective and non partisan approach to these matters, I'm here taking to task your good self; a poster I usually enjoy reading and who I tend to often find myself agreeing with.
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 12, 2024 11:25:57 GMT
Jib You get very annoyed when anyone accuses you of Tory sympathies Yeah Jibs always been, I'm labour but....
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 12, 2024 11:27:01 GMT
Given jib s obsessional & bizarre attacks on the Lib-Dems he doesn't seem in a state of mind to respond to reasoning about electoral tactics. I have never blocked anyone on this site but I would block him if I knew how to do it. Hi robbiealive , jib represents a certain perspective that is not particularly well represented on this board, and I personally share a number of his views in relation to the LDs. I know some are keen currently to embrace a 'no enemies on the left' united front approach to the next GE, but I can guarantee you the LDs will not refrain from attacking a Labour gvt post the GE or indulging in political opportunism on certain issue at Labour's expense (which they are totally entitled to do). They are distinct parties with distinct traditions - one is not a substitute for the other.
Some seem to want this site to become restricted to the voice of the socially left-leaning middle class, ridicule bully and hound out those who do not share their views, and then hypocritically claim the site is becoming an echo chamber/not attracting new posters. It is incredibly boring and un-appealing if everyone are just posting the same views etcI wish there were a greater diversity of opnion on the site, esp that there more young posters. We occasionally pontificate about what the young think: but if we understood the young, they wouldn't be young. The problem is we don't know what jib s perspective is, other than he blames the world's ills on the Lib-Dems & Davey. I'm all for obsessional & abusive ranting: I engage in a fair amount myself. But there is a limit! I hv doubts about tactical voting. Once you relegate Labour to 3rd place, they can never recover, tho some did in '97. But what do you suggest my Labour-Remainer friends in N. Devon do? See stats which will prob come out like alphabet soup General election 2019: North Devon Party Candidate Votes % ±% Conservative Selaine Saxby 31,479 56.5 +10.7 Liberal Democrats Alex White 16,666 29.9 −8.1 Labour Finola O'Neill 5,097 9.1 −3.6 Majority 14,813 26.6 +18.8 Turnout 55,581 73.3 +0.1
|
|
Danny
Member
Posts: 9,828
|
Post by Danny on Jan 12, 2024 11:39:31 GMT
There have been two elections since. After 2017 the Tories truly were "on the hook", guess who "let them off the hook" in 2019. Boris Johnson. They agreed brexit had to happen, they had delayed it as long as they possibly could but unless they finally allowed an officially hard leave leader then they would lose voter support badly.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2024 11:54:06 GMT
robbiealive Having been a member of both Labour and the liberal democrat party I think I can give some perspective on this. Polling across a diverse range of issues always shows remarkable alignment between respondents who identify as lib dems and Labour , as people we tend to have similar aspirations and concerns and want similar actions. But similar isn't the same. Lulu is entirely correct if as can be anticipated we have a Labour government with a huge majority I would expect my party as possibly the lead opposition , particularly if the Tories vote collapses and they descend into internal squabbles to call the government to account and keep them honest. Particularly on issues such as our relationship with the European union, fair voting, localism and response to the climate emergency. But the big difference is I think with an incoming Labour government we will at least have adults in the room. Similarly at a local level in terms of individual choice given the similarities of opinions it's a bit of a no brainer to vote for the anti Tory who stands the best chance of winning in a Tory constituency with whom you share 80%+ of opinions and in England at least that means Labour or lib dems in around 200 seats in around 70 of which the lib dems stand the best chance. I appreciate some ultra partisans and obsessive haters can't bring themselves to see the obvious logic of this but they're in a small minority and can largely be ignored as irrelevant. Of course my preferred outcome would not be a Labour majority at all but a Labour plurality dependent on a large liberal democrat presence. As a precaution I would like to see the only viable option a Labour lib dem confidence and supply type option as I wouldn't want our respective parliamentary leadership however unlikely to engage in another brain fart☺
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 11:58:08 GMT
What irks me is that I know Sunak is rubbing his hands with glee at this opportunity to appear 'statesmanlike' and serious. No leader should welcome events like this, it's very distasteful. All that 'watch this space' nonsense. I see he is off to Kyiv today. Where will he be next week, Taiwan? You do have a vivid imagination. You assign attitudes to politicians you dislike and then treat your thoughts as facts.
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 12, 2024 12:10:25 GMT
We've been through all of this before haven't we? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and even Syria have been counter productive and made the situation in those countries worse. Increasingly you can add Ukraine to this list due to backing them but not backing them enough to push Russia out before they devastated the country. What seems like perfectly valid reasons for dropping a few bombs or starting a war turns has always ended in disaster in the Middle East. We all felt for the rebels in Libya being corned while fighting for their freedom but the country is pretty much in a state of anarchy now. I supported that one but not going to make that mistake again. In Afghanistan we had every right to "go after" Bin Laden but nothing has changed there and the loss of life and disruption was all for nothing. Iraq was inexplicable and led to the rise of Isis. What would I do? I think it starts with taking away the argument behind the Houthi rebels disrupting shipping and taking a much tougher line on Israel who are engaged in ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing and extensive, openly admitted war crimes. This is all based on just the statements many of their leaders and politicians have been making, as well as the civilian and journalist casualty rates and the levelling of whole areas in Gaza. That's without the clear breaches of international law in video clips of Israeli soldiers' actions even ignoring the less verifiable ones or hearsay (white phosphorous, hospital bombings) many of which will be true anyway. Instead we are busy arming Israel without conditions and promoting bills to prevent BDS. So yes, disrupting shipping should be a reason to take proportionate action but it never quite works out that way in the end. The minute we start bombing Yemen we are involving ourselves in another set of proxy wars centering around support for our allies in the region who, in the case of Saudi/Iran, are just as bad as each other in terms of human rights. With any sane policy based on human rights we should probably be aiding the Houthis in embargoing Israeli goods until they adhere to international law. Hi shevii - I think the dynamics and nature of the examples you give in your first paragraph are very different, and to equate them to the action that was taken last night is strenuous.
Whether you like it or not, our foreign policy, despite all the rhetoric, like the overwhelmingly majority of nations, is conducted on a 'realist' basis supporting perceived national self interest. London sees itself as having virtually identical interests to Washington, and diverting from pursuing lines that are in step with the US is seen as counter-productive to our national interest. While, un-officially, many in the UK foreign-policy establishment think that the level of support the US is giving to Israel is counter-productive and think a negotiated ceasefire and de-escalation would be a better course of action, it is seen as against our broader national interest to go against the US. However, it is understood that Washington's position is driven by domestic political considerations and the fact they are in an election year. The US will not go against Israel.
We had a brief period, under Blair, when our policy was driven by an internationalist liberal interventionist drive. That approach has been completely discredited for the foreseeable future, and we have reverted to one that is purely driven by realism and the pursuit/calculation of national self-interest rather than one based on principles. A Labour government will base it's foreign policy on exactly the same grounds as the current one, the only big difference is there will be a greater emphasis on working with the EU.
I really don't think that siding more with the Houthis and Iran is a 'sane policy based on human rights'. Also, whether one likes it or not, effectively ceding control of the red sea would actually be another blow to a rules based international system. Overall, the 'west'/liberal democracies, are in a terrible position at the moment, and I totally agree that Israel's action's in Gaza are undermining its position. As long as US governments continue to give Israel carte blanche in regards to its hard line against the Palestinians, our position in the region will not improve.
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 12, 2024 12:10:26 GMT
What irks me is that I know Sunak is rubbing his hands with glee at this opportunity to appear 'statesmanlike' and serious. No leader should welcome events like this, it's very distasteful. All that 'watch this space' nonsense. I see he is off to Kyiv today. Where will he be next week, Taiwan? You do have a vivid imagination. You assign attitudes to politicians you dislike and then treat your thoughts as facts. It's an intuitive best guess.. And they did say 'Watch this space' as if we were waiting for the next instalment of an action series. Crass.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 12:15:53 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter"Some seem to want this site to become restricted to the voice of the socially left-leaning middle class, ridicule bully and hound out those who do not share their views, and then hypocritically claim the site is becoming an echo chamber/not attracting new posters. It is incredibly boring and un-appealing if everyone are just posting the same views etc" Well said. It sometimes seems like an acrimonious Labour Party branch meeting. I do my best to present common sense instead. 🤩
|
|
|
Post by graham on Jan 12, 2024 12:30:16 GMT
The problem with these attacks on the Houthis is that the action yet again highlights the hypocrisy and double standards of the West. It is not difficult to condemn the attacks in the Red Sea , but they hardly compare with Netenyahu's atrocities in Gaza. Despite a range of public statements a blind eye has been turned to the latter - no signs of any strikes to weaken Netenyahu's ability to proceed with his Final Solution.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 12, 2024 12:34:24 GMT
lululemonmustdobetter"Some seem to want this site to become restricted to the voice of the socially left-leaning middle class, ridicule bully and hound out those who do not share their views, and then hypocritically claim the site is becoming an echo chamber/not attracting new posters. It is incredibly boring and un-appealing if everyone are just posting the same views etc" Well said. It sometimes seems like an acrimonious Labour Party branch meeting. I do my best to present common sense instead. 🤩 As one of my school teachers used to say 'try harder' 😀
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 12, 2024 12:46:57 GMT
I hv doubts about tactical voting. Once you relegate Labour to 3rd place, they can never recover, tho some did in '97. But what do you suggest my Labour-Remainer friends in N. Devon do? See stats which will prob come out like alphabet soup Well robbiealive, its completely up to them how they vote, and guess it would for them depend on whether their primary motivation/desire is to get the Tories out or elect a Labour representative/govt. I personally wouldn't/don't vote tactically, but don't think the less of others who do.
|
|
|
Post by robbiealive on Jan 12, 2024 12:49:58 GMT
Boomers make great (armchair) warriors & it's gall & wormwood to me that we don't receive decorations. We male boomers had one inestimable advantage over our Euroepan brethren. We didn't spend 2 years in useless military training, underpaid & bullied, (or being sent to Malaya or Palestine). The combat experience is described in L. Thomas's Virgin Soldiers & the peacetime one in D. Lodge's Ginger You re Barmy. (1 am sure there many others). We all remember the gammons spouting "what they need is national service" to Teds & later hippies. Yeah! I remember touring Euorpe in the late '60s & '70s & talking to the youth in many countries. It was all fun until they became v rueful as they remembered that they had 2 years' conscripted service on the horizon. How bloody lucky to escape that nonsense! While we had zero military experience, our parents did. The trip round the Cape of Good Hope reminds me of father's free cruise in 1941. Having returned from a rather long free hol in Dunkirk, about which he said nada, perhaps the table d'hote wasn't good, he was shipped on the Queen Mary. The only remark he made stuck in my mind: use of bunks was rotated: each soldier having an 8 hour stint in every 24 hours. One of my many uncles who served in the war got a free ferry from Dunkirk: two in fact. He was bombed out of the first, severely, wounded but somehow picked up by a second. The old girl slept under the kitchen table as she couldn't stand the shelters, etc, etc. Their experiences could be multiplied a 100 fold by boomers on here. We offspring, unlike our parents, fight wars by proxy, free from any immediate danger. Of course I support defending Ukraine & destroying aggressive forces in the Red Sea. The problem with bombing & missiles is that they don't hv a good record of solving problems. I don't see how we can judge until we see whether the Strikes stop the attacks. As lululemonmustdobetter says the Red Sea route can't be abandoned.
|
|
|
Post by jimjam on Jan 12, 2024 13:05:26 GMT
Robbie,
''I wish there were a greater diversity of opinion on the site, esp ..more young posters''
My, then 20ish year old son, who knows more about voting systems and is better at stats than I am, came on for a few posts in 2021/2.
Someone was dismissive (when actually it was their lack of knowledge) of one of his post but the main reason he no longer views is due to the amount of crap from certain posters.
I still forward him stuff such as James E's yesterday on margin and majorities and I suspect other posters do similar.
This extends the 'reach' but it would be much better if the number of posters was greater especially from under-represented groups.
|
|
|
Post by mercian on Jan 12, 2024 13:21:52 GMT
jimjam"This extends the 'reach' but it would be much better if the number of posters was greater especially from under-represented groups." I can try to get some of my old UKIP colleagues on board if you like? 🤣
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 12, 2024 13:22:36 GMT
Love the way he's set this out. What it really does highlight (among other things) is the difference in the age demographic between Labour and tory. 3% of Labour's 2019 voters have died, for the Conservatives the figure is 8%
The estimates for where the 14m 2019 Conservatives are today: 6.4m (46%) Still Conservative 1.7m (12%) Don't Know 1.7m (12%) Labour 1.7m (12%) Reform 1.2m (8%) Deceased 0.5m (4%) Lib Dem 0.5m (4%) Would Not Vote 0.2m (1%) Green 0.1m (1%) Other
For the 10.3m 2019 Labour voters: 7.8m (76%) are still Labour 0.6m (6%) Green 0.5m (5%) Don't Know 0.3m (3%) Lib Dem 0.3m (3%) Deceased 0.3m (3%) Won't Vote 0.2m (2%) Conservative 0.1m (1%) Reform 0.1m (1%) Other 0.05m (1%) SNP/PC
|
|
|
Post by lululemonmustdobetter on Jan 12, 2024 13:36:13 GMT
lululemon You must do better with what appear to be bizarre attempts at poster ingratiation. You seem utterly immune to the tone and nature of some of the posting that you urge us to philanthropically embrace. If I remember rightly, you invited us to find our inner sainthoods and to value Trevor's perspective provision too. You found it valuable and indispensable, despite his often personal, offensive and bullying behaviour towards other posters. Which I don't recall you ever criticising, incidentally. You probably haven't noticed jib's regular references to senile old gits and his importation of dodgy internet sources . Or you may have, but so value the perspective he provides, and because you share his views about the Lib Dens, that you think this is a price worth paying to keep the site real. I actually quite object to your describing people who think this style of posting is not in kilter with the site's ethos as "bullies", intent on driving people away just because we don't like their political views. I'm entirely even handed on this issue and have made the same points about some of Graham's, nickp's and steve's posts in the past. I must admit, I find your haughty and pious dismissals of those of us who criticise this style of posting quite offensive And to prove my objective and non partisan approach to these matters, I'm here taking to task your good self; a poster I usually enjoy reading and who I tend to often find myself agreeing with. Oh I hit a bit of a raw nerve with you there. You do seem to be misquoting/misrepresenting me - for instance I said I share a number of his views about the LDs. You may not have noticed, but I really try (not always successfully) to avoid directly personally criticising others. As far as the JIB interactions go, both sides seem to be as bad as each other in far as insults go, as it was with Trevor and his distractors.
Many on this site are not at all open to alternative views, perspectives and are very quick to go on the attack when someone else make any comment they disagree with - just mention Brexit and see what happens. There is a real school-yard ganging up mentality that sometimes springs up on the board, with individuals subjected to some form of feeding frenzy. I have a personal aversion to this, and often find it difficult to hold my tongue when I see it happening. The fact that I said similar things about how Trevor got treated, despite disagreeing with virtually everything he posted (exceptions tending to be around environmental policies) should signal that to you. I disagree with JIB on Brexit, but understand where he is coming from.
These tendencies I mention have led to a number of posters leaving - not just right-wing ones - and cant see how they would encourage new ones to join.
At no point did I say I either agree/enjoy the style of posting he and steve often indulge in. I also find inappropriate references/comparisons to Nazi Germany offensive (I think I liked some comments either you or Crofty made on this).
But I quite like the description of being 'haughty and pious' - think I'll own that one. XXXXXXXX
|
|
|
Post by leftieliberal on Jan 12, 2024 13:43:46 GMT
leftieliberal " It is also significant that all prosecutions in Scotland were public, and came under the oversight of Scotland’s justice ministers." That's a particularly tendentious sentence from your source. Scottish Ministers do not have any role in deciding who should be prosecuted. I can just imagine how "liberals" would react if they did. hireton It happens to be true whether you like it or not. The point is that Scottish justice ministers had the same information on unreliability of the Horizon system as in England. They too suffered from a failure to believe it. You really need to ask yourself if there is a sudden increase in apparent thefts all over the country from this group of people, is it more likely that the increase in theft is real, or that there is a fault in the system. It wasn't too difficult for either Computer Weekly or Private Eye to identify the cause; with only a couple of notable exceptions amongst MPs, all politicians in the devolved administrations as well at Westminster failed. At least the CPS had the excuse that very few prosecutions came through them, unlike in Scotland. You don't need politicians deciding who should be prosecuted, which I never advocated as you claim; you do need politicians who are willing to ask difficult questions.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2024 13:45:02 GMT
neilj Even more significant when it comes to brexitanians the oldest cohort of brexitanians( the largest cohort) are the least likely to have changed their minds but are of course the most likely to have died, around 2.75 million of them have died compared to around 900,000 remainers. They haven't been replaced by younger brexitanians as judging from the next age cohort up, of those over 13 at the time of the referendum 80%+ would have voted remain.
|
|
neilj
Member
Posts: 6,030
|
Post by neilj on Jan 12, 2024 13:50:25 GMT
Techne
Westminster Voting Intention:
LAB: 44% (+1) CON: 24% (+1) LDM: 10% (-1) RFM: 10% (=) GRN: 6% (-1) SNP: 3% (=)
Via @techneuk , 10-11 Jan. Changes w/ 20-21 Dec.
|
|
steve
Member
Posts: 12,273
Member is Online
|
Post by steve on Jan 12, 2024 13:52:19 GMT
"At no point did I say I either agree/enjoy the style of posting he and steve often indulge in. "
Just as a matter of record I do not engage in the style of posting used by jib. I try to remain somewhat more connected to reality and inject some humour.
I quite enjoy most of your posts and haven't felt the need to comment on the style you "indulge" in. Horses for courses.
I'm a tad colour blind and you might be interested to know that your posts look starfish orange to me
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 12, 2024 13:59:26 GMT
@lululemonmustdobetter I'm very aware that I, for one, am very dogmatic on brexit. I know I've banged on about this before but I don't just regard brexit as a matter of different opinions, or respecting different views. Those who support(ed) it have done me and many others (far worse)harm. If my wallet were stolen with important documents in it I'd find it hard to respect the 'differing opinion' of the thief. That's how it feels to me. Personal. I didn't used to be as partisan as I am now and I suspect that's probably true for many others as well but at the risk of bolstering your own point, 'They started it'
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 12, 2024 14:05:01 GMT
We've been through all of this before haven't we? Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya and even Syria have been counter productive and made the situation in those countries worse. Increasingly you can add Ukraine to this list due to backing them but not backing them enough to push Russia out before they devastated the country. What seems like perfectly valid reasons for dropping a few bombs or starting a war turns has always ended in disaster in the Middle East. We all felt for the rebels in Libya being corned while fighting for their freedom but the country is pretty much in a state of anarchy now. I supported that one but not going to make that mistake again. In Afghanistan we had every right to "go after" Bin Laden but nothing has changed there and the loss of life and disruption was all for nothing. Iraq was inexplicable and led to the rise of Isis. What would I do? I think it starts with taking away the argument behind the Houthi rebels disrupting shipping and taking a much tougher line on Israel who are engaged in ethnic cleansing, indiscriminate bombing and extensive, openly admitted war crimes. This is all based on just the statements many of their leaders and politicians have been making, as well as the civilian and journalist casualty rates and the levelling of whole areas in Gaza. That's without the clear breaches of international law in video clips of Israeli soldiers' actions even ignoring the less verifiable ones or hearsay (white phosphorous, hospital bombings) many of which will be true anyway. Instead we are busy arming Israel without conditions and promoting bills to prevent BDS. So yes, disrupting shipping should be a reason to take proportionate action but it never quite works out that way in the end. The minute we start bombing Yemen we are involving ourselves in another set of proxy wars centering around support for our allies in the region who, in the case of Saudi/Iran, are just as bad as each other in terms of human rights. With any sane policy based on human rights we should probably be aiding the Houthis in embargoing Israeli goods until they adhere to international law. Thanks-I know you will have put much thought into this which I respect. I think Afghanistan, Iraq , Libya ; yes and Syria too involved trying to change regimes. I agree with you that the tribal nature of these societies with the systemic & divisive religious element makes western interventions of that sort utterly useless and doomed to disastrous outcomes. This-so far as I can see is a response to attacks on our navy(s) and commercial shipping using the Canal. No 10 & US say further responses will depend on the Houthi's actions. I couldn't disagree more with you about "aiding" this Shia faction :- en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Houthi_movementWhat makes you think that our abandoning Israel will stop Iran's antagonism to it via their proxies ? But of course you are right about Israel's behaviour in Gaza. It is inexcusable. But they clearly believe that unless they remove Hamas from its Gaza tunnels they will never be safe. And they have decided that those ends justify any means. I watched an interview on Ian King's business prog. on Sky News. It was with a shipping brokerage about the economic and commercial effects of the Houthi attacks. He said that whilst some companies had abandoned the Red Sea, others had simply found ways of associating their line or just their cargo with China or Russia. Or simply putting banners on deck saying "not for Israel". This apparently gives them freedom from Houthi attacks. ie they appeared to take sides and made a choice. I am afraid that in a globalised world where global resources are everyones vital national interest, we have to take sides. We could choose the side you prefer in this instance , but I suggest that would be exactly what Iran & its , Chinese and Russian partners / friends want-in their search for greater global influence. I am just reading a book about the changing global balance of power and the post globalisation trends. * Havent got to the end yet ! * The Levelling by Michael O'Sullivan
|
|
domjg
Member
Posts: 5,106
|
Post by domjg on Jan 12, 2024 14:07:13 GMT
"At no point did I say I either agree/enjoy the style of posting he and steve often indulge in. " Just as a matter of record I do not engage in the style of posting used by jib. I try to remain somewhat more connected to reality and inject some humour. I quite enjoy most of your posts and haven't felt the need to comment on the style you "indulge" in. Horses for courses. I'm a tad colour blind and you might be interested to know that your posts look starfish orange to me jib recently has had nothing to say other than to try to diss the lds in any which way which is his prerogative of course. I think mainly it's his spat with you which he seems to see as a kind of game.
|
|
|
Post by shevii on Jan 12, 2024 14:23:38 GMT
Hi shevii - I think the dynamics and nature of the examples you give in your first paragraph are very different, and to equate them to the action that was taken last night is strenuous.
Whether you like it or not, our foreign policy, despite all the rhetoric, like the overwhelmingly majority of nations, is conducted on a 'realist' basis supporting perceived national self interest. London sees itself as having virtually identical interests to Washington, and diverting from pursuing lines that are in step with the US is seen as counter-productive to our national interest. While, un-officially, many in the UK foreign-policy establishment think that the level of support the US is giving to Israel is counter-productive and think a negotiated ceasefire and de-escalation would be a better course of action, it is seen as against our broader national interest to go against the US. However, it is understood that Washington's position is driven by domestic political considerations and the fact they are in an election year. The US will not go against Israel.
We had a brief period, under Blair, when our policy was driven by an internationalist liberal interventionist drive. That approach has been completely discredited for the foreseeable future, and we have reverted to one that is purely driven by realism and the pursuit/calculation of national self-interest rather than one based on principles. A Labour government will base it's foreign policy on exactly the same grounds as the current one, the only big difference is there will be a greater emphasis on working with the EU.
I really don't think that siding more with the Houthis and Iran is a 'sane policy based on human rights'. Also, whether one likes it or not, effectively ceding control of the red sea would actually be another blow to a rules based international system. Overall, the 'west'/liberal democracies, are in a terrible position at the moment, and I totally agree that Israel's action's in Gaza are undermining its position. As long as US governments continue to give Israel carte blanche in regards to its hard line against the Palestinians, our position in the region will not improve. Not denying they are all different but they end up in the same place of "unintended" consequences so now various tigers have been poked including Erdogan, and intervention in any form in the Middle East risks further terrorist attacks- even if one side in the Middle East is happy with the intervention you can bet there will be others who see this as Western Imperialism. While you are right to point out the danger of "taking sides" argument that is an absolute minefield and of course America has taken different sides on Iran/Iraq at different times. My point about "siding with Houthis" was less about supporting them as an organisation as it was about supporting their grievance on Israel, installing BDS until Israel behaves, and taking their excuse away for attacks on shipping. I'm not sure if you are explaining national self interest or agreeing with it? There has to be limits on self interest where, whether you want to call it "genocide" or "ethnic cleansing", atrocities are taking place. But the national self interest also has consequences- we arm and support Saudi- they involve themselves in a civil war in Yemen without sanction and then the Houthis start disrupting our shipping (obviously this is a very simplified version). If the polling in Palestine can be considered accurate (and I think the polling company does it's best under impossible conditions) by not stepping harder on Israel to abide by international law, simply because they are our ally, support for Hamas has risen substantially and made a permanent peace much harder: pcpsr.org/en/node/961There's some shocking results in there (including October 7th denialism) but equally it shows a clear pattern on hardening of attitudes and support for Hamas. National self interest would be well served by a consistent foreign policy that treats all countries equally when they commit atrocities.
|
|
|
Post by jib on Jan 12, 2024 14:25:00 GMT
"At no point did I say I either agree/enjoy the style of posting he and steve often indulge in. " Just as a matter of record I do not engage in the style of posting used by jib. I try to remain somewhat more connected to reality and inject some humour. I quite enjoy most of your posts and haven't felt the need to comment on the style you "indulge" in. Horses for courses. I'm a tad colour blind and you might be interested to know that your posts look starfish orange to me jib recently has had nothing to say other than to try to diss the lds in any which way which is his prerogative of course. I think mainly it's his spat with you which he seems to see as a kind of game.
|
|