General Election 2017 | Cabinet reshuffle: Hunt re-appointed Health Secretary for record third time

How do you intend to vote in the 2017 General Election if eligible?

  • Conservatives

    Votes: 80 14.5%

  • Labour

    Votes: 322 58.4%

  • Lib Dems

    Votes: 57 10.3%

  • Green

    Votes: 20 3.6%

  • SNP

    Votes: 13 2.4%

  • UKIP

    Votes: 29 5.3%

  • Independent

    Votes: 3 0.5%

  • Plaid Cymru

    Votes: 2 0.4%

  • Sinn Fein

    Votes: 11 2.0%

  • Other (UUP, DUP, BNP, and anyone else I have forgotten)

    Votes: 14 2.5%
  • Total voters
    551
  • Poll closed .
I don't get that the Tory response of ''nothing to do with UK foreign policy'' is in any way sustainable. It's a completely ludicrous statement.

As for involving the Manchester attacks in politics - the first few questions anyone thinks of have a political dimension to them. Who was it? Why that target? What is the motivation?

Tory answer - it's nothing to do with 'us' (UK the nation). Anyone with half a brain cell can see through this surely?

At the risk of being totally fatuous & possibly in quite poor taste

It's like the question being ''why can't my friends / family go to a concert without getting bombed?'' and their answer is ''we don't know'' - because the Tory response doesn't amount to anything else atm.

I think (hope) most people will see straight through that.

There's a considerable distance for this to play out mind - got all weekend to be thinking of how to do better next week haven't they?
 
Last edited:
And as for Corbyn, he couldn't do much more than raise the issue without seeming insensitive & premature. Might have been better to wait until after the weekend, but might have been bounced / committed into doing the Neil interview. He hasn't misjudged the mood too badly though, I don't think. Although where all the people who'd like to see a harsh strike back are is a bit of a mystery (but that's media instructions for you isn't it?) <---- I do like a bit of conspiracy theory, :D.
 
Last edited:
If your enemy, by killing children in Manchester, manages to change your foreign policy, doesn't that equate to appeasement? It is one thing to say our foreign policy is wrong it is another to say it's wrong because someone killed people because of it.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
If your enemy, by killing children in Manchester, manages to change your foreign policy, doesn't that equate to appeasement? It is one thing to say our foreign policy is wrong it is another to say it's wrong because someone killed people because of it.
Click to expand...

It's not wrong because someone killed people because of it though. It's just wrong.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
If your enemy, by killing children in Manchester, manages to change your foreign policy, doesn't that equate to appeasement? It is one thing to say our foreign policy is wrong it is another to say it's wrong because someone killed people because of it.
Click to expand...

No, it's not appeasement because we're not expecting ISIS to suddenly stop targeting us if foreign policy is hypothetically changed.

The argument isn't solely that the Manchester attacks happened because of our foreign policy; there are other major factors, the main ones of course being the person himself, who was clearly radicalised, and the fact that ISIS are a death cult who will continue to target us no matter what happens.

The general point is that foreign policy over the past decade or so has often created power vacuums which extremist groups have sought to occupy as they increase their power, and that our approach to tackling terrorism in the Middle East clearly hasn't worked because Islamic extremism continues to be prevalent after a decade and a half of the War on Terror.
 
Cheesy said:
No, it's not appeasement because we're not expecting ISIS to suddenly stop targeting us if foreign policy is hypothetically changed.

The argument isn't solely that the Manchester attacks happened because of our foreign policy; there are other major factors, the main ones of course being the person himself, who was clearly radicalised, and the fact that ISIS are a death cult who will continue to target us no matter what happens.

The general point is that foreign policy over the past decade or so has often created power vacuums which extremist groups have sought to occupy as they increase their power, and that our approach to tackling terrorism in the Middle East clearly hasn't worked because Islamic extremism continues to be prevalent after a decade and a half of the War on Terror.
Click to expand...
The funny thing I find about this argument (not picking on you here, just making a general point off it), is that it basically leads to the old (widely lambasted) policy of propping up brutal strongmen to ensure stability in the region.
 
Ubik said:
The funny thing I find about this argument (not picking on you here, just making a general point off it), is that it basically leads to the old (widely lambasted) policy of propping up brutal strongmen to ensure stability in the region.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, for what it's worth I'm not necessarily anti-interventionism in all cases, and I recognise the inherent moral hypocrisy/difficulty in propping up brutal regimes like that of Assad and Hussein etc in the past. I was more just responding to the general question @Don't Kill Bill was asking in regards to appeasement.

Overall though I'm not really sure there is an ideal strategy to completely defeat Islamic extremism. As you say, brutal regimes will remain in place if we do successfully wipe out ISIS, and it's likely in time new extremist groups will pop up. Boots on the ground is unlikely to work, as shown by Iraq, and yet a complete stance of non-interventionism wouldn't do much good either. The problem is, of course, that any UK leader admitting this would be perceived as incredibly weak.
 
Cheesy said:
Oh yeah, for what it's worth I'm not necessarily anti-interventionism in all cases, and I recognise the inherent moral hypocrisy/difficulty in propping up brutal regimes like that of Assad and Hussein etc in the past. I was more just responding to the general question @Don't Kill Bill was asking in regards to appeasement.

Overall though I'm not really sure there is an ideal strategy to completely defeat Islamic extremism. As you say, brutal regimes will remain in place if we do successfully wipe out ISIS, and it's likely in time new extremist groups will pop up. Boots on the ground is unlikely to work, as shown by Iraq, and yet a complete stance of non-interventionism wouldn't do much good either. The problem is, of course, that any UK leader admitting this would be perceived as incredibly weak.
Click to expand...
I think it's even beyond that, I think a lot of foreign policy decisions around it are basically a choice between two bad outcomes and it's been further exacerbated by the Arab spring.

Everything in the end comes back to Iraq of course which undoubtedly contributed to radicalisation and was a clusterfeck of a wrong decision that had nothing going for it. At the same time, Daesh kill more muslims than anyone else and in Europe have hit France most often, a country that took heat for not getting involved in 2003.
 
Ubik said:
I think it's even beyond that, I think a lot of foreign policy decisions around it are basically a choice between two bad outcomes and it's been further exacerbated by the Arab spring.

Everything in the end comes back to Iraq of course which undoubtedly contributed to radicalisation and was a clusterfeck of a wrong decision that had nothing going for it. At the same time, Daesh kill more muslims than anyone else and in Europe have hit France most often, a country that took heat for not getting involved in 2003.
Click to expand...

That's true, which is why I'd agree it's naive to try and solely blame the actions of ISIS on Western foreign policy; similar can be said for attacks in places like Germany and other European countries who haven't really been too interventionist in recent years.
 
In the search for power & influence (and oil), the West** will basically back anyone at any time - and then possibly change sides 15-20 years later - or pull out because the intervention cannot be sustained.

**with the UK saying it always has to be at the forefront (still historical reasons influencing thinking on this)

We're always fecking it up aren't we? (But the arms sales are good, :))
 
Just watched the Corbyn interview, it was definitely designed to be a hit piece but I think Corbyn whilst not being disastrous, could have handled it better in terms of being more clear in the positions he was taking.

When explaining the 'ungoverned spaces' issue in Libya, he didn't clearly state that by intervening and removing governments like Saddam, Gadaffi, we left behind vacant holes in which Islamic extremism has been allowed to flourish and when Niell mentioned Sweden/Yazidi.. he should have reiterated the fact that had it not been for western intervention, goverments would have existed which would not allowed atrocities to occur such as what happen with the Yazidi women.

After that point, he did well but I wish he was more stronger in the nuclear section and say look, I don't and never will suport Trident renewal, but it is out of my hands as my party is in favour of it and therefore I will follow the party manifesto.
 
Raees said:
Just watched the Corbyn interview, it was definitely designed to be a hit piece but I think Corbyn whilst not being disastrous, could have handled it better in terms of being more clear in the positions he was taking.

When explaining the 'ungoverned spaces' issue in Libya, he didn't clearly state that by intervening and removing governments like Saddam, Gadaffi, we left behind vacant holes in which Islamic extremism has been allowed to flourish and when Niell mentioned Sweden/Yazidi.. he should have reiterated the fact that had it not been for western intervention, goverments would have existed which would not allowed atrocities to occur such as what happen with the Yazidi women.

After that point, he did well but I wish he was more stronger in the nuclear section and say look, I don't and never will suport Trident renewal, but it is out of my hands as my party is in favour of it and therefore I will follow the party manifesto.
Click to expand...
On the Trident thing, both knew Corbyn's position. It was a scam line of questioning. Had Corbyn responded as you suggest, Neil would have predicted it and probably gone on the old familiar line questioning his leadership credentials. It was a no-win situation from the start for Corbyn and they both knew it.
 
Sweet Square said:
Disappointed to know that Andy is a Mail reader

Click to expand...


Yep, America was just minding its own business and Bin Laden, famed for his wealth, was merely looking for a project to occupy his time.

DenisIrwin said:
Amazing facial contortions at the end of the journo's question here...

Click to expand...


"I excluded more hate preachers..."

Shouldn't have been difficult, not when the haunted dinner lady was excluding everybody anyway e.g. family members of UK citizens.
 
I just got a Tory attack ad on YouTube that was more akin to something out of a US race.
 
I don't like to judge people on their appearance, but damn she really is morphing into the Grand High Witch. The design and animation is very much in the vein of a Dahl/Roeg grotesque.

For balance Corbyn is Grandma Josephine.
 
Ubik said:
:nervous:

Thinking about it, those videos in the Flat Earth thread may not have helped...
Click to expand...

In all seriousness though they're incredibly targeted so you must be in a marginal and demographic they're looking at?

I've not seen any ads but then this is 95% a safe seat for the tories. If i do then i know they're panicking
 
Smores said:
In all seriousness though they're incredibly targeted so you must be in a marginal and demographic they're looking at?

I've not seen any ads but then this is 95% a safe seat for the tories. If i do then i know they're panicking
Click to expand...
Nah this is one of the safest Tory seats in the country, I know Facebook stuff is really highly targeted but YouTube might be a bit more scattershot.
 
Cheesy said:
That's true, which is why I'd agree it's naive to try and solely blame the actions of ISIS on Western foreign policy; similar can be said for attacks in places like Germany and other European countries who haven't really been too interventionist in recent years.
Click to expand...

That's because you're looking at too short a timescale for one thing. Western interference in the gulf region goes back for nearly 100 years, when the Ottoman empire was broken up and we created new states by basically drawing straight lines on a map. Since then we've intervened pretty much without pause, helped overthrow governments, fund and support brutal dictators and engage in open warfare. Oh and of course the wonders of drone strikes, ensuring that people in many countries can just find their house blown up without warning at any moment for reasons they'll never know.

The civilian casualties in the Middle East from western attacks are horrific, absolutely beyond belief. Our countries go into national mourning and outrage when we experience a couple of dozen deaths in an attack. In some gulf counties THOUSANDS of completely innocent people have been blown to pieces by us and we either don't even hear about it on the news, or we just call it 'collateral damage' which apparently makes it ok to blow up a hospital, or school or wedding party.

The only 'naive' thing here is the idea that we can cause an endless bloodbath in an area and not expect any consequences.

As for Germany, it's almost irrelevant that they haven't been involved personally. Like the kind neighbours we so often are, we've helped paint a target on the whole of Europe. The goals of the terrorist groups we helped create don't have to be direct revenge on the country that attacked them. We've helped create a space where extremists of all stripes can recruit, train and equip.
 
Ubik said:
Nah this is one of the safest Tory seats in the country, I know Facebook stuff is really highly targeted but YouTube might be a bit more scattershot.
Click to expand...

Believe they're demographically targeted, rather than geographical.

Also YouTube (and FB and just about every online advertiser) will often dump adverts so that they can go back to clients and say they delivered or over delivered. Majority of online and social advertising is wastage (wrong people seeing the wrong ads).
 
Kentonio said:
That's because you're looking at too short a timescale for one thing. Western interference in the gulf region goes back for nearly 100 years, when the Ottoman empire was broken up and we created new states by basically drawing straight lines on a map. Since then we've intervened pretty much without pause, helped overthrow governments, fund and support brutal dictators and engage in open warfare. Oh and of course the wonders of drone strikes, ensuring that people in many countries can just find their house blown up without warning at any moment for reasons they'll never know.

The civilian casualties in the Middle East from western attacks are horrific, absolutely beyond belief. Our countries go into national mourning and outrage when we experience a couple of dozen deaths in an attack. In some gulf counties THOUSANDS of completely innocent people have been blown to pieces by us and we either don't even hear about it on the news, or we just call it 'collateral damage' which apparently makes it ok to blow up a hospital, or school or wedding party.

The only 'naive' thing here is the idea that we can cause an endless bloodbath in an area and not expect any consequences.

As for Germany, it's almost irrelevant that they haven't been involved personally. Like the kind neighbours we so often are, we've helped paint a target on the whole of Europe. The goals of the terrorist groups we helped create don't have to be direct revenge on the country that attacked them. We've helped create a space where extremists of all stripes can recruit, train and equip.
Click to expand...

Again, while I'm not denying that and largely agree with you that Western foreign policy has been incredibly damaging and has done more harm than good, it still can't be used as the sole excuse for the actions of ISIS; they still kill an incredibly high number of their own people, for example, even though they're hardly responsible for our actions.
 
Spark said:
Believe they're demographically targeted, rather than geographical.

Also YouTube (and FB and just about every online advertiser) will often dump adverts so that they can go back to clients and say they delivered or over delivered. Majority of online and social advertising is wastage (wrong people seeing the wrong ads).
Click to expand...

Hmm not sure about that. YouTube is part of the Google network so is probably the most accurately profiled advertising you can get. The latest iteration will even detect "life events" I.e it knows when you are getting married, moving house etc in addition to your location, demographic, interests and so on.
 
Teresa May Bass Face
haim.jpg
 
Cheesy said:
Again, while I'm not denying that and largely agree with you that Western foreign policy has been incredibly damaging and has done more harm than good, it still can't be used as the sole excuse for the actions of ISIS; they still kill an incredibly high number of their own people, for example, even though they're hardly responsible for our actions.
Click to expand...

I just don't get the premise at all. Literally no serious person in the west is trying to excuse the actions of ISIS. Not a single person. Yet supposedly when we talk about the causes of terrorist attacks, we have to waste endless amounts of time explaining that we're not excusing terrorism and that the terrorists are horrible people etc etc. Well no shit, they just blew up a concert full of young kids, we know they're horrible people ffs.

In the meantime the real discussion about why we're regularly being attacked by people willing to sacrifice their lives just to kill us becomes blurred and distorted, because everyone's so busy making sure they won't get misrepresented by cnuts playing political games. It just makes me furious that any possible solution will likely be held back years or decades because of people not wanting to look 'weak'.
 
Cheesy said:
No, it's not appeasement because we're not expecting ISIS to suddenly stop targeting us if foreign policy is hypothetically changed.

The argument isn't solely that the Manchester attacks happened because of our foreign policy; there are other major factors, the main ones of course being the person himself, who was clearly radicalised, and the fact that ISIS are a death cult who will continue to target us no matter what happens.

The general point is that foreign policy over the past decade or so has often created power vacuums which extremist groups have sought to occupy as they increase their power, and that our approach to tackling terrorism in the Middle East clearly hasn't worked because Islamic extremism continues to be prevalent after a decade and a half of the War on Terror.
Click to expand...




There is no approach which would work and we have in fact tried many different approaches in many different countries and none of them have been successful.

Even a dramatically different foreign policy is just as likely to alienate yet another set of people who would then know exactly what you have to do to get what you want from the UK.
 
Don't Kill Bill said:
There is no approach which would work and we have in fact tried many different approaches in many different countries and none of them have been successful
Click to expand...

Absolutely untrue. There have been countless waves of terrorism around the world connected to different conflicts and issues, and nearly every time they've ended with some form of negotiation, from the IRA, to FARC to the PLO etc. If there's one lesson that resounds through it all, it's that you can't just kill your way out of a terrorist crisis. In the case of ISIS we can't negotiate directly with them, because of their wildly extreme ideology, but we can certainly negotiate with more moderate groups in those aareas, help support local communities and engage in a positive way that cuts into their recruitment base and starts to close them down locally. We don't achieve that by killing civilians, nodding and selling high tech weapons to the Saudis so they can commit war crimes, and generally acting like the lives of the local people are worthless.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.