Now that is a fair point.
Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
Surely I just paraphrased what he meant?
To treat it for what it was 'entertainment', to relax and enjoy the 'knockabout/Punch & Judy' show, shout at the screen (if you must) 'he's behind you' … but don't expect to learn anything useful, that's the point I was trying to make, that clearly some contributors did take it as a serious debate!
And I pointed out what that influence was but apparently something something far right and far left have lots in common ?
No one really knows what he means by Britain punching above it's weight(Although I've yet to think of a example of Britain punching above its weight which did any good in the world) but the Iraq war is clearly a example (I could of used many but the Iraq war really annoys a certain type for some reason)of Britain punching above its weight and using its influence.
If some are going to cry about Britain losing influence in the world, it should be reminded what that influence actually was rather than for some bizarre nostalgia that never existed. But you know it was like ages go, so whatever I guess.
Last edited:
Also one of the most recent footnotes but I guess we should stop caring about wars that ended less than a decade ago.
Not sure what you would prefer poster 2 have brought up considering poster 1 started talking about our glorious past.
How are we meant to ever get change if this charade is just accepted by everyone?
Dunno about “glorious past” but I’m sure most British people would settle for not being the laughing stock of the rest of the world, forced to grovel in front of a narcissistic feckwit like Donald Trump while engaging in prolonged, humiliating self harm.
I’d imagine that’s the sort of very low bar he had in mind when he was talking about how far Britain has fallen. But yeah, Iraq. Obviously that’s the main thing we should be talking about here.
You mean Iraq when we were doing worse than grovelling, in front of a feckwit like George Bush? If you want to talk about low bars then it's kind of relevant and very recent.
Tweet
— Twitter API (@user) date
JFF. (Need a light break)
Utter bollox. The logic behind the motivation for going into Iraq can be debated all day long but any reasonable person would put the desire/need to grovel in front of Bush well down that list.
Can we stop all the willy waving and get back to talking about how worrying it is that yet again out future PM BoJo is a fecking coward?
Top cartoon is from 2012 but I get your point. Still don’t think it’s an analogy that makes sense. Britain was - more or less - an equal partner going into Iraq (i.e. punching above its weight). You can argue that strengthening that partnership was a big factor in Blair’s thinking (I’m not sure it was) but it’s not even close to the current craven display. Making civil servants fall on their sword after a snotty tweet from a dickhead POTUS in case that might give marginal gains in future trade deals.It was a common perception at the time though:
At least the ambassador hasn't been pressured into committing suicide yet.
I know you chaps absolutely love talking about Iraq but I’m kind of done on this tangent, so happy to let the thread get back on topic. I think I’ve justified my original comment enough at this point. If you don’t agree with my justification that’s grand.
There may be a difference in the extent of the submissiveness, but I’d say it’s in the same ball park. And it’s in Trump’s nature to have this stuff play out in the public, we can’t really be certain how it might go behind the scenes.
(Edit): just saw your post above, fair enough. I’m not a huge fan of shouting “Iraq!” either, though probably guilty of it often enough.
No one worried this leak was done by Boris/Trump/Bannon people to install a fellow fascists at the intersection between the UK/US ?
It was my first assumption, easy move to make.
I don't think such TV debates are accepted as a 'real' debate by everyone. As I said, it would be interesting to know how many of the tory members eligible to vote in the selection process actually watched the programme as a means of deciding which way they should vote, I would assume very few!
On the wider issue of getting change, the answer (for me) would be to encourage people to vote positively for what they believe in rather than the tactical voting which now seems to consume most elections. One of the refreshing things about the referendum was the binary aspect, we remain or we leave?
The fact that our much vaunted political system in fact cannot deal with such straightforward issues, i.e. the blunt honesty implied, speaks volumes. Yes, of course the issue was much more complex than that, but our political system is so convoluted that it cannot cope with straightforward matters and I suspect, it bodes ill for our future.
I think those TV debates are shit.
It started with the election before the coalition government, when the Lib Dems told a pack of lies to get people to vote for them.
Since then, it has only got worse.
It started with the election before the coalition government, when the Lib Dems told a pack of lies to get people to vote for them.
Since then, it has only got worse.
Amber Rudd drops opposition to no-deal Brexit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/11/amber-rudd-drops-opposition-to-no-deal-brexit
I despise these spineless career politicians.
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/jul/11/amber-rudd-drops-opposition-to-no-deal-brexit
I despise these spineless career politicians.
Yes, and it may just be the first of many. Boris will want to "rejuvenate" a civil service full of people who aren't convinced by brexit or his style of politics. I wouldn't be surprised to see this become the normal mode of operation, leak some private/professional communication (stating the obvious) and just wait for them to be so overwhelmed by the trolls etc. that they step down.
It's far easier than firing people.
Knows which side her bread is buttered does our Amber... she wont be the only one, now Hunts admitted he also wont take no deal off the table!
Predictable as sunrise.
She praised Lawson for cutting the top rate of tax to 40% in 1988, and set out her view that the Conservatives must not be afraid to reduce taxes for higher earners, claiming this would contribute to economic growth.
Yeah Right
feck off you Tory cnut
That is just ridiculously simplistic. I’m not going to argue Iraq all over again, but the point is that sure, while the UK was always the junior partner, we were an influential player. Our military, historic relationships, EU membership and UN seat meant we played a substantial role in helping maintain Western influence - probably an outsize role for a small island with a medium sized economy. That is what punching above our weight means.
we even got to choose which tea was given in NATO provisions
at what point do you have admit that your country was a mistake and should just be done with
Poster 2 does not point out what happened as result of that punching. Poster 2 actually picks a single example rather than make a more balanced assessment of how British interests have been served by our international relationships. Basically shouting “Iraq bad” all the time is not an argument especially nearly two decades after the event.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/apr/03/britain-war-in-yemen
oh man get a load of this influence, why would anyone not want more of this
oh man get a load of this influence, why would anyone not want more of this
Ok, not sure there's much to argue about who was leading whom in Iraq after Blair's love letter to Bush was revealed.
But you're right, let's take a more nuanced view. There are indeed times post-WW2 when the UK has been at a slightly different place than the US.
1. Like the rest of Europe, it did not get involved with Vietnam. I am not sure if it punched above its weight since nothing changed, IIRC tiny Sweden had a more important diplomatic role.
2. There are a whole series of resolutions re Palestine/Israel where the US stands alone, with no European support, for Israel. The UK isn't punching above its weight since these aren't worth the paper they're written on. Its punching carries the same impact as Sri Lanka, India, Bangladesh, etc, all once parts of its empire. See also - Iran deal and US sanctions effectively isolating Iran with the EU (as yet) unable to change the situation, once again, UK punching very much in line with its weight.
3. In Libya, while the US was dithering, the US and France bravely took the lead and tranformed the dictatorship into the flourishing slave-market democracy that we see today. That is a genuine example of a moderate economy affecting world affairs, congrats to the UK.
4. In Egypt, alongside Israel and France, the UK waged war to prevent nationalisation of its ex-colonial holding. Opposed by both superpowers, truly punching well above its weight, impressive work by the UK.
This whole discussion is such a farce. The only reason the UK ever punched above its weight is because it was the owner of the largest colonial empire in history. It is that legacy you are proudly defending.
Last edited:
it's the illegality in the first place - these laws were most prominently spread by the British Empire, other empires did not have similarly impactful anti-gay efforts
That’s again a remarkably simplistic way of looking at it. Our legacy is also in the international legal institutions that we helped establish. Our influence sprung partly from that too. Bemoaning the torching of our international relationships and our increasingly provincial worldview, isn’t about defending our colonial legacy.
Come on now. This is ridiculous. You have countries like Uganda, where being gay is only marginally better than being the devil. These former colonies have had decades to change the laws and they have not because in most cases anti-gay is consistent with local customs and culture. I think it spurious to blame the former colonial powers, British or otherwise.
That’s true, however the researchers concluded that the British colonial experience did not make it harder/less likely that states would decriminalize homosexuality later on.
The quotation makes it sounds as if the opposite assertion is true.