Westminster Politics
- Thread starter altodevil
- Start date
It was a common perception at the time though:
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.
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.
Thread/
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.
It's not nearly two decades after the event. It ended this decade and the direct repercussions are still being felt internationally. That's basic shit.
People like you either trying to rewrite history or being ignorant of it might be part of the reason that others feel the need to remind you about it.
Given that we are in 2019 I thought the result didn't need pointing out.
Firstly I picked the Iraq war because as we've all seen the sheer mention of it(All I did was post 1 picture) makes you piss your pants. Secondly as the last couple of pages have shown its a good example(Although there are plenty more examples)of the outcome of Britain punching above its weight.
You've literally offered nothing but nostalgia for a time that never existed.
What feck does any of this mean ?
Last edited:
these things don't happen in a vaccum, 2 seconds of google will give you this about the example you choose, showing the anti-gay movements started as a result of colonisation not because it was an existing cultural fact, the more recent extreme anti-gay laws also have some roots in American evangelism
it doesn't matter which way history forked in those countries, lasting damage was done by the colonisers
be specific for once for fecks sake no one has any idea what you're talking about
I meant local customs as they are now, not more than a century ago. Views on sexuality have changed almost everywhere in that time. In countries like Uganda, the change has been towards less permissiveness. The tilt towards zero tolerance occurred many years after they gained independence, in the 80s and 90s. Therefore, a better explanation might be the osmosis of American Evangelism, not colonialism. These countries were more tolerant in the immediate post colonial days than they are now.
Like I said, I’m not going to argue about Iraq again. My point is wider one, and the context is Brexit- here and now - not Iraq, where the decision was made nearly 20 years ago. Perhaps you need to reminded about that.
You seem quite angry. Been a rough day?
it's always all of the above, I don't know if western chritisian theology would have this particular impact without colonialism - would those american evangelists had the same effect on the country if anti-gay sentiments didn't get planted in the region? idk maybe, maybe not, but what we do know is that the British empire planted the anti-gay sentiments to begin with
British role in helping to set up nato: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_NATO
British role at Bretton Woods: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bretton_Woods_Conference
British role in setting up the UN: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_and_the_United_Nations
My point being, bemoaning the loss of influence, thanks to Brexit, isn’t about preserving our colonial legacy. It’s about wanting to play a role in shaping the institutions of the future too, rather than opting out of it. That kind of internationalist outlook is worth fighting for. IMO.
Tories, who'd have thunk
what that's it, pacts almost a century ago? and this waning influence is because of brexit, are you taking the piss?
Britain lost that influence decades ago because it no longer has the military might or economic power to swing that high, it wasn't punching above it's weight in those pacts - that was its weight
Brexit won't have an impact on those things, the economy will shrink and the NI will be a shitshow but the country will be essentially at the same power level it is now but in a different dynamic