UK Politics Thread II: Gladstone's Revenge

[Valaran]

I'm hoping to go to uni next year. (just got to get the grades).

I need to get involved with this and sort this shit out. Bring a bit of common sense to the table.

Speaking from someone who was sort of involved but not really and good friends with people who are

Don't unless you feel like being stressed to hell in back

This^

Unless one plans to use this as a training ground for national politics, there's little point to being involved in uni politics, which usually only tinkers around the edges of things (it's not there to solve the big issues). You do get a lot of people with... uh, odd suggestions and ideas and agendas they want to push through, and it can be quite nasty at times.

[Ostroeuropa]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-36109164

Oxford, Cambridge, Manchester, Birmingham, York, Exeter, Aberystwyth, and Kings College London
are threatening to split the student union and secede over the election of Ms Bouattia.

Ms Bouattia, to put it bluntly, is an SJW.

She campaigned on the ticket of: "Why Is My Curriculum White?" and she has opposed the government's Prevent counter-extremism strategy. She claims Birmingham is a Zionist outpost, and has frequently been accused of anti-semitism.

In a 2014 video from a Gaza and Palestinian Revolution event, she questioned the value of the Middle East peace talks and warned of the influence of "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".
(That wonderful overlap between "Stormfront or SJW" strikes again.)

She likewise refused to support a motion condemning the Islamic state.

I think that this, in isolation, would not be about to provoke secession from the universities mentioned. It is the latest in a long line of concerning actions by NUS and its descent into SJW politics. I support the secession by these universities.

Wasn't there some pretty worrying things in the governments counter extremism strategy? Other than that, yeah she seems pretty off the deep end. I'm quite glad I never got into Uni politics tbh.

Arguably yes, it may well be a case of Nixon Goes To China though, which is perhaps unfair but all the same.
If you're opposed to the governments counter extremism strategy, this is the worst person to air those views.
Get a neo-con to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China

[Olivaero]

Wasn't there some pretty worrying things in the governments counter extremism strategy? Other than that, yeah she seems pretty off the deep end. I'm quite glad I never got into Uni politics tbh.

You mean the whole "owning more than one mobile phone or questioning government policy makes someone an extremist" stuff?

Ah yes, that stuff.

[Moctina]

Those in the care of local authorities etc, etc can be sold for a comfortable price and the money put back into the Treasury, which can them be used for homeless prevention.
Others, privately owned, or otherwise, are capable of becoming a big investment for individuals and firms.

Good for them.

But there's a problem of 185,000 homeless individuals which can be solved almost immediately.

Evidently, we have to look at submarines, battleships etc, etc, but there is something in the aircraft carrier debate which holds a sort of weight not only tactically, but psychologically. We need the ability to project influence in this country; Russia has aircraft carriers, the United States has aircraft carriers, Italy has aircraft carriers!
We need a large number of these vessels which will, among many things, help send a message to Argentina. We must make our fleet more efficient so we are a military superpower, which can hold the upper hand in a confrontation, in particular in the South Atlantic.

You mentioned battleships in 2016, which aptly demonstrates how little you understand of the matter.

The UK does not need a third carrier. The US is a country with global defence agreements. Russia is the largest country by land area and probably has the longest coastline. This is why these countries have the navies they have. Even then, the Russian carriers are not comparable in capability to American carriers.

You sound just like Jeremy Corbyn; Britain is small- we should just let our position die in the world.
It isn't worth the paperwork.

[The Archregimancy]

In a 2014 video from a Gaza and Palestinian Revolution event, she questioned the value of the Middle East peace talks and warned of the influence of "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".
(That wonderful overlap between "Stormfront or SJW" strikes again.)

While close scrutiny of Ms Bouattia's politics is entirely legitimate, I'm not sure that wheeling out Stormfront is entirely helping your argument here.

It's not an organisation that's typically known for its ardent sympathy towards brown-skinned Muslim women, after all.

[Kainesia]

Speaking from someone who was sort of involved but not really and good friends with people who are

Don't unless you feel like being stressed to hell in back

This^

Unless one plans to use this as a training ground for national politics, there's little point to being involved in uni politics, which usually only tinkers around the edges of things (it's not there to solve the big issues). You do get a lot of people with... uh, odd suggestions and ideas and agendas they want to push through, and it can be quite nasty at times.

I like a challenge. I also like taking on stupid ideas head on. I know someone who is a communist and actually thinks north korea is best korea. I've had some fun tormenting him.

[Valaran]

I like a challenge.

lol ok.

I also like taking on stupid ideas head on.

Probably why you're on NSG then.

[Elepis]

Good for them.

But there's a problem of 185,000 homeless individuals which can be solved almost immediately.
You mentioned battleships in 2016, which aptly demonstrates how little you understand of the matter.

The UK does not need a third carrier. The US is a country with global defence agreements. Russia is the largest country by land area and probably has the longest coastline. This is why these countries have the navies they have. Even then, the Russian carriers are not comparable in capability to American carriers.

You sound just like Jeremy Corbyn; Britain is small- we should just let our position die in the world.
It isn't worth the paperwork.

Here here! I want us to be like Sweden, when was the last time Sweden was the victim of a major terrorist attack?

Something that annoys me about politicians talking about the EU. They all say, even in Remain, that further integration with the EU will not be on the table. I want it to be on the table, I want EU (and the UK) to become the United States of Europe (well, more like ever closer union). I feel badly under-represented.

[Napkiraly]

In a 2014 video from a Gaza and Palestinian Revolution event, she questioned the value of the Middle East peace talks and warned of the influence of "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".
(That wonderful overlap between "Stormfront or SJW" strikes again.)

While close scrutiny of Ms Bouattia's politics is entirely legitimate, I'm not sure that wheeling out Stormfront is entirely helping your argument here.

It's not an organisation that's typically known for its ardent sympathy towards brown-skinned Muslim women, after all.

Actually it's a like a little game of sorts. Guess who said something terrible about a group and guess if it was an SJW or neo-Nazi. Aiming to show overlap between the two in rhetoric.

[Moctina]

You sound just like Jeremy Corbyn; Britain is small- we should just let our position die in the world.
It isn't worth the paperwork.

Here here! I want us to be like Sweden, when was the last time Sweden was the victim of a major terrorist attack?

Something that annoys me about politicians talking about the EU. They all say, even in Remain, that further integration with the EU will not be on the table. I want it to be on the table, I want EU (and the UK) to become the United States of Europe (well, more like ever closer union). I feel badly under-represented.

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

[Czechanada]

Here here! I want us to be like Sweden, when was the last time Sweden was the victim of a major terrorist attack?

Something that annoys me about politicians talking about the EU. They all say, even in Remain, that further integration with the EU will not be on the table. I want it to be on the table, I want EU (and the UK) to become the United States of Europe (well, more like ever closer union). I feel badly under-represented.

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

How much soft power does the UK still possess?

[Ostroeuropa]

While close scrutiny of Ms Bouattia's politics is entirely legitimate, I'm not sure that wheeling out Stormfront is entirely helping your argument here.

It's not an organisation that's typically known for its ardent sympathy towards brown-skinned Muslim women, after all.

Actually it's a like a little game of sorts. Guess who said something terrible about a group and guess if it was an SJW or neo-Nazi. Aiming to show overlap between the two in rhetoric.

This.
https://www.reddit.com/r/StormfrontorSJW/

It's usually best played when the subject is Jews though.

Coupled with the refusal of NUS to commemorate the holocaust, i'd say the case that anti-semitism is rife on campuses is a fairly good one.

In a 2014 video from a Gaza and Palestinian Revolution event, she questioned the value of the Middle East peace talks and warned of the influence of "mainstream Zionist-led media outlets".
(That wonderful overlap between "Stormfront or SJW" strikes again.)

While close scrutiny of Ms Bouattia's politics is entirely legitimate, I'm not sure that wheeling out Stormfront is entirely helping your argument here.

It's not an organisation that's typically known for its ardent sympathy towards brown-skinned Muslim women, after all.

It's kind of like quoting a radical christian theocrat and a radical muslim theocrat and challenging people to pick which is which. They don't have to like eachother to be the same sort of person.
Like Ted Cruz and his Allahu Akhbar moment.

https://twitter.com/libyaliberty/status ... 8161242112

I was stunned by the forwardness of "Zionist-controlled media" and had to make the comparison, especially in line with her other comments.

[Olivaero]

Wasn't there some pretty worrying things in the governments counter extremism strategy? Other than that, yeah she seems pretty off the deep end. I'm quite glad I never got into Uni politics tbh.

Arguably yes, it may well be a case of Nixon Goes To China though, which is perhaps unfair but all the same.
If you're opposed to the governments counter extremism strategy, this is the worst person to air those views.
Get a neo-con to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China

Meh, if someone makes a point I think is correct I'm gonna agree with them about it whether it's David Cameron or George Galloway if they're right they're right.

[Valaran]

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

All for that. Our diplomatic service has really atrophied, and we tend to only use foreign policy in reactive or naive ways.

[Valaran]

How much soft power does the UK still possess?

It was apparently tanked number 1 (but its probably incredibly subjective), and we have the most 'powerful' passport, so a good deal.

[Elepis]

Here here! I want us to be like Sweden, when was the last time Sweden was the victim of a major terrorist attack?

Something that annoys me about politicians talking about the EU. They all say, even in Remain, that further integration with the EU will not be on the table. I want it to be on the table, I want EU (and the UK) to become the United States of Europe (well, more like ever closer union). I feel badly under-represented.

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

[Ostroeuropa]

Arguably yes, it may well be a case of Nixon Goes To China though, which is perhaps unfair but all the same.
If you're opposed to the governments counter extremism strategy, this is the worst person to air those views.
Get a neo-con to do it.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_goes_to_China

Meh, if someone makes a point I think is correct I'm gonna agree with them about it whether it's David Cameron or George Galloway if they're right they're right.

That's fair. I was more commenting on the political realities of her position.

[Napkiraly]

One reason to spend a minimum of 2% is to reach the NATO goal and be less of a burden on the Alliance.

Furthermore, having a say in international politics tends to work wonders for the things you care about. Such as, say, climate change.

[Ostroeuropa]

One reason to spend a minimum of 2% is to reach the NATO goal and be less of a burden on the Alliance.

Furthermore, having a say in international politics tends to work wonders for the things you care about. Such as, say, climate change.

This, but furthermore, we have a humanitarian duty to uphold.
We might not be the best at it, but we do actually do it on occasion.

Who's going to intervene in genocides if not the west?

[Elepis]

One reason to spend a minimum of 2% is to reach the NATO goal and be less of a burden on the Alliance.

Furthermore, having a say in international politics tends to work wonders for the things you care about. Such as, say, climate change.

This, but furthermore, we have a humanitarian duty to uphold.
We might not be the best at it, but we do actually do it on occasion.

Who's going to intervene in genocides if not the west?

I can see the point about climate change. However about humanitarian grounds, the Nordic countries do send peacekeepers in to countries, eg Sudan, Kosovo, Chad etc. There are other ways to help as well that don't involve military intervention.

[Hydesland]

Remember 5 - 6 years ago when the NUS spent their time organizing massive protests and civil disobedience in Central London against tuition fee hikes? What happened to that NUS? How did it become... whatever it is today?

[Valaran]

What this country needs is to become more engaged in world politics, taking an active role in disputes, trade, international organisations etc, etc, in particular in the Middle East & Russia.

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

Fundamentally the peaceful lives that so many now enjoy is dependent on a world order that is, at its core, upheld by the US and its allies. This is an oversimplification, and it is not an iron rule (other factors are involved). However, one of the reasons we have fewer state-state wars now, as opposed to any period previously, is because there are nations willing to enforce an international consensus on national sovereignty. If you want a more realpolitik approach, the reason Sweden and Europe can feel safe from Russia simply expanding is because is the US and its allies act as a guarantor of their sovereignty, and security (one could call this a sphere of influence). This is also relevant for trade, sharing of ideas and knowledge, the movement of peoples, cooperation on things like recessions, diseases, and so forth.

The UK is a major upholder of such a status quo. The US does not often act without its strongest ally; it relies on us, and other Europeans for support. We have a vested interest and incentives to continue to uphold this global arrangement and that means having an ability to enforce such things. This is espcially acute, given our propensity to trade - trade is secured by freedom of the seas, and guess which nations are eroding that freedom?

You note Sweden, but recently, support for joining NATO there has surged, they are again deploying in Cold War bases,upping their defence spending significantly, and creating defence pacts. Even aside from this, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were some of the most enthusiastic participants in Operation Unified Protector in 2011. They recognise the reason that they have an idyll is because that idyll is enforced by strength of arms.

As such a consensus is now under threat, espcially in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and East Asia, and all of these places have now decided to increase defence spending. There are sound and less sound reasons for this, but the fundamental point is that they understand that to protect various vested interests they have, they must be able to defend them. The UK also has such interests, and so, must be able to defend them.

[Imperializt Russia]

This is probably the only time I'll neither challenge you, nor roll my eyes at you over the use of "SJW". You've finally found a target it's valid against.
Because she felt it demonised all Muslims. She supported a revised draft.

So you think this one is valid, but don't think the other ones were?
I suppose she just materialized out of nowhere and was elected by a bunch of non-SJWs, right?

This particular anti-white, anti-male, anti-western sentiment is rife right now among a certain section of the left wing and they are making inroads. Regressive works just as well to describe them, but the phenomena exists. Would you be likewise dismissive of "tea party" being used as a term?

The difference is purely one of strategy, and i'd argue the regressive strategy is more nefarious.
The tea party demanded a "return" to principles and said the establishment had abandoned them.
The regressives conflate their racist and sexist principles as a continuation of egalitarian principles in order to appropriate the accomplishments of egalitarianism, this is why they don't label themselves as something different. But it's a recognizable ideology.

How would you label these people?

My point, which you missed, is that SJW is a term that once was and should be reserved for out-and-out extremes.
How SJW is commonly used (against basically any movement or position that believes we need greater ethnic or gender diversity, it seems) hopelessly dilutes the term and completely defangs its meaning.

[Imperializt Russia]

Good for them.

But there's a problem of 185,000 homeless individuals which can be solved almost immediately.
You mentioned battleships in 2016, which aptly demonstrates how little you understand of the matter.

The UK does not need a third carrier. The US is a country with global defence agreements. Russia is the largest country by land area and probably has the longest coastline. This is why these countries have the navies they have. Even then, the Russian carriers are not comparable in capability to American carriers.

You sound just like Jeremy Corbyn; Britain is small- we should just let our position die in the world.
It isn't worth the paperwork.

Fucking lol.

That wealth you're trying so desperately to protect would similarly die.

[Ostroeuropa]

why? Why not be like Sweden, Finland, Norway etc. They play a very limited international role but are not victims of world terrorism, are rich and have high standards of living. Imagine what we could invest in if we didn't spend 2% of GDP on defense. Sweden is bordered by Russia yet they only spend 1.34% of GDP on the military.

Fundamentally the peaceful lives that so many now enjoy is dependent on a world order that is, at its core, upheld by the US and its allies. This is an oversimplification, and it is not an iron rule (other factors are involved). However, one of the reasons we have fewer state-state wars now, as opposed to any period previously, is because there are nations willing to enforce an international consensus on national sovereignty. If you want a more realpolitik approach, the reason Sweden and Europe can feel safe from Russia simply expanding is because is the US and its allies act as a guarantor of their sovereignty, and security (one could call this a sphere of influence). This is also relevant for trade, sharing of ideas and knowledge, the movement of peoples, cooperation on things like recessions, diseases, and so forth.

The UK is a major upholder of such a status quo. The US does not often act without its strongest ally; it relies on us, and other Europeans for support. We have a vested interest and incentives to continue to uphold this global arrangement and that means having an ability to enforce such things. This is espcially acute, given our propensity to trade - trade is secured by freedom of the seas, and guess which nations are eroding that freedom?

You note Sweden, but recently, support for joining NATO there has surged, they are again deploying in Cold War bases,upping their defence spending significantly, and creating defence pacts. Even aside from this, Sweden, Denmark and Norway were some of the most enthusiastic participants in Operation Unified Protector in 2011. They recognise the reason that they have an idyll is because that idyll is enforced by strength of arms.

As such a consensus is now under threat, espcially in Eastern Europe, the Middle East, and E Asia, all of these places have now decided to increase defence spending. There are sound and less sound reasons for this, but the fundamental point is that they understand that to protect various vested interests they have, they must be able to defend them.

This is why I support the expansion of NATO. You summed it up very well.