UK Politics Thread XII: The Lockdown

[SD_Film Artists]

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2020/02/05/labour-members-should-given-veto-military-action-deputy-candidate/

What is it with the hard-left and being anti-military? Where did Brezhnev-esque interventionism go? Even if you don't support interventionism you may still support protecting your newly socialist country from invasion. As well as the anti-military aspect, it's also just plain undemocratic; if you're going to have a public vote on war then it should be a public vote rather than just letting trade unions and Momentum decide.

What's anti-military about it?

Richard Burgon set out the proposal last night as he declared that Labour activists should “never again” have to experience the “shame” brought about under Tony Blair’s premiership.

The so-called “Labour Peace Pledge” would require the next party leader to ballot members through either a special conference vote or a referendum before they can announce support for military intervention.

Short answer: It's called the "Labour Peace Pledge".

Long answer: Implying that national defence is so terrible that there must always be a pseudo-referendum on it rather than doing as standard. Not that I'm literally saying we should go to war without any thought or debate, but he's also not ruling out the other extreme; asking Momentum & Co if we should defend against direct attacks on British soil. It's a good thing that Momentum isn't constantly going on about western imperialism- oh wait!

[The New California Republic]

RLB is reporting Starmer for breaching party rules, and a couple of people are saying he should be barred from running.

Timeline:
Starmer expressed concern RLB would have access to members data not available to other candidates, and the response from the party leadership was to accuse him of hacking the party, report him, and leak that accusation to the press. The usual suspects then start nattering to themselves about how its unacceptable and he should be disqualified.

Oh boy, are you ready for the collapse of the Labour party?

A bitter leadership contest indeed.

[The Huskar Social Union]

Hope Starmer wins the contest.

[Liriena]

RLB is reporting Starmer for breaching party rules, and a couple of people are saying he should be barred from running.

Timeline:
Starmer expressed concern RLB would have access to members data not available to other candidates, and the response from the party leadership was to accuse him of hacking the party, report him, and leak that accusation to the press. The usual suspects then start nattering to themselves about how its unacceptable and he should be disqualified.

Oh boy, are you ready for the collapse of the Labour party?

Things gotta get worse before they can get better.

[Dumb Ideologies]

Defeat < Victory's jaws
^
Starmer

"That half-chewed meal looks delicious I must have it."

[SD_Film Artists]

The far left in the UK has always been like that for the most part, except in WW1 when many of the parties supported the war.

Labour supported WW1, and opposed WW2 (Until it started.). They opposed the Falklands, and supported Iraq.

It gets a bit much sometimes trying to be a member of this party.

Indeed it's a large part of why I wouldn't vote Labour. There's some economic policies that I agree with and it's great that they have a semi-official Neurodiversity Manifesto (to my knowledge the only Lib Dem to say anything significant on autistic acceptance is Norman Lamb, and he's retired). But it's the non-economic things (other than autism) that I can't get behind.

[Ifreann]

What's anti-military about it?

Richard Burgon set out the proposal last night as he declared that Labour activists should “never again” have to experience the “shame” brought about under Tony Blair’s premiership.

The so-called “Labour Peace Pledge” would require the next party leader to ballot members through either a special conference vote or a referendum before they can announce support for military intervention.

Short answer: It's called the "Labour Peace Pledge".

Considering the typical consequences of war for the military, I would say that being pro-peace is, if anything, pro-military.

Long answer: Implying that national defence is so terrible that there must always be a pseudo-referendum on it rather than doing as standard. Not that I'm literally saying we should go to war without any thought or debate, but he's also not ruling out the other extreme; asking Momentum & Co if we should defend against direct attacks on British soil. It's a good thing that Momentum isn't constantly going on about western imperialism- oh wait!

This is very clearly a policy about military interventions like invading Iraq because Bush said it'd be great fun. Not about defending the nation.

---

Things gotta get worse before they can get better.

Found the Posadist.

[Liriena]

Things gotta get worse before they can get better.

Found the Posadist.

Nuclear holocaust would give me space communism and a quick tan. It's a win-win.

[The New California Republic]

Late last night, Sir Keir wrote to the party flatly denying any wrongdoing by his team members.

He insisted they were investigating a means of penetrating the database - called Dialogue - with no intention to use it.

So...why bother?

[SD_Film Artists]

Short answer: It's called the "Labour Peace Pledge".

Considering the typical consequences of war for the military, I would say that being pro-peace is, if anything, pro-military.

They should at least maintain the military so that they could use it, even if they never do use it. Of course he didn't explicitly say that there'd be defence cuts, but the rhetoric isn't positive.

Long answer: Implying that national defence is so terrible that there must always be a pseudo-referendum on it rather than doing as standard. Not that I'm literally saying we should go to war without any thought or debate, but he's also not ruling out the other extreme; asking Momentum & Co if we should defend against direct attacks on British soil. It's a good thing that Momentum isn't constantly going on about western imperialism- oh wait!

This is very clearly a policy about military interventions like invading Iraq because Bush said it'd be great fun. Not about defending the nation.

I'll believe that when Back in Control is played at the next Labour convention; or at least as Burgon's ringtone.

[Souseiseki]

Late last night, Sir Keir wrote to the party flatly denying any wrongdoing by his team members.

He insisted they were investigating a means of penetrating the database - called Dialogue - with no intention to use it.

So...why bother?

i mean pentesting is a real thing but idk if i trust them

[Dumb Ideologies]

Late last night, Sir Keir wrote to the party flatly denying any wrongdoing by his team members.

He insisted they were investigating a means of penetrating the database - called Dialogue - with no intention to use it.

So...why bother?

It's like a kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he claims he's checking the lid was on properly. Did he not think what it'd look like if his innocent "test" was caught? Terrible judgement even in the unlikely event he's telling the truth.

[SD_Film Artists]

Late last night, Sir Keir wrote to the party flatly denying any wrongdoing by his team members.

He insisted they were investigating a means of penetrating the database - called Dialogue - with no intention to use it.

So...why bother?

The "penetration" was only the tip so it doesn't count.

[Ifreann]

Considering the typical consequences of war for the military, I would say that being pro-peace is, if anything, pro-military.

They should at least maintain the military so that they could use it, even if they never do use it. Of course he didn't explicitly say that there'd be defence cuts, but the rhetoric isn't positive.

Ah, so this policy of requiring the party's approval before supporting military intervention is anti-military because you assume that the person proposing it also supports cuts to the defence budget, not because of the policy itself.

This is very clearly a policy about military interventions like invading Iraq because Bush said it'd be great fun. Not about defending the nation.

I'll believe that when Back in Control is played at the next Labour convention; or at least as Burgon's ringtone.

Burgon was two when the Falklands were invaded.

[SD_Film Artists]

They should at least maintain the military so that they could use it, even if they never do use it. Of course he didn't explicitly say that there'd be defence cuts, but the rhetoric isn't positive.

Ah, so this policy of requiring the party's approval before supporting military intervention is anti-military because you assume that the person proposing it also supports cuts to the defence budget, not because of the policy itself.

I mean the over-arching rhetoric of it, as mentioned. And to be clear- every Labour member rather than just the PLP.

I'll believe that when Back in Control is played at the next Labour convention; or at least as Burgon's ringtone.

Burgon was two when the Falklands were invaded.

And I wasn't born yet. What's your point?

[The Huskar Social Union]

Ah, so this policy of requiring the party's approval before supporting military intervention is anti-military because you assume that the person proposing it also supports cuts to the defence budget, not because of the policy itself.

I mean the over-arching rhetoric of it, as mentioned. And to be clear- every Labour member rather than just the PLP.

Burgon was two when the Falklands were invaded.

And I wasn't born yet. What's your point?

That they were born two years before the Falkland Islands found themselves in a state of invasion by the Armed forces of Argentina.



Im just being a shit atm ignore me.

[SD_Film Artists]

I mean the over-arching rhetoric of it, as mentioned. And to be clear- every Labour member rather than just the PLP.



And I wasn't born yet. What's your point?

That they were born two years before the Falkland Islands found themselves in a state of invasion by the Armed forces of Argentina.

That...is true.

Im just being a shit atm ignore me.

No one is ignored on NSG

[Ifreann]

Ah, so this policy of requiring the party's approval before supporting military intervention is anti-military because you assume that the person proposing it also supports cuts to the defence budget, not because of the policy itself.

I mean the over-arching rhetoric of it, as mentioned. And to be clear- every Labour member rather than just the PLP.

So it's not an anti-military policy, you just feel like there's a sort of anti-military air to the Labour Party.

Burgon was two when the Falklands were invaded.

And I wasn't born yet. What's your point?

That his political views in general and this policy in specific are informed by more recent events. Iraq. Afghanistan. Not the Falklands.

[Ostroeuropa]

So...why bother?

It's like a kid getting caught with his hand in the cookie jar and he claims he's checking the lid was on properly. Did he not think what it'd look like if his innocent "test" was caught? Terrible judgement even in the unlikely event he's telling the truth.

Pretty much.

I personally hope Starmer and RLB implode by fighting eachother over this shit and make eachother too toxic, so Nandy wins.

[The Huskar Social Union]

That they were born two years before the Falkland Islands found themselves in a state of invasion by the Armed forces of Argentina.

That...is true.

Im just being a shit atm ignore me.

No one is ignored on NSG

[SD_Film Artists]

I mean the over-arching rhetoric of it, as mentioned. And to be clear- every Labour member rather than just the PLP.

So it's not an anti-military policy, you just feel like there's a sort of anti-military air to the Labour Party.

That too, but also because there doesn't seem to be any alternative motive for this. If he was genuinely concerned about Britain not being drawn into illegal and counter-productive wars then he could spend more time talking to people who are actually qualified on such matters (not necessarily serving military members, but anyone who has inside knowledge on the situation) rather than Joe McLabour Voter.

Burgon was two when the Falklands were invaded.

That his political views in general and this policy in specific are informed by more recent events. Iraq. Afghanistan. Not the Falklands.

Why would I want to trust someone who's a poor student of history?

[Ifreann]

So it's not an anti-military policy, you just feel like there's a sort of anti-military air to the Labour Party.

That too, but also because there doesn't seem to be any alternative motive for this. If he was genuinely concerned about Britain not being drawn into illegal and counter-productive wars then he could spend more time talking to people who are actually qualified on such matters (not necessarily serving military members, but anyone who has inside knowledge on the situation) rather than Joe McLabour Voter.

Labour Party members seem, to me at least, the ideal people to determine Labour Party policy. This does not preclude consulting with people who have relevant expertise. On the contrary, if Labour have to hold a special conference to decide on whether or not to support a military intervention, that will lead to arguments being made both for and against the intervention.

That his political views in general and this policy in specific are informed by more recent events. Iraq. Afghanistan. Not the Falklands.

Why would I want to trust someone who's a poor student of history?

I don't think it's fair to suggest that finding Iraq and Afghanistan more relevant to policy proposals than the Falklands is indicative of a poor understanding of history. If we gaze into our crystal balls, what future are we more likely to see? America kicking off another invasion and asking Britain to come along for the ride? Or a distant British territory being invaded by another nation?

[Fartsniffage]

I don't think it's fair to suggest that finding Iraq and Afghanistan more relevant to policy proposals than the Falklands is indicative of a poor understanding of history. If we gaze into our crystal balls, what future are we more likely to see? America kicking off another invasion and asking Britain to come along for the ride? Or a distant British territory being invaded by another nation?

I heard on the grapevine that the 16 active solider the UK has left are currently training for an op where dodging sunloungers and only moving during the hours of 2pm-4pm are key. *taps side of nose*

[Druing]

[SD_Film Artists]

That too, but also because there doesn't seem to be any alternative motive for this. If he was genuinely concerned about Britain not being drawn into illegal and counter-productive wars then he could spend more time talking to people who are actually qualified on such matters (not necessarily serving military members, but anyone who has inside knowledge on the situation) rather than Joe McLabour Voter.

Labour Party members seem, to me at least, the ideal people to determine Labour Party policy.

Which would also become national policy if this policy was continued after a successful election. Labour party members are not elected and thus they should have no direct say on military action.

This does not preclude consulting with people who have relevant expertise. On the contrary, if Labour have to hold a special conference to decide on whether or not to support a military intervention, that will lead to arguments being made both for and against the intervention.

Which would ultimately be pointless if it's vetoed by the membership vote.

Why would I want to trust someone who's a poor student of history?

I don't think it's fair to suggest that finding Iraq and Afghanistan more relevant to policy proposals than the Falklands is indicative of a poor understanding of history. If we gaze into our crystal balls, what future are we more likely to see? America kicking off another invasion and asking Britain to come along for the ride? Or a distant British territory being invaded by another nation?

Your previous statement about his age seemed to imply that he has no reason to care about anything that he doesn't have a first-hand memory of. More to the point, there are plenty of other conflicts to learn about which are relevant to modern interventionism (or non-interventionism) than just Iraq and Afghanistan. Limiting yourself to just 2 or 3 examples which themselves are arguably part of a single conflict (Bush/Obama era war on terror) seems very short-sighted.