If you're going to condemn, you condemn loudly and vocally. All Corbyn is doing is excusing Maduro.
I'm going to disagree with you because I'm enjoying the debate.
Corbyn has specifically called for the independence of the judiciary and respect for human rights and that explicitly and implicitly condemns both the State for not providing the separation of powers and those killing security forces who are doing their job (as they see it).
My point throughout all this is that part of the sound and fury is just an excuse to have another pop at Corbyn but then as June shows, you can pour tons of sh1t over someone and they can still come up smelling of roses.
The more serious is Corbyn is offering a different approach to foreign policy and foreign policy making than the last 30 years and when I list all the triumphs of western foreign policy since the Berlin Wall fell....yep.
We need a different approach to our sanctimonious moralising whenever a dictator we don't like sounds off and we ignore for instance the armaments we sell to any number of dubious Governments worldwide. Call it "ethical" if you want and that word is tainted but we have to do better than we have. Should we declare war on China to free Tibet or march into Harare to depose Mugabe ? Apparently not - even by our standards, we have been hypocritical.
Corbyn deplores all violence - well, it's a start. We've a record of sitting down with former terrorists and hammering out political solutions and it's not a bad record overall. Perhaps the lesson is what worked for us can work for others - get Maduro and the Opposition to have a cease fire and meet round a table under French or British or whoever facilitation and sort it out. Talking to each other is infinitely better than killing each other. Some may want Maduro strung up from a lamp post or put on trial - maybe but exile and a peaceful transition to free and fair elections under UN supervision looks a pretty attractive alternative especially if backed by aid and investment to help rebuild the shattered economy.
It will also serve as an example for us in 2027 apparently.
As support plummets, Trump thinks about kicking his base in the face:
"President Donald Trump has dropped hints that he might stop the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, through which federal funds flow to insurance companies to keep down coverage costs for low-income people."
As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.
But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.
At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
He is supported by those without good conscience. The man was rooting for the IRA and wanted them to win, and yet this somehow doesn't bother those who voted for him. It also doesn't bother those within his own party who were opposed but are now reconciled to him. It's not that they thought comforting the IRA was bad, it's that they thought it was electorally harmful. As it's not, they are now fine with him.
I'm going to disagree with you because I'm enjoying the debate.
Corbyn has specifically called for the independence of the judiciary and respect for human rights and that explicitly and implicitly condemns both the State for not providing the separation of powers and those killing security forces who are doing their job (as they see it).
My point throughout all this is that part of the sound and fury is just an excuse to have another pop at Corbyn but then as June shows, you can pour tons of sh1t over someone and they can still come up smelling of roses.
The more serious is Corbyn is offering a different approach to foreign policy and foreign policy making than the last 30 years and when I list all the triumphs of western foreign policy since the Berlin Wall fell....yep.
(Snip)
Corbyn deplores all violence - well, it's a start. We've a record of sitting down with former terrorists and hammering out political solutions and it's not a bad record overall. Perhaps the lesson is what worked for us can work for others - get Maduro and the Opposition to have a cease fire and meet round a table under French or British or whoever facilitation and sort it out. Talking to each other is infinitely better than killing each other. Some may want Maduro strung up from a lamp post or put on trial - maybe but exile and a peaceful transition to free and fair elections under UN supervision looks a pretty attractive alternative especially if backed by aid and investment to help rebuild the shattered economy.
It will also serve as an example for us in 2027 apparently.
There are many different approaches that could be taken. You can certainly argue that western foreign policy has not distinguished itself over the last thirty years, but that does not mean that Corbyn's alternative approach is right. Especially when it is so glaringly wrong.
"get Maduro and the Opposition to have a cease fire and meet round a table under French or British or whoever facilitation and sort it out."
That's all good and well. As far as I can tell the opposition don't have many (any?) forces to call a ceasefire: the problems appear to be being caused by Maduro's thugs and the army.
Here's what Corbyn could have called for: disband the constituent assembly, and stop any plans to revise the constitution until the situation has calmed down. They're simple moves that are obviously fair and may help defuse the situation. Instead he issues weasel words that allows the situation he wants - Maduro in power - to continue.
The point is simple: if you want for people to live in peace in a fair democracy, you condemn what Maduro is doing loudly. If you secretly think the ends justify the means (as I presume Corbyn does), then you soft-soap it.
This may not have any cut-through with the British public. But that doesn't mean that Corbyn's craven words should be ignored or forgotten.
Radical tourism is no different from sex tourism. In both the political and the coital, the inhabitants of the rich world go to the poor to find the thrills no one will give them at home.
Western men and women with nothing to recommend them except their wealth escape their sexless lives and buy prostitutes, who are not like those indifferent boys and girls who pass them in the street......
For their part, political tourists are stuck in a sexless marriage to a Britain that offers them no excitement. The proletariat has refused their entreaties to revolt. Their radical fantasies are never fulfilled. So they, too, scour the world. For years, the top radical tourist destination, the political equivalent of the Pattaya Beach brothel, has been Chavista Venezuela. Hollywood stars, the leaders of the British Labour party and Spanish “popular resistance”, and every half-baked pseudo-left intellectual from Noam Chomsky to John Pilger has engaged in a left orientalism as they wallowed in “the other’s” exotic delights.
Venezuela stroked all their erogenous zones. Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro were anti-American and “anti-imperialist”. That both allied with imperial powers, most notably Russia, did not appear to concern them in the slightest. Venezuela, cried Seumas Milne in the Guardian, has “redistributed wealth and power, rejected western neoliberal orthodoxy, and challenged imperial domination”. What more could a breathless Western punter ask for?
As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.
But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.
At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
I wonder if it might gain more traction with younger voters than the IRA business, as the situation in Venezuela is actually happening now. I wonder but am not particularly hopeful.
It's not like Tories have ever propped up vile regimes is it?
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you. We propped up Stalin because we thought he might beat Germany for us, for example.
What's less defensible is propping up vile regimes simply because you're in favour of the pogroms and expropriations on some point of warped principle.
Completely mystifying is why, for example, London taxpayers prop up Scotland to no discernible advantage.
As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.
But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.
At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
He is supported by those without good conscience. The man was rooting for the IRA and wanted them to win, and yet this somehow doesn't bother those who voted for him. It also doesn't bother those within his own party who were opposed but are now reconciled to him. It's not that they thought comforting the IRA was bad, it's that they thought it was electorally harmful. As it's not, they are now fine with him.
I love the projection in your post.
The right in Britain doesn't give a flying f*ck about Venezuela, or Venezuelans.
Radical tourism is no different from sex tourism. In both the political and the coital, the inhabitants of the rich world go to the poor to find the thrills no one will give them at home.
Western men and women with nothing to recommend them except their wealth escape their sexless lives and buy prostitutes, who are not like those indifferent boys and girls who pass them in the street......
For their part, political tourists are stuck in a sexless marriage to a Britain that offers them no excitement. The proletariat has refused their entreaties to revolt. Their radical fantasies are never fulfilled. So they, too, scour the world. For years, the top radical tourist destination, the political equivalent of the Pattaya Beach brothel, has been Chavista Venezuela. Hollywood stars, the leaders of the British Labour party and Spanish “popular resistance”, and every half-baked pseudo-left intellectual from Noam Chomsky to John Pilger has engaged in a left orientalism as they wallowed in “the other’s” exotic delights.
Venezuela stroked all their erogenous zones. Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro were anti-American and “anti-imperialist”. That both allied with imperial powers, most notably Russia, did not appear to concern them in the slightest. Venezuela, cried Seumas Milne in the Guardian, has “redistributed wealth and power, rejected western neoliberal orthodoxy, and challenged imperial domination”. What more could a breathless Western punter ask for?
The point about Corbyn and Venezuela is not so much that he has failed to condemn Maduro (and Chavez before him), but that Corbyn explicitly wants to follow a similar economic policy. Venezuela is simply an illustration of the direction in which Corbyn's naivety would lead, if put into practice. Hopefully the UK wouldn't get so far down the road before coming to its senses, but that's the road he wants us to take.
Chavez's socialist economy worked until the money ran out (quickly). The Private Eye summed it up beautifully; Corbyn wanting to impose the same.
- Get into power - Spend all the money _ Say HEY LOOK GUYS, you are all richer under socialism - Inflation goes up, prices go up, taxes go up, job creators leave, businesses go pop, unemployment rises - Start blaming capitalism - Blame America when inflation is at 1600% and a Big Mac Meal costs $100 - Blame the ensuing starvation on anyone who wasn't a 100% committed socialist
Corbyn would've swanned off into the sunset by the time starvation set in, muttering about bankers and Tories and right-wingers who plotted to stymie his socialist ideal.
I know this is slightly tongue in cheek, but I'm still yet to be convinced that rinsing the rich and spending more than you earn can work for anything longer than a very short period of time.
As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.
But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.
At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
He is supported by those without good conscience. The man was rooting for the IRA and wanted them to win, and yet this somehow doesn't bother those who voted for him. It also doesn't bother those within his own party who were opposed but are now reconciled to him. It's not that they thought comforting the IRA was bad, it's that they thought it was electorally harmful. As it's not, they are now fine with him.
I love the projection in your post.
The right in Britain doesn't give a flying f*ck about Venezuela, or Venezuelans.
Of course not. Why should it? We should all care, however, about the prospect of a similar government here.
As support plummets, Trump thinks about kicking his base in the face:
"President Donald Trump has dropped hints that he might stop the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, through which federal funds flow to insurance companies to keep down coverage costs for low-income people."
Utter madness. The Democrats simply won't play ball on this.
Although there is some uncertainty - I think Trump as President can act in ways to ensure that Obamacare fails or gets worse in practice... without needing any votes from Democrats.
As always, there are parallels to be drawn with Brexit. On both sides of the Atlantic, opportunists piled on a populist bandwagon they didn't understand in the hope of controlling it. Months in, there's an awkward realisation things aren't going to plan and that they've shackled themselves to a disaster.
But what to do? Recanting now would make them look individually ridiculous. So for now they cling on to the hope that things will perk up. But the rack will tighten inexorably. Will they break?
Tis the story of populism, to burn itself out in contact with reality.
At least we have the left wing populism of PM Corbyn to look forward to!
After his letter about Venezuela yesterday, I cannot see how anyone with good conscience can continue to support Corbyn. It was an incredible example of wilfully missing the point.
He is supported by those without good conscience. The man was rooting for the IRA and wanted them to win, and yet this somehow doesn't bother those who voted for him. It also doesn't bother those within his own party who were opposed but are now reconciled to him. It's not that they thought comforting the IRA was bad, it's that they thought it was electorally harmful. As it's not, they are now fine with him.
I think there is a disconnect between what he has been saying and what those things actually mean. Down with that sort of thing is how people will receive it. Unless they are sitting in A&E and see on their newsfeed that the Conservatives are closing down A&E departments, I fear it will wash over most people (see @AlastairMeeks' partner).
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
Churchill/Roosevelt & Stalin is an even more obvious example.
You are right, of course, which is why the Holierthanthou posture is such an awkward one. Doesn't stop it being popular though.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
Avoiding some ends, yes, certainly, in some historical cases.
The alternative to our assisting Stalin was not assisting Stalin, which would have increased the risk of his defeat by Germany, which would in turn then have opened the path to our own defeat. So clearly you side with Stalin, until about 1945*.
For similar reasons, Gandhi approved of both Hitler and Togo.
This stance is less objectionable, however, than de Valera commiserating with Germany on Hitler's suicide.
SNP leader Arthur Donaldson thinking there would be no difference to Scotland whether WW2 was a defeat, victory or stalemate can be dismissed as mere parochial ignorance.
* In 1812 it came to the attention of the British cabinet that Courtaulds and other British textile players were responding to Napoleon's RFP for the supply of greatcoats and other uniform items required for his rumoured invasion of Russia. After some deliberation the decision was taken to allow them to tender, as nothing should be done to dissuade the enemy from invading Russia. That was in part how Courtaulds got so rich.
Like not letting anyone control the whole Channel coast, getting your enemy to invade Russia and then helping Russia to win has always been a sound UK policy position.
As support plummets, Trump thinks about kicking his base in the face:
"President Donald Trump has dropped hints that he might stop the Affordable Care Act’s cost-sharing reduction payments, through which federal funds flow to insurance companies to keep down coverage costs for low-income people."
Utter madness. The Democrats simply won't play ball on this.
Although there is some uncertainty - I think Trump as President can act in ways to ensure that Obamacare fails or gets worse in practice... without needing any votes from Democrats.
I don't disagree. Trump's strategy is to threaten the Democrats: if you don't negotiate with me on replacing Obamacare, I will simply ensure it fails, and you will get the blame.
To which the Democrats have (or are saying): go ahead, punk, make my day.
The Democrats are calling Trump's bluff, and the question is whether he'll defund Obamacare, or back off. Until recently, my money was on the latter option. (The issue with Obamacare is that while people might like a better, cheaper, health insurance option, what they don't want is no affordable health insurance.)
I now wonder if he really will do it. Trump is desperately scared of being seen as weak. He will therefore do things that are against his self interest to allow him to preserve his image as a "strong man".
The great irony, I feel, is that if Republicans succeed in killing Obamacare with no replacement in sight, then they have probably put the US on course to have genuinely socialised medicine.
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
That is a very good point. Bring back the Like button.
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
If people 'don't give a fu*k', does it suddenly make a wrong right?
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
If people 'don't give a fu*k', does it suddenly make a wrong right?
That people don't give a proverbial doesn't change the moral incompetence of Corbyn's position. It just means a lot of them share that moral incompetence.
Radical tourism is no different from sex tourism. In both the political and the coital, the inhabitants of the rich world go to the poor to find the thrills no one will give them at home.
Western men and women with nothing to recommend them except their wealth escape their sexless lives and buy prostitutes, who are not like those indifferent boys and girls who pass them in the street......
For their part, political tourists are stuck in a sexless marriage to a Britain that offers them no excitement. The proletariat has refused their entreaties to revolt. Their radical fantasies are never fulfilled. So they, too, scour the world. For years, the top radical tourist destination, the political equivalent of the Pattaya Beach brothel, has been Chavista Venezuela. Hollywood stars, the leaders of the British Labour party and Spanish “popular resistance”, and every half-baked pseudo-left intellectual from Noam Chomsky to John Pilger has engaged in a left orientalism as they wallowed in “the other’s” exotic delights.
Venezuela stroked all their erogenous zones. Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro were anti-American and “anti-imperialist”. That both allied with imperial powers, most notably Russia, did not appear to concern them in the slightest. Venezuela, cried Seumas Milne in the Guardian, has “redistributed wealth and power, rejected western neoliberal orthodoxy, and challenged imperial domination”. What more could a breathless Western punter ask for?
I don't disagree. Trump's strategy is to threaten the Democrats: if you don't negotiate with me on replacing Obamacare, I will simply ensure it fails, and you will get the blame.
To which the Democrats have (or are saying): go ahead, punk, make my day.
The Democrats are calling Trump's bluff, and the question is whether he'll defund Obamacare, or back off. Until recently, my money was on the latter option. (The issue with Obamacare is that while people might like a better, cheaper, health insurance option, what they don't want is no affordable health insurance.)
I now wonder if he really will do it. Trump is desperately scared of being seen as weak. He will therefore do things that are against his self interest to allow him to preserve his image as a "strong man".
The great irony, I feel, is that if Republicans succeed in killing Obamacare with no replacement in sight, then they have probably put the US on course to have genuinely socialised medicine.
It's ironic that Obamacare is basically what the Heritage Foundation proposed as their conservative solution back in the 90s.
I hope you're right about the socialised medicine but I worry that there would be a long period of chaos and people losing their coverage unnecessarily in the meantime.
There is a growing movement to simply lower the Medicare age - and it has the benefit of being a reform that is very easy for people to understand. There would be challenges for providers of course, but I think they could be overcome.
Just do add - on the political dimensions: if healthcare is a big issue I think that likely helps the Dems. Trump promised to fix it, if it gets worse I suspect he and the Republicans in charge will get the blame.
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
If people 'don't give a fu*k', does it suddenly make a wrong right?
It makes it a wrong and losing political strategy.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
Your usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK due to any friendship towards us. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
If people 'don't give a fu*k', does it suddenly make a wrong right?
It makes it a wrong and losing political strategy.
After all that USA chlorinated chicken scare mongering by the hard line Remain supporters.
EU's infamous food standards. " Germany, meanwhile warned on August 5 that it had distributed eggs to France and the U.K." http://www.politico.eu/article/brussels-warns-egg-scandal-could-now-involve-seven-countries/ "Reuters reported today that a spokesman for Dutch farmers’ lobby LTO said that the fipronil scandal could force authorities to cull millions of chickens."
Indeed. Once we've brexited, we can simply legalise fipronil in food. Problem solved!
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
Without disputing that the caravans were orders of magnitude worse, are you sure of that?
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
Is that an admission? Because if so it seems a sad decline of Socialist ideals, albeit very typical of socialism in practice.
Incidentally, you're right. People don't care. But that's beside the point. I'm talking about Corbyn's judgement. Venezuela, the IRA, Eisen, Hamas and Bernie Bain all show a very disturbing pattern. He is either indifferent to or actively in favour of people whom he regards as opposed to his enemies, no matter what suffering they inflict elsewhere. And that is highly disturbing.
Even so, it then requires somebody to demonstrate how his policies jump from one to the other. I don't think we would end like Venezuela under Corbyn, not least because the army wouldn't back him the way they did Chavez and Maduro. But he could still do fearsome damage along the way.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
Your usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK due to any friendship towards us. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
Thatcher's position was both principled and useful. It helped us to win the Falklands War. A welcome outcome too (if unplanned) was that the Argentinian Junta fell.
OTOH, supporting the Venezuelan government offers nothing to this country, or to anyone other than its dictator.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands.
Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
I beg to differ.
His ideology is his immediate critical issue.
That is more important to him than right or wrong, as I suspect he sees his ideology as good, right and fair. I doubt he is able to impune the purity of his ideology with criticism, as it is a force for good, regardless of evidence, in his perception.
Corbyn has supported Venezuela - which even under Chavez was by any reasonable measure a dictatorship, albeit one that was probably possessed of widespread popular support - because he happens to like it, its principles, policies, even perhaps its methods although that is more ambiguous.
The Conservatives tried all this shit in the GE and it didn't work then. People don't give a fuck. This Venezuela Is The New IRA business isn't going to work either.
As it happens, I think you're correct that to most people, it's a far away country about which we know little or nothing.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong to criticise Corbyn for supporting Maduro.
I doubt it. On the face of it his words appear fair: it's hard to disagree with condemning violence by all sides, and calling for dialogue and respect of human rights.
Yet it leaves a massive amount unsaid, and in particular ignores the reality of what is going on over there. Many people won't bother with the details and will just think: "Oh, he's being so much nicer than those awful people calling for sanctions!"
It'd be nice if leftists confronted him over it; instead the likes of Williamson just brainlessly blame the US.
I do agree with you on Williamson whose intervention yesterday was unhelpful but I'm not sure either Patel or Cable did themselves any credit with their respective anti-Corbyn rants.
Corbyn's line on Venezuela is the same as is it was on Ulster - the condemnation of violence combined with a call to respect the law of the land (not our land, the land where it's happening) and the independence of the judiciary (that's an interesting one - the separation of powers is something Corbyn has often talked about).
The view from other areas of the political spectrum is that the violence perpetrated by one side is always worse than that perpetrated by the other but Corbyn is pacifistic and sees all violence in those terms.
His support for Macron's diplomatic overtures to Caracas is noteworthy either - are we simply going to condemn Maduro and his goons out of hand because they are "nasty lefties" because that won't help or are we going to get our hands dirty and consider a diplomatic process which might end with some form of transitional arrangement which "could" put Venezuela on a wholly different and better path for its people ?
South American politics is always fraught - no one should assume the only alternative to Maduro is a slavishly pro-capitalist pro-Washington Government.
There are times when the "I condemn all violence" approach is plainly dishonest.
For example, where one side is throwing stones, and the other is using live ammunition; or where a government is blatantly breaking its own laws, murdering and arresting its opponents, some of whom start shooting back; or where a terrorist organisation is letting off car bombs in its fight against a democratic government, whose security forces use force against the terrorists.
The pacifist approach in those cases is one of spurious impartiality, when in reality, one side is being favoured.
Yes, you remind me of Hurd's 'neutrality' in the Balkans, creating a level killing field.
Yes very true or Britain and France so called neutrality in the Spanish Civil War , whilst Hitler and Mussolini practised their tactics against civilians from the air in preparation for WW2.
One specially for Carlotta, who was fixated on Scottish Health Service a long time ago. Scotland’s A&Es have now outperformed those in the rest of the UK for 27 consecutive months.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
Mr. Glenn, it is fortunate for the Republic of Ireland that its cantankerous Taoiseach does not lead a country that would be substantially harmed by a so-called cliff-edge departure of the UK from the EU.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
I'm not sure that logic or the consequences of actions is applied to the end of this extract.
To conclude something disproved by the argument is an intellectual masterpiece.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
One of the primary functions of a government is to protect its citizens. Mrs Thatcher knew that and acted accordingly.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
Basically it's a bloke in the Irish Times saying his dad's bigger than our dad, so come and have a go if you think you're hard enough.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
Let me get this straight, are you saying Ireland can veto the Brexit deal? (assuming one ever materialises).
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
The Irish have no power at all to stop us Leaving. They do have a theoretical power to make us Leave with no deal at all.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
The Irish have no power at all to stop us Leaving. They do have a theoretical power to make us Leave with no deal at all.
And deep down I have no doubt that's what will keep Varadkar awake at night. He needs there to be a deal more than anyone, despite his de jure rights.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
In theory, they could derail it.
In practice, if a deal is reached between the UK and EU, the Irish will be told to stop being silly if they try to veto it.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
Let me get this straight, are you saying Ireland can veto the Brexit deal? (assuming one ever materialises).
In the shorter term they can veto a determination that 'sufficient progress' has been made on the border question, putting the UK under more pressure as the clock runs down.
The Brexiteers have three choices:
- Accept that the UK as a whole will stay in a customs union with the EU (and probably the single market as well) - Prepare for a no deal car crash - Betray the DUP and detach Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK with a differentiated deal
"A "sex-obessed" former police officer who filmed a couple having sex from his force helicopter as well as other people sunbathing naked has been jailed for a year.
Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
Let me get this straight, are you saying Ireland can veto the Brexit deal? (assuming one ever materialises).
In the shorter term they can veto a determination that 'sufficient progress' has been made on the border question, putting the UK under more pressure as the clock runs down.
The Brexiteers have three choices:
- Accept that the UK as a whole will stay in a customs union with the EU (and probably the single market as well) - Prepare for a no deal car crash - Betray the DUP and detach Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK with a differentiated deal
As your perception sees it that is true.
However, the pressure may be equal or greater on Ireland. I wonder if UK has a greater dependency on Ireland or Ireland has a greater dependency on UK?
Ireland can use a veto, and provide itself with the worst possible result. UK can chuck money at NI and mitigate a disaster.
If there are over 20 countries that can implement a veto, it isn't much of a weapon as it is so common, it could be used for fish, farming, finance, law, trade, industry, energy, health, citizenship, Gibralter, to name a few. I doubt there is much concern in the Brexit team about willy waving threats of veto from EU members..
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
Let me get this straight, are you saying Ireland can veto the Brexit deal? (assuming one ever materialises).
- Prepare for a no deal car crash
They should do this anyway.
It would focus minds no end......especially Irish ones......
Almost 80 per cent of Ireland’s exports travel through the UK transport system. Customs requirements between the two countries could cause serious disruption.
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
The delicious irony in that piece is whilst the Irish government may have, de jure, an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process, because of the German dominance of the EU (and especially those EU countries in the Eurozone) they have, de facto, no power at all.
We'll see. Your beloved 'posh boy' George Osborne concurs that Ireland has the upper hand against the Brexiteers.
First Spain was going to "derail" Brexit over Gib but now Spain has chickened out it's Ireland that Remainiacs are rooting for...
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
"A "sex-obessed" former police officer who filmed a couple having sex from his force helicopter as well as other people sunbathing naked has been jailed for a year.
Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""
Another article that uses assumption rather than fact and logic to draw conclusions that it is hard to support on an evidential basis from the content supplied. Opinion and fact do get merged far too often these days.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
Another article that uses assumption rather than fact and logic to draw conclusions that it is hard to support on an evidential basis from the content supplied. Opinion and fact do get merged far too often these days.
Yes - I see only limited evidence for Bogdanor's confidence that we will get a global free trade Britain. Admittedly I couldn't read the full article.
Given the focus on immigration and the fact that we are leaving a large free trade block, it's surely possible (perhaps probable?) we will get the opposite, and become more protectionist overall.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
Carlotta thought it was worth sharing for some reason. Perhaps it confirmation bias at work because it validated her Remain vote by indicating that Brexit has led to a decline in the way the UK is perceived.
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
Carlotta thought it was worth sharing for some reason. Perhaps it confirmation bias at work because it validated her Remain vote by indicating that Brexit has led to a decline in the way the UK is perceived.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The problem is if they are trends based on assumptions about how Trump / Brexit will effect UK or USA, not based on what the USA or UK will be, as that is unknown. It becomes flaky very quickly in a 24 hour new driven world.
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished. How is this a good thing?
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier than that. Take the Conservatives and Pinochet. Pinochet's government aided us significantly during the Falklands war - and not at some risk to himself and Chile. Should we have rejected that help because of his regime (and, according to some, lost the war?)
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
It is also the country that put Pinochet on trial for murder, tortutre and other human rights violations.
Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argument fails because Chile didn't support the UK because of any friendship towards is. It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.
A FORMER UK Brexit Minister has said that former Taoiseach Enda Kenny was a lot more positive about finding solutions to the issue of a border in Northern Ireland after Brexit, and said that Leo Varadkar’s comments so far are “not terribly helpful”.
“I do detect a certain change of tone since Taoiseach Varadkar came to office,” he said. “I think that’s regrettable.”
When pushed on this comment, Jones said that it seemed to him that Kenny was “well disposed” to finding a technological solution but Leo Varadkar’s speech last week “appeared to rule that out”.
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
It is also the country that put Pinochet on trial for murder, tortutre and other human rights violations. Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
Pinochet had many many faults and was a horrible man. He handed over control to a succession of elected Governments and an economy that has grown very very well.
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.
I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:
France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
Per'aps, but Galtieri wasn't exactly a rational actor. The Junta planned the invasion to try to shore up support at home, and they were desperate.
The foreign office and government fu*ked up big time in the run-up to the conflict. But that doesn't excuse the Argentinian invasion, or say that Thatcher planned it.
AFAICR from reading the histories, no-one thought we could win. The Yanks didn't; the French didn't; the Russians didn't. I also STR that our victory concerned the Russians greatly, as it showed that the UK was still a military force.
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
It is also the country that put Pinochet on trial for murder, tortutre and other human rights violations. Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
Pinochet had many many faults and was a horrible man. He handed over control to a succession of elected Governments and an economy that has grown very very well.
If the Chileans have not forgiven him, why should we?
It was because Chile and Argentina are traditional enemies and Pinochet saw the Falklands campaign as a way of getting at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
South America has been something of a political basketcase for as long as I can remember and "El Presidente" practically seems to be synonymous with Central / South American despots.
Chile is today one of South America's most stable and prosperous nations.[BBC] It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP] It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
It is also the country that put Pinochet on trial for murder, tortutre and other human rights violations. Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
Pinochet had many many faults and was a horrible man. He handed over control to a succession of elected Governments and an economy that has grown very very well.
If the Chileans have not forgiven him, why should we?
Would you rather live in Pinochet's Chile or Maduro's Venezuela?
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.
I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:
France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
Wrong. The UK is now number 2, as it was in 2016. Read the link I posted.
You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
*UPDATE: This article was updated on the 8th of August 2017 to reflect the change in ‘softpower’ rankings*
Let's have a look at that update:
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
It is amazing how 'a study' can come up with whatever answer you want.
It depends on the who did the study. What the question was. Do the commissioning agents have an agenda. Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
The 'methodology' in the study has been consistent - so if there are trends they are likely to be real - of course, as with any study the absolute numbers could be wrong.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
The survey is showing that perceptions of the UK have diminished.
I don't think that's true. The UK score was 75.61 in 2015, 75.97 in 2016 and 75.72 in 2017. That the UK dropped from first in 2015 to second in 2016 and 2017 doesn't mean that perceptions have actually diminished in absolute terms.
I was just taking that from the bit that Carlotta quoted:
France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
So Britain was a top power, it is now a top power.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.
I think "common knowledge" is putting it a bit strong. But yes, that is precisely why Carrington resigned after the invasion. Quite how much he had relied on the advice of civil servants is a matter of conjecture, but he rightly took responsibility for the FCO's complacency.
Propping up vile regimes is fine if there's something worthwhile in it for you.
The ends justify the means?
It's usually much muddier thand restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
For usefulness of friendship argumeng at the other lot. It also fails because we didn't send the fleet to stop the Argentine government doing bad things to its people.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
I'm not denying that Chile may have had other reasons to support us in the Falklands war. But the fact is they did, we won that war, the Falklanders are free, and Argentinians are not subjected to the evil Junta.
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
Do we know what Jezza's position on Las Malvinas was/is?
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
hmm a lot of hindsight going on there I haven't seen that as a comment although have only read histories of the conflict itself.
Interesting. Thanks. Just googling it says that following the initial subterfuge landing, HMS Endurance was sent. Although it stopped "to avoid further tensions", says Wiki.
If she had sent a warship down at the first indications of possible trouble, as Wilson did when faced with a similar problem, the war would have been avoided.
Per'aps, but Galtieri wasn't exactly a rational actor. The Junta planned the invasion to try to shore up support at home, and they were desperate.
The foreign office and government fu*ked up big time in the run-up to the conflict. But that doesn't excuse the Argentinian invasion, or say that Thatcher planned it.
AFAICR from reading the histories, no-one thought we could win. The Yanks didn't; the French didn't; the Russians didn't. I also STR that our victory concerned the Russians greatly, as it showed that the UK was still a military force.
At the time a general reaction was 'Oh well, another chapter in the retreat of the democratic West' with some UN sanctioned bodge that left the Argentinians in charge. Reagan - at Kirkpatrick's insistence was equivocal 'on the one hand, on the other hand'ing. Fortunately the US public had no difficulty in telling the difference between a Fascist Military Dictatorship and a democracy - and was pretty heavily on the UK's side from the start (the usual suspects excepted). I was in Moscow as it was all kicking off and the Russians - in the absence of the US coming down on one side or the other - were in a pickle - they had the 'British Imperialism/decolonisation' scripts all lined up - but the 'good guys' in this story clearly weren't - so their line was 'isn't war awful and why can't we be nice to each other.' When the US politicians finally caught up with their public, military and intelligence services - who had been helpful from the start - the Russians knew which line to take. We should never underestimate the impact of feats of arms - like the Vulcan bombing raid on the runway - while the damage it did was swiftly repaired the phycological impact was much greater
Comments
Corbyn has specifically called for the independence of the judiciary and respect for human rights and that explicitly and implicitly condemns both the State for not providing the separation of powers and those killing security forces who are doing their job (as they see it).
My point throughout all this is that part of the sound and fury is just an excuse to have another pop at Corbyn but then as June shows, you can pour tons of sh1t over someone and they can still come up smelling of roses.
The more serious is Corbyn is offering a different approach to foreign policy and foreign policy making than the last 30 years and when I list all the triumphs of western foreign policy since the Berlin Wall fell....yep.
We need a different approach to our sanctimonious moralising whenever a dictator we don't like sounds off and we ignore for instance the armaments we sell to any number of dubious Governments worldwide. Call it "ethical" if you want and that word is tainted but we have to do better than we have. Should we declare war on China to free Tibet or march into Harare to depose Mugabe ? Apparently not - even by our standards, we have been hypocritical.
Corbyn deplores all violence - well, it's a start. We've a record of sitting down with former terrorists and hammering out political solutions and it's not a bad record overall. Perhaps the lesson is what worked for us can work for others - get Maduro and the Opposition to have a cease fire and meet round a table under French or British or whoever facilitation and sort it out. Talking to each other is infinitely better than killing each other. Some may want Maduro strung up from a lamp post or put on trial - maybe but exile and a peaceful transition to free and fair elections under UN supervision looks a pretty attractive alternative especially if backed by aid and investment to help rebuild the shattered economy.
It will also serve as an example for us in 2027 apparently.
By end of 2017, Trump may well have achieved absolutely zilch, at least law-wise.
"get Maduro and the Opposition to have a cease fire and meet round a table under French or British or whoever facilitation and sort it out."
That's all good and well. As far as I can tell the opposition don't have many (any?) forces to call a ceasefire: the problems appear to be being caused by Maduro's thugs and the army.
Here's what Corbyn could have called for: disband the constituent assembly, and stop any plans to revise the constitution until the situation has calmed down. They're simple moves that are obviously fair and may help defuse the situation. Instead he issues weasel words that allows the situation he wants - Maduro in power - to continue.
The point is simple: if you want for people to live in peace in a fair democracy, you condemn what Maduro is doing loudly. If you secretly think the ends justify the means (as I presume Corbyn does), then you soft-soap it.
This may not have any cut-through with the British public. But that doesn't mean that Corbyn's craven words should be ignored or forgotten.
Radical tourism is no different from sex tourism. In both the political and the coital, the inhabitants of the rich world go to the poor to find the thrills no one will give them at home.
Western men and women with nothing to recommend them except their wealth escape their sexless lives and buy prostitutes, who are not like those indifferent boys and girls who pass them in the street......
For their part, political tourists are stuck in a sexless marriage to a Britain that offers them no excitement. The proletariat has refused their entreaties to revolt. Their radical fantasies are never fulfilled. So they, too, scour the world. For years, the top radical tourist destination, the political equivalent of the Pattaya Beach brothel, has been Chavista Venezuela. Hollywood stars, the leaders of the British Labour party and Spanish “popular resistance”, and every half-baked pseudo-left intellectual from Noam Chomsky to John Pilger has engaged in a left orientalism as they wallowed in “the other’s” exotic delights.
Venezuela stroked all their erogenous zones. Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro were anti-American and “anti-imperialist”. That both allied with imperial powers, most notably Russia, did not appear to concern them in the slightest. Venezuela, cried Seumas Milne in the Guardian, has “redistributed wealth and power, rejected western neoliberal orthodoxy, and challenged imperial domination”. What more could a breathless Western punter ask for?
https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/may/22/radical-leftwing-tourists-pimps-dictatorship-hugo-chavez-venezuela-sex-tourism
What's less defensible is propping up vile regimes simply because you're in favour of the pogroms and expropriations on some point of warped principle.
Completely mystifying is why, for example, London taxpayers prop up Scotland to no discernible advantage.
The right in Britain doesn't give a flying f*ck about Venezuela, or Venezuelans.
- Get into power
- Spend all the money
_ Say HEY LOOK GUYS, you are all richer under socialism
- Inflation goes up, prices go up, taxes go up, job creators leave, businesses go pop, unemployment rises
- Start blaming capitalism
- Blame America when inflation is at 1600% and a Big Mac Meal costs $100
- Blame the ensuing starvation on anyone who wasn't a 100% committed socialist
Corbyn would've swanned off into the sunset by the time starvation set in, muttering about bankers and Tories and right-wingers who plotted to stymie his socialist ideal.
I know this is slightly tongue in cheek, but I'm still yet to be convinced that rinsing the rich and spending more than you earn can work for anything longer than a very short period of time.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/7/19/16000408/voxcare-trump-hates-obamacare
And once we'd accepted his help, could we criticise him as loudly (for if we did, others may not help us in the future)?
Pinochet's help may have been worthwhile, especially as it turned out to have essentially killed off the more evil Argentinian Junta and restored Argentina to democracy. But the price of his help was that it was hard for us to criticise him and his regime.
If we hadn't accepted his help, then the Falklands may have remained in Argentinian hands and the Argentinian Junta continued in power, committing their crimes, for much longer.
You are right, of course, which is why the Holierthanthou posture is such an awkward one. Doesn't stop it being popular though.
The alternative to our assisting Stalin was not assisting Stalin, which would have increased the risk of his defeat by Germany, which would in turn then have opened the path to our own defeat. So clearly you side with Stalin, until about 1945*.
For similar reasons, Gandhi approved of both Hitler and Togo.
This stance is less objectionable, however, than de Valera commiserating with Germany on Hitler's suicide.
SNP leader Arthur Donaldson thinking there would be no difference to Scotland whether WW2 was a defeat, victory or stalemate can be dismissed as mere parochial ignorance.
* In 1812 it came to the attention of the British cabinet that Courtaulds and other British textile players were responding to Napoleon's RFP for the supply of greatcoats and other uniform items required for his rumoured invasion of Russia. After some deliberation the decision was taken to allow them to tender, as nothing should be done to dissuade the enemy from invading Russia. That was in part how Courtaulds got so rich.
Like not letting anyone control the whole Channel coast, getting your enemy to invade Russia and then helping Russia to win has always been a sound UK policy position.
To which the Democrats have (or are saying): go ahead, punk, make my day.
The Democrats are calling Trump's bluff, and the question is whether he'll defund Obamacare, or back off. Until recently, my money was on the latter option. (The issue with Obamacare is that while people might like a better, cheaper, health insurance option, what they don't want is no affordable health insurance.)
I now wonder if he really will do it. Trump is desperately scared of being seen as weak. He will therefore do things that are against his self interest to allow him to preserve his image as a "strong man".
The great irony, I feel, is that if Republicans succeed in killing Obamacare with no replacement in sight, then they have probably put the US on course to have genuinely socialised medicine.
Bring back the Like button.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2017/08/next-tory-leadership-contest-will-favour-hard-brexiteers
I hope you're right about the socialised medicine but I worry that there would be a long period of chaos and people losing their coverage unnecessarily in the meantime.
There is a growing movement to simply lower the Medicare age - and it has the benefit of being a reform that is very easy for people to understand. There would be challenges for providers of course, but I think they could be overcome.
Just do add - on the political dimensions:
if healthcare is a big issue I think that likely helps the Dems. Trump promised to fix it, if it gets worse I suspect he and the Republicans in charge will get the blame.
We are left with Thatcher and Corbyn both taking positions that are neither principled nor particularly useful. The differences are that, unlike Chavez, Pinochet committed crimes against humanity and that Thatcher at least had something concrete to be grateful for.
https://order-order.com/2017/08/08/maduros-thugs-executing-opponents/
Would you have preferred us to lose the war, the Falklanders be unwillingly living under Argentinian rule, and the Argentinian Junta to have continued for many more years?
The big difference you are ignoring is that Thatcher was faced with an immediate issue. She decided the country would fight for the islands. Corbyn has no such immediate critical issue to bind him to the ongoing evils in Venezuela.
https://www.hrw.org/world-report/2012/country-chapters/venezuela
Incidentally, you're right. People don't care. But that's beside the point. I'm talking about Corbyn's judgement. Venezuela, the IRA, Eisen, Hamas and Bernie Bain all show a very disturbing pattern. He is either indifferent to or actively in favour of people whom he regards as opposed to his enemies, no matter what suffering they inflict elsewhere. And that is highly disturbing.
Even so, it then requires somebody to demonstrate how his policies jump from one to the other. I don't think we would end like Venezuela under Corbyn, not least because the army wouldn't back him the way they did Chavez and Maduro. But he could still do fearsome damage along the way.
OTOH, supporting the Venezuelan government offers nothing to this country, or to anyone other than its dictator.
His ideology is his immediate critical issue.
That is more important to him than right or wrong, as I suspect he sees his ideology as good, right and fair. I doubt he is able to impune the purity of his ideology with criticism, as it is a force for good, regardless of evidence, in his perception.
That doesn't mean that it's wrong to criticise Corbyn for supporting Maduro.
Onefor Sunil (I think)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/luxury/travel/worlds-most-luxurious-train-journeys/
Scotland’s A&Es have now outperformed those in the rest of the UK for 27 consecutive months.
https://www.irishtimes.com/opinion/fintan-o-toole-brexiteers-foolishness-gives-ireland-control-1.3179299
Let’s be frank: there is a conflict unfolding on this island and one side has just acquired a formidable weapon. The conflict is between two incompatible imperatives.
On one side is the DUP’s need to cover up its own foolishness by getting everybody to go along with the pretence that there is no real Border problem at all.
On the other is the Irish Government’s absolute need (and the need of the people of Northern Ireland) to avoid a hard Border on the island of Ireland. These desires are mutually exclusive.
The DUP’s new religious faith in the power of technological miracles to make the problems go away is touching, but the “frictionless” Border remains a fantasy.
So we now have two Irish vetoes. The DUP’s consists in having 10 Westminster votes to dangle in front of a weak, divided and unstable Tory government. The Irish Government’s consists in an absolute power under EU law to derail the whole Brexit process.
To conclude something disproved by the argument is an intellectual masterpiece.
One of the primary functions of a government is to protect its citizens. Mrs Thatcher knew that and acted accordingly.
Let me get this straight, are you saying Ireland can veto the Brexit deal? (assuming one ever materialises).
In practice, if a deal is reached between the UK and EU, the Irish will be told to stop being silly if they try to veto it.
The Brexiteers have three choices:
- Accept that the UK as a whole will stay in a customs union with the EU (and probably the single market as well)
- Prepare for a no deal car crash
- Betray the DUP and detach Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK with a differentiated deal
Sentencing Pc Adrian Pogmore, Judge Peter Kelson QC told him: "You, quite literally, considered yourself above the law.""
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/08/08/team-deviant-police-helicopter-observer-jailed-filming-sex-act/
However, the pressure may be equal or greater on Ireland. I wonder if UK has a greater dependency on Ireland or Ireland has a greater dependency on UK?
Ireland can use a veto, and provide itself with the worst possible result. UK can chuck money at NI and mitigate a disaster.
If there are over 20 countries that can implement a veto, it isn't much of a weapon as it is so common, it could be used for fish, farming, finance, law, trade, industry, energy, health, citizenship, Gibralter, to name a few. I doubt there is much concern in the Brexit team about willy waving threats of veto from EU members..
It would focus minds no end......especially Irish ones......
Almost 80 per cent of Ireland’s exports travel through the UK transport system. Customs requirements between the two countries could cause serious disruption.
https://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2017/07/ray-bassett-ireland-should-consider-following-britain-out-of-the-eu.html
https://ukdefencejournal.org.uk/study-finds-uk-is-second-most-powerful-country-in-the-world/
Here's the original source:
http://www.europeangeostrategy.org/2014/01/european-geostrategy-audit-major-powers-worlds-fifteen-most-powerful-countries-2014/
https://twitter.com/GoodwinMJ/status/894601389992800257
Edit: ok found it: https://medium.com/@rob_francis/jeremy-corbyn-and-the-falklands-692057233e66
Victoria Beckham takes legal action against takeaway that claims its pizza crusts are thinner than her
Given the focus on immigration and the fact that we are leaving a large free trade block, it's surely possible (perhaps probable?) we will get the opposite, and become more protectionist overall.
https://www.twitter.com/mattiatoaldo/status/894823792744288256
However when it comes to ‘soft power’, according to a study earlier this year, France has overtaken the UK in soft power.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
It depends on the who did the study.
What the question was.
Do the commissioning agents have an agenda.
Is the data or the interpretation subjective or objective
'A study' is as authoritative and meaningless as a poll. survey, prediction, forecast or tea leaf reading.
What's desperate and pathetic is Mr Glenn's refusal to accept that the UK might have some strengths, such is his eagerness to become a citizen of a democratically unaccountable EU. I don't think he likes democracy much.
It leads Latin American nations in rankings of human development, competitiveness, income per capita, globalization, state of peace, economic freedom, and low perception of corruption.[UNDP]
It also ranks high regionally in sustainability of the state, and democratic development.[World Bank]
Your man on the Santiago omnibus is no fan of Pinochet.
http://softpower30.com/country/united-kingdom/?country_years=2015,2016,2017
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2005/jun/01/argentina.military
http://www.thejournal.ie/brexit-minister-varadkar-3534811-Aug2017/
A FORMER UK Brexit Minister has said that former Taoiseach Enda Kenny was a lot more positive about finding solutions to the issue of a border in Northern Ireland after Brexit, and said that Leo Varadkar’s comments so far are “not terribly helpful”.
“I do detect a certain change of tone since Taoiseach Varadkar came to office,” he said. “I think that’s regrettable.”
When pushed on this comment, Jones said that it seemed to him that Kenny was “well disposed” to finding a technological solution but Leo Varadkar’s speech last week “appeared to rule that out”.
France surpassed the US and Britain as the world’s top soft power, according to an annual survey examining how much non-military global influence an individual country wields. Britain headed the list two years ago, but was edged off top spot by the US last year.
However, the survey cites the election of Donald Trump, the Brexit vote and the election of Emmanuel Macron as factors that have shifted global perceptions.
Britain was No.1 it is now, for whatever reason, No.3.
The foreign office and government fu*ked up big time in the run-up to the conflict. But that doesn't excuse the Argentinian invasion, or say that Thatcher planned it.
AFAICR from reading the histories, no-one thought we could win. The Yanks didn't; the French didn't; the Russians didn't. I also STR that our victory concerned the Russians greatly, as it showed that the UK was still a military force.
You are definitely confusing absolute and relative rankings, which is a painfully obvious error that I spotted as soon as I read your post...
It's a shame the Falklands couldn't have been treated like the Hans Island Whisky War, as pointed out by someone on here a few months back:
http://uk.businessinsider.com/canada-and-denmark-whiskey-war-over-hans-island-2016-1?r=US&IR=T
But yes, that is precisely why Carrington resigned after the invasion. Quite how much he had relied on the advice of civil servants is a matter of conjecture, but he rightly took responsibility for the FCO's complacency.