|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 7, 2021 16:27:53 GMT
Sounds a bit like the Crusades policy that worked out so well... The reality is that intervening in other countries in all the ways you mention, especially "by force", has worked out badly for the West in pretty much every case since WW2. (well, I guess Korea was a score draw) Yes Andrew, I do understand and fully empathize with that general line of analysis. It is, in diplomacy, always a matter of the art of the possible, clarity of intent and action, firmness and resolution, coupled with subtlety and nuance. So often the West has havered, procrastinated, avoided, ignored and pretended, instead of delivering an early and decisive killer punch. We so often deploy the very worst form of moral and ethical ineptitude, shallowness and false positioning. We pretend all nations are essentially good and with good intentions and that we must not interfere, and that we must assist them to self-determination and to the state of political perfection in an open, liberal, plural democracy. Whereas an actual majority do not like or want that at all. Many in Britain don't want that. I am one of them! With the early days of Soviet Union Russia and incipient Nazi Germany, we should have brought instant effective brutal blunt force to crush them utterly whilst they were younger and weaker. Grinding them down later by attrition and hot and cold warfare is so very much more costly. A surgical sweep into Russia to kill out 10,000 of the leading communists and it would have been over forever. The same in Germany. A swift brutal occupation and the stringing up of a couple of thousand and it would have been over with a weak and manipulated Weimar Republic maintained by the occupation. In the Middle East we should have maintained the rulers and assisted them to repress both liberal and Islamic fundamental movements in order to maintain our stability and cheap oil, quite as much as to aid them. Keep the area quiescent. That is always the objective. And damnation to notions of fairness, bringing them to modernity and democracy, introducing liberalism and letting the public achieve their desires. None of that works at all well and it is always far too expensive and dangerous for us. We need always to single-mindedly run everything everywhere purely and entirely to suit us. And for want of clarity I define us to be the right thinking anglophone world and lesser European world view. I am not really very invested in democracy as it so often results in a mess and stupidity because it puts power in the hands of the ignorant, the stupid and a large body of people with no knowledge or interest in politics or diplomacy. My standpoint is just this. Would I like to be treated in a hospital run as a democracy, or place savings in a democratic bank, or to buy a vehicle made by a democratic factory? No, No and NO! We did try to nip the Soviet Union in the bud with the Archangel campaign, but soon realised like everyone else who has tried that Russia is a giant country with people very resistant to foreign invaders... We did (or the US did) take decisive action in the first Gulf War. Should we instead have supported Saddam? I suppose we could have finished the job and installed a puppet regime but that did not work second time around. The reality is that the Middle East is an unstable place with its own warring ideologies and nationalisms. The USA has propped up the Saudis but that has not led to regional stability. Of course once upon a time we could exert arbitrary force on other countries because we were Top Nation (I remember learning about the Don Pacifico Affair). Recently we can just about take on Argentina (or probably not even that now..) |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 7, 2021 16:28:49 GMT
Louie French took the oath yesterday: [0]=AZUqCtBaDrxYN6dCMSfpPtqzFfpjA0BPhwvv0F6alu2EZFlqxTY5rOkovA_HJLEUMvn2fQIxUO3yXDg48YNtDTAuD5P7FBKmgLkGSzhEwDCnJ1EHiaxYjQZITc_beJCLPx9ocfTN6YY3IUTpHeiBjGwvJWxl99aPG3Wuil0oRHtdCw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R Is that his maiden speech underneath? |
|
|
|
Post by minionofmidas on Dec 7, 2021 16:33:05 GMT
Louie French took the oath yesterday: [0]=AZUqCtBaDrxYN6dCMSfpPtqzFfpjA0BPhwvv0F6alu2EZFlqxTY5rOkovA_HJLEUMvn2fQIxUO3yXDg48YNtDTAuD5P7FBKmgLkGSzhEwDCnJ1EHiaxYjQZITc_beJCLPx9ocfTN6YY3IUTpHeiBjGwvJWxl99aPG3Wuil0oRHtdCw&__tn__=%2CO%2CP-R Is that his maiden speech underneath? Why? Does that look like French to you? |
|
|
|
Post by timrollpickering on Dec 7, 2021 16:34:05 GMT
No that's URL spam from the one link that I was able to post here.
|
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 7, 2021 16:41:07 GMT
No that's URL spam from the one link that I was able to post here. Really?? |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 17, 2021 12:17:07 GMT
Result here being compared to Shropshire North - I do wonder what the outcome would have been had it been yesterday though. Quite likely a swing to Labour of 15% or more rather than 10%, even if an actual gain would probably still have been too much to ask for.
(similarly, SN a fortnight ago might still have been a LibDem gain, but maybe by a thousand or two as widely predicted beforehand)
|
|
right
Conservative
Posts: 18,762
|
Post by right on Dec 17, 2021 12:51:26 GMT
Result here being compared to Shropshire North - I do wonder what the result would have been had it been yesterday though. Quite likely a swing to Labour of 15% or more rather than 10%, even if an actual gain would probably still have been too much to ask for. (similarly, SN a fortnight ago might still have been a LibDem gain, but maybe by a thousand or two as widely predicted beforehand) I suspect Labour would have been elbowed aside if the Lib Dems had concentrated on this seat or thought they could fight two by-elections. Lots of the barriers that applied to the Lib Dems here applied to them in North Shropshire. |
|
The Bishop
Labour
Down With Factionalism!
Posts: 38,889
|
Post by The Bishop on Dec 17, 2021 12:53:48 GMT
Hmmm, possibly. I think this seat still contains more of the sorts of voters that remain loyal to "Boris" (as opposed to the Tories more generically) and see voting for Brexit as a central theme of their identity - both these things would make it resistant to a LibDem appeal in a way that SN wasn't.
Plus the different circumstances of the byelection and the Tories picking a more suitable candidate* might have had an effect.
(*think back to Hartlepool - was it really only 7 months ago?! - the Tories were always winning it [then, at least] but a less disastrous Labour candidate and campaign would surely have made some difference)
|
|
cogload
Lib Dem
I jumped in the river and what did I see...
Posts: 9,140
|
Post by cogload on Dec 18, 2021 14:47:22 GMT
Result here being compared to Shropshire North - I do wonder what the result would have been had it been yesterday though. Quite likely a swing to Labour of 15% or more rather than 10%, even if an actual gain would probably still have been too much to ask for. (similarly, SN a fortnight ago might still have been a LibDem gain, but maybe by a thousand or two as widely predicted beforehand) I suspect Labour would have been elbowed aside if the Lib Dems had concentrated on this seat or thought they could fight two by-elections. Lots of the barriers that applied to the Lib Dems here applied to them in North Shropshire. Nah. The barriers were less in North Shropshire, for instance we had an active party for a start and Labour's ceiling was higher in OB&S. |
|
graham
Non-Aligned
Posts: 1,344
|
Post by graham on Dec 18, 2021 14:50:40 GMT
Hmmm, possibly. I think this seat still contains more of the sorts of voters that remain loyal to "Boris" (as opposed to the Tories more generically) and see voting for Brexit as a central theme of their identity - both these things would make it resistant to a LibDem appeal in a way that SN wasn't. Plus the different circumstances of the byelection and the Tories picking a more suitable candidate* might have had an effect. (*think back to Hartlepool - was it really only 7 months ago?! - the Tories were always winning it [then, at least] but a less disastrous Labour candidate and campaign would surely have made some difference) I suspect that were the Hartlepool by election being held now Labour would have a fair chance of holding the seat. There is probably now a good prospect of recapturing it at the GE. North Shropshire has confirmed my view that Brexit has already ceased t be a salient issue. |
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823 
|
Post by timmullen1 on Dec 18, 2021 14:53:18 GMT
Hmmm, possibly. I think this seat still contains more of the sorts of voters that remain loyal to "Boris" (as opposed to the Tories more generically) and see voting for Brexit as a central theme of their identity - both these things would make it resistant to a LibDem appeal in a way that SN wasn't. Plus the different circumstances of the byelection and the Tories picking a more suitable candidate* might have had an effect. (*think back to Hartlepool - was it really only 7 months ago?! - the Tories were always winning it [then, at least] but a less disastrous Labour candidate and campaign would surely have made some difference) I suspect that were the Hartlepool by election being held now Labour would have a fair chance of holding the seat. There is probably now a good chance of recapturing it at the GE. North Shropshire has confirmed my view that Brexit has already ceased t be a salient issue. We might get a strong idea should Wakefield become vacant, probably more than Leicester East that would be a real genuine test of Labour’s position. |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 18, 2021 17:23:13 GMT
If there were a by-election in Wakefield, Labour would be strong favourites to win probably even if the Tories have retaken a strong national lead by that point as the swing needed to win is a very modest one. a ) it would be a by-election and b ) it would have come about in very tough circumstances for the Conservatives. A more interesting test would be Shrewsbury, though Labour would definitely win that in a by-election at the moment too
|
|
timmullen1
Labour
Closing account as BossMan declines to respond to messages seeking support.
Posts: 11,823
|
Post by timmullen1 on Dec 18, 2021 20:07:41 GMT
If there were a by-election in Wakefield, Labour would be strong favourites to win probably even if the Tories have retaken a strong national lead by that point as the swing needed to win is a very modest one. a ) it would be a by-election and b ) it would have come about in very tough circumstances for the Conservatives. A more interesting test would be Shrewsbury, though Labour would definitely win that in a by-election at the moment too Was just thinking Wakefield is a more traditionally Labour seat (see coloured thing made of brick) than Shrewsbury, which was only Labour during peak-Blair. |
|
iang
Lib Dem
Posts: 1,813
|
Post by iang on Dec 18, 2021 20:36:06 GMT
I suspect Labour would have been elbowed aside if the Lib Dems had concentrated on this seat or thought they could fight two by-elections. Lots of the barriers that applied to the Lib Dems here applied to them in North Shropshire. Nah. The barriers were less in North Shropshire, for instance we had an active party for a start and Labour's ceiling was higher in OB&S. The role of the local party was crucial I think. OB&S had a pretty inactive local party, SN had an active local party that wanted to go for it from the off, which was a factor in the national party backing it. Although they didn't win any, the SN party had near misses in five wards in 2021, so there was already significant activity in several parts of the constituency, which wasn't the case (and long hadn't been) in OB&S |
|
|
|
Post by batman on Dec 18, 2021 21:16:48 GMT
If there were a by-election in Wakefield, Labour would be strong favourites to win probably even if the Tories have retaken a strong national lead by that point as the swing needed to win is a very modest one. a ) it would be a by-election and b ) it would have come about in very tough circumstances for the Conservatives. A more interesting test would be Shrewsbury, though Labour would definitely win that in a by-election at the moment too Was just thinking Wakefield is a more traditionally Labour seat (see coloured thing made of brick) than Shrewsbury, which was only Labour during peak-Blair. yes I see what you mean - rather weirdly it didn't vote Labour in 1945. But you see what I mean too. Somewhere like Stoke South or Grimsby (though of course a by-election isn't very likely in either of those) might be an interesting test |
|
|
|
Post by andrew111 on Dec 18, 2021 22:23:40 GMT
Nah. The barriers were less in North Shropshire, for instance we had an active party for a start and Labour's ceiling was higher in OB&S. The role of the local party was crucial I think. OB&S had a pretty inactive local party, SN had an active local party that wanted to go for it from the off, which was a factor in the national party backing it. Although they didn't win any, the SN party had near misses in five wards in 2021, so there was already significant activity in several parts of the constituency, which wasn't the case (and long hadn't been) in OB&S And a bar chart... |
|
