UK Politics: And Brexit came swirling down

[Jen'ari]

2 hours ago, BigFatCoward said:

I think he is the most electable, which is all I care about anymore. 

I agree he’s certainly the most electable with Emily Thornberry being the least-to me anyway, but then in recent times Labour have had a habit of sabotaging themselves by not going with the best candidate-picking the wrong Milliband followed by Corbyn, I’m not too up on the process goes for Labour electing a leader I know it’s quite different and more complex than the process the Tories use though.

Personally I’m much more centerist so a moderate leader would be my preferred choice, although I just hope they do pick Starmer as he seems like he’d do the best at being a decent opposition leader and holding the government to account.

While I’m not dismayed at there being a Conservative government, I’m not particularly thrilled about the direction they’re going in and hope Boris is kept in check.

Out of interest,given your profession do you think they will keep their promises regarding bolstering police numbers? or just more empty words and hot air?.

 

[BigFatCoward]

3 minutes ago, Jen'ari said:

I agree he’s certainly the most electable with Emily Thornberry being the least-to me anyway, but then in recent times Labour have had a habit of sabotaging themselves by not going with the best candidate-picking the wrong Milliband followed by Corbyn, I’m not too up on the process goes for Labour electing a leader I know it’s quite different and more complex than the process the Tories use though.

Personally I’m much more centerist so a moderate leader would be my preferred choice, although I just hope they do pick Starmer as he seems like he’d do the best at being a decent opposition leader and holding the government to account.

While I’m not dismayed at there being a Conservative government, I’m not particularly thrilled about the direction they’re going in and hope Boris is kept in check.

Out of interest,given your profession do you think they will keep their promises regarding bolstering police numbers? or just more empty words and hot air?.

 

They are starting to get people through the doors. Whether that is sustainable is another question. It was such a big promise though that I'd imagine Boris will move heaven and earth to make it happen. 

[mormont]

There's limited use in increasing police numbers without increasing funding for the courts, though. But that's Johnson all over. Doesn't care if something is effective, only if it makes him look good.

[Jen'ari]

55 minutes ago, BigFatCoward said:

They are starting to get people through the doors. Whether that is sustainable is another question. It was such a big promise though that I'd imagine Boris will move heaven and earth to make it happen. 

To be fair I hope it is something he gets done,along with all the new nurses he also promised, but like you say we will have to wait and see if it’s sustainable.

I’m quite interested to see what happens in regards to Police numbers as a friend of mine told me recently he’d been considering it as a career change at 34!.

32 minutes ago, mormont said:

There's limited use in increasing police numbers without increasing funding for the courts, though. But that's Johnson all over. Doesn't care if something is effective, only if it makes him look good.

This is very true, the justice system has been absolutely savaged in the last decade which is disgusting imo.

[polishgenius]

The thing to remember I feel is that whoever is chosen as Labour leader no-one should either panic or rejoice too much about potential electability coz the country is about to go through such big changes that what's electable now and what's electable in five years time might be entirely different things, and as such the best leader for that period might not be the person who we think would have been most likely to beat Boris in December. They've got to think about driving the conversation and being effective opposition that can shift the conversation away from the grounds that led to this fucking mess, not just who'd win if we called another election tomorrow.

[SeanF]

1 hour ago, Jen'ari said:

To be fair I hope it is something he gets done,along with all the new nurses he also promised, but like you say we will have to wait and see if it’s sustainable.

I’m quite interested to see what happens in regards to Police numbers as a friend of mine told me recently he’d been considering it as a career change at 34!.

This is very true, the justice system has been absolutely savaged in the last decade which is disgusting imo.

The number of prosecutions has fallen by half, which is a dereliction of duty by the government, one which would cost hundreds of millions, not billions to fix.  I understand that the CPS is now recruiting heavily again.

[Heartofice]

You know while I respect Corbyns principled stance here and yeah, he's totally right about America.. you just have think 'come on Jezza.. say he's a terrorist.. just say it! You'll be helping yourself mate!'. Honestly why is he still around? He's doing the party more and more damage by the day. The average Brit is gonna watch this and have everything they thought about him confirmed.

But its ok, because who ever comes next will be better. Well except Long-Baily who just said she would give Corbyn 10/10! Worst election defeat since 1935 and he gets top marks does he? Sure.

[HexMachina]

3 hours ago, mormont said:

There's limited use in increasing police numbers without increasing funding for the courts, though. But that's Johnson all over. Doesn't care if something is effective, only if it makes him look good.

I don’t see any more funding being put into the Courts by this government, sadly. I only hope the parts of the Conservative manifesto targetting the judiciary and other related checks come to nothing

[Jen'ari]

56 minutes ago, SeanF said:

The number of prosecutions has fallen by half, which is a dereliction of duty by the government, one which would cost hundreds of millions, not billions to fix.  I understand that the CPS is now recruiting heavily again.

It isn't just the issues with the CPS that need addressing,what has been done to Legal Aid is an absolute travesty too, one that,yes,would be expensive to fix but should be fixed.

[SeanF]

15 minutes ago, Jen'ari said:

It isn't just the issues with the CPS that need addressing,what has been done to Legal Aid is an absolute travesty too, one that,yes,would be expensive to fix but should be fixed.

Legal aid rates are terrible (but to be fair, Blair's government cut them to the bone as well).  Lawyers who do legal aid work are either cross-subsidising from more profitable areas of work, or have private incomes.  I dropped out of doing legal aid work 18 years ago, because it was untenable.

[Jen'ari]

3 hours ago, SeanF said:

Legal aid rates are terrible (but to be fair, Blair's government cut them to the bone as well).  Lawyers who do legal aid work are either cross-subsidising from more profitable areas of work, or have private incomes.  I dropped out of doing legal aid work 18 years ago, because it was untenable.

Oh I'm in full agreement with you there, I did the GDL,BPTC and qualified, as much as I found it a thoroughly rewarding and interesting experience I'd not have done it in a million years if I didn't have a good source of other income from property, practicing criminal law as a career is nothing but a road to bankruptcy imo.

While the rates for Lawyers are a travesty on their own, the amount they've cut the availability of legal aid to defendants is equally unfair.

[Gorn]

13 hours ago, Heartofice said:

You know while I respect Corbyns principled stance here and yeah, he's totally right about America.. you just have think 'come on Jezza.. say he's a terrorist.. just say it! You'll be helping yourself mate!'. Honestly why is he still around? He's doing the party more and more damage by the day. The average Brit is gonna watch this and have everything they thought about him confirmed.

But its ok, because who ever comes next will be better. Well except Long-Baily who just said she would give Corbyn 10/10! Worst election defeat since 1935 and he gets top marks does he? Sure.

While I'm not any fan of the guy (or current Iranian regime in general), I'm curious to learn the definition of terrorism which makes Soleimani (a military officer in the armed forces of a sovereign nation-state) a "terrorist"? Or has the word lost all meaning, other than "people we don't like"?

[Alarich II]

18 minutes ago, Gorn said:

I'm curious to learn the definition of terrorism which makes Soleimani (a military officer in the armed forces of a sovereign nation-state) a "terrorist"?

They (The Al Quds brigades) are officially the military "exporters" of the Iranian brand of the Islamic Revolution. As such they work closely together with a bunch of terrorist organisations in Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan etc, and while at least the generals wear uniforms, their military strategy on the ground includes very often the use of terror specifically targeted against civilians and disguise as non-combatants. So labeling the organisation Soleimani headed as terrorist organization is IMO correct.

It still wasn't very wise to clip the guy.

[Gorn]

Just now, Alarich II said:

They (The Al Quds brigades) are officially the military "exporters" of the Iranian brand of the Islamic Revolution. As such they work closely together with a bunch of terrorist organisations in Lebanon, Syria, Afghanistan etc, and while at least the generals wear uniforms, their military strategy on the ground includes very often the use of terror specifically targeted against civilians and disguise as non-combatants. So labeling the organisation Soleimani headed as terrorist organization is IMO correct.

It still wasn't very wise to clip the guy.

By that definition, most of US and UK foreign intelligence agents and spec ops operators from 20th and 21st centuries were also terrorists.

[Heartofice]

You could debate over the correctness of the 'terrorist' term, but politically Corbyn is harming himself and labour here by avoiding using the term. He already had massive image issues around being seen to always defend the wrong people and he doesn't want to change the habit of a lifetime clearly. 

 

[ants]

22 minutes ago, Gorn said:

By that definition, most of US and UK foreign intelligence agents and spec ops operators from 20th and 21st centuries were also terrorists.

I’m, duh?

[Alarich II]

34 minutes ago, Gorn said:

By that definition, most of US and UK foreign intelligence agents and spec ops operators from 20th and 21st centuries were also terrorists. 

Yes, that's probably correct, too.

[BigFatCoward]

52 minutes ago, Heartofice said:

You could debate over the correctness of the 'terrorist' term, but politically Corbyn is harming himself and labour here by avoiding using the term. He already had massive image issues around being seen to always defend the wrong people and he doesn't want to change the habit of a lifetime clearly. 

 

Maybe he is taking one for the team, by continuing to come across as completely out of touch, whoever takes over (presumably) seems positively statesman like.

[Liffguard]

It’s very clear that that journalist wasn’t acting in good faith. This wasn’t an honest and curious discussion about what “terrorism” means and who the label should be applied to. It was a naked attempt at a cheap gotcha. It was clearly meant to cast Corbyn in a bad light to the ugly sector of the public that use “terrorist” as a generic snarl word for any Muslim that has the temerity to oppose American and British intervention in the Middle-East. This is true regardless of what crimes Suleimani himself may or may not be guilty of.

Corbyn has a terrible press strategy, in that he continues to treat the mainstream press as an avenue through which he can communicate nuanced and reasonable ideas. This is a mistake. Any Labour leader interested in any substantive change for the UK is not going to be able to win over the mainstream press. That doesn’t mean never engage, but the next leader needs to go in with a full understanding that the press is a hostile enemy, and have a strategy to deal with that.

[Heartofice]

15 minutes ago, Liffguard said:

It’s very clear that that journalist wasn’t acting in good faith. This wasn’t an honest and curious discussion about what “terrorism” means and who the label should be applied to. It was a naked attempt at a cheap gotcha. It was clearly meant to cast Corbyn in a bad light to the ugly sector of the public that use “terrorist” as a generic snarl word for any Muslim that has the temerity to oppose American and British intervention in the Middle-East. This is true regardless of what crimes Suleimani himself may or may not be guilty of.

Don't seem to remember much complaint about gotcha moments around the Boris 'look at this phone' interview. 

Unfortunately that is the nature of the press at the moment, and has been for a while.