This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Two minutes in with Paxman and he (Paxman) is already pissing me off. Hope this gets better
2
In reply to Tyler:
The standard of political journalism is atrocious. It is one of the things that gives us the politicians we've got.
The standard of political journalism is atrocious. It is one of the things that gives us the politicians we've got.
2
6
In reply to Tyler:
Pretty good from Corbyn overall, shame he could not answer the drone question better.
Pretty good from Corbyn overall, shame he could not answer the drone question better.
Post edited at 21:13
2
1
8
2
In reply to Tyler:
Presumably trying to get to grips with Jezza's core beliefs and whether there will be conflict with the rest of his MPs....... ie. those who only recently were trying to oust him.
I expect Paxman will just have warmed up and will be ready to savage the PM.
Presumably trying to get to grips with Jezza's core beliefs and whether there will be conflict with the rest of his MPs....... ie. those who only recently were trying to oust him.
I expect Paxman will just have warmed up and will be ready to savage the PM.
1
8
2
In reply to Tyler:
Corbyn came across as calm, measured, in command of the brief and principled and impassioned. Paxman came across as a boorish tw*t.
Corbyn came across as calm, measured, in command of the brief and principled and impassioned. Paxman came across as a boorish tw*t.
9
1
In reply to Dr.S at work:
They are not allowed by people like Paxman to answer with nuance. Everything has to be like the headline info in an Argos catalogue.
They are not allowed by people like Paxman to answer with nuance. Everything has to be like the headline info in an Argos catalogue.
4
In reply to Dr.S at work:
The only flaw in Corby's argument that I could see is his emphasis on resolving conflict via the U.N. Great in theory but in practice Russia and China always use their vetos to block meaningful action.
The only flaw in Corby's argument that I could see is his emphasis on resolving conflict via the U.N. Great in theory but in practice Russia and China always use their vetos to block meaningful action.
4
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Paxo kept butting in. Once he even said 'no' in reply to a plea from Corby to let him finish. Corby kept his cool in response to this boorish behaviour and went up in my estimation.
Paxo kept butting in. Once he even said 'no' in reply to a plea from Corby to let him finish. Corby kept his cool in response to this boorish behaviour and went up in my estimation.
14
1
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Which he should know, and have got a 'yes' in early on - 'yes, if presented with compelling evidence'
Which he should know, and have got a 'yes' in early on - 'yes, if presented with compelling evidence'
In reply to Pekkie:
May got very rattled, especially when the audience heckled her, interestingly when she mentioned the costings of the labour manifesto.
May got very rattled, especially when the audience heckled her, interestingly when she mentioned the costings of the labour manifesto.
3
In reply to Dr.S at work:
I agree. It's clearly it's something he doesn't feel comfortable with. I suppose, while recognising that we need people to make those kind of decisions sometimes for our safety, I'd rather have someone is charge who doesn't get a hard on for authorising people's deaths.
> Which he should know, and have got a 'yes' in early on - 'yes, if presented with compelling evidence'
I agree. It's clearly it's something he doesn't feel comfortable with. I suppose, while recognising that we need people to make those kind of decisions sometimes for our safety, I'd rather have someone is charge who doesn't get a hard on for authorising people's deaths.
4
4
2
1
1
In reply to becauseitsthere:
Thought May got a slightly easier ride from Paxo. His style is bloody annoying though.
Thought May got a slightly easier ride from Paxo. His style is bloody annoying though.
5
In reply to Tyler:
The main thing we learned or had confirmed is that Paxo is a dick.
Also, you get criticised for sticking to your views and criticised if you change your mind.
The main thing we learned or had confirmed is that Paxo is a dick.
Also, you get criticised for sticking to your views and criticised if you change your mind.
4
In reply to Tyler:
Again, no knockout blow landed by Paxman. May defended the undefendable as well as could be expected.
Again, no knockout blow landed by Paxman. May defended the undefendable as well as could be expected.
1
In reply to JLS:
I thought the blowhard comment struck home.
I'd love to see someone interviewing them properly.
I thought the blowhard comment struck home.
I'd love to see someone interviewing them properly.
1
51
4
In reply to becauseitsthere:
No button for a score draw.
I suppose the key is whether the programme helped persuade anyone to change their mind.
No button for a score draw.
I suppose the key is whether the programme helped persuade anyone to change their mind.
Post edited at 22:11
1
In reply to becauseitsthere:
I thought he gave her an easy ride on Brexit. He should have nailed her on hard v soft Brexit rather than let her get away with saying she was just carrying out the will of the people.
> He is annoying but I think he has been equally hard on both of them.
I thought he gave her an easy ride on Brexit. He should have nailed her on hard v soft Brexit rather than let her get away with saying she was just carrying out the will of the people.
7
1
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Or whether many voters actually watched it?
> No button for a score draw.I suppose the key is whether the programme helped persuade anyone to change their mind.
Or whether many voters actually watched it?
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Yeah, he landed that blow on May but I'm not sure it will have done much swing voter damage.
Corbyn might have won himself a few votes but I fear too little too late.
Yeah, he landed that blow on May but I'm not sure it will have done much swing voter damage.
Corbyn might have won himself a few votes but I fear too little too late.
1
In reply to kevin stephens:
Indeed. I actually deleted a comment about the audience size in comparison to the size of the electorate before posting.
The next thing will be how the Mail etc spin the performances to their faithful and a wider audience and readership.
Indeed. I actually deleted a comment about the audience size in comparison to the size of the electorate before posting.
The next thing will be how the Mail etc spin the performances to their faithful and a wider audience and readership.
1
In reply to Tyler:
Otherwise calm and composed, Corbyn was weak on Brexit and worryingly flaccid on defence. May dealt with surprising though no doubt well rehearsed clarity on the social care and policing bombs but looked shifty on NHS.
But I'm sitting here asking myself what each combatant got across to the audience. And I'm amazed that Corbyn's "for the many, not the few" never really came over. I felt his achievement was to have not wilted, nothing more. May on the other hand pressed the Brexit button multiple times and to good effect (if you like that kind of thing). After the last fortnight, she'll be the happier of the two.
That's at least until the papers dissect the responses and fashion their stories. Labour will be nervous that Corbyn 's obvious discomfort on defence doesn't make headlines. I wonder who else picked up the suggestion that he'll defer to submarine officers in the matter of military action? I'm all for consensus but an army needs a commander in chief.
Otherwise calm and composed, Corbyn was weak on Brexit and worryingly flaccid on defence. May dealt with surprising though no doubt well rehearsed clarity on the social care and policing bombs but looked shifty on NHS.
But I'm sitting here asking myself what each combatant got across to the audience. And I'm amazed that Corbyn's "for the many, not the few" never really came over. I felt his achievement was to have not wilted, nothing more. May on the other hand pressed the Brexit button multiple times and to good effect (if you like that kind of thing). After the last fortnight, she'll be the happier of the two.
That's at least until the papers dissect the responses and fashion their stories. Labour will be nervous that Corbyn 's obvious discomfort on defence doesn't make headlines. I wonder who else picked up the suggestion that he'll defer to submarine officers in the matter of military action? I'm all for consensus but an army needs a commander in chief.
Post edited at 22:25
4
5
In reply to JLS: no doubt Facebook will be flooded with video excerpts from each side sufficient for the diminished attention span of the voting public
2
In reply to JLS:
Corbyn may have helped save Labour from the feared total collapse but he has been damaged goods for too long to overcome that handicap. When you have had to keep reshuffling your own Shadow Cabinet because they don't agree with your ideas or see you as a leader, it is surely nigh on impossible to persuade the broader electorate.
Corbyn may have helped save Labour from the feared total collapse but he has been damaged goods for too long to overcome that handicap. When you have had to keep reshuffling your own Shadow Cabinet because they don't agree with your ideas or see you as a leader, it is surely nigh on impossible to persuade the broader electorate.
1
1
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
A mountain to climb and Corbyn seems to have poo-pooed the idea of supplementary oxygen.
A mountain to climb and Corbyn seems to have poo-pooed the idea of supplementary oxygen.
1
2
2
1
In reply to broken spectre:
But it would be a very short thread if we were to list non-shifty politicians!
But it would be a very short thread if we were to list non-shifty politicians!
2
In reply to BnB:
I agree JC was weak on defence, but not on Brexit. He actually introduced some detail, in contrast to May's enlightening revelation that it we want to get a good deal for Britain. No shit!
She got far more rattled than Corbyn, which wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't tried to portray herself as, what was the expression again? Strong and stable?
I agree JC was weak on defence, but not on Brexit. He actually introduced some detail, in contrast to May's enlightening revelation that it we want to get a good deal for Britain. No shit!
She got far more rattled than Corbyn, which wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't tried to portray herself as, what was the expression again? Strong and stable?
5
2
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
Is it that they didnt agree with his ideas, or that they thought they wouldn't be popular with the electorate?
I think if nothing else, Corbyn has moved the centre ground to the left of where it is and where it was heading, which I think is pretty far to the right.
> Corbyn may have helped save Labour from the feared total collapse but he has been damaged goods for too long to overcome that handicap. When you have had to keep reshuffling your own Shadow Cabinet because they don't agree with your ideas or see you as a leader, it is surely nigh on impossible to persuade the broader electorate.
Is it that they didnt agree with his ideas, or that they thought they wouldn't be popular with the electorate?
I think if nothing else, Corbyn has moved the centre ground to the left of where it is and where it was heading, which I think is pretty far to the right.
2
1
In reply to earlsdonwhu:
The thing is, the shadow cabinet you speak of are probably intelligent people schooled in the subtleties and nuances of politics (Dianne Abbot excluded). As the brexit vote has shown, the broader electorate are more your black and white type people that, in some sense, are more easy to persuade (with appropriate media backing).
> "reshuffling your own Shadow Cabinet because they don't agree with your ideas or see you as a leader, it is surely nigh on impossible to persuade the broader electorate."
The thing is, the shadow cabinet you speak of are probably intelligent people schooled in the subtleties and nuances of politics (Dianne Abbot excluded). As the brexit vote has shown, the broader electorate are more your black and white type people that, in some sense, are more easy to persuade (with appropriate media backing).
1
1
In reply to Robert Durran:
I agree. He went on about her changing her mind, when she made a perfectly valid point about simply implementing it, but then didn't press home that she appears to be doing something 48% of the electorate didn't want in the most painful (and divisive) way possible.
> I thought he gave her an easy ride on Brexit. He should have nailed her on hard v soft Brexit rather than let her get away with saying she was just carrying out the will of the people.
I agree. He went on about her changing her mind, when she made a perfectly valid point about simply implementing it, but then didn't press home that she appears to be doing something 48% of the electorate didn't want in the most painful (and divisive) way possible.
3
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
We obviously interpret that one differently. I saw a weak negotiator who will impoverish the UK in order to keep his election promise. "A deal at all costs" in other words. Corbyn signally failed to give the impression that he was ready for negotiations to start in 11 days.
On May, did you notice how we didn't hear her catchphrase a single time? In fact she almost dropped it in by accident and you could see her pull back from it.
I didn't feel either was rattled such that it mattered. Corbyn on defence matters certainly, and May on education and health, but neither fatally. I'm not sure the debate matters. It's the dissection in the media and how that's presented. Or maybe it's the musings of middle-aged men on a climbing forum that really influences the nation
> I agree JC was weak on defence, but not on Brexit. He actually introduced some detail, in contrast to May's enlightening revelation that it we want to get a good deal for Britain. No shit!She got far more rattled than Corbyn, which wouldn't be an issue if she hadn't tried to portray herself as, what was the expression again? Strong and stable?
We obviously interpret that one differently. I saw a weak negotiator who will impoverish the UK in order to keep his election promise. "A deal at all costs" in other words. Corbyn signally failed to give the impression that he was ready for negotiations to start in 11 days.
On May, did you notice how we didn't hear her catchphrase a single time? In fact she almost dropped it in by accident and you could see her pull back from it.
I didn't feel either was rattled such that it mattered. Corbyn on defence matters certainly, and May on education and health, but neither fatally. I'm not sure the debate matters. It's the dissection in the media and how that's presented. Or maybe it's the musings of middle-aged men on a climbing forum that really influences the nation
3
4
In reply to Tyler:
Paxman was ineffective on Brexit with both of them. He should have nailed Corbyn by asking what he was going to do when the EU told him he couldn't have single market access without freedom of movement. He should have made May say if she is really willing to leave the UK with no trade deals at all with anyone for a period of years and if so what she reckons that would do to her tax and spending plans.
Paxman was ineffective on Brexit with both of them. He should have nailed Corbyn by asking what he was going to do when the EU told him he couldn't have single market access without freedom of movement. He should have made May say if she is really willing to leave the UK with no trade deals at all with anyone for a period of years and if so what she reckons that would do to her tax and spending plans.
1
1
In reply to BnB:
I feel the need to point out that what Corbyn said about writing an appropriate letter to Submarine commanders is the standard proceds and has been across generations.
It's not passing the buck, it is an instruction to only be opened under specific circumstances, and the whole point of the deterrent is that no one except the PM actually knows what it says.
I feel the need to point out that what Corbyn said about writing an appropriate letter to Submarine commanders is the standard proceds and has been across generations.
It's not passing the buck, it is an instruction to only be opened under specific circumstances, and the whole point of the deterrent is that no one except the PM actually knows what it says.
3
1
In reply to Si dH:
Yes I recall that exactly. However, have a look at his closing comment on the matter, almost drowned by Paxman and the audience. It's as though he's passing responsibility for any killing on to the military. Wiping his hands of it.
His pacifism isn't a bad character trait, but, whichever side of the fence you sit, it's an election issue, wouldn't you say?
Yes I recall that exactly. However, have a look at his closing comment on the matter, almost drowned by Paxman and the audience. It's as though he's passing responsibility for any killing on to the military. Wiping his hands of it.
His pacifism isn't a bad character trait, but, whichever side of the fence you sit, it's an election issue, wouldn't you say?
1
In reply to Si dH:
The contents are irrelevant if you've already said publically you wouldn't use the deterrent.
> and the whole point of the deterrent is that no one except the PM actually knows what it says.
The contents are irrelevant if you've already said publically you wouldn't use the deterrent.
1
In reply to BnB:
He also has armed police bodyguards now, despite his shoot to kill stance.
> Yes I recall that exactly. However, have a look at his closing comment on the matter, almost drowned by Paxman and the audience. It's as though he's passing responsibility for any killing on to the military. Wiping his hands of it.His pacifism isn't a bad character trait, but, whichever side of the fence you sit, it's an election issue, wouldn't you say?
He also has armed police bodyguards now, despite his shoot to kill stance.
1
1
In reply to summo:
I agree and was very angry when he said that. However, it was a while ago now before he had come around to the fact that he had to compromise on a number of things. He now seems to have turned that corner, especially given that he was specifically pretty hard on his principles last night by Paxman, and gave the right answers (ie, that he is representing his party's views, rather than being a dictatorship.) In more recent interviews including last night, he has not stated what the contents of his 'letter' would be: he has only said that (a) he will renew trident), (b) future nuclear policy beyond that will be part of a defence review and his aim will be multilateral (not unilateral - he has been very clear on that) disarmament*. He also did a reasonable job of defusing the row between his shadow foreign and defence secretaries, given how difficult a situation it put him in.
I work in the industry and this topic was a great worry of mine for a long period. If the election had been held the day it was called, I'd have spoiled my paper or voted lib dem. However he has done enough in the manifesto to make me come around to the fact that (a) he has compromised enough that the policy he follows will be, if not optimal, then at least reasonable, and (b) the benefits of the rest of his manifesto (as opposed to the conservatives) are, for me, well worth that compromise.
*If you seen other interviews with him to the contrary, please let me know.
> The contents are irrelevant if you've already said publically you wouldn't use the deterrent.
I agree and was very angry when he said that. However, it was a while ago now before he had come around to the fact that he had to compromise on a number of things. He now seems to have turned that corner, especially given that he was specifically pretty hard on his principles last night by Paxman, and gave the right answers (ie, that he is representing his party's views, rather than being a dictatorship.) In more recent interviews including last night, he has not stated what the contents of his 'letter' would be: he has only said that (a) he will renew trident), (b) future nuclear policy beyond that will be part of a defence review and his aim will be multilateral (not unilateral - he has been very clear on that) disarmament*. He also did a reasonable job of defusing the row between his shadow foreign and defence secretaries, given how difficult a situation it put him in.
I work in the industry and this topic was a great worry of mine for a long period. If the election had been held the day it was called, I'd have spoiled my paper or voted lib dem. However he has done enough in the manifesto to make me come around to the fact that (a) he has compromised enough that the policy he follows will be, if not optimal, then at least reasonable, and (b) the benefits of the rest of his manifesto (as opposed to the conservatives) are, for me, well worth that compromise.
*If you seen other interviews with him to the contrary, please let me know.
4
In reply to Si dH:
Not convinced he has turned a corner, he just dodged it. It's in the manifesto, but in same breath he says it will be part of the defence review if they took office. I'll read between the lines there.
Just like his don't shoot to kill and we can talk to terrorists stance, but when there are some quite bad people on the uk streets, he hasn't refused armed police protection.
Not convinced he has turned a corner, he just dodged it. It's in the manifesto, but in same breath he says it will be part of the defence review if they took office. I'll read between the lines there.
Just like his don't shoot to kill and we can talk to terrorists stance, but when there are some quite bad people on the uk streets, he hasn't refused armed police protection.
2
2
In reply to summo:
Since you're evidently not daft your continued efforts to deliberately misunderstand then misrepresent the man and his opinions do come across as quite dishonest and frankly pathetic.
jk
> He also has armed police bodyguards now, despite his shoot to kill stance.
Since you're evidently not daft your continued efforts to deliberately misunderstand then misrepresent the man and his opinions do come across as quite dishonest and frankly pathetic.
jk
12
3
In reply to BnB:
He isn't a pacifist, he has been clear about that. He is however much more cautious about the use of force than most politicians.
> His pacifism isn't a bad character trait, but, whichever side of the fence you sit, it's an election issue, wouldn't you say?
He isn't a pacifist, he has been clear about that. He is however much more cautious about the use of force than most politicians.
5
2
In reply to The New NickB:
That's a fair clarification. Actually I wouldn't mind if he were a pacifist. It's about time we tried something different. I just think we need to be clear on his approach to defence. And last night just showed him to be conflicted, which is only natural when the role of PM asks him to step out of his comfort zone.
> He isn't a pacifist, he has been clear about that. He is however much more cautious about the use of force than most politicians.
That's a fair clarification. Actually I wouldn't mind if he were a pacifist. It's about time we tried something different. I just think we need to be clear on his approach to defence. And last night just showed him to be conflicted, which is only natural when the role of PM asks him to step out of his comfort zone.
1
In reply to summo:
I approve of his shoot-to-kill stance. Summary execution flies in the face of decent values.
> He also has armed police bodyguards now, despite his shoot to kill stance.
I approve of his shoot-to-kill stance. Summary execution flies in the face of decent values.
4
3
In reply to BnB: I was reading comments on Jason Manford's FB page today after he came out in support of Corbyn.
The way some folk think staggers me.
"He'll get rid of Trident!" (no he won't, it's in the manifesto).
"If we don't have Trident we'll immediately be nuked!!" (absolutely - a bit like Canada, Iceland, Norway and all the other non-nuclear-weaponed countries are on a regular basis, the silly billies).
I'm warming to him, I must say, though his continued tolerance of Dianne Abbott worries me...
The way some folk think staggers me.
"He'll get rid of Trident!" (no he won't, it's in the manifesto).
"If we don't have Trident we'll immediately be nuked!!" (absolutely - a bit like Canada, Iceland, Norway and all the other non-nuclear-weaponed countries are on a regular basis, the silly billies).
I'm warming to him, I must say, though his continued tolerance of Dianne Abbott worries me...
2
In reply to Trevers:
I approve of his shoot-to-kill stance. Summary execution flies in the face of decent values.
No one approves of Summary Executions.
The problem with Corbyn, is that whenever he's asked a theoretical question about making a dynamic decision about such matters, he always adds an extra stage into the process i.e. I would need to see all the information before making a decision/I would need to discuss it first to get all the facts, etc. Sorry, but as PM, you might have to rely on the information given to you and make an instantaneous decision there and then: Yes or No.
I approve of his shoot-to-kill stance. Summary execution flies in the face of decent values.
No one approves of Summary Executions.
The problem with Corbyn, is that whenever he's asked a theoretical question about making a dynamic decision about such matters, he always adds an extra stage into the process i.e. I would need to see all the information before making a decision/I would need to discuss it first to get all the facts, etc. Sorry, but as PM, you might have to rely on the information given to you and make an instantaneous decision there and then: Yes or No.
2
2
In reply to Tyler:
Good grief, that Paxman is an annoying interviewer! I've never watched him before. To my astonishment, Corbyn came across pretty well (with reservations based on his rather unimpressive track record. May was as expected.
Good grief, that Paxman is an annoying interviewer! I've never watched him before. To my astonishment, Corbyn came across pretty well (with reservations based on his rather unimpressive track record. May was as expected.
In reply to jkarran:
Corbyn has publically said he isn't happy with shoot to kill. Yet strangely had no issue with it when a knife man was running into parliament, what do his armed guards carry a water pistol? He is a hypocrite. I'm not misrepresenting him at all. He is the same as many other politicians, do as I say, not as I do.
> Since you're evidently not daft your continued efforts to deliberately misunderstand then misrepresent the man and his opinions do come across as quite dishonest and frankly pathetic.jk
Corbyn has publically said he isn't happy with shoot to kill. Yet strangely had no issue with it when a knife man was running into parliament, what do his armed guards carry a water pistol? He is a hypocrite. I'm not misrepresenting him at all. He is the same as many other politicians, do as I say, not as I do.
3
8
In reply to The New NickB:
Clearly not he has no issue with some terror organisations bombing their way to the table.
I'd say he is more anti western or capitalist, it depends on who is doing the fighting, if he sees it as acceptable for their cause.
> He isn't a pacifist,
Clearly not he has no issue with some terror organisations bombing their way to the table.
I'd say he is more anti western or capitalist, it depends on who is doing the fighting, if he sees it as acceptable for their cause.
1
9
In reply to summo:
Educate yourself then. Shoot-to-kill doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
> Corbyn has publically said he isn't happy with shoot to kill. Yet strangely had no issue with it when a knife man was running into parliament, what do his armed guards carry a water pistol? He is a hypocrite. I'm not misrepresenting him at all. He is the same as many other politicians, do as I say, not as I do.
Educate yourself then. Shoot-to-kill doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
6
In reply to summo:
'Shoot to kill' historically, particularly in the context of the war in Ireland specifically refers to extrajudicial execution, not to gunshot deaths unavoidably resulting from self defense or defense of others in immediate danger. Why am I bothering, I know you know this because it crops up every couple of months and you're always first in line to willfully misunderstand and conflate the contexts in which the words are and have been used.
Ask an armed police officer if they would be happy to fatally shoot a suspect who could otherwise be safely contained, controlled and arrested. I bet you won't find many (any) who'd say yes. Doesn't mean they will or should hesitate when out of better options.
jk
> Corbyn has publically said he isn't happy with shoot to kill. Yet strangely had no issue with it when a knife man was running into parliament, what do his armed guards carry a water pistol? He is a hypocrite. I'm not misrepresenting him at all. He is the same as many other politicians, do as I say, not as I do.
'Shoot to kill' historically, particularly in the context of the war in Ireland specifically refers to extrajudicial execution, not to gunshot deaths unavoidably resulting from self defense or defense of others in immediate danger. Why am I bothering, I know you know this because it crops up every couple of months and you're always first in line to willfully misunderstand and conflate the contexts in which the words are and have been used.
Ask an armed police officer if they would be happy to fatally shoot a suspect who could otherwise be safely contained, controlled and arrested. I bet you won't find many (any) who'd say yes. Doesn't mean they will or should hesitate when out of better options.
jk
8
2
In reply to Trevers:
I know it's really only a catchphrase and fully understand the technicalities thanks, be it minimum or reasonable force... appropriate to the risk, to protect the public, likely endanger others lives, has knowingly harmed others already etc. etc..
> Educate yourself then. Shoot-to-kill doesn't mean what you appear to think it means.
I know it's really only a catchphrase and fully understand the technicalities thanks, be it minimum or reasonable force... appropriate to the risk, to protect the public, likely endanger others lives, has knowingly harmed others already etc. etc..
1
4
In reply to jkarran:
I would say it relates the other option of shoot to wound etc.. which in the days of the ira was a reasonable option because they didn't have a death wish.
Since the suicide attacks on UK soil, shoot to wound is over in all but the simplest of domestic dispute situations.
> 'Shoot to kill' historically,
I would say it relates the other option of shoot to wound etc.. which in the days of the ira was a reasonable option because they didn't have a death wish.
Since the suicide attacks on UK soil, shoot to wound is over in all but the simplest of domestic dispute situations.
1
2
In reply to summo:
Right, but an operational decision to kill a would-be assailant so as to prevent imminent harm is not what Corbyn has qualms about, he's said as much before now so why pretend otherwise?
jk
Right, but an operational decision to kill a would-be assailant so as to prevent imminent harm is not what Corbyn has qualms about, he's said as much before now so why pretend otherwise?
jk
4
1
In reply to jkarran:
But that is it. He only ever 'said as much', be it this, trident, taxes, how Labour will fund his dreams public ownership..., his real eu stance... He is very good at implying but won't ever say in 100% black and white phrasing. Every claim, idea, policy.. has a but, exception or a caveat afterwards. Mr honest is anything but, it's always a little grey and open to interpretation.
> he's said as much
But that is it. He only ever 'said as much', be it this, trident, taxes, how Labour will fund his dreams public ownership..., his real eu stance... He is very good at implying but won't ever say in 100% black and white phrasing. Every claim, idea, policy.. has a but, exception or a caveat afterwards. Mr honest is anything but, it's always a little grey and open to interpretation.
1
4
In reply to summo:
How dare he not offer simple answers to complex problems. Nuance is is not a town in France.
How dare he not offer simple answers to complex problems. Nuance is is not a town in France.
4
1
In reply to FactorXXX:
I don't buy this. Can you give me an example of such a situation?
Before a decision gets to the PM it will have been looked at by someone at 'ground level' where the problem arises, be that local police, the army in Syria, or someone somewhere in the NHS. They will have referred it to their immediate manager, who will have decided it is also above their pay grade and referred it to their senior management/exec. After some thought about whether there is any way to avoid further escalation, they will have raised it further to their senior civil service contact, who will subsequently raise it with the relevant secretary of state, and then them, ultimately, the PM. This would surely take at least a fortnight under any circumstances and I suspect the above is optimistic in the vast majority of cases. So, if something is important enough that there is time to ask the PM for a decision, then it is certainly important enough that there is time for him/her to look at the evidence rather than shooting from the hip.
Where decisions really do have to be taken urgently, they will generally be taken by people on the bottom two rungs above, using the experience and qualifications they have earnt to be placed in that sort of role.
> I approve of his shoot-to-kill stance. Summary execution flies in the face of decent values.No one approves of Summary Executions.The problem with Corbyn, is that whenever he's asked a theoretical question about making a dynamic decision about such matters, he always adds an extra stage into the process i.e. I would need to see all the information before making a decision/I would need to discuss it first to get all the facts, etc. Sorry, but as PM, you might have to rely on the information given to you and make an instantaneous decision there and then: Yes or No.
I don't buy this. Can you give me an example of such a situation?
Before a decision gets to the PM it will have been looked at by someone at 'ground level' where the problem arises, be that local police, the army in Syria, or someone somewhere in the NHS. They will have referred it to their immediate manager, who will have decided it is also above their pay grade and referred it to their senior management/exec. After some thought about whether there is any way to avoid further escalation, they will have raised it further to their senior civil service contact, who will subsequently raise it with the relevant secretary of state, and then them, ultimately, the PM. This would surely take at least a fortnight under any circumstances and I suspect the above is optimistic in the vast majority of cases. So, if something is important enough that there is time to ask the PM for a decision, then it is certainly important enough that there is time for him/her to look at the evidence rather than shooting from the hip.
Where decisions really do have to be taken urgently, they will generally be taken by people on the bottom two rungs above, using the experience and qualifications they have earnt to be placed in that sort of role.
1
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
It's about offering any answer at all, and not just saying well I'd consider, and think, and consult, and aim to blah blah. He never gets there, and his nuance is just obvious - of course you consult, of course you consider. What would he DO?
Eg Falklands - we've been invaded, what would JC do? Go to the UN and hope for peace as far as I heard yesterday. Consult while the Argentines cement their occupation.
It's about offering any answer at all, and not just saying well I'd consider, and think, and consult, and aim to blah blah. He never gets there, and his nuance is just obvious - of course you consult, of course you consider. What would he DO?
Eg Falklands - we've been invaded, what would JC do? Go to the UN and hope for peace as far as I heard yesterday. Consult while the Argentines cement their occupation.
Post edited at 19:06
2
3
In reply to thomasadixon:
The families of the 1000 people killed in the war could still have an alive father/son/uncle if a peaceful solution had been found through dialogue. You may not think the attempt worth it, but there's a thousand families out there that probably would.
The families of the 1000 people killed in the war could still have an alive father/son/uncle if a peaceful solution had been found through dialogue. You may not think the attempt worth it, but there's a thousand families out there that probably would.
5
In reply to Mr Lopez:
There's a shed load of people in Argentina who benefited from the downfall of the regime brought about by the Malvinas debacle.
There's a shed load of people in Argentina who benefited from the downfall of the regime brought about by the Malvinas debacle.
1
3
In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:
But you'd think when he is asked a straight closed question about his opinion you'd get a yes or no, rather than a maybe; or a pending a review after the election. After 30 years plus years of complaining about everyone elses political decisions you would think he'd have some definitive idea of his own by now to commit to.
> How dare he not offer simple answers to complex problems. Nuance is is not a town in France.
But you'd think when he is asked a straight closed question about his opinion you'd get a yes or no, rather than a maybe; or a pending a review after the election. After 30 years plus years of complaining about everyone elses political decisions you would think he'd have some definitive idea of his own by now to commit to.
2
3
In reply to baron:
So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands? No attempts of peaceful resolution, straight in a boat out to sea and back one week later in a shoe box?
So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands? No attempts of peaceful resolution, straight in a boat out to sea and back one week later in a shoe box?
1
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
And no one forced the Argentians to invade with armed troops and take over the islands. They were never going to leave no matter to how politely they were asked over a cup of camollile tea and organic fair trade biscuits.
> The families of the 1000 people killed in the war could still have an alive father/son/uncle if a peaceful solution had been found through dialogue. You may not think the attempt worth it, but there's a thousand families out there that probably would.
And no one forced the Argentians to invade with armed troops and take over the islands. They were never going to leave no matter to how politely they were asked over a cup of camollile tea and organic fair trade biscuits.
3
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
There were talks to some degree and the fleet that left the UK didn't exactly get there in a day. Plenty time for the argentinians to depart if they wished to.
> So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands? No attempts of peaceful resolution, straight in a boat out to sea and back one week later in a shoe box?
There were talks to some degree and the fleet that left the UK didn't exactly get there in a day. Plenty time for the argentinians to depart if they wished to.
1
In reply to summo:
So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands?
Or is the tough talk only when it's somebody else's children coming back in a shoe box?
So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands?
Or is the tough talk only when it's somebody else's children coming back in a shoe box?
4
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
No one volunteers their kids. There is no conscription in the UK either. UK forces join of their volition.
> So would you volunteer your own children to die via dismemberment by bombing were we to have another Falklands?Or is the tough talk only when it's somebody else's children coming back in a shoe box?
No one volunteers their kids. There is no conscription in the UK either. UK forces join of their volition.
1
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Your recollection of the Falklands war is different to mine.
All the British servicemen who went were volunteers and there was disappointment among those units who weren't selected to go.
My point was that the Falklands war didn't just free the islanders from the military junta but also helped free the Argentinians themselves.
It would have been far, far better had there been no fighting.
But that was never going to happen.
Your recollection of the Falklands war is different to mine.
All the British servicemen who went were volunteers and there was disappointment among those units who weren't selected to go.
My point was that the Falklands war didn't just free the islanders from the military junta but also helped free the Argentinians themselves.
It would have been far, far better had there been no fighting.
But that was never going to happen.
2
2
In reply to summo:
You haven't answered the question. Would you be willing for your children to die by having their legs blown off and bleed to death in a boggy field in a forsaken island in the middle of the Atlantic?
Yes or not?
How far would you go in order to avoid having your children die by having their legs blown off and bleed to death in a boggy field in a forsaken island in the middle of the Atlantic?
Exhausting every possible avenue for peaceful resolution sounds like something you'd attempt?
You haven't answered the question. Would you be willing for your children to die by having their legs blown off and bleed to death in a boggy field in a forsaken island in the middle of the Atlantic?
Yes or not?
How far would you go in order to avoid having your children die by having their legs blown off and bleed to death in a boggy field in a forsaken island in the middle of the Atlantic?
Exhausting every possible avenue for peaceful resolution sounds like something you'd attempt?
1
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Do you have a scenario for these peaceful negotiations with a military dictatorship that was willing to make thousands of its own citizens disappear?
Do you have a scenario for these peaceful negotiations with a military dictatorship that was willing to make thousands of its own citizens disappear?
3
In reply to Mr Lopez:
Your answers are a good example of why JCs attitude in this area is extremely concerning. Would I be happy to send soldiers to repel an invading force bent on subjugating British citizens? Absolutely, of course, it's not even a question. To JC, and to you, it is. He'd prevaricate while British citizens lived under occupation, because enemy soldiers lives are more important than the lives of British citizens.
Exhausting avenues takes time, and as that time goes past it changes the available avenues. You have to pick, you have to do. You can't just talk endlessly.
Your answers are a good example of why JCs attitude in this area is extremely concerning. Would I be happy to send soldiers to repel an invading force bent on subjugating British citizens? Absolutely, of course, it's not even a question. To JC, and to you, it is. He'd prevaricate while British citizens lived under occupation, because enemy soldiers lives are more important than the lives of British citizens.
Exhausting avenues takes time, and as that time goes past it changes the available avenues. You have to pick, you have to do. You can't just talk endlessly.
5
2
In reply to thomasadixon:
To be honest, I'm more bothered about my daughter's school being able to pay its teachers, the NHS being properly funded and the country not being a post-Brexit gibbering mess when my daughter emerges into the job market.
To be honest, I'm more bothered about my daughter's school being able to pay its teachers, the NHS being properly funded and the country not being a post-Brexit gibbering mess when my daughter emerges into the job market.
5
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
You can't just talk endlessly.
I think that rather depends on biscuit type and availability...
You can't just talk endlessly.
I think that rather depends on biscuit type and availability...
4
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
It's funny how Tory cuts led to the conditions under which the junta thought the British weren't bothered about the Islands...
It's funny how Tory cuts led to the conditions under which the junta thought the British weren't bothered about the Islands...
3
4
In reply to summo:
Just because an interviewer can reduce something to a yes or no question, and that the viewer is stupid enough to believe it's that cut and dry, that doesn't mean the interviewee has to play the stupid game. Rejection of yes-or-no, binary politics played to the crowd is part of the reason Corbyn is closing in on May.
Yes or no: is it true you no longer kick children in the street?
> But you'd think when he is asked a straight closed question about his opinion you'd get a yes or no, rather than a maybe; or a pending a review after the election. After 30 years plus years of complaining about everyone elses political decisions you would think he'd have some definitive idea of his own by now to commit to.
Just because an interviewer can reduce something to a yes or no question, and that the viewer is stupid enough to believe it's that cut and dry, that doesn't mean the interviewee has to play the stupid game. Rejection of yes-or-no, binary politics played to the crowd is part of the reason Corbyn is closing in on May.
Yes or no: is it true you no longer kick children in the street?
1
In reply to thomasadixon:
I find more concerning that you would give so little value to the lifes of British soldiers and the plights their families will have to endure when they are killed or maimed, that you don't think they are worth the utmost effort to keep them safe and should only be put in harm's way when there's absolutely no other possible avenue to explore remaining.
I find more concerning that you would give so little value to the lifes of British soldiers and the plights their families will have to endure when they are killed or maimed, that you don't think they are worth the utmost effort to keep them safe and should only be put in harm's way when there's absolutely no other possible avenue to explore remaining.
3
2
In reply to Yanis Nayu:
Fair enough, i don't imagine Falklands mark 2 is about to happen. On the other hand we're in a short negotiation where decisions have to be made quickly, and stuck to, not endlessly discussed. He's also got to see British citizens as his priority, and he doesn't seem to.
FactorX - true!
Monkeypuzzle - no, I can't stop doing something I never did. Easy, although perhaps a little too hard for Corbyn.
Fair enough, i don't imagine Falklands mark 2 is about to happen. On the other hand we're in a short negotiation where decisions have to be made quickly, and stuck to, not endlessly discussed. He's also got to see British citizens as his priority, and he doesn't seem to.
FactorX - true!
Monkeypuzzle - no, I can't stop doing something I never did. Easy, although perhaps a little too hard for Corbyn.
3
2
2
3
In reply to baron:
No it's not - it's pointing out that destroying public services, be they police or military or anything else, has consequences. Prevention is better than cure as they say, but clearly not as vote-winning as sounding tough and mobilising the military.
Any mature debate about terrorism has to consider the role of our foreign policy. It's in no way the same as blaming it for terrorism. A point made by Boris Johnson and (I think) David Cameron.
> This is like blaming British foreign policy for terrorism in the U.K.
No it's not - it's pointing out that destroying public services, be they police or military or anything else, has consequences. Prevention is better than cure as they say, but clearly not as vote-winning as sounding tough and mobilising the military.
Any mature debate about terrorism has to consider the role of our foreign policy. It's in no way the same as blaming it for terrorism. A point made by Boris Johnson and (I think) David Cameron.
4
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
A bit boring that though isn't it? Nowhere near as sexy as sending them off in an authoritative manner. And the Sun and the Mail f*cking LOVE it.
> I find more concerning that you would give so little value to the lifes of British soldiers and the plights their families will have to endure when they are killed or maimed, that you don't think they are worth the utmost effort to keep them safe and should only be put in harm's way when there's absolutely no other possible avenue to explore remaining.
A bit boring that though isn't it? Nowhere near as sexy as sending them off in an authoritative manner. And the Sun and the Mail f*cking LOVE it.
3
1
In reply to Mr Lopez:
I find more concerning that you would give so little value to the lifes of British soldiers and the plights their families will have to endure when they are killed or maimed, that you don't think they are worth the utmost effort to keep them safe and should only be put in harm's way when there's absolutely no other possible avenue to explore remaining.
Every day waiting for negotiations to occur, was a day when the Argentines were digging in deeper and the winter was one day nearer. If the negotiations had failed, then it's very likely that in the event of a landing, there would have been heavier losses on the British side and if that was the case, correspondingly heavier losses on the Argentine side. There's also the possibility that the landings would have failed and with huge British casualties, or, the Task Force would have abandoned the attempt to retake the islands and sailed back to the UK.
That was the decision faced by the PM the military and they chose to get the job done as quickly as possible.
The problem with Corbyn's version of events, is that it assumes the negotiations would have worked. However, why would they? The UN Resolutions were quite clear and Argentina could have returned its troops to the mainland without any further to do. Equally, the UK had made it quite clear that there was no room for negotiation on sovereignty, either short or long term and the only satisfactory outcome was a complete withdrawal of Argentine troops.
Anyway, should we really be having a discussion on the Falklands without Bruce being present?
It feels kind of empty without his input...
I find more concerning that you would give so little value to the lifes of British soldiers and the plights their families will have to endure when they are killed or maimed, that you don't think they are worth the utmost effort to keep them safe and should only be put in harm's way when there's absolutely no other possible avenue to explore remaining.
Every day waiting for negotiations to occur, was a day when the Argentines were digging in deeper and the winter was one day nearer. If the negotiations had failed, then it's very likely that in the event of a landing, there would have been heavier losses on the British side and if that was the case, correspondingly heavier losses on the Argentine side. There's also the possibility that the landings would have failed and with huge British casualties, or, the Task Force would have abandoned the attempt to retake the islands and sailed back to the UK.
That was the decision faced by the PM the military and they chose to get the job done as quickly as possible.
The problem with Corbyn's version of events, is that it assumes the negotiations would have worked. However, why would they? The UN Resolutions were quite clear and Argentina could have returned its troops to the mainland without any further to do. Equally, the UK had made it quite clear that there was no room for negotiation on sovereignty, either short or long term and the only satisfactory outcome was a complete withdrawal of Argentine troops.
Anyway, should we really be having a discussion on the Falklands without Bruce being present?
It feels kind of empty without his input...
Post edited at 21:10
2
In reply to Mr Lopez:
No parent wishes to see their kids harmed, but it is important to remember that the freedom we all enjoy now, came because others and their children were prepared to do more then just talk. There are regimes and people out there now and in the past that won't ever change their ways through dialogue, even Diane abbot can't talk anyone into submission, and she's been trying on tv and radio for years. If my kids joined up and served their country in some manner, i would be proud as any parent should be.
> You haven't answered the question...
No parent wishes to see their kids harmed, but it is important to remember that the freedom we all enjoy now, came because others and their children were prepared to do more then just talk. There are regimes and people out there now and in the past that won't ever change their ways through dialogue, even Diane abbot can't talk anyone into submission, and she's been trying on tv and radio for years. If my kids joined up and served their country in some manner, i would be proud as any parent should be.
In reply to Tyler:
Did the team who sorted his suit and grooming also apply a dose of realpolitik too? Going purely on the TV debate Corbyn has grown greatly since his pitiful state winning the leadership election and the subsequent purges/failed coups (depending on your stance). Skin deep? Can he bring the highly capable ostracised centrist MPs back into the tent? Time will tell
Did the team who sorted his suit and grooming also apply a dose of realpolitik too? Going purely on the TV debate Corbyn has grown greatly since his pitiful state winning the leadership election and the subsequent purges/failed coups (depending on your stance). Skin deep? Can he bring the highly capable ostracised centrist MPs back into the tent? Time will tell
In reply to Si dH:
I don't buy this. Can you give me an example of such a situation?
The most famous one that the public are aware of, is the order given by Thatcher to initiate the siege of the Iranian Embassy by the SAS. That needed to be done instantaneously and any hesitation could have resulted in further loss of life.
I don't buy this. Can you give me an example of such a situation?
The most famous one that the public are aware of, is the order given by Thatcher to initiate the siege of the Iranian Embassy by the SAS. That needed to be done instantaneously and any hesitation could have resulted in further loss of life.
3
In reply to baron:
This is, at best, an irrelevant point as it would not have been a consideration for a nano-second when the decision was made to go to war. If the UK was concerned about South America dictators we would not have been cosying up to Pinochet at around this time.
> My point was that the Falklands war didn't just free the islanders from the military junta but also helped free the Argentinians themselves.
This is, at best, an irrelevant point as it would not have been a consideration for a nano-second when the decision was made to go to war. If the UK was concerned about South America dictators we would not have been cosying up to Pinochet at around this time.
3
In reply to Tyler: probably not irrelevant to the Argentinians but certainly not a consideration in retaking the Falklands.
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Elsewhere on the site
Loading Notifications...