Browse > Home / Archive by category 'Uncategorized'

| Subcribe via RSS

Corbyn’s Conversations Are Not Statecraft

By Editor
November 23rd, 2015 at 11:24 am | 2 Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Judging from the social media and blog feeds over the weekend. There is a Momentum campaign in operation to try and paint attacks on Jeremy Corbyn’s unconvincing posturing as a vast media conspiracy. Even the BBC is being roped into the usual anti-Daily Mail and Murdoch rants as ‘wilfully not seeing, as the public does, the deep integrity and morality behind his position’.

The problem for this analysis, is that the public largely does see Corbyn for what it is, and they don’t much care for it. While many people have deep and sincere concerns about military ventures in far-off lands. And deep suspicions about the need for action, particularly as articulated by Government. They can also see Islamic State for what it is, and accept ‘no action’ in Syria has not been a wild success for peace and security, either here or in the region. People are dying either way, and the long and bloody Syrian civil war shows no sign of concluding soon.

They expect their wannabe Leaders to have a clear position on such things, backed up by a credible plan. Not beard-stroking incoherence, or a sense that whatever the Government does, he is against it, while having no Plan B.

Corbyn is not a liberal pacifist. Largely he’s an observer and oppositionalist on matters of state. He correctly sees the resolution of most conflicts as being based on dialogue not bombs. But incorrectly presumes that dialogue is always an option. Or an option right now. It should be self-evident but apparently isn’t to him that a death cult, with a moral vision based on bringing about a final conflict between civilisations is not a prime candidate for having a chat. If there is any prospect of that whatsoever it will require a radical change of vision, leadership and personnel in IS. This in turn will largely require beating them militarily. Some people do just want to kill you. And will if you let them.

However the even less attractive aspect of Corbyn’s statecraft is the manner he which does engage in dialogue when he can. His relationship with the IRA at the height of the Troubles was not admirable. Rather than coming across as the work of a sincere peacemaker, ahead of his time, he seemed to be wallowing in the association with those who would slaughter his political opponents at home. Feeding on grievances, not resolving them.

With Hamas, there is a line between a sincere desire to defend the rights of Palestinians – by questioning the decisions of the Israeli state. And apologism for acts of murderous aggression against Israeli citizens – by ignoring or excusing them. It is hard to see how the thinly veiled anti-Semitism of his fellow-travellers on the hard Left – or their aggressive relativism against Israel, is the former, not the latter. Hatred and wilful ignorance of one side’s concerns is a poor catalyst for facilitating peace.

And so it goes on. Corbyn’s preference is to be the man sitting on the sidelines preaching about how everyone else made mistakes, and how much better life would be if only some utopian peace plan had been allowed to succeed. That and pretending to be neutral while actually being ruthlessly partisan. That preference is not compatible with a job application to run the affairs of a member of the UN Security Council.

British Prime Ministers have to take tough decisions, often without any path being clear or right, and live with the consequences. They cannot just hope for a better conversation. The public can see that. Many Labour MPs can see that. The question is how long it will take Labour’s new intake to reach the same conclusion.


LibDem Math

By Sara Scarlett
November 19th, 2015 at 9:19 pm | No Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

40 Unelected peers chose Chris Rennard (credibly a sex pest) to the FE = “Democracy”

240+ Party Members Sign Petition Because They Think This Is Bad = “Lynch Mob”

Let me put this in terms that even a LibDem could understand!

This is what everyone else sees –

RTB = Rock The Boat

Rennard = Rennard

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 01.13.48This is what Lord Rennard sees –

Screen Shot 2015-11-20 at 01.26.07

I had *way* too much with this…

LDV Comment Section Winner

By Sara Scarlett
November 17th, 2015 at 8:50 am | No Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Usually blog comment sections are a place where nobody wins. I have decided to make an exception… The winner of the LDV comments section as far as I’m concerned is Rob:

Chris Rennard is to the Lib Dems what Lance Armstrong is to cycling. He is an embarrassment to the Liberal Democrats and his continued involvement demeans the party.

For people saying that Lord Rennard has been found not guilty, you are incorrect. The Lib Dems are not a judicial institution so the Guilty/Not Guilty analogy is an inappropriate comparison to make. The burden of proof (which for a non judicial institution was ludicrously high) was not met, but Alisdair Webber said the complaints were “broadly credible”. In most of other institutions this would have been more than enough for expulsion. Sadly our disciplinary processes were not up to scratch (a fact that pretty much everyone on all sides accepts). This has left the party in a difficult position. Especially since Lord Rennard has only offered a pretty substandard apology.

For those saying we should respect the democracy of the Lords in holding a properly constituted election, I say the Lords should accept the properly constituted decision of a greater number of members who disagree with their decision. This matter can be resolved by Lord Rennard standing down from the FE.

As a party we must do all we can to make sure that the Liberal Democrats is a safe place for women. The involvement of Lord Rennard in the internal running of the party would send a message that runs contrary to this vital responsibility.

This issue has been rumbling on for years and I am sick and tired of the party losing good and longstanding members who feel, understandably that they cannot remain in a party that commits to protecting women from sexual harassment publically, while apparently failing to act on credible allegations internally.

We must now act to deal with this issue. And this is the Ideal time to deal with this matter. The media pretty much pay no attention to us, we are 4 and half years from a General Election and most of the public are ignoring politics post General Election. If we don’t take actions now it could explode again as an issue during say an important and winnable by-election.

We spent five years in Government making compromises and look where it got us, we can’t afford to make compromises with regards to gender equality, its what we preach, it’s what we stand for and it is not good enough not to have our own house in order over this matter.

Rennard Feels Entitled To Power

By Sara Scarlett
November 17th, 2015 at 8:44 am | No Comments | Posted in Uncategorized

Screen Shot 2015-11-17 at 12.41.59

Extraordinary. The man is pathologically incapable of putting the party before himself. It’s a sense of entitlement bordering on mental illness.

The Strange Death of the Libertarian Left

By Sara Scarlett
November 14th, 2015 at 12:44 pm | Comments Off on The Strange Death of the Libertarian Left | Posted in Uncategorized

In this article on CapX, Matt Ridley perfectly articulates why I, as a Libertarian, never initially saw myself as ‘on the right.’

From the Levellers of the 1650s to the Chartists of the 1830s, via the Boston tea party, the radicals on the “left” of British and American politics consistently demanded free trade and free markets as well as free speech and political reform. Richard Cobden, the great champion of free trade responsible more than anybody else for that extraordinary spell between 1840 and 1865 when Britain set the world an example and unilaterally dismantled the tariffs that entangled the globe, was a passionate pacifist, deeply committed to the cause of the poor, who was heckled as a dangerous radical when he first spoke in the House of Commons and who refused a title from a monarch he disapproved of. Hardly a conservative.

The rest of the article is well worth a read.