Tag Archives: Theresa May

Theresa May asked 5 times to condemn Saudi Arabia

Theresa May was in fact asked just once. She wasn’t even asked to condemn Saudi Arabia, just instead asked a generic question on why we supply arms to them. The first answer she gave was accepted. (You can read of one of her recent responses to the question of Saudi Arabia here)

Contrast this to Jeremy Corbyn who on Sunday was asked to condemn the IRA on the Sophie Ridge show on Sky News. He was asked 5 times to condemn the IRA. The answer he gave was a cerebral, intelligent one but the likely highly paid journalist couldn’t seem to grasp the answer, instead looking for a headline to give credence to her Sunday morning TV slot and sure enough it became headline news across all the major news networks and on anticipation will have likely made the front pages of some if not all of the right wing print media today. 

If you’re for Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to share this with anyone asking the question “Why does Jeremy Corbyn support the IRA?” If you’re against Jeremy Corbyn you may wish to read what follows to get a better understanding of his stance before you go believing everything you read and hear. 

Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the question “Do you condemn the IRA?” was thus; 

“I condemn the bombings” and when pushed again and again went on to say ‘I condemn all bombings and violence’

The very fact that his answer was not accepted five times was for the simple reason that Sophie Ridge wanted to hear Corbyn say ‘I condemn the IRA’ no matter the nuanced point he was making because asking the same emotive question again and again without getting the response you want makes a good headline. 

The question some will have is ‘why doesn’t Jeremy just condemn the IRA?’

Here’s the thing. You can absolutely, quite legitimately hate what the IRA did and how they conducted their campaign but their claim for a unified Ireland was a justified one and they represented whole communities within Ireland. To condemn the IRA as an entity implies you are for the loyalists in Northern Ireland and you would be picking a side. 

He unequivocally condemned the bombings, he does not support war and violence and did not support the IRA’s use of those tactics. It is this kind of understanding about grievances that makes the likes of Jeremy Corbyn incredibly suitable for leading the UK in international affairs. If anything it is the attitude of the UK at the time that helped prolong the violence on our shores. Our inability to listen to the other side for many years led to the deaths of countless people. Indeed, only the IRA can be blamed for the deaths of innocent people but when you’re trying to find a solution to conflict you must be willing to engage with the other side on a certain level. That is strong leadership rather than a reactionary one which seems to be always be courted by Conservative governments.

It’s also worth remembering the atrocities committed by the British Army and the treatment of the Irish in a time when they were seen as lesser people than in Northern Ireland. 

The IRA were supported in Ireland for their cause of unifying Ireland away from the UK, it was a legitimate claim and still is. No less than Scotland asking for independence. These are all the reasons Corbyn won’t outright condemn the IRA but will condemn their tactics. To condemn the IRA might be seen to condone the loyalists and condemning or condoning either side may have been, or may be, a dangerous stance to take. 

It needs to be asked why Theresa May and the Conservatives don’t get a hard time over Saudi Arabia. The troubles in Ireland ended quite some years ago now yet Saudi Arabia is in the here-and-now. 

Saudi Arabia bombs, often indiscriminately, children and adults in Yemen in a war that once again is a war over regime change, one that is backed by the West. Saudi Arabia have used old banned bombs supplied by the UK, they have bombed civilian water supplies and then when the rebels in Yemen respond by taking pot shots at Saudi Arabia the UK respond officially by stating that Saudi Arabia “has a right to defend itself” in response to Saudi Arabia throwing all its UK and American weaponary at the rebels in responseAdd to this that Saudi Arabia is well known for being an epicentre of Middle Eastern terrorism and has a terrible human rights record and you have to begin to think that by comparison the IRA were lightweights. How can you argue any different? 

Of course the response will be that Saudi Arabia isn’t bombing mainland UK. Of course, but what that says is that you’re ok with our hand in what Saudi Arabia is doing as we sell them multi million pound contracts in arms in exchange for alleged security information. You can not possibly condemn Jeremy Corbyn for taking a neutral stance on one issue and yet not condemn Theresa May for taking a biased corrupt stance towards the corrupt and human rights breaching Saudi Arabia. It’s two faced and a blot on the reputation of our nation and it’s a scandal. 

It seems Thersea May can’t see the irony of talking of humanitarian aid when the weapons that the UK sells to Saudi Arabia are the cause of the need to supply humanitarian aid in the first place. 

‘Asked about alleged human rights abuses by the country, Mrs May said it was an issue she would bring up and pledged Britain would continue supporting the people of Yemen through humanitarian aid.’ 

Source – ITV 

Yet the media seem to by-pass this issue. It’s a conundrum of epic proportions. 

You have to remember also that the centre ground Tony Blair government and the right wing Conservative governments have all had similar international policies when it comes to conflict and especially the Middle East. There is no question that the fall of Saddam Hussein led to the destabilisation of the entire Middle East and is still felt today in Syria and with ISIS. The very fact we have Extreme Islamic terrorists within Europe can be traced back to successive foreign policies that interfere with the delicate balance that is within the Middle East. 

So instead of asking why Jeremy Corbyn doesn’t condemn the IRA why aren’t you asking Theresa May why she doesn’t condemn Saudi Arabia and instead of insisting that Jeremy Corbyn is not strong on defence why aren’t you asking Thersea May why she insists on conducting a foreign policy that proliferates international terrorism, the very same terrorism that affect us today, not 20-30 years ago. 

Late 2019 Brexit is pure strategy by the Conservatives.

The report today that the Conservatives are planning to delay implementing article 50 until late 2017 is nothing more than strategy. The claim is that the Conservatives do not yet have the resources nor the personel to safely steer the country into a full Brexit. 

Implementing article 50 would trigger a 2 year leaving process from the European Union. It was thought that the Conservatives would trigger article 50 at the end of this year, now though the new time-table would push Brexit to the end of 2019, just months before the next general election. 

It would be a wonderful strategic move for the Conservatives as they would almost certainly use the Brexit process as their main reason to be voted back into power for ‘stability’ reasons. It would make sense for them to beat on that electoral door. If they completed Brexit a year earlier and things went wrong then the public may not be so forgiving so what better way to catch the electorate on the hop than be caught between a ‘too early to tell’ moment and ‘too late to vote against us now’ perspective regarding the Brexit question. Theresa May can’t really wait any longer and thus push Brexit to 2020 as that will be too obvious a strategic move and in any case if they are seen to be stalling on Brexit they may not be trusted to deliver on their promise beyond 2020. 

One more factor will be at play over the coming months and perhaps year or so. The Labour Party. 

If Labour remains in disarray with the PLP continuing to commit political suicide by denouncing Corbyn or splitting the party then that may influence when a general election is held. We may even see an election as early as 2018 if the Unrest continues. 

Theresa May will have to gamble between the best scenario or what’s less worse.. giving Brexit longer to settle into British society or take advantage of a Labour Party in turmoil. 

Should Corbyn win and the PLP decide to get on board with the programme however and that element won’t even come into play. Labour will be seen as a stable (far more than before) entity and a threat to the Conservatives. At which point 2019 will be the likely moment for a new general election but don’t be fooled, this has nothing to do with ability to get the job done.

Can we #FeelTheBern? #JezWeCan!

From this side of the pond over in the UK there is huge interest in the US presidential race. Certainly in my time there has been no greater interest in any previous presidential campaign.

At the time of writing it’s still a two horse race for both the Democrats and the Republicans and the UK is waiting with baited breath at who will lead ‘the free world’ into the next four years or more and of course the interest is so huge because the diversity of candidates is on one hand so great and yet on the other so narrow.

Donald Trump, where do we begin..in fact, more to the point, where do we end? So we won’t even start. We all know the score. Ted Cruz, whilst off the radar thanks to the antics of Mr.Trump, is an arguably worse candidate for president than Trump. At least with Trump you know what you’re getting and can see him coming a mile off.

Then you have Clinton. The old guard. The same-old-same-old lying sack of crap establishment candidate that are two a penny.

Finally of course you have Bernie Sanders. Oh Bernie. Dear old Bern. In perhaps the Twilight of his political career and yet.. so new!

Why is he so new? It’s because in recent years we in the West have finally become far more aware of how politics works, we have become as clever as the politicians in uncovering their failings as they are at covering up those same failings, it’s often a game of cat and mouse and it’s a game that the public are winning and Bernie Sanders is echoing the change that the public are experiencing. It’s not new for himself of course, he has been shouting the same message for decades but no one was listening before, that’s all changed now and the people are voting. It just remains to be seen if enough people are ready for the new way of doing things.

It’s worth pointing out though that it’s not a ‘Revolution’ as the Bernie campaign often cites. It’s more ‘revelation’ than ‘revolution’. Even under Bernie Sanders it would still be a capitalist society, billionaires will still get rich and the poor will remain relatively poor. What Bernie offers, which is still great, is less poverty and less easy money to the already rich. He will offer better civil rights and more opportunity for the oppressed. He will offer fairness, justice and above all accountability in the political system and it’s this point that will resonate throughout history, no longer will politicians be able to ride roughshod over the people, not when Bernie will have been the template for how politics should be done and it’s that legacy that will go down in history for changing the way politics at least should be done.

(Bernie Sanders latest endorsed advert)

The exact same thing is happening in the UK with Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the Labour Party. He was elected against all odds as Leader in 2015 with the largest ever mandate given to a Labour leader. His policies are a mirror for Bernie Sanders, they even sort of look alike and are in a similar age bracket and indeed their political history has crossed paths and their civil rights activities preceeds them. Corbyn intends to challenge Prime Minister David Cameron at the 2020 general election assuming Cameron (or indeed Corbyn) lasts that long.

Cameron may resign after the EU ‘in or out’ referendum in June if it goes against him and he loses. Oddly, those waiting to take his position echo the candidates in the US presidential race. Boris Johnson (first in the latest polls) is a more typically British Donald Trump, Theresa May (second in the latest polls) is our Hilary Clinton and George Osborne (third in the latest polls) is a watered-down Ted Cruz… although still very much an arsehole.

You really couldn’t have made this up just 12 months ago. The similarities in the US and UK politics is as startling as it is striking. We in the UK are even more rooting for a Bernie Victory as it will give Corbyn’s campaign here hope and the impetus to beat the odds against the establishment.

(Corbyn comparison to Sanders)

Like your situation in the US though it will be a revelation rather than a revolution because if Corbyn wins, at some point he will retire or resign and it will likely go back, in part at least, to the old ways of doing politics but again with the caveat that Corbyn can change how it all works in favour of democracy justice, fairness and above all accountability.

It’s a new dawn, potentially, for Western politics and it should not be lost on anyone the huge political shift with a global impact that will take place should both sides of the Atlantic adopt Democratic Socialism or indeed outright Socialism.

The only thing I personally am not impressed about is our choice of hashtag. You have #FeelTheBern which is from the same phrase denoting someone on the receiving end who has been scourned or made a fool of.. and gives a visual image of heat, fire..being scorched. Edgy. Yet in the UK we have..

… #JezWeCan and that only conjours up an image of ‘Bob the Builder’ the children’s cartoon character who’s catchphrase is “yes we can”. It just doesn’t make you envisage anything remotely edgy or hard hitting as #feelthebern

I guess you can’t have everything but it fits right in with the British way of doing things. Some things never change.

Now all we need to do is hope that at least one of these men actually goes on to win.

New York as I understand it is the next big one. Good Luck Bernie. Good luck America.

image