Friday, 26 May 2017
How Dare You, Mr Corbyn
To use some football parlance: it's squeaky bum time. The latest poll from You Gov published in today's Times has the Tories only 5 points ahead of Labour. There are many caveats to this of course, but there is a clear direction of travel here. Labour are catching up, presumably owing to the fact that they are getting a lot of publicity and attention for their big ticket, wholly unaffordable and economically ruinous promises. The public seems, at least on this evidence, to be buying this crap. Or perhaps more accurately they have rumbled the fact that the Tories campaign has been crap. Dreadful in fact. Honesty, even partial honesty is clearly not the best policy, at least in a general election campaign. The next time people complain about lying politicians they should be reminded of GE2017.
This is why a certain constituency of lefties was so furious about the interruption of the campaign and of the troops on the streets. The Times poll fieldwork was carried out before the Manchester attack and before its aftermath. It was before the country changed the subject and before the Prime Minister got to look prime ministerial.
Today campaigning resumes and Chauncey is to make a major speech. He is going to talk foreign policy. Yes, apparently he has one. Actually he doesn't. Labour foreign policy, in addition to having Emily bollocks Thornberry as its putative Foreign Secretary, is to distance itself as far as is possible from the foreign policy of every post war government of whatever stripe. NATO was in part created by Labour politicians. Chauncey is on record as being an arch critic of a structure that has kept the peace these last 70 years, something he is supposed to be rather in favour of. Yet he dislikes it, probably in sympathy with the Russians. On balance Chauncey tends to take the side of anbyone who who is not British, which doesn't bode well for Brexit negotiations should he win.
And today Chauncey will once again seek to blame terrorism on us. Yes it's our fault that a madman went and slaughtered children who cannot even vote and many of whom had not been born at the time of the Iraq war. Certainly we can all agree that the Iraq War was a mistake, although at the time I seem to recall that deposing Saddam was wildly popular with Iraqis. The aftermath is where it all went wrong, so really that is an argument for more intervention and military involvement and not less. It was widely believed that Saddam did have WMDs when we went to war. Sure Labour sexed it up, but that was the generally held view. Removing him from power could be justified even if it has subsequently proven to be a dreadful and expensive mistake.
But that is the point Chauncey misses and always misses. Western foreign policy has made many grave errors these last 70 years it is true. But it generally tries to operate morally and proportionately. When we have gone to war we have done so with the very best of intentions, to fight for those who cannot fight for themselves, to defend those being slaughtered or imprisoned. Do we take on all of the worst regimes in the world? Of course we don't. But it is naive to think we should or could. We abhor the Saudis and the Chinese, but taking them on is simply not an option we can or should consider. Yet that is Chauncey's foreign policy approach. Realpolitik is anathema to him. We cannot be entirely even handed towards the world's most vile regimes, we deal, as we have to, with oil rich nasty regimes in the middle east and so we are guilty and we are as bad.
That sums them up. Have we brought Islamic terrorism on ourselves? No of course we haven't. That's self serving nonsense from a man who calls terrorists friends and always sees everyone else's point of view before those of his own government and country. The man is a traitor and a vile apologist for murderers. He paints himself as a genial figure who only wants peace. In truth he is a confused and vile little man who is incapable of compromise and of negotiating the peace he says he wants because he doesn't see this country as being deserving of his respect and loyalty. He would sell us down the river and apologise only for not being able to offer an even better price.
Earlier this week a deranged pathetic excuse for a man killed lots of little girls for the sin of being girls in a tolerant and, as he would see it, decadent and permissive society. Their sin was being girls who were out alone without male chaperones and enjoying themselves. The zealots of ISIL are not interested in our foreign policy except in the sense that we are determined to defeat them and their vile medieval mindset that hates non Muslims, hates gay people, thinks women should be subservient to men and spend their lives having children, covering themselves from head to foot and being the vassals and property of men. ISIL enslaves women, decapitates aid workers, destroys precious art works, commits genocide and wages war for the sake of waging war, supposedly in the name of their imaginary friend. Please don't tell us that this has anything whatever to do with British foreign policy. How dare you. How dare you in most weeks, but in particular how dare you this week.
Chauncey is giving his speech and has said that we have to be honest and admit that the war on terror is not working. Well that is debatable. ISIL are on the run in the middle east and so are lashing out committing terrorist atrocities in the hope of changing our minds. It is akin to when the Nazis stated lobbing flying bombs at us over the Channel. It was too little, too late and very desperate if destructive.
And what is the alternative to the war on terror? Talking to these maniacs? Should we appease them? What shall we offer them? The subjugation of women? Send them back to the kitchen in a burqa where they belong? Execution of gay people by stoning? Shall we round up the Jews? Shall we abolish Israel by force?
Chauncey has spent his entire political career engaged in a leftist fantasy that if you are nice to people they will be nice back. If you disarm they will do likewise. We have tested this approach in part under Barack Obama. What happened? The Russians started invading countries they said were theirs really and backed a vicious dictator who thinks nothing of using chemical weapons on his own people to cement his own position in power.
Chauncey's naive idealism in foreign policy is as brainless as his economic policies are ruinous. Both are dangerous but his foreign policy is existentially dangerous. What happened in Manchester this week was nothing to do with British foreign policy. We have withdrawn from Iraq and Afghanistan and are minimally engaged in Syria to try and protect civilians. The terrorists hate us because we are free, liberal and because we don't believe in their cretinous version of their Bronze age facile religion. Nothing we can do will stop them behaving like this other than by remaining eternally vigilant, taking on their vicious mindset and exposing it as idiotic and imprisoning them if they won't change. To imagine anything else is naivety bordering on lunacy. But that is what Chauncey has believed all his life. Do you really want this man at the head of a coalition in Downing Street?