[Politics] Dawn Butler MP

[Pavilionaire]

Well done Dawn for taking one for the team.

You can visibly see standards of ministerial conduct slipping under Johnson's leadership. The indefensible is defended, dodgy deals seem to be available for every Cabinet Minister, deflection, denial and obfuscation is the name of the game.

I think this behaviour was always there under the Tories but Johnson has turned the volume up to 11.

 

[Randy McNob]

I kind of agree, but without the requirement to retract a statement of falsehood it becomes presented as an opinion or an argument on points of view when it's not: its misleadingly not telling the truth deliberately or otherwise. If its not deliberate then an apology should be easy. If there's no apology then what else are they but liars?

I'd support live fact checking in parliament to hold MPs to account and that way this would never be an issue.

it's interesting the speaker only focused on the language used and nothing made of the valid point about a politician correcting any false statement in the house. They haven't got the balls. Maybe they think it would just be a waste of time anyway and he would just waffle on about vaccines?

 

[Pavilionaire]

it's interesting the speaker only focused on the language used and nothing made of the valid point about a politician correcting any false statement in the house. They haven't got the balls. Maybe they think it would just be a waste of time anyway and he would just waffle on about vaccines?

She heard the word "lies" and reached for the Official Rulebook. I don't think there was much critical analysis brought to bear on the situation.

 

[Happy Exile]

She heard the word "lies" and reached for the Official Rulebook. I don't think there was much critical analysis brought to bear on the situation.

Just another one of the ways our democracy is a bit rubbish in this country. Rules from a time when people cared about their honour, integrity and reputation are now outdated because those things matter too little to those running the country.

 

[rippleman]

For those people who think this should be allowed think of the consequences. Anybody with whom someone disagrees would be called a liar. These rules exist for a reason and that is to encourage democratic debate rather than name calling.

That's working well then

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

Probably more than 150,000 people have died as a result of the conflict in Iraq

https://www.iraqbodycount.org/

That doesn't take account of the wider instability and ripple effects of the conflict across the world. But of course it also doesn't deal with the unknown's of what would have happened in the absence of an invasion. Endless if, buts and maybes involved. As there is with Covid and any decisions taken.

But I would never play down the magnitude of the disaster that the Iraq war was,and still is, and the arrogance and hubris of the Bush-Blair coalition that created it. And I'd never play down the imporance to Bush of having Blairs unquestioning support.

Blair was important to Bush but not vital. Bush even offered Blair a get-out but he didn't take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/apr/23/uk.iraq

Which was despicable of Blair, but it only goes to emphasise that the USA would have carried on even if Blair had pulled us out. And we would not have gone in alone (and couldn't) if the USA had suddenly thought better of it. So although Blair must carry his share of the guilt over Iraq for supporting the invasion, he didn't enable it. Bush, Cheney and their gang were in sole charge.

Whereas you'd have to say that Johnson carries the can for the UK response to COVID. The most egregious omission was surely failing to close the borders to arrivals from India when it was known that a dangerous variant was rampant there. Okay, at the beginning there was understandable confusion. But by then there was very little excuse. Hundreds, maybe thousands, will have died because of Johnson's desperation to get a trade deal done in a vain attempt to save face over Brexit..

 

[Baldseagull]

For those people who think this should be allowed think of the consequences. Anybody with whom someone disagrees would be called a liar. These rules exist for a reason and that is to encourage democratic debate rather than name calling.

I agree, however, I would like the speaker to offer the PM or whoever has uttered an untruth, the opportunity to alter their statement, or also be barred for the day.
I realise that spotting a lie is not always as straightforward, but perhaps the PM, and the leader of the opposition could be asked to start PM's questions with corrections to any untrue statements, that have been demonstrated to the Speaker to be so, by any MP aggrieved by them, and for all members of the house. It would become a source of embarrassment to have to do this too often, and would hopefully mean we are just left with genuine errors rather than deliberate lies.

 

[Baldseagull]

All politicians are liars. It's what they do.

And Journalists are known for a bit of embellishment too. But Johnson has been sacked in the past for lying, as a politician, and as a journalist, which is unique I believe.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Blair was important to Bush but not vital. Bush even offered Blair a get-out but he didn't take it.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2006/apr/23/uk.iraq

Which was despicable of Blair, but it only goes to emphasise that the USA would have carried on even if Blair had pulled us out. And we would not have gone in alone (and couldn't) if the USA had suddenly thought better of it. So although Blair must carry his share of the guilt over Iraq for supporting the invasion, he didn't enable it. Bush, Cheney and their gang were in sole charge.

Whereas you'd have to say that Johnson carries the can for the UK response to COVID. The most egregious omission was surely failing to close the borders to arrivals from India when it was known that a dangerous variant was rampant there. Okay, at the beginning there was understandable confusion. But by then there was very little excuse. Hundreds, maybe thousands, will have died because of Johnson's desperation to get a trade deal done in a vain attempt to save face over Brexit..

I won't have any of this criticism of Blair for taking us into Iraq. The British media would have eviscerated him had he not done what Maggie would have done, and 'stand firm with our greatest allies' (the quote of an entire nation, if not myself).

His only mistake was to needlessly sex up the WMD situation when the repeat violation of UN declarations warranted kicking Saddam in the bollocks, 'strictly legal in international law' or not. Consider, was it really legal when we declared war on Hitler? Certain folk who post on NSC would never have gone to war. But who gives a shit. It is the responsibility of the 'world policeman' to act, and little old UK had better join in or the Mail, Sun and the court of public opinion will have your balls. Saddam was on his way to creating a mass empire in the middle East, shoving the Jews into the sea, and arresting torturing and murdering all opponents. **** him. I'm glad he was thwarted.

Alright. No end game, no plan, but it really wasn't obvious to me at the start it would turn out to be such a mess.

On the other hand, Brexit always looked like it would turn into a mess to me. Boris had no earthly reason to support Brexit other than to further his own ambitions. Boris seems to me to be the most craven, venal and disgusting of all our leaders, making Lloyd George look like a man of probity. History may prove me doubly wrong (Saddam and Brexit), but not just yet it won't . . . .

 

[Bladders]

Probably good she got kicked out ,

She’s got the afternoon to make sure her expenses are in order


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

No fan of Blair (never voted for him) but I also get irritated by the revisionism over the wars he took us into. Public opinion was incredibly supporting of the invasion of Afghanistan at the time. But the West always ****s up, based on correcting **** ups they committed before. You have to take a longer term view.

Saddam was a seriously deranged torturing piece of shit, but was assisted to power by the West. The USA had their chance to deal with him after he invaded Kuwait but bottled it.

That just led to Bush and Blair trying to fix the problem and round and round we go.

Blair is simply a useful idiot to detract from the historical mistakes this country has made overseas that created the problems in the first place.

Don't start me on Iran.

 

[Hampster Gull]

I won't have any of this criticism of Blair for taking us into Iraq. The British media would have eviscerated him had he not done what Maggie would have done, and 'stand firm with our greatest allies' (the quote of an entire nation, if not myself).

His only mistake was to needlessly sex up the WMD situation when the repeat violation of UN declarations warranted kicking Saddam in the bollocks, 'strictly legal in international law' or not. Consider, was it really legal when we declared war on Hitler? Certain folk who post on NSC would never have gone to war. But who gives a shit. It is the responsibility of the 'world policeman' to act, and little old UK had better join in or the Mail, Sun and the court of public opinion will have your balls. Saddam was on his way to creating a mass empire in the middle East, shoving the Jews into the sea, and arresting torturing and murdering all opponents. **** him. I'm glad he was thwarted.

Alright. No end game, no plan, but it really wasn't obvious to me at the start it would turn out to be such a mess.

On the other hand, Brexit always looked like it would turn into a mess to me. Boris had no earthly reason to support Brexit other than to further his own ambitions. Boris seems to me to be the most craven, venal and disgusting of all our leaders, making Lloyd George look like a man of probity. History may prove me doubly wrong (Saddam and Brexit), but not just yet it won't . . . .

I’m with you HWT

 

[highflyer]

No fan of Blair (never voted for him) but I also get irritated by the revisionism over the wars he took us into. Public opinion was incredibly supporting of the invasion of Afghanistan at the time. But the West always ****s up, based on correcting **** ups they committed before. You have to take a longer term view.

Saddam was a seriously deranged torturing piece of shit, but was assisted to power by the West. The USA had their chance to deal with him after he invaded Kuwait but bottled it.

That just led to Bush and Blair trying to fix the problem and round and round we go.

Blair is simply a useful idiot to detract from the historical mistakes this country has made overseas that created the problems in the first place.

Don't start me on Iran.

Not sure it's revisionist, when we know considerably more about what was going on and what evidence was, or was not, available than we did at the time. I was against the Iraq war at the time but am considerably more critical of the decisions that were taken now that I know more of the reasons and background. And yes, public opinion was strongly in favour of invading Afghanistan, but not so much for Iraq. I certainly don't buy the argument made by an earlier poster that Blair had no choice because Murdoch wanted him to support Bush.

'Sexing up' that dossier was not some minor error of judgement. It's a euphemism for 'knowingly lied to the British public'. And I know from a close personal contact that it was known and understood at the hghest levels - senior civil servants were horrified and didn't believe that they'd get away with presenting that crap as 'evidence'. If Johnson did the same now, then we'd all be saying that he lied. Now that I've been made to think about it a bit, I have to say that in my opinion the decision to create and present that dossier probably did as much damage to public trust in politcians and the integrity of the political process as anything that Johnson has done.

Robin Cook had the guts to call it out. And he was very clear that Saddam was a dangerous madman but that the least worst option for dealing with him was continued containment and sanctions which were working. But a policy of containment and sanctions and diplomacy is dull, and lengthy and doesn't really give anyone the chance to take credit if and when it is eventually effective. And obviously wasn't going to satisfy Bush and I suspect didn't suit the desire of Blair to be the hero.

For sure, Blair was only partly reponsiible for Iraq. But you could equally argue that, while Johnson may have cocked up the response to Covid in many ways - he didn't have a 'get out clause' to step away and at least have no part in it happening.Covid was always going to hit us hard, given our place as a global hub. Blair did not have to be an enabler of Iraq war - he had a 'get out' and instead of taking it he chose to lie to justify doing what he wanted to do.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Amazingly, many of the people who are appalled at the PM's obvious dubious relationship with the truth (fair enough) wete happy to vote for someone who claimed we were in imminent danger of missile attack from Iraq or for someone who claimed he never met the IRA despite numerous meetings and photo opportunities and a friendship with someone on the IRA Army council while they were murdering UK soldiers and civilians and the person who invited convicted IRA terrorists to the House of commons shortly after trying to blow up the UK government in Brighton ... nauseating hypocrisy overload.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

 

[clapham_gull]

Amazingly, many of the people who are appalled at the PM's obvious dubious relationship with the truth (fair enough) wete happy to vote for someone who claimed we were in imminent danger of missile attack from Iraq or for someone who claimed he never met the IRA despite numerous meetings and photo opportunities and a friendship with someone on the IRA Army council while they were murdering UK soldiers and civilians and the person who invited convicted IRA terrorists to the House of commons shortly after trying to blow up the UK government in Brighton ... nauseating hypocrisy overload.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

And the Tories in the 80s never met up with IRA either ?

Hypocrites all.

Know your history before posting stuff like that.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Amazingly, many of the people who are appalled at the PM's obvious dubious relationship with the truth (fair enough) wete happy to vote for someone who claimed we were in imminent danger of missile attack from Iraq or for someone who claimed he never met the IRA despite numerous meetings and photo opportunities and a friendship with someone on the IRA Army council while they were murdering UK soldiers and civilians and the person who invited convicted IRA terrorists to the House of commons shortly after trying to blow up the UK government in Brighton ... nauseating hypocrisy overload.

Sent from my SM-G970F using Tapatalk

And ended the troubles.

You would rather it had carried on, then? I can understand (though not condone) your voting for a pig in a blue rosette out of lumpen tribal loyalty, but happily sitting by while murders in the name of The Pope or The Queen perpetuated in perpetuity?

Tell me, if not Blair, who won the war against terror (in the UK)? And tell me who is risking rewinding the clock?

I'll leave you off ignore for a day in anticipation of your whataboutery-free reply. Don't disappoint me, now. No ninny prancing and that

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

And the Tories in the 80s never met up with IRA either ?

Hypocrites all.

Know your history before posting stuff like that.

Who said jaw jaw, not war war?

Apparently the Major government attempted jaw jaw before Blair. One of the few decent things the grey man did (along with the cones hotline).

In conflict you eaither defeat the enemy or come to an arrangement. In the 50s in Malaysia we paid off the leader. The only time we lost our way in conflict was during the Heath Callaghan Thatcher era. Thatcher hung everyone out to dry by making it an offense to negociate. Dark days. No surrender (etc.). FFS. And people still think she was great.

 

[highflyer]

I won't have any of this criticism of Blair for taking us into Iraq. The British media would have eviscerated him had he not done what Maggie would have done, and 'stand firm with our greatest allies' (the quote of an entire nation, if not myself).

His only mistake was to needlessly sex up the WMD situation when the repeat violation of UN declarations warranted kicking Saddam in the bollocks, 'strictly legal in international law' or not. Consider, was it really legal when we declared war on Hitler? Certain folk who post on NSC would never have gone to war. But who gives a shit. It is the responsibility of the 'world policeman' to act, and little old UK had better join in or the Mail, Sun and the court of public opinion will have your balls. Saddam was on his way to creating a mass empire in the middle East, shoving the Jews into the sea, and arresting torturing and murdering all opponents. **** him. I'm glad he was thwarted.

Alright. No end game, no plan, but it really wasn't obvious to me at the start it would turn out to be such a mess.

On the other hand, Brexit always looked like it would turn into a mess to me. Boris had no earthly reason to support Brexit other than to further his own ambitions. Boris seems to me to be the most craven, venal and disgusting of all our leaders, making Lloyd George look like a man of probity. History may prove me doubly wrong (Saddam and Brexit), but not just yet it won't . . . .

We are getting way off the original topic, on which I suspect there is far greater agreement than on this side issue we have been drawn into. But I know you are a man that likes to see evidence, so I'll leave you with this (specifically the statement and transcript from Carne Ross) to consider in light of the assertions you make in your post above, which I believe to be inaccurate.

 

[1066familyman]

I won't have any of this criticism of Blair for taking us into Iraq. The British media would have eviscerated him had he not done what Maggie would have done, and 'stand firm with our greatest allies' (the quote of an entire nation, if not myself).

His only mistake was to needlessly sex up the WMD situation when the repeat violation of UN declarations warranted kicking Saddam in the bollocks, 'strictly legal in international law' or not. Consider, was it really legal when we declared war on Hitler? Certain folk who post on NSC would never have gone to war. But who gives a shit. It is the responsibility of the 'world policeman' to act, and little old UK had better join in or the Mail, Sun and the court of public opinion will have your balls. Saddam was on his way to creating a mass empire in the middle East, shoving the Jews into the sea, and arresting torturing and murdering all opponents. **** him. I'm glad he was thwarted.

Alright. No end game, no plan, but it really wasn't obvious to me at the start it would turn out to be such a mess.

On the other hand, Brexit always looked like it would turn into a mess to me. Boris had no earthly reason to support Brexit other than to further his own ambitions. Boris seems to me to be the most craven, venal and disgusting of all our leaders, making Lloyd George look like a man of probity. History may prove me doubly wrong (Saddam and Brexit), but not just yet it won't . . . .

You can rule me out of your 'entire nation'. I don't want to stand firm with the US at all. In fact, I'd be very glad if we joined France and Spain in protecting our own culture by restricting their cultural influence on us too.

It wasn't rocket science to see what a clusterfvck the illegal invasion of Iraq would turn out to be. You only had to spend no more than half an hour of your time listening to Tony Benn history lessons to know that. In Afghanistan there was a long British (and Russian) tradition of getting things badly wrong. Yet lessons clearly not learnt when there's power at stake. The whole 'World Policeman' bollox is just that, bollox and hypocrisy. The US is, and has been for a very long time, the biggest threat to world peace. America should look at itself for the real axis of evil.

As for Brexit, and the mess we're now in with this extreme right wing Government. Perhaps if Corbyn had had the balls to stand firm and preach, as Labour party leader, what he had been preaching from the back benches for years, then we wouldn't be saddled with this lot now. Had he made the Socialist case for Brexit then I firmly believe the collapse of the red wall would never have materialised.


I feel more let down by Corbyn than I ever will by Blair. Blair was just the same old British politician. I knew that. I expected better of Corbyn though. Sadly, he proved to be weak beyond belief as a leader.

 

[highflyer]

You can rule me out of your 'entire nation'. I don't want to stand firm with the US at all. In fact, I'd be very glad if we joined France and Spain in protecting our own culture by restricting their cultural influence on us too.

It wasn't rocket science to see what a clusterfvck the illegal invasion of Iraq would turn out to be. You only had to spend no more than half an hour of your time listening to Tony Benn history lessons to know that. In Afghanistan there was a long British (and Russian) tradition of getting things badly wrong. Yet lessons clearly not learnt when there's power at stake. The whole 'World Policeman' bollox is just that, bollox and hypocrisy. The US is, and has been for a very long time, the biggest threat to world peace. America should look at itself for the real axis of evil.

As for Brexit, and the mess we're now in with this extreme right wing Government. Perhaps if Corbyn had had the balls to stand firm and preach, as Labour party leader, what he had been preaching from the back benches for years, then we wouldn't be saddled with this lot now. Had he made the Socialist case for Brexit then I firmly believe the collapse of the red wall would never have materialised.


I feel more let down by Corbyn than I ever will by Blair. Blair was just the same old British politician. I knew that. I expected better of Corbyn though. Sadly, he proved to be weak beyond belief as a leader.

I 100% agree with you that Corbyn should have stuck to his guns if he was going to have any chance of winning. But I genuinely don't think he ever had the option. There are multiple reasons why, once the vote had happened, Labour needed to commit to Brexit and make sure that what we got was a well managed, and mainly 'soft' Brexit. That was entirely achieveable in principle, but proved impossible in practice. I supported Corbyn but I knew he was, indeed, a weak leader. Because he was very inexperienced in the job (having been working at the margins of his party for his entire politcal life) didn't have the support of most of his own party and had a history of rebelling which undermined his credibility when demanding loyalty.

He was always going to be fighting the right wing and it's media supporters. But what really did for him in my opinion was his own party. What chance do you have when your own MPs are eagerly seeking opportunities to go onto popular TV programmes and declare that they'd happily 'stab you in the front'. The 2019 manifesto was a mess and two years of preparation after the near-shock of 2017 enabled the previously complacent press to successfully build up their attacks. But I still believe that it was primarily Brexit that lost Labour the election. Corbyn's instincts were right but he was eventually pushed down the suicidal 'second referendum' path by pressure from within his own party. If he hadn't agreed to that he'd have been removed from within. There was still the chance to pull it back, with the opportunity to bring down the government, have an interim regime to oversee a soft Brexit (which would have been far from a disaster) and then a new election which would have given Johnson NO chance without the weapon of Brexit to use. But that option was removed by the delusional Lib Dems and their expectation that they could become a major party again as the champions of 'remain'. It was terrible terrible politics and Cummings ran rings around them all.

So now we have Johnson in charge, a hard Brexit in place and STILL those that insisted Brexit had to be overturned to protect their right to holidays in Tuscany trying to blame everyone but themselves for it.

Just my opinion like.