[stone]

In a lot of developing countries politics is often very violent. Politicians may well have underworld links, elections can come with a big dose of rioting or civil disturbance, the members of civil society groups may be at risk of a beating or worse.

Sean, you're right and he did say that too. I was meaning such violence when I recalled that he'd said political parties would do anything to protect insiders and patrons.

My point is that multi-party elections are necessary but very very far from being sufficient to ensure even meagre levels of democracy. Continued existence of multi-party elections leaves no room for complacency in ensuring we continue to have decent levels of democracy. Ensuring our major political parties have some level of accessibility to those in wider society is critical in protecting that.

[seankenny]

I see your point.
But what I have found, is that most people just try to keep their heads down. When something like you have described happens, you go to the fixer. Those (mostly) guys who crop up, who seem to be able to just know how to work the system, what ever the system might be that week. Then they deal with “the powers that be” at the time.
You had NGO time iirc? 🤷‍♂️ we probably just saw things from different angles. Definitely agree on the danger thing though.

Totally agree that most people just want to keep their heads down. That means knowing who is who, at least at the basic “shouldn’t piss X off” level. There’s a great book about a Mumbai slum called “Behind the Beautiful Forevers” which has a section on an ambitious woman in the slum who uses local politics to try and get ahead. She is the sort of local fixer/go between/useful person to know for everyone else in the slum, but she is also a political player, albeit at the very lowest level. There are of course many variations on this theme.

And yes, NGO type at one time, but I also have family and friends in the Indian subcontinent and sometimes all this kind of stuff comes up.

[Will Hunt]

How did that go?

In some ways, it went well for the SDP. They almost upset the nations politics. If Labour had done what the Tories are doing now, and pandered to their extreme wing, the momentum might have carried the SDP and the Liberals through and decimated the Labour movement. Labour then, as now, were pragmatic enough to flex in the wind.

I was being sarcastic 

[stone]

I do see a continuity between current interventionism and colonialism. It is all part of the same misguided idea that we should be violently controlling people across the world.

Flesh this out with a little more information for those of us who don’t swim in the same waters. Current interventionism? Where are you talking about?

I meant current as in post-colonial rather than right now so I guess "current" was the wrong word to use. I had in mind Iraq and Afghanistan.

In Luke Akehurst's now-deleted blog post with a score card for assessing candidates, he gives positive scores for supporting various western military interventions of increasing unpopularity. To get full marks, the candidate would need to (with hindsight) approve of the USA's war with Vietnam. Would you get full marks?

[seankenny]

Of course not, only an idiot would think Vietnam was a good idea - and British Labour politicians of the time were not in general idiots. But also, I don’t think the current far left hate figures are perhaps as big a deal as you make them out to be.

Using “current” to mean two things that aren’t currently happening is a bit of a stretch. As someone who saw both pre-9/11 Taliban era Afghanistan and post-invasion Afghanistan, I find the typical “it was all a colonialist disaster” argument a bit difficult to take. It’s not as if the Taliban were the authentic representatives of large numbers (the majority?) of Afghans…

[Oldmanmatt]

Totally agree that most people just want to keep their heads down. That means knowing who is who, at least at the basic “shouldn’t piss X off” level. There’s a great book about a Mumbai slum called “Behind the Beautiful Forevers” which has a section on an ambitious woman in the slum who uses local politics to try and get ahead. She is the sort of local fixer/go between/useful person to know for everyone else in the slum, but she is also a political player, albeit at the very lowest level. There are of course many variations on this theme.

And yes, NGO type at one time, but I also have family and friends in the Indian subcontinent and sometimes all this kind of stuff comes up.

We brushed on this before! I’d forgotten. Age, sorry.
I lost the family I lived with during my time in Sri Lanka. Never managed to track them down after 2004. They lived on the beach at Hikkaduwa.
97, last job (working with the Sinhalese Clearance Divers, engineering stuff not combat), terminal leave and then stayed on until the Western Monsoon really set in. Went up north to try and get to some of the ruins up there, with wife number one. Got held for about a day by a very nice group of gentlemen with a cat on their flag, mostly drinking tea, while they tried to decide if I was a mercenary. Eventually the wife and surfboard swayed the argument. It really isn’t surprising that woman left me.

[Oldmanmatt]

How did that go?

In some ways, it went well for the SDP. They almost upset the nations politics. If Labour had done what the Tories are doing now, and pandered to their extreme wing, the momentum might have carried the SDP and the Liberals through and decimated the Labour movement. Labour then, as now, were pragmatic enough to flex in the wind.

I was being sarcastic 

I know, I was being Stone pedantic.

[Oldmanmatt]

Of course not, only an idiot would think Vietnam was a good idea - and British Labour politicians of the time were not in general idiots. But also, I don’t think the current far left hate figures are perhaps as big a deal as you make them out to be.

Using “current” to mean two things that aren’t currently happening is a bit of a stretch. As someone who saw both pre-9/11 Taliban era Afghanistan and post-invasion Afghanistan, I find the typical “it was all a colonialist disaster” argument a bit difficult to take. It’s not as if the Taliban were the authentic representatives of large numbers (the majority?) of Afghans…

To be fair, Afghanistan is a bit of a colonialist disaster. Britain and Russia did a number on them over a period of a century or so, didn’t leave them best placed to create a functioning society. Though it was doing ok pre-Soviet invasion, I believe?
The Colonial period, has a lot to answer for, but it’s not particularly relevant to modern or current interventions.
The current Red Sea intervention has broad support, given the damage to a vital trade route. Just because some of the countries involved were once Colonialists and it’s a useful propaganda line for certain players, doesn’t make it a “colonialist action” for instance. Same with Ukraine.
This is all a bit “trotting out the far left tropes” isn’t it?
Not much bearing on the current election.

Edit: not your post Sean, which I agree with. Stone’s points, I mean.
Frankly, without intervention by Western powers, Russia, Iran and China would dominate the world. Those nations seem to lack much in the way of scruples. The idea that they are trying to merely push back against Western hegemony is laughable. They desire dominance. If they stepped back, Western military spending would plummet and there wouldn’t be any “interventions”.

[stone]

Of course not, only an idiot would think Vietnam was a good idea - and British Labour politicians of the time were not in general idiots. But also, I don’t think the current far left hate figures are perhaps as big a deal as you make them out to be.
..... As someone who saw both pre-9/11 Taliban era Afghanistan and post-invasion Afghanistan, I find the typical “it was all a colonialist disaster” argument a bit difficult to take. It’s not as if the Taliban were the authentic representatives of large numbers (the majority?) of Afghans…

I think it likely that the Viet Cong were pretty nasty. Where I thoroughly disagree with Luke Akehurst is that I don't believe we in the UK ought to intervene whenever we see foreign powers that we consider bad. On the whole we just seem to make things even worse when we do.

I thought what Clive Lewis wrote about his military service in Afghanistan was worth reflection https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1428094160209330190
also available at https://eastangliabylines.co.uk/uk/evacuations-from-afghanistan/

edit I just saw there is a Clive Lewis interview about that too https://shows.acast.com/the-owen-jones-podcast/episodes/clive

[stone]

OMM, sorry again, I apologised above for misusing the word "current" when I was instead meaning "recent decades" as in the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions. 

[seankenny]

I totally get Clive Lewis’ point but I just think it’s a bit simplistic. For example, he chooses not to mention the total sea change in possibilities for Afghan women, which have now been lost. How can you relieve poverty when half the population are kept at home? It’s just impossible to improve basic things like maternal mortality, early years childcare or nutrition if you can’t employ female staff to talk to and work with women.

Lewis says Afghanistan is still extremely poor (it is!) but ignores real gains in some areas:
https://genderdata.worldbank.org/en/economies/afghanistan
I find it depressing that the hard left struggle so much with ambiguity.

As for your characterisation of U.K. policy as “intervene whenever we see foreign powers that we consider bad”, that’s just nonsense, a gross simplification.

[Oldmanmatt]

Of course not, only an idiot would think Vietnam was a good idea - and British Labour politicians of the time were not in general idiots. But also, I don’t think the current far left hate figures are perhaps as big a deal as you make them out to be.
..... As someone who saw both pre-9/11 Taliban era Afghanistan and post-invasion Afghanistan, I find the typical “it was all a colonialist disaster” argument a bit difficult to take. It’s not as if the Taliban were the authentic representatives of large numbers (the majority?) of Afghans…

I think it likely that the Viet Cong were pretty nasty. Where I thoroughly disagree with Luke Akehurst is that I don't believe we in the UK ought to intervene whenever we see foreign powers that we consider bad. On the whole we just seem to make things even worse when we do.

I thought what Clive Lewis wrote about his military service in Afghanistan was worth reflection https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1428094160209330190

Dude.
Ignoring bullies, does not work. Could you just change your user name to “Chamberlain”?

You’ve been beguiled by hippies sticking flowers in the gun barrels of national guardsmen and Gandhi’s peaceful protests. These things worked, because they opposed Western militaries and politicians.
Stick a flower in the barrel of a Khamer Rouge gun and you’d have bamboo growing up your arse in short order.

[TobyD]

[

I think it likely that the Viet Cong were pretty nasty. Where I thoroughly disagree with Luke Akehurst is that I don't believe we in the UK ought to intervene whenever we see foreign powers that we consider bad. On the whole we just seem to make things even worse when we do
[/quote]

You think it likely that the Viet Cong  weren't very nice? Wow.
Apart from anything else, how on earth is that relevant to the UK general election?

[TobyD]

Of course not, only an idiot would think Vietnam was a good idea - and British Labour politicians of the time were not in general idiots. But also, I don’t think the current far left hate figures are perhaps as big a deal as you make them out to be.
..... As someone who saw both pre-9/11 Taliban era Afghanistan and post-invasion Afghanistan, I find the typical “it was all a colonialist disaster” argument a bit difficult to take. It’s not as if the Taliban were the authentic representatives of large numbers (the majority?) of Afghans…

I think it likely that the Viet Cong were pretty nasty. Where I thoroughly disagree with Luke Akehurst is that I don't believe we in the UK ought to intervene whenever we see foreign powers that we consider bad. On the whole we just seem to make things even worse when we do.

I thought what Clive Lewis wrote about his military service in Afghanistan was worth reflection https://x.com/labourlewis/status/1428094160209330190

Dude.
Ignoring bullies, does not work. Could you just change your user name to “Chamberlain”?

You’ve been beguiled by hippies sticking flowers in the gun barrels of national guardsmen and Gandhi’s peaceful protests. These things worked, because they opposed Western militaries and politicians.
Stick a flower in the barrel of a Khamer Rouge gun and you’d have bamboo growing up your arse in short order.

Ignore Assad using chemical weapons and you'll have over a decade of slaughter, perhaps?

[stone]

Afghanistan now is where the history of Afghanistan has led.

To me that end point is pretty dismal and I think it is worth considering how that might have been avoided/mitigated.

OMM, are you saying that you would get full marks in Luke Akehurst's test in that you with hindsight approve of the US invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s etc?

[teestub]

What are your feelings on Kosovo Stone, another one we should have stayed out of?

[Oldmanmatt]

Afghanistan now is where the history of Afghanistan has led.

To me that end point is pretty dismal and I think it is worth considering how that might have been avoided/mitigated.

OMM, are you saying that you would get full marks in Luke Akehurst's test in that you with hindsight approve of the US invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s etc?

No.

You really are obtuse.

You simply duck every question you can’t adequately rebuff and grasp some straw man.

I would have thought it an obvious stretch, to link or equate “some interventions are necessary” to “all interventions are justified”, but apparently not.

Do go ahead and repeat your argument again as if no counter has been made.

It’s such fun.

On the other hand, since we’re in this rabbit hole, perhaps you could use your hindsight and lay out the alternative world, that might exist today, had the West not acted to intervene to halt, say, the Soviet professed desire for world socialism?

Serbian aggression?

Or perhaps the world of tomorrow?

Russian expansionism, say?

Again though, intellectual diversion it may be, it bears little on the coming election, nor on any real expectation of Labour foreign policy post election. Which I tend to think will be only superficially change from current Tory policy, since I see it as simply realpolitik, given the world as it actually is.

[seankenny]

Afghanistan now is where the history of Afghanistan has led.

Oh come on this is just a platitude. Really?

To me that end point is pretty dismal and I think it is worth considering how that might have been avoided/mitigated.

Okay, you’ve been considering it, tell us how it might have been mitigated.

OMM, are you saying that you would get full marks in Luke Akehurst's test in that you with hindsight approve of the US invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s etc?

This is just the typical far left infatuation with a bogeyman. No one outside the bubble of avid Owen Jones fans know who this guy is or gives a toss. He’s not representative of mainstream centre left opinion; he’s just a guy who mouthed off stupid shit on a blog. Trying to make out that he’s typical of the modern Labour Party is just a cope on behalf of the far left, who are too incurious and over-confident to imagine a productive place for themselves in British politics.

[Will Hunt]

Sierra Leone, Stone?

Compare and contrast with, say, Rwanda?

[TobyD]

It baffles me that quite a lot of people don't seem to see through this:

BBC News - Reform UK candidate resigns over 'unacceptable' blog posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw880334dgyo

... and seem to like Farage for his TV celebrity as much as anything.  The best thing that can happen in the election is that they don't win any seats, and that Galloway loses his. 

[Wellsy]

Afghanistan now is where the history of Afghanistan has led.

To me that end point is pretty dismal and I think it is worth considering how that might have been avoided/mitigated.

OMM, are you saying that you would get full marks in Luke Akehurst's test in that you with hindsight approve of the US invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s etc?

Afghanistan used to be quite a nice place. It was very fashionable to visit Kabul. Look at photos of it from the 60s, it was the Beirut of the region

These things do not have to be the way they are. It is an easy fallacy to just say aw it's inevitable. It's not, but if you accept it isn't, then now you have the very hard question of what to do about it on your hands.

Campism is not an effective system for doing that but it appears to have completely taken over the lefts views on foreign policy (I say this as a big lefty). Muscular Internationalism has become Liberal Intervention in their minds. A shame. Syria is a direct consequence imo of our unwillingness to say actually if you do this 150,000 NATO troops will roll south out of Turkey and do something about it.

[Davo]

Afghanistan now is where the history of Afghanistan has led.

To me that end point is pretty dismal and I think it is worth considering how that might have been avoided/mitigated.

OMM, are you saying that you would get full marks in Luke Akehurst's test in that you with hindsight approve of the US invasion of Vietnam in the 1960s etc?

Hi Stone

I doubt we are that far apart in terms of Foreign Policy and in general I don’t think military intervention should be the default option and I would prefer us to not follow the US so readily. However I have an issue with using Vietnam so glibly to support your point.

I wonder what your point of view is about the Korean War? Basically a US led invasion (yes it was under the auspices of the UN but it was essentially hugely dominated by the US). This has given the world a fully functioning democracy in South Korea as compared to the basket case of North Korea. I suspect most South Koreans are very grateful and happy about this.

Vietnam is a hugely difficult thing to discuss on a forum and really doesn’t readily sit in a discussion on clear cut cases of good and bad intervention. It’s hard to imagine being a US policy maker at the height of the Cold War and with a level of paranoia about the spread of communism that is hard to relate to in retrospect. Clearly it didnt go well but the reasons are too complex to go into when typing on a phone.

I don’t think invading Iraq was a good idea and I don’t see a good clear reason why we needed a full scale invasion of Afghanistan. However once there I think withdrawing as the US did is the worst of all options.

Maybe Kosovo and Rwanda would have been good interventions for you? I wonder what you think about the Falklands War?

Dave

[teestub]

It baffles me that quite a lot of people don't seem to see through this:

BBC News - Reform UK candidate resigns over 'unacceptable' blog posts
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cw880334dgyo

Seems pretty on brand for Reform, he might have had a decent chance against Badenoch in a hate off!

[stone]

This is just the typical far left infatuation with a bogeyman. No one outside the bubble of avid Owen Jones fans know who this guy is or gives a toss. He’s not representative of mainstream centre left opinion; he’s just a guy who mouthed off stupid shit on a blog. Trying to make out that he’s typical of the modern Labour Party is just a cope on behalf of the far left, who are too incurious and over-confident to imagine a productive place for themselves in British politics.

Worth reading this https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/31/luke-akehurst-labour-activist-turned-controversial-election-candidate

Sources say it was Akehurst, armed with a spreadsheet of 650 constituency party names and details of their delegates, who helped deliver the 2021 rule changes at party conference that shut the left of the party further out of power.

That was the conference I was talking about when our CLP delegate (along with many others) was suspended the week before the conference.

and:

If he becomes an MP as expected, Akehurst is likely to be well known by force of his personality and organising power, those who know him say. One says: “He loves a spreadsheet and backroom plotting. I’d have thought he’s destined for the whips’ office.”

Labour To Win (Luke Akehurst's campaign group), was instrumental in Stamer's 2020 leadership win.

He has played a central role in candidate selections for this election. Just read him writing about it: https://labourlist.org/2022/11/labour-selections-are-not-about-factional-advantage-but-getting-ready-for-power/
NB: they subsequently deselected Faiza Shaheen who is mentioned in the article as an example of how a Left-leaning candidate was included.

[seankenny]

So you’re… upset about someone who’s going to be a Labour whip? This is the kind of small potatoes thing that the far left really get excited about, not changing the world.

As for Ms Shaheen, she’s clearly a smart person with a good track record in academia and think tanks, but she made the very basic mistake of presenting herself as very close to the previous leadership. So when the Corbyn project massively screwed up (as it was always going to do) she was very likely to go down with that particular sinking ship. In short, she’s bad at politics. Her complaining about this revealed a frankly enormous ego - she seemed to think she was owed a seat - and her whole “I’m a local” schtick was somewhat undermined by her choosing to live in New York for the last few years. She should of course have been notified about her unsuitability some time before and the way she was removed was pretty unprofessional, but she is not as unique as she seems to think she is.