Kemi just called us all stupid..again

[beguilingeyes]

Badenoch is on BBC News standing in front of an armoured vehicle (she's not sitting in a tank yet, but give her time).
When told that the majority of Britons don't want to be involved in this war, she said that we would be if we understood what it meant.
She's happy to have a conversation with the PM, obviously he's too stupid too.
Only she has the intellect required to want to bomb people.

They don't. She hasn't. She is. HTH

If people can say 'I am not a fan of Starmer but he got this right' then why is it so difficult to say 'I like Badenoch but she got this wrong'?

Because they’re guilty of the slur they lay on us - tribalism. Like you I think Mandelson was an insane choice and showed very poor judgement. It’s not enough to turn me blue (I doubt anything would be). If I were going to change my political allegiance the Greens are my natural choice.

I’ll give it to you. Starmer’s dithering, indecision, and hiding behind non-existent “international law” worked out for him in this instance. 😂

Kemi didn’t say let’s jump in gung ho. She said we should let the USA use our bases and we should protect our people and interests. This us where Starmer eventually got to.

Trump's comments on Starmer aged well, as did Badenoch's.

Starmer was right from the start.

What do you mean by non-existent international law?

He didn’t dither in this instance: he said no to offensive (or rather, pre-emptive) action from UK bases, yes to defensive use. This would be a tricky balance for any PM, but Starmer does seem to be reflecting general public consensus on this.

Thinking this through I can't any British citizen being willing to fight in a war whatever the circumstances, including where the UK was being invaded by a brutal authoritarian regime.

Looking at this logically, the citizens most likely to feel the patriotic need to join up, defend the country and do the actual fighting and dying would be young white men of all classes, that are often perceived as right wing.

Those least likely to be willing to join up, fight and potentially die would include the progressives, those perceived as left wing, the woke, the old and of course women.

Now under an authoritarian regime the group most likely to get imprisoned or have their rights curtailed, or persecuted and potentially executed or get thrown off tall buildings is definitely not young white males of all classes.

So this creates the key question of why would right leaning young white males of all classes want to join up, fight and potentially die to protect the rights and lives of the section of society that despises or blames them when they are the section of society least at risk.

To paraphrase Niemoller:

First they came for the protesters and left wing
And they did nothing until it was too late
Because they thought someone else should do it for them.

Then came for the progressives and woke.
And they did nothing until it was too late
Because they thought someone else should do it for them.

Then they restricted the rights and privileges of the old and women
And they did nothing until it was too late
Because they thought someone else should do it for them

Then they left me alone
Because they knew that I would fight them if they did and even if they did and won then that would mean that there would be no one left and they would have an empty country.

In summary those most likely to suffer from the UK being attacked and run by a foreign authoritarian regime are the ones least likely to be willing to join up, fight and potentially die for their rights, freedoms and in the extreme their lives, whilst expecting those that are least likely to suffer to join up, fight and potentially die for their rights and freedoms and lives.

Well history isn't on your side is it?

It was left wing young men and women who fought Fascism in the 30s in Spain, the young white right wing men, marched with Mosley and dithered with the Tories.

But of course in war, we have conscription, everyone has to fight.

Absolutely historically you are correct on the Spanish Civil War including famous like George Orwell. And of course the military today has a much higher proportion of women (and in the front line) than historically previous.

However today things are very different with only 11% willing to join up and fight for the UK and even if conscription was introduced 41 to 43% would actively do whatever it takes to avoid fighting.

So aside from defence cuts I really don't think that there is the willingness to fight for one's country anymore even if the UK itself was attacked.

https://www.thelondoneconomic.com/news/only-one-in-10-young-brits-would-fight-for-their-country-389702/#

and if the public choose to vote better then the world would have better leaders

@ThatPearlkitty

Based on 2024–2025 data, only about 6.6% to 8% of the world's population lives in a "full democracy". When including "flawed democracies," roughly 45% of the global population resides under some form of democratic system, while over 70% of the world's population lives in autocracies or under authoritarian rule.

https://www.eiu.com/n/campaigns/democracy-index-2024/

We didn't have polls in the 1930s but if we had and after WW1, i wonder if we would have had too many wanting to sign up for another world war?

I suspect not.

i know my Gran pleaded with my Uncle not to leave working on the land to get a factory job, she knew they'd come for him there before farm workers, she was right, killed in Burma, all he wanted was to marry his girlfriend, not die in a stinking jungle.

Of course some people would avoid war, as many men did in previous generations, people like Trump, happy to see others die though.

its easy for you and others to criticise todays youth with micky taking pictures, wont be you dying or have bits of your body blown off or burnt.

Maybe read up on Rudyard Kipling.... & his change of view on war.

Some men took jobs in the late 1930s if they could in certain occupations to avoid being conscripted in the war that came along. Police for example, bus drivers another.

Although Neville Chamberlain is seen as an appeaser and viewed badly, the Prime Ministers we should see in that light are his two predecessors who did not re-arm to the same extent.

Without Chamberlain, very likely we would have lost the battle of britain and then invaded.

Chamberlain funded the development of first the Hurricane and then the Spitfire in the mid 1930s, Churchill demanded we dont do this and develop instead a twin engine fighter bomber, luckily he lost this fight.

I’m not sure that’s entirely accurate. My dad couldn’t get a job at all in the mid 30s and joined up before the war. Some of his relatives left a reserved occupation (mining) to fight.

@Alexandra2001

My post was in part based on Tommy Atkins. With young white men being Tommy Atkins.

The sections of society - the progressives, the protesters, the woke, the left etc etc that would suffer most from a foreign power removing our rights and freedoms are the section of society that are the least willing to go and fight and potentially die to protect their rights and freedoms, seeing this as a job for someone else.

The someone else being the young predominantly white, male, working class and predominantly right wing who are despised / mocked by the progressive left and woke. Yet at the same time the young males described above would be the ones least affected by an authoritarian regime.

So logically why would the one group of society that would be the least affected by the country being attacked or taken over be willing to fight and die to protect another group in society that a) despises them and b) who aren't willing to fight and die to protect themselves.

If we take the example of your Uncle in WW2 and if he was in exactly the same position today then the logical decision would be to refuse to fight.

What is the worst that could happen, that the UK gets taken over by a brutal authoritarian regime? Your Uncle wouldn't be the one being thrown off tall buildings for his sexuality, your Uncle wouldn't be the one detained in a camp for going on a protest march against the regime.

Instead your Uncle would be happily married to his local girl living a normal life not bothering the new regime who in turn wouldn't bother him.

Rather than fighting and dying in a war to protect the rights and freedoms of people who at best aren't appreciative of his sacrifice and at worst mock / criticise him for his sacrifice.

Do you have children, grand children @1dayatatime ?

If so, are they eager to join a war?

The standard history taught that Chamberlain was an appeaser who should have stood up to Hitler is way too simplistic.

Chamberlain was no fool, from 1933 he saw the threat of Nazi Germany. In 1933 Britain was woefully unprepared to fight a major war and nor was there any appetite amongst the population to do so. The "appeasement" was simply a means to buy time to re arm and get public opinion onside to fight in a major war.

Well my DD did consider joining the military and I have actively discouraged her from doing so.

But I don't think anyone's children or grandchildren would want to fight in a war, it's more a question of being willing to. And to that end I would do my best to try and persuade them not to.

Then I don't really get your point in your previous posts.

Absolutely, I completely agree with her.

The point of my posts is that the sections of society that would suffer most from the removal of their rights and freedoms (progressives, leftists,woke and even women) are the sections of society that are least likely to be willing to join up, fight and potentially die for those rights and freedoms whilst at the same time expecting another section of society (that they despise and mock) to do the fighting and dying on their behalf.

Meanwhile you have the section of society that would suffer the least from the removal of rights and freedoms (predominantly white right wing young men) being the section of society that would be the most likely to join up, fight and potentially die.

I am saying that it doesn't make sense for the young men to fight and die to protect the rights and freedoms of people who at best aren't grateful for this and at worst mock or despise them.

In simple terms, for example under an authoritarian regime it's unlikely to be the young white straight men being thrown off tall buildings for being gay, so logically why would they want to fight and potentially die to protect LGBTQ rights?

@1dayatatime It’s not that simple or clear-cut categories though, is it? Many lefties are from working class backgrounds and white working class young men can also be LGTB too, etc. - there’s so much nuance and cross-over in reality, despite the best attempts of certain politicians and media trying to convince us that it’s all extreme politics and division.

And while you seem to save most of your disdain for the left/woke/progressives, it’s not these people who typically lead young men to war, is it? Same as previous wars, it’s powerful, wealthy men, often those who preach conservative values and nationalism. I’ll be saving my criticism and judgement for them: the war-mongers who place little value on the lives of ordinary people. And can I also add that Lefties, LGBT and women all do join the armed forces too…

I think there’s a much wider discussion to be had on how to improve systems to improve the outlook for white working class young men and how we look after our armed forces. None of this is simple, although populists like Farage will lie and say otherwise, but it does need addressing.

@Sherbs12 thank you for wiping the floor with that previous post. Someone needed to, and you put it so well.

Well, its pretty clear you despise the left/protestors/progressives (i don't know who or what the "Woke" are)
Though i suspect someone like Wilfred Owen would fall under your "Woke" label, "bloody poets, hating war... who needs them...."

But despite his "woke" beliefs, returned to the front line after injury, and bravely won the Military Cross shortly before his own death.

But like i said, it was exactly these people that first fought Fascism, the young right-winger's marched with Moseley.

I do not think its possible to say how the younger generation would react should Russia invade Western Europe, i expect that just a few years ago, the elders in Ukraine were also mocking the young too....

Its seems to me that the older one gets, the more they hate youth.

In WW1, young men of all types queued up to fight the Hun, whole villages, towns, schools lost 80 90% of their young.

By the 30s, no one had any appetite for war, yet they went and fought, you also seem to have forgotten that the better educated/wealthier and therefore less likely to be "right wing" provided the Officer class and pilots we needed.

I think the warmongers very quickly change their tune when its their son or daughter dead.

BTW I'm talking in general in this post.