***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to the next volume *****
==========================================================
Many party members must be realising they are so poor in government they want to avoid it at all costs in future -
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741659/Jeremy-Corbyn-set-to-win-Labour-leadership-shock-poll-reveals.html
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 12 Sep 15 at 21:06
|
|
I think how they see it is different from others outside the party. The common idea here is that they lost because they are too left wing. The idea inside inside the party is that they lost because they are too right wing and trying to copy the tories.
|
B liar moved the party to the right and won 3 times - moving to the Left of the Labour Party will make the Party even more unlikely to win in 2020 (IMHO).
Cameron et al will be hoping Corbyn becomes the next Leader.
|
>> moving to
>> the Left of the Labour Party will make the Party even more unlikely to win
>> in 2020 (IMHO).
Labour split on how to self-destruct
www.thedailymash.co.uk/politics/politics-headlines/labour-split-on-how-to-self-destruct-20150714100103
|
|
This looks like the second choice candidate could win again because of the voting system used. They should get David Miliband back.
|
>>If it really is that easy and cheap, then yes its very tempting indeed.
Except... just be careful what you wish for. What if the Labour party were to win in 2020 on account of global financial collapse, or whatever. And then you get Corbyn.
|
>> And then you get Corbyn.
So what? Jeremy Corbyn isn't all that left wing. He's just an old-fashioned cosy labour supporter whose views reflect those of the voters, mild reactionary British socialism.
We're all used to it FFS. Been living with it all our lives. What's the big Corbyn flap really about? Alarmism by the right-wing parties and shock and horror among backward elements on the internet. There seem to be several of those on this site. Probably born yesterday, or even earlier this morning. It's the only reasonable explanation.
|
>> Alarmism by the right-wing parties and shock and horror among backward elements on the internet.
And among the mainstream media of course.
This shock-horror response to very mild socialism is something fostered and rammed down a gullible public's gullet by Rupert Murdoch and the US networks, bad cess to the crypto-fascist s***bags. Phoney from crotch to elbow or whatever they say these days.
I like to think old British workers don't swallow it. But perhaps all the old ones are dead or helpless, all that industrial pollution when they were making this country great.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 16 Jul 15 at 18:01
|
"Jeremy Corbyn isn't all that left wing."
Really?
He has stated his admiration for Karl Marx. He wants to re-nationalise the railways, he wants the UK to be a republic, doesn't like Trident, wants to hike higher tax rates and corporation tax, abolish student tuition fees and offer student grants. He is soft on Falkland Islands sovereignty, Palestine, the IRA, animal rights. He is sponsored by Unison, the NUR, MTW. He opposed the Afghanistan war, the Iraq war and is a member of CND.
Though I can never see myself voting Labour, there is much to commend him. His political stance is clear. He gives unequivocal answers (e.g. in the LBC phone-in). He has, I believe, a genuine concern for the poor and the homeless. His parliamentary expenses claims are minute. He has little ego. He has principles.
There is a huge gulf between him and the other candidates, who cannot make up their mind what they, or their party, or the electorate, really want. The decision to take time over the choice of leader, while good in theory, has simply provided a vacuum which no-one but Corbyn, it seems, can fill.
If he's elected leader, the Labour party will not be in government for years, and one reason is that, according to some political/economic views, we have already entered a post-capitalist era - or, at least, the western countries have. Corbyn's principles, though commendable in many ways, are irrelevant. While the British electorate in general may be ideologically illiterate, they will still not take him seriously. If the Labour Party does, and elects him, it will only show how naive they are.
No wonder the Tories want him as Labour leader.
|
>> >> I'm SO tempted!
>> >>
>> >> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11741861/How-you-can-help-Jeremy-Corbyn-win-and-destroy-the-Labour-Party.html
>>
>> If it really is that easy and cheap, then yes its very tempting indeed.
>>
Can you imagine the paper's headline the morning after?
"It was the Telegraph wot won it"
|
Labour should be Labour, they damn well should elect Corbyn and if that is what the electorate wants then they should put him in in 5 years time.
I'm fed up with politicians pretending to be all things to all men (and women), prepared to put their names only to motherhood and apple pie, when there's an election at hand.
|
|
Interesting... I get a vote this time, can't make up my mind as to who will get it yet.
|
Love this tweet:
@election_data â€@election_data
We're in a place where the Conservatives, Lib Dems, SNP and Labour members seem to want Jeremy Corbyn as leader :-D
|
>>Labour should be Labour>>
The swing to the Left has failed the party a number of times, including last May, when the electorate firmly turned their backs on it.
Long may Corbyn reign...:-)
|
>>The swing to the Left has failed the party a number of times, including last May, when the electorate firmly turned their backs on it.
Was that a factor though, or was it due to the fact Ed couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without getting all out of shape over it.
:}
|
>>Was that a factor though, or was it due to the fact Ed couldn't eat a bacon sandwich without getting all out of shape over it....:}>>
One of his rasher moments...:-)
|
Scare tactics by the Conservatives about Labour and the S.N.P. It did work, very clever done.
|
>> Labour should be Labour, they damn well should elect Corbyn and if that is what
>> the electorate wants then they should put him in in 5 years time.
>>
>> I'm fed up with politicians pretending to be all things to all men (and women),
>> prepared to put their names only to motherhood and apple pie, when there's an election
>> at hand.
>>
Blair's "get a heart transplant" sums him up doesn't it. Not an ounce of morality there.
If you are a socialist party, should you not be..er..socialist?
Then if the country has moved on and you cannot get elected, you'll have to disband. Here's hoping.
|
|
Oh wow, its worth 3 quid just to be branded an "infiltrator"
|
The great and the not so good in the Labour Party now seem to be in a circular a*** kicking contest.
Tony Blair accuses his fellow party members of being moronic and needing a heart transplant.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33619645
|
|
Ain't nothing compared to the fun and games in this part of the world....a certain D Trump is really stirring up nominations. Some of his quotes are brilliant, the news is full of him, and he seems to be the leading candidate. At the moment. Generally I'm not interested in politics, but this is good fun. If you call it politics.
|
I've not checked this out, but on the radio today Jeremy Vine was saying there's a Conservative MP suggesting conservatives join the labour party to vote. Apparently it's only £3. So labour could find they get Corbyn for example without it being labour supporters voting him in.
EDIT: Well it's not £3 but monthly rates are fairly low.... suppose the idea is you cancel. Interesting idea though :-)
Last edited by: rtj70 on Wed 22 Jul 15 at 23:46
|
£3:88 per month, less if you are young or unwaged.
join.labour.org.uk/static/pdf/join.pdf
|
You don't need to join. Pay £3 to become a registered supporter and vote.
www.labour.org.uk/blog/entry/how-to-vote-for-our-next-leader-and-deputy-leader
Seems a bit cock-eyed to me.
|
It seems to me to be a major flaw in their election system that wider party members and even complete outsiders can foist a leader on the actual MPs he is going to lead.
It's like giving the office cleaner a vote to elect the company chairman.
|
>> It's like giving the office cleaner a vote to elect the company chairman.
Or any non-shareholder - I can't imagine the full members are crazy about it.
I can see how they might think that wider participation might make them more electable but in practice the wider public won't do it...the factions inside and outside the party (including those just wanting to torpedo Labour) have the chance to organise mass voting and swamp the member votes unless I have missed something...maybe there is a cap on the weighting but I haven't seen mention of it.
|
CFC is doing well I believe.
(Conservatives For Corbyn)
|
>> CFC is doing well I believe.
>> (Conservatives For Corbyn)
I can't help hoping Jeremy Corbyn will become Labour leader, win the election and squeeze all you rich cats until your pips squeak. That'll teach you to scream 'Fire!' when it's just a little smoulder. Tchah!
I liked Corbyn when I met him. He's not a barrel of laughs but he's pretty straightforward, and that's quite decent for a professional pol.
|
"Two Jags" Prescott interviewed on BBC Radio 4 Today programme this morning:-
"Lord Prescott has criticised political advisers and the media for fuelling "a panic" in the Labour leadership contest.
The former deputy prime minister urged the party to "speak to the people in a language they understand" - and focus on policies, not people.
Lord Prescott said leftist candidate Jeremy Corbyn was doing well in the race because people knew where he stood.
He launched a scathing attack on long-time boss Tony Blair's "totally unacceptable" warning of the dangers of a lurch to the left with a suggestion that anyone preparing to vote "with their heart" for Mr Corbyn should get a transplant.
"I found that absolutely staggering. To use that kind of language is just abuse," Lord Prescott told Today.
He urged his Labour colleagues to "calm down" - before going on to attack Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Margaret Beckett, Alistair Campbell, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Jeremy Corbyn and former Tony Blair advisor John McTernan".
I love the final sentence!
|
"We are in danger of becoming the political equivalent of Millwall Football Club. Their chant? `No one likes us, we don't care.'
Shadow cabinet minister Mary Creagh in the New Statesman.
|
If Corbin wins he will eventually join Michael Foot, Neil Kinnock and John Smith as "The best Prime Minister we never had".
Yawn.
|
|
John Smith was way ahead of any of those you mention - a sad loss not only to the Labour party but also the country and I say that as a Conservative.
|
>> John Smith was way ahead of any of those you mention - a sad loss
>> not only to the Labour party but also the country and I say that as
>> a Conservative.
>>
That's what they'd have been saying about Tony Blair had he snuffed it before becoming PM. It's easy to look good in when opposition, another ball game when your decisions are for real and not just theory.
|
John Smith was a genuinely good bloke, and he had deep moral Christian values.
If he'd been PM instead of Blair we wouldn't have gone on stupid foreign adventures.
|
>> John Smith was a genuinely good bloke, and he had deep moral Christian values.
>>
>> If he'd been PM instead of Blair we wouldn't have gone on stupid foreign adventures.
>>
That is true, but the thing is that he would never have become PM
|
>> John Smith was way ahead of any of those you mention - a sad loss
>> not only to the Labour party but also the country and I say that as
>> a Conservative.
You may be right, or you may not. He was unproven.
|
>> "I found that absolutely staggering. To use that kind of language is just abuse," Lord Prescott told Today.
>> He urged his Labour colleagues to "calm down" - before going on to attack Harriet Harman, Ed Miliband, David Miliband, Margaret Beckett, Alistair Campbell, Chuka Umunna, Tristram Hunt, Jeremy Corbyn and former Tony Blair advisor John McTernan".
Heh heh... salt of the earth, and not too proud to accept a cynical political peerage. Excellent cat.
|
|
Say what you like about John, he doesn't pull his punches and doesn't get left with egg on his face.
|
>> Say what you like about John, he doesn't pull his punches and doesn't get left
>> with egg on his face.
>>
The guy is a bafoon, a total waste of space !
|
A cross between a buffoon and a baboon? I like it.
I quite like Prezzer too.
|
Interesting, isn't it? Tony Benn was regarded as a demon all his political career but when he died suddenly he was a national treasure. Now someone else has surfaced who mixes a modicum of Socialism with a dash of personality and proper left wing credentials and the Tories and their puppet media are already running around in a blind panic.
Why are they so frightened? What now carries the name Labour Party is already unelectable - its own damned fault after squandering the privilege of power by allowing a bunch of no-hopers to play at politics instead of having a stab at real life.
As AC very appropriately puts it, Tchah!
Incidentally, I have just invested a pound in a shop run by some charity trying to stop Orientals eating dogs for a copy of the last volume of Tony Benn's diaries. I am looking forward to reading his demolition job on Kinnochio and his like.
Last edited by: Mike Hannon on Fri 24 Jul 15 at 06:19
|
Now someone else has surfaced who
>> mixes a modicum of Socialism with a dash of personality and proper left wing credentials
>> and the Tories and their puppet media are already running around in a blind panic.
>> Why are they so frightened?
What a stuipid statement, they are not frightenend or in a panic. Him being elected is what everyone wants and is the best possible thing that could happen for this country as it will mean that there is even less possibility of the poxy Labour party being elected for a very long time.
|
>> Interesting, isn't it? Tony Benn was regarded as a demon all his political career but
>> when he died suddenly he was a national treasure.
He was only a national treasure because he never got to achieve his stated places.
The new loony left bloke has the same basic stupid idea that kept Benn on the back benches. The idea that those without should steal from those with, rather than be assisted guided and cajoled to create their own.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 24 Jul 15 at 08:20
|
|
I think that, using your language,there is an argument that those with stole it from those without.
|
>> I think that, using your language,there is an argument that those with stole it from
>> those without.
The essential feature of capitalism in its pure form.
|
|
A statement that one does not agree with is not 'stupid' per se. Sigh.
|
>> A statement that one does not agree with is not 'stupid' per se. Sigh.
If its a statement that dooms us all to failure its damn stupid statement.
Deep sigh
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 24 Jul 15 at 12:02
|
>> >> I think that, using your language,there is an argument that those with stole it
>> from
>> >> those without.
>>
>> The essential feature of capitalism in its pure form.
The eternal argument of those who want it without creating it. If no-one creates anything everyone is getting nothing.
|
>> >> >> I think that, using your language,there is an argument that those with stole
>> it
>> >> from
>> >> >> those without.
>> >>
>> >> The essential feature of capitalism in its pure form.
>>
>> The eternal argument of those who want it without creating it. If no-one creates anything
>> everyone is getting nothing.
Not an argument, just a fact.
The capital funds the raw materials and the means of production. There is a market in labour, and unless there is a labour shortage then wages for unskilled labour especially will settle at the level at which people can survive and little more.
That is distorted by the unemployment benefits floor and the minimum wage legislation. Without them, and without collective bargaining, most of us would still be working 6 days a week with nothing much in the bank or in the larder. That was what it meant to be working class, whether as an agricultural labourer or in a factory post-industrialisation, before the labour movement began.
You can blether on about the capitalists creating wealth but it is the capital is the necessity, not the capitalist and the wealth is created by all involved in the production and support processes, to whom it properly belongs. One of the functions of government is fair (not necessarily equal) distribution.
There is an establishment based on wealth and social connections in this country that for all the most understandable reasons essentially looks after itself, and it is represented broadly by the Conservative party and those with large stakes in big businesses but there are plenty of back scratchers in the current Labour party too.
Much of the British electorate has lost sight of this, which was better understood by my father's generation who, unless born to wealth, were lucky to get a decent education, left school at 14 or 15, and had little choice but to follow their own parents into factories, mines, mills etc.. The Labour movement itself lost focus, became factionalised and more or less self destructed before Blair finished the job. The Conservative government of Margaret Thatcher sold the mass market the idea that we could all be wealthy and working people, who should have known better, convinced themselves that they had now left wage slavery behind and become middle class.
The country needs a labour movement for today. Corbyn is probably a bit of a throwback but I'd rather have him than his all-things-to-all-people, motherhood and apple-pie peddling rivals.
|
>> Not an argument, just a fact.
>> You can blether on about the capitalists creating wealth but it is the capital is
>> the necessity, not the capitalist and the wealth is created by all involved in the
>> production and support processes, to whom it properly belongs. One of the functions of government
>> is fair (not necessarily equal) distribution.
No I can blether on about what is done with the capital, one option the socialist one, is to spread it about thinly. The other argument is to create more so it can be spread about more thickly.
>> Much of the British electorate has lost sight of this, which was better understood by
>> my father's generation who, unless born to wealth, were lucky to get a decent education,
>> left school at 14 or 15, and had little choice but to follow their own
>> parents into factories, mines, mills etc..
You father would recognise that generally everyone is better off under capitalism, something you appear to have lost sight of. Probably because you personally experience nothing worse.
>>The country needs a labour movement for today. Corbyn is probably a bit of a throwback but I'd >>rather have him than his all-things-to-all-people, motherhood and apple-pie peddling rivals.
Corbyn is not of today. He is of yesterday, your fathers time. The bad times. He has no "going forward" ideas. merely "get back to" ideas. The bad ideas.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 24 Jul 15 at 13:20
|
As you have troubled to reply to my rhetorical ramble...
>> No I can blether on about what is done with the capital, one option the
>> socialist one, is to spread it about thinly. The other argument is to create more
>> so it can be spread about more thickly.
Capital spending and just spending are different things. Governments of all shades have confused the two.
>> You father would recognise that generally everyone is better off under capitalism,
Than communism, yes. But the labourer will only be better off under capitalism in an enlightened or managed economy, otherwise he will be turning up very day to see if there is any subsistence level work for him.
>>something you appear
>> to have lost sight of.
I hope not. I don't want to repeat the communist experiment.
>>Probably because you personally experience nothing worse.
Most of us here are equally fortunate. But I have not forgotten that I have had a much easier time than my father, due in large part to the labour movement
>> Corbyn is not of today. He is of yesterday, your fathers time.
I said he was a throwback.
>>He has no "going forward" ideas. merely "get back to" ideas. The bad ideas.
Maybe...I'd like to dig a bit deeper before agreeing or otherwise.
|
>> I hope not. I don't want to repeat the communist experiment.
>>
I wasn't aware anyone had tried it at all yet. Apart form the odd Kibbutz, maybe.
There have been plenty of attempts at dictator-led pseudo-Socialist states, if that's what you meant.
You'll find plenty of people in those places who would be happy to return to that odd and unnatural system though.
|
>> >> I hope not. I don't want to repeat the communist experiment.
>> >>
>>
>> I wasn't aware anyone had tried it at all yet. Apart form the odd Kibbutz,
>> maybe.
Fair point. I can't see it working at a much bigger level than a Kibbutz somehow.
|
>> Most of us here are equally fortunate. But I have not forgotten that I have
>> had a much easier time than my father, due in large part to the labour
>> movement
What part? what %?
We have had 24 years of Labour power, 26 years of Tory power and 5 years of coalition since 1945.
Clearly its not a majority part.
To be honest, I would have been happy with another 5 or 10 years of coalition. Just to see if it does work. Certainly wasn't doing any harm.
Problem is while you have a "back to the grass roots - workers party" leader like Corbyn, that is simply never going to happen because he is too dogmatic.
|
>> I think that, using your language,there is an argument that those with stole it from
>> those without.
How about the enormous chunk of people who just worked hard and eventually do alright for themselves... versus the workshy, lazy or those that do 'just enough'?
If you are willing to work hard in this country, you can make a good go of things.
|
>> If you are willing to work hard in this country, you can make a good go of things.
With a measure of luck, yes. Things are easier here than they used to be.
But the vast majority until very recently spent their lives working hard without accumulating enough to leave their children anything.
|
>> >> Things are easier here than they used to be.
>>
>>
>> But the vast majority until very recently spent their lives working hard without accumulating enough
>> to leave their children anything.
>>
>>
There's a little bit of a contradiction there? If things are easier than they used to be then surely that is one very real benefit that the previous generation has passed to the present.
In a mixed economy "wealth" includes social wealth. It's easy to overlook that when comparing the percentages "owned" by different people and different generations.
|
|
Social wealth is Education, Easy access to the arts, literature, sport, exercise. Well travelled, fluent in another language. Social wealth is volunteering, supporting and mentoring in the community. Low crime, good health care, social values and standards
|
|
Thanks never heard that term before.
|
>> If things are easier than they used to be then surely that is one very real benefit that the previous generation has passed to the present.
Wouldn't deny that for a moment. There's no contradiction though.
This is an age thing CP. Most wage workers when I was young earned enough to feed themselves and their families and pay the rent. They weren't buying houses they could leave to their children as people routinely do today. Things have changed quite a lot in my lifetime and everyone is far better off (thanks in large part of course to all this social wealth).
|
|
It would be great if Kinnock made a come-back.
|
Kinnock and family jumped on the European Gravy train.Money for nout as they say in Yorkshire.Coming back?
I like Corburn it is about time we see a little bit of honesty in the party which used to call itself Labour.
|
>> It would be great if Kinnock made a come-back.
>>
For whom?
|
>> It would be great if Kinnock made a come-back.>>
You are jesting, of course??
|
>> >> It would be great if Kinnock made a come-back.>>
>>
>> You are jesting, of course??
>>
Stephen Kinnock for PM in 2025...
(Labour will not win the next GE but after 15 years, the Tories in 2025 will be tired...)
But he'll be 55 and he's already bald.. perhaps not.
Last edited by: madf on Sat 25 Jul 15 at 15:40
|
>> .the factions inside and outside the party
>> (including those just wanting to torpedo Labour) have the chance to organise mass voting and
>> swamp the member votes
It's happening, no surprise there then.
news.sky.com/story/1525332/labour-leadership-race-should-be-halted
Wasn't it Harriet who wanted to open up the voting to people who "aren't interested in politics"?
These people couldn't run a chip shop.
|
>> These people couldn't run a chip shop.
>>
Just as well they are not in a position where they'll be able to run the country then.
|
I see some Labour Party members now want to change the voting system for the new leader...:-)
Andy Burnham says that he's had no evidence that anyone is joining the party just to vote for Corbyn.
|
I think I might vote for Corbyn, the Country needs workers, not hedge fund managers.
I don't think Stephen Kinnock would stand a chance. The Kinnock brand is not desirable, in the same camp as Foot and Miliband.
|
>> I think I might vote for Corbyn, the Country needs workers, not hedge fund managers.
>>
>> I don't think Stephen Kinnock would stand a chance. The Kinnock brand is not desirable,
>> in the same camp as Foot and Miliband.
Ok, so in what way, policy wise, does Corbyn differ from Foot?
|
We are in a different time now.The working poor foodbanks and young people are not voting.
I don't think Corbyn will win the Labour Party nomination but he should.
|
>> I see some Labour Party members now want to change the voting system for the
>> new leader...:-)
>>
>> Andy Burnham says that he's had no evidence that anyone is joining the party just
>> to vote for Corbyn.
They don't need to join. They can pay a one-off £3 to register as a supporter and vote.
|
|
He doesn't wear a donkey jacket.
|
>> He doesn't wear a donkey jacket.
True
|
>> He doesn't wear a donkey jacket.
>>
He doesn't need to prove he's a donkey, everyone knows that.
|
Calling him a donkey is a compliment.Stubborn animal very strong and they don't give up.
Keep it up.
|
It's all very well Corbyn supporters saying he will energise those who don't vote..
His supportersthen suggest that will win them lots of seats..
Unfortunately, most of the non voters are in Labour constiuencies with big majorities so if they all voted, it would make no difference..
"All 20 of the seats in Britain with the lowest turnout in the general election were won by Labour." tinyurl.com/mllwfvw
To win power , Labour needs to take Tory held seats in England even if it won every SNP seat in Scotland.. There are only 7 LidDem , 1 UKIP and 1 Green MPs in England. All the rest are Labour or Conservative.. So they HAVE to win Tory seats to form a Government.
Does anyone think turning Left is a good strategy to win over Tory voters?
The electoral arithmetic does not lie... Labour needs to appeal to Tory voters in Middle/Southern England...
|
|
I'd vote Labour in a shot if I thought they'd get rid of Trident. At the moment Labour is just a sanctimonious Tory Lite. They couldn't even be bothered to vote against the backwards and regressive welfare bill.
|
There was an interesting programme on R4 this morning, "Reflections with Peter Hennessy" which was an interview with Clare Short.
She had some very interesting things to say about New Labour, which has indirectly IMO brought Labour to where it is now when nobody can work out it stands for.
Recommended, even for those who are not fans of Short.
www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0638xbd
|
>> There was an interesting programme on R4 this morning, "Reflections with Peter Hennessy" which was
>> an interview with Clare Short.
>>
>> She had some very interesting things to say about New Labour, which has indirectly IMO
>> brought Labour to where it is now when nobody can work out it stands for.
>>
>> Recommended, even for those who are not fans of Short.
Sorry, not willing to use 43 mins of my life listening to Clare Short as interested as I am.
You able to give a brief resume?
|
|
I listened to that. I thought she was dreadful.
|
>> I listened to that. I thought she was dreadful.
Very straight, I thought.
A good account of how cabinet was transformed from a debating and decision-making meeting into a constitutional sign-off by Blair's insistence that any objections to policy proposals must be "squared off" before cabinet (which has I think persisted through the change of governments).
It's true that any sensible committee man or woman will try to gather support and see how the land lies before going to the meeting, but it shouldn't be the chairman (or PM) who is doing it.
|
|
I'd not vote Labour if I thought they'd get rid of Trident.
|
I see the Labour grandees are saying they'll get rid of Corbyn if he's elected.
|
>> I'd not vote Labour if I thought they'd get rid of Trident.
Why? What real use is it in context of NATO? Except for France no other EU country has its own deterrent yet it's Germany that's supposedly dominant
Alternatively, if we really need full on nukes does it really need four chuffin great subs? Every other state service manages with less by sweating assets.
|
>> Alternatively, if we really need full on nukes does it really need four chuffin great
>> subs? Every other state service manages with less by sweating assets.
>>
I'm not so sure 4 is enough.
If one had an accident which caused a fair amount of damage and was off for many months (or years), one is in for essential unplanned maintenance, one is overdue routine maintenance, that only leaves one.
|
If one is going to have a nuclear deterrent, then there is no point on doing it on a shoestring, or doing half a job. So, if we're going to have one, then as Westpig says, lets have an effective one.
On the other hand Bromp has a point in that I'm not sure we really need one any more.
These days we're fighting terrorists, nationalism is no longer the thing it was. And nukes are not much cop for attacking terrorism - self-defeating, one might say.
Perhaps the EU should have a single deterrent contributed to by all the EU nations. It would make more sense.
That thought ought to give Roger and Doug conniptions.
p.s. agreed with Bromp and Westpig in one reply. And they said it couldn't be done!
|
>> If one is going to have a nuclear deterrent, then there is no point on
>> doing it on a shoestring, or doing half a job. So, if we're going to
>> have one, then as Westpig says, lets have an effective one.
The deterrent is a waste of time, we all know we will never use it as a first strike weapon, or retaliation against a non nuclear nation, so it will only be used AFTER the Ruskies have reduced the country to a smoking ruin, Ours is not big enough so We can't reduce Russia to a smoking ruin in return, so its no deterrent.
The gov wont get rid because it has bragging rights. They think it makes us one of the big boys.
Last edited by: Zero on Mon 27 Jul 15 at 23:05
|
>>
>> Perhaps the EU should have a single deterrent contributed to by all the EU nations.
>>
Now! That would be interesting?
Which nation would you get to design the various components?
Well. The Italians could design the uniforms.
Would you have French electronics?
The project would need strict financial control. The Greeks?
Last edited by: Duncan on Tue 28 Jul 15 at 06:27
|
Except for France no other
>> EU country has its own deterrent yet it's Germany that's supposedly dominant
>>
Many do have them under a complex agreement with the Americans. Dual code use or similar it's called. its quite well known. We used to have some with BAOR.
Don't try and read straight across from the EU to Nato, it's more complex than that.
>> Alternatively, if we really need full on nukes does it really need four chuffin great subs? Every other state service manages with less by sweating assets.
Yes, if you want one out and about deterring then you need four.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Mon 27 Jul 15 at 22:22
|
>>Why? What real use is it in context of NATO
I'm all for nuclear disarmament - if that means we rid the world of all nukes, but I can't see that happening any time soon.
>>Alternatively, if we really need full on nukes does it really need four chuffin great subs? Every other state service manages with less by sweating assets.
Good point. To please Uncle Sam most likely.
|
If you have to run something like the nuclear deterrent that requires total reliability or a high degree of redundancy, plus the very highest level of compliance with safety standards, you should think in terms of feather bedding rather than doing it on the cheap.
I think having three has been mooted, and rejected. You would have one at sea, one in port and one in maintenance/refitting. Lose one to a preemptive strike, accident or breakdown and you cannot maintain continual readiness.
|
>> Wasn't it Harriet who wanted to open up the voting to people who "aren't interested
>> in politics"?
>>
>> These people couldn't run a chip shop.
Further to this I have just been listening to Ms Harperson explaining that the weeding out of non-Labour-supporters' votes is not some kind of fiddle, because the national executive's policy was always that voting should be opened up to life-long Labour supporters who nevertheless did not have a say, even though trades union members paying the levy could vote even when they might be supporters of another party.
So they decided to let anybody vote who paid £3. I think that validates my chip shop comment.
If only it was just Labour. Osborne's answer to rampant house price inflation that is putting purchase out of the reach of average earners in much of the country, is to give people money to buy houses.
I don't doubt these are intelligent people by conventional measures, but surely they are just stupid by any practical definition?
|
The Corbyn thing is very interesting. Two articles I've read today:
1. New Labour for Corbyn: If we don't elect Corbyn then the left will have too much of a hold over the next leader. If we do elect him then it will all be over and done with within a couple of years, and we can then have a proper leader.
2. Tories against Corbyn: If Corbyn is elected, then there's a risk that he might actually become PM. [And that's what I've been saying.] At some point the Tories will lose an election, and the opposition might be led by Corbyn. That's one devil of a risk.
|
Interesting indeed.
However I think the answer, or at least the mitigation, to 2) lies within 1).
If he gets elected in a General Election it'll all be over and done with pretty quickly for another 20 years.
Last edited by: No FM2R on Tue 28 Jul 15 at 13:27
|
What a load of reactionary faff there is in this thread. Obviously most posters are Tory or worse, hearts on sleeves and no bad thing. Living in mortal terror of an actual mild socialist getting to lead the Labour Party, but confident that the voters are too sensible to elect it, fingers crossed and so on, oo-er...
I like Corbyn and will vote Labour as usual when the time comes. But alas, I'm afraid the Labour Party is in some temporary occlusion. O ye of little faith!
All you Right-on mo'fos are being led by the nose by offshore villains, as you know perfectly well. You'd be ashamed of yourselves if you weren't constitutionally shameless.
|
|
You do spout some old tosh at times.
|
Yes, I try to fit in with you FMR. When in Rome, as it were...
But such levels of irrationality are hard for me to live up to. I've always been something of a social leper.
|
|
Yardarm a bit lower today, AC?
|
Nope. Much too early. Just open-mouthed at all the reactionary faff from you among others.
Just listened to a bit of Clare Short's homily. I always liked her, nice cool measured delivery.
|
Then if you are still coherent, perhaps you could explain what this means....
"All you Right-on mo'fos are being led by the nose by offshore villains, as you know perfectly well. You'd be ashamed of yourselves if you weren't constitutionally shameless."
I don't know what a "right on mofo" is. I know what the individual words mean, but what is the meaning of the phrase? I realise that mofo is a trendy thing you like to say to be cool, beyond that I have no idea.
Who are the "offshore villains"?
And what on earth is "constitutionally shameless"?
Because it seems like old tosh to me.
|
|
I can work it out what he means.Maybe A.C should write a essay and explain it all.
|
So you explain then.
What is "constitutionally shameless" and who are the "offshore villains"?
Clever sounding tosh. Emperor / clothes.
|
I didn't write mo'fos to be cool, but because if I spelt the word out it would have been censored.
The offshore villains are the ones I mentioned far up the thread, Murdoch and the right-wing US networks trying to whip up a panic about creeping socialism. You must be aware that several people here seem to have bought that narrative and are yelping about Jeremy Corbyn.
A constitutionally shameless person is one who in their constituted personality appears incapable of feeling shame.
Don't bother with it if it seems like tosh FMR. Perhaps it is.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Tue 28 Jul 15 at 15:17
|
I didn't like Tony Blair to smarmy for me he still is.There again the Labour party won three times under his leadership.He was the best Tory the Tory party never had.
How Murdoch got away with his control in this country is still beyond me.The French would have guillotined him.There again money is power.Meaby all tosh I don't know.
|
I know AC seems to think that Corbyn is "soft left", but he seems fairly firm left to me (as I said higher up). Don't be fooled by his mild manner.
The thing is, his political philosophy is irrelevant, even if individual bits of his policy may seem attractive to Labour supporters.
I don't actually care very much. I've never voted Labour and am never likely to. But it seems to me if Corbyn becomes leader he will make Labour unelectable and if he doesn't the same may happen, to judge from the pathetic alternatives.
The shame is that the present government, already seizing their opportunity, will go unchallenged by an effective opposition. The interim leader, Harriet Harman, has made virtually nil impact, politically, since the general election.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 28 Jul 15 at 15:43
|
Corbyn was intervieuwed by Andrew Marr on sunday.Andrew kept mentioning Karl Marx and I couldn't see the point.I've read Marx and Engels most of it what they said was common sense.
|
>> kept mentioning Karl Marx and I couldn't see the point.I've read Marx and Engels most of it what they said was common sense.
Of course Dutchie, to a rational person. But we're all supposed to have a kneejerk aversion to 'Marxism-Leninism'. It's an American thing slavishly copied in public by the sniggering British.
I'm not excusing totalitarian ideologies here. They're as bad as each other. Ideologues, politicians and most of all 'great men' are unspeakable carphounds as any fule kno, but very good at hiding it.
|
More emotional tosh.
I have no kneejerk reaction to "Marxisim-Leninism" nor do I feel any expectation from anybody that I should. That's simply more content free hifalutin' tosh.
However, the fundamental problem with all such philosophies is that it assumes that all people are equal.
Not equal by value, which I believe that most people are, but equal in every way. And that includes motivation, emotion, input, work ethic, and desire and every other analogue characteristic you can think of.
And that is just flat out not the case.
That like it or not, makes such approaches unworkable in the real world, Without enforcement of course, which is against the very philosophy it is supporting.
|
>> I have no kneejerk reaction to "Marxisim-Leninism"
I didn't really mean you FMR. I don't have one either. But what I said actually was that we are 'supposed' to have that reaction, not that we do have it.
|
Of course Marx and Engels were political philosophers, theorists.
Lenin distorted their ideas to make an ideology. People hadn't sussed yet that totalitarianisms were really bad news. The Soviets felt they had to counter the Nazis on the same level, and they knew they must prevail through sheer weight of population and the vast Russian Steppes.
|
Though I acknowledge your command of this stuff, AC, I don't agree with your version.
It's quite right to say that Lenin was foremost a politician and not a theorist. The early days of Russian society post-1917 were in fact surprisingly laissez-faire. There was a gradual drawing-back from that when the leadership realised that, for Russia to progress, the priority had to be the reform of industry and agriculture and in this the opposition came from none other than the peasants themselves. State control became a political necessity and thus totalitarianism was born. Its true horror, however, was not revealed until Stalin took over and his paranoia set the agenda.
I don't think Nazism produced a ideological reaction in Russian Communism, despite the fact that the two ideologies existed at the same time. In other words, the Russians didn't copy the Germans. I gather there's a neglected area of historical research into the relationship between Nazism and Communism.
Russia was naive enough to sign the Molotov–Ribbentrop Pact in 1939 and when the inevitable war came then, as you say, it was a question of numbers, of geography - and climate.
Last edited by: Observer on Tue 28 Jul 15 at 20:38
|
>> I don't think Nazism produced a ideological reaction in Russian Communism, despite the fact that the two ideologies existed at the same time.
Not exactly perhaps, but they sort of bounced off each other. As you say, it was under Stalin that things got really grim.
I used to half-believe in that communist stuff. 'Real socialism' they called it much more recently.
|
>>How Murdoch got away with his control in this country is still beyond meThe French would have guillotined him.There again money is power.Meaby all tosh I don't know.
I'll have Zero and the Chilean on my back now, but, to hell with it, you only live twice.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4iaGR0G24M
|
Tsk. Another crypto-Zionist post from the pooch...
(Sorry Perro. Don't know what came over me. Tsk indeed so to speak. It's just that you keep drawing attention to the carphounds, who do have a right to exist after all. But both main factions are being moronically recalcitrant in those parts, a butting and self-righteousness contest, hope it damn well hurts... stupid leadership on one side, brutally efficient and supported by the US on the other, bit of a foregone conclusion really).
|
>> stupid leadership on one side, brutally efficient
>> and supported by the US on the other, bit of a foregone conclusion really).
>>
That's how I see it AC.
The Israeli's have my great sympathies... right up to the point they treat the Arabs next door like total crap.
If they had some sense (the Israelis) they'd give a bit and grab most of the rest of the world's support.
|
>> That's how I see it AC.
>>
>> The Israeli's have my great sympathies... right up to the point they treat the indigenous Arabs
>> next door in the land they have invaded and annexed like total crap.
>>
>> If they had some sense (the Israelis) they'd give a bit and grab most of
>> the rest of the world's support.
>>
|
>> treat the indigenous Arabs
>> next door in the land they have invaded and annexed like total c
Mmm. Difficult, though isn't it, as it's the indigenous Arabs' leaders who make them live like that.
|
>> >> treat the indigenous Arabs
>> >> next door in the land they have invaded and annexed like total c
>>
>> Mmm. Difficult, though isn't it, as it's the indigenous Arabs' leaders who make them live
>> like that.
Not sure that applies in the west bank, does it?
|
>>Another crypto-Zionist post from the pooch...
You forgot the Anti bit Sire.
|
|
I know, I know. A bit thishwayanthat, knowImean? Just teasing. I know what you think on this one Perro.
|
|
All parties seem to wander into the political wilderness every now and again. The Tories have not been immune from electing the odd lame duck as their leader. They don't survive long of course.
|
>> Cameron has!
>>
Not exactly a lame duck, though!
|
|
A lucky lame duck, thanks to the SNP.
|
>> A lucky lame duck, thanks to the SNP.
>>
If Labour had taken every seat in Scotland the Conservatives would still have a majority.
|
>> A lucky lame duck, thanks to the SNP.
>>
Politicians make their own luck. See opportunity, seize it, win.
Or as Ed Miliband did, see opportunity, raise it, forget it or make pig's ear of it..(Ed stone anyone? :-)
Or as Nigel Farage did: fail to get elected, resign, reappear .. make himself appear a fool.
Last edited by: madf on Wed 5 Aug 15 at 16:59
|
Cover of Private Eye today has a picture of Corbyn saying.......
'I love Marx'...
'It's where I get my vests'
|
Blair has weighed in heavily against Corbyn, saying the party will be annihilated if he is elected as leader.
Lots of opponents want the contest delayed, presumably so they can change the rules to get the "right" result, which just makes the party even less credible if that were possible. My old MP Barry Sheerman is among them.
Whether Corbyn could lead the party is debatable, but he stands for something other than saying whatever will get Labour into power and does in fact uphold the principles on which the party was founded. It's his opponents who are really the ones out of step.
If Corbyn represents nothing that appeals to the electorate any more, then what is Labour for?
The real problem highlighted by Corbyn's lead is that none of the other three has either charisma or bottom.
|
The other three would have more of a chance if they stopped knocking Corbyn and concentrated on getting across their own vision of what Labour should be. With everyone and his uncle weighing in against him he is attracting a large sympathy vote.
That's a lesson that should have been learned from the last election where every other party seemed to be saying how all that mattered was ganging up to keep the Tories out - that cost Labour a few marginals, the Brits don't like bullying tactics whoever they come from.
|
"The other three would have more of a chance if they stopped knocking Corbyn and concentrated on getting across their own vision of what Labour should be."
Spot-on. Corbyn's strength is that he appears genuine and has an identifiable message. I am astonished at the support he apparently has, which I suppose shows that there are swathes of the public who are as economically illiterate as Corbyn himself and/or victims of wishful thinking.
As I've said elsewhere, Corbyn's three rivals have the political attractiveness of an earthworm.
I read somewhere, from a Labour supporter, that electing Corbyn is actually a necessary step, because his certain failure is the one and only thing that will convince the party to get its act together and stand a chance of being elected.
Last edited by: Observer on Thu 13 Aug 15 at 17:39
|
I love the way you cats confidently second-guess an experienced (if slightly maverick) parliamentarian and Labour ideologue. Can't imagine how he's managed without you all this time. He'd be world president by now if he'd only listened to you when he was taking his first tottering steps in politics.
:o}
|
For me, this whole debacle nicely highlights the difficulty the Labour party has.
It started originally as a socialist party.
Blair morphed it into New Labour at a time he and others realised the country had moved on from socialism ..but.. those within the party that still backed socialism had a legitimate argument of how underhand it was to go for the votes rather than sticking with the principle.
Labour are back to that dilemma again. Go for popularism and potentially be elected back in to power.. or go for the principle of what the party is about and remain unelectable.
There needs to be a strong second party for politics to be healthy...however, IMO it ought not be the Labour Party... for the reasons stated above. If they are principled they will not get back in to power (which means there is no real check for the one that is).. and if they go for the votes, they are not principled and they are therefore immoral and false (as Blair etc was).
It needs another party.
|
In the past 40 years the electorate has changed in composition and grown older and the economy and society have changed dramatically.
Repeating the mantras of 50 years ago are not a recipe for success... and failing to appeal to the old (who are more likely to vote) is an own goal...
|
>> It needs another party.
>>
As has happened in Scotland. (No improvement IMO.)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 13 Aug 15 at 18:58
|
|
The big beneficiaries of a move to the left by the Labour Party will be the Liberals. Due for a big resurgence I think and the Centre Left look for a new home.
|
>> The big beneficiaries of a move to the left by the Labour Party will be the Liberals. Due for a big resurgence I think and the Centre Left look for a new home.
Yes, it does look a bit like that. But I think people are underestimating the old-Labour undertow that Jeremy Corbyn sourly represents. Perhaps I'm guilty of sentimental wishful thinking. 'Toujours du côté du coeur' as an emotional French Socialist once told me.
|
>> The big beneficiaries of a move to the left by the Labour Party will be the Liberals. Due for a big resurgence I think and the Centre Left look for a new home.>>
Wishful thinking it seems to me.
The electorate will never readily forget the broken LibDem promises under Clegg after 2010, no matter how well they do at local council elections level.
Even Labour is going to take at least eight to 10 years to get even remotely back on track after its last two General Election defeats - the last election it won was 10 years ago, thanks to a certain G Brown believing he was fully entitled to become the unelected Labour Party leader.
That's without even mentioning a nice elderly Rochdale lady called Gillian Duffy.....:-)
|
Not really wishful thinking. Not a Liberql supporter but there are a huge number of slightly left of centre voters out there and denied their home in the Labour Party they are going to look elsewhere. Now there might be a split in the Labour Party and and a new party created but a very possible scenario is a New Liberal party born out of the ashes of the discredited Liberal Party and the disillusioned centre from the Labour Party.
|
>> Not really wishful thinking. Not a Liberal supporter but there are a huge number of
>> slightly left of centre voters out there and denied their home in the Labour Party
>> they are going to look elsewhere.
More than likely they won't bother voting for anyone. Mind you elections are won by a relatively few people, so I suppose it won't matter who they vote for.
|
>> there are a huge number of
>> slightly left of centre voters out there and denied their home in the Labour Party
>> they are going to look elsewhere.
Admirably catered for by by the Conservatives I think.
|
>> The electorate will never readily forget the broken LibDem promises under Clegg after 2010, no
>> matter how well they do at local council elections level.
What broken promises? Did their voters fail to notice that they didn't win the election? Or are LibDem voters especially thick?
|
>>
> Did their voters fail to notice that they didn't win the election?
>> Or are LibDem voters especially thick?
>>
Yes. It's part of their folklore now that they did win the election, but were let down by their Conservative junior partners.
|
>> What broken promises? Did their voters fail to notice that they didn't win the election?
>> Or are LibDem voters especially thick?
>>
No, the thick people are those who deserted Labour and Tory to vote LibDem in 2010, and subsequently reverted to type in 2015 for the fallacious reason that Cleggy "broke his promises". The LibDem vote is back where it started before the Clegg surge in 2010, so no, LibDem voters are not thick, not the loyal ones anyway. The floaters who floated that way in 2010 have subsequently become the thick ones, despite getting the answer right in 2010.
I don't think we'll see a 21st century SDP forming, as posited above. Look what happened to the last one.
|
>> Labour are back to that dilemma again. Go for popularism and potentially be elected back in to
>> power.. or go for the principle of what the party is about and remain unelectable.
Maybe New Labour should have been a new party in the same vain as SDLP and left the left behind for good.
Hang on... that's the current Liberal's isn't it. Maybe Labour ought to go back to the left.
Last edited by: rtj70 on Thu 13 Aug 15 at 22:16
|
|
You mean SDP. SDLP is an entoirely dufferent thang, so it is.
|
>> You mean SDP. SDLP is an entoirely dufferent thang, so it is.
>>
youtu.be/gb_qHP7VaZE
|
As Westpig says, the Labour Party can be true to its principles or it can try to be elected. It is the way of the world at this moment that those two are mutually exclusive.
At least Corbyn seems to be true to his beliefs. One suspects that if he was elected you'd get what you expected to get, like it or not.
The others clearly will prioritise statements more likely to get them elected over statements true to the philosophy of the Labour Party.
So which is more appealing, beliefs that will prevent you from being elected or people of unknown beliefs who will say anything to get elected?
Since neither seem palatable I should think that whatever happens in this leadership contest they are not only shooting themselves in the foot, they are using a machine gun to do it. This will take a long time to get past.
>>The electorate will never readily forget the broken LibDem promises under Clegg after 2010,
Rubbish. The electorate regrettably forgets everything about everything in a very short period of time.
I would not be at all surprised to see the LibDems begin a whole new era of popularity.
|
>>Rubbish. The electorate regrettably forgets everything about everything in a very short period of time. I would not be at all surprised to see the LibDems begin a whole new era of popularity.>>
I'm happy to let The Guardian present the facts:
tinyurl.com/plvlwey
|
Today's main political cartoon in my comic is GCSE themed: a delighted Jeremy Corbyn jumping into the air waving his A* certificate, while other contenders less carefully drawn are collapsing on the ground crumpling up their Fs and chucking them away. It's apparent to me that the cartoonist has a certain sympathy for Corbyn even if the comic itself hasn't.
Doesn't everyone find this bogey-man scaremongering about Corbyn as fatuous and silly as I do?
Not sure really. I can't help feeling that 'some of my learned colleagues (nameless a**holes)', to use a phrase from William Burroughs, are tempted to buy this crypto-fascist bullscheiss. It's as if the British electorate had been railroaded through a crash civics course given by a right wing Republican US Senator.
It's a bit shameful in my book. I blame globalized TV and no proper education.
|
>> I'm happy to let The Guardian present the facts:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/plvlwey
Looks more like the Telegraph to me.
Clegg was of course the junior partner in the coalition and therefore in no position to achieve each and every one of the commitments in his 2010 manifesto. He did though, as we're seeing now, ameliorate the 'nastier' side of the Tories over matters such as surveillance as well as economic policy. The refusal to consent to boundary changes resulted as much from perceived bad faith over the Tories' conduct of the PR referendum as Lords reform.
His major problem though was that both personally and supposedly acting pragmatically he was, in going in with Cameron, going well to the right of his electorate.
|
>> His major problem though was that both personally and supposedly acting pragmatically he was, in going in with Cameron, going well to the right of his electorate.>>
More like a level of power he could only have dreamed of at the time and influenced the outcome. The LibDems actually lost five seats in the 2010 General Election, finishing with 57, yet ended up with Ministerial and other appointment levels that were far removed from being deserved from such a small base, compared to that of the Tories who had 306 seats.
However, the 2015 General Election result (just eight seats won) revealed the public's dissatisfaction with the party's performance in the Coalition and it deservedly got a real kicking.
Labour's embarrassment though was on an even higher scale. Just ask Ed.
|
I can't disagree with any of that NFM.
Whilst it might be true that Corbyn would make them unelectable, let's face it, they aren't looking very electable anyway. The "safe" candidate, Cooper, doesn't look safe at all to me.
And for all Corbyn's 'extreme' ideas it doesn't follow that he would get it all into the manifesto or enacted, even if he became leader. In fact he has stated that he wants to get rid of Presidential leadership and allow politics to be about debate, not having to be "on message".
It's blindingly obvious that the Conservatives are being as tough as they dare now, and in the run-up to 2020 they will be handing out sweeties and shooting Labour's foxes one after another.
Unless the Tories really cock up, Labour is going to need more than bluster about "fairness" and "hard-working families" to win an election.
Corbyn's opponents are beginning to look distinctly anti-democratic. Comedian Mark Steel, who actually campaigned for Labour in May, has been turned down for registration because "we have reason to believe you do not support the aims and values of the Labour Party" and has written an amusing piece in the Indy -
goo.gl/jMqleS
Good point about the Lib Dems. Place your bets now.
|
Leftspeak explained -
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11804199/How-to-speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html
Interestingly, if you look at the comments of the various politicians below the article it is Boris who has the most balanced opinion. I hope he is the next Tory leader.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Fri 14 Aug 15 at 21:00
|
>> Leftspeak explained -
>>
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11804199/How-to-speak-like-a-Corbynite-a-helpful-guide.html
>>
>> Interestingly, if you look at the comments of the various politicians below the article it
>> is Boris who has the most balanced opinion. I hope he is the next Tory
>> leader.
>>
I am sure Cameron and Osborne are taking Corbyn very seriously. (I am being serious). They will look over what he says - and steal the good ideas. As they did with Miliband.
The art of a good politician - never reject a good idea purely on ideological grounds.
|
|
Not just politicians, management and even entire corporations also do that, nought wrong with it. I also find myself using other people's ideas for stuff sometimes.
|
>> >>
>> The art of a good politician - never reject a good idea purely on ideological
>> grounds.
>>
>>
Which is the problem many on the left have.
|
>>never reject a good idea purely on ideological grounds.
Its not really appropriate to reject a good idea on any grounds, surely?
Its the definition and assessment of "good" which causes the issues.
|
I must say I regard the prospect of a Corbyn victory with terror.
It's fine whilst the world is OK; but many things can happen between now and 2020 that either the Tories cannot cope with or are outside their control. The net effect could be to give smooth-talking Corbyn the keys to No 10.
|
>> I must say I regard the prospect of a Corbyn victory with terror.
Well i wouldn't worry too much yet he's not even labour leader yet. What about him terrifies you?
|
I get the impression that if/when Corbyn becomes Labour leader, Labour MPs will find a way to get rid of him fast.
In this article* from The Independent, Labour MPs (unnamed) said they would quickly get signatures to trigger a coup, and suggested that many eligible MPs would refuse to be in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
In that scenario, the wider party might call foul at plots and schemes to unseat a democratically elected leader, and the consequence might be a split party, from which the LibDems might benefit.
Whatever the fall-out from a Corbyn victory, I still maintain it makes it far less likely that the party will win a General Election in the foreseeable future.
That doesn't bother me one bit, but the lack of any credible opposition to the present government does.
*tinyurl.com/pywokfc
Last edited by: Observer on Mon 17 Aug 15 at 11:06
|
>> suggested that many eligible MPs would refuse to be in Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet
My experience would be that any role which allows a politician time in the media or the opportunity to voice his opinion is rarely turned down.
|
|
Interestingly there is a view in the Conservative party that a Corbyn win would not be particularly good news. A government needs an effective opposition to keep them on thier mettle and keep them united. With a fragmented opposition there is likely to be more dissent within Tory ranks making life difficult for Cameron.
|
>> In this article* from The Independent, Labour MPs (unnamed) said they would quickly get signatures
>> to trigger a coup, and suggested that many eligible MPs would refuse to be in
>> Corbyn's Shadow Cabinet.
As the article says and Observer points out a coup isn't really any answer. If he wins Corbyn will have been elected by the most democratic process employed by any UK political party. It will be constitutionally almost impossible to overturn that without either (a) inviting the same result again or (b) indulging in some fixing or gerrymandering so as to change the rules.
A leader who is not the first choice of the parliamentary party is an inevitable consequence of allowing the membership a vote. I suspect it happened to the Tories during their wilderness years and I wonder if Tim Farron is the choice of what remains of the parliamentary LD party?
|
It is difficult to know what they can do, or even if they should do anything.
1) For the Labour Party the issue ought to be clear; the politicians should be true to the principles and beliefs of that party, irrespective of whether or not that will get them elected.
If they are a principled party, then the popularity of their fundamental beliefs should not be important to them. This doesn't mean they shouldn't "tune" those principles, but they should nonetheless be their foundation.
2) The next question is whether or not there is now a sufficient gap between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party to hold a significant opposition party - i.e. one for where there is sufficient electorate support for it to be viable.
Some politicians within the Labour Party seem to feel that they should move their existing party into that role. I cannot see how that can be done without walking away from their traditional values.
As to whether or not the Lib Dems can fill that role then I would say that as it stands they cannot. But they probably could in the future with a bit of thought. Especially if the politicians who hold beliefs closer to the LibDem than they do to the traditional Labour move across - which it seems to me that they should.
Now, that would then mean that we would have two strong parties much closer together in belief systems which may well then engender much more effective and understandable competition on specific issues, rather than the time-wasting, endless and unresolvable arguments about principles from a bygone age.
|
As I see it, the man might have principle's which are diametrically opposed to mine (as well as, it seems) many Labour party members, but at least he is a conviction politician, who appears to believe what he says.
That alone is a rarity!
|
>> he is a conviction politician
What is one of those? Sounds like some kind of Daily Mail trendy thing which doesn't mean much.
|
Someone who bases their political ideas on deeply held personal views rather than a consensus of public opinion. Margaret Thatcher always claimed to be a conviction politician although I don't think she invented the phrase.
Last edited by: CGNorwich on Mon 17 Aug 15 at 14:14
|
Oh, I see.
Well Corbyn's views appear to be honestly held but he is as manipulative as the others. Spot the pen and other tools in the shirt pocket, the dressing to his audience etc. etc.
Clever, no fool, but still above all else a politician.
|
See the picture here....
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33955719
A very careful bit of image management, that is.
|
>> A very careful bit of image management, that is.
Yup. You can tell at a glance who the honcho is. Paternal hand on the shoulder of the other serious contender while enclosing la Cooper in a warm embrace, steely glint in eye. I love it.
|
|
It is a very clever shot... I'm not quite sure about the hand on the hip but but then I'm old fashioned.. :-)
|
he is a conviction politician
Tony Benn was one. You may not have liked or agreed with the man, but he was one of that rare breed, an honest politician.
But the whole thing is a joke, for many people it wasn't the fact that Edward Millband was a smarmy git (didn't stop Tony Blair being elected) but the fact that the whole party gave the impression they had no idea how to run a country.
|
Clever... manipulative... slimy gits... conviction...
What, frankly, do people imagine professional politicians do and are? Same principles have applied since the stone age. They have sometimes to do dirty work on behalf of an electorate too childish and self-regarding to face the truth.
|
|
Jeremy Corbyn was polite but fairly grimly serious when I met him in the back of beyond. Tony Benn was much more suave as I suppose one would expect. As hacks are legendary for their thirst he handed me a large whisky when I arrived at his door to interview him by appointment for a French daily paper... but the former viscount himself had a proletarian mug of tea. Nice cat I thought. He's in the same retirement home as a good friend of ours. I've seen him there but didn't buttonhole him, poor old boy. His wife had died not long before and her loss hit him hard I think.
|
>> former viscount himself had a proletarian mug of tea. Nice cat I thought. He's in
>> the same retirement home as a good friend of ours. I've seen him there but
>> didn't buttonhole him, poor old boy. His wife had died not long before and her
>> loss hit him hard I think.
Read the last volume of Benn's diaries while on hols. Less political and more personal than earlier years but still very much of the left. Corbyn gets regular mentions. No doubt at all that loss of his wife hit him.
He's dead now though, left this life in March 2014.
|
>> >> he is a conviction politician
>>
>> What is one of those?
My favourite kind. Like Jonathan Aitken. Or Jeffrey Archer. Or that Labour one, just for balance. Or Chris Hooner.
|
"The next question is whether or not there is now a sufficient gap between the Labour Party and the Conservative Party to hold a significant opposition party - i.e. one for where there is sufficient electorate support for it to be viable.
"Some politicians within the Labour Party seem to feel that they should move their existing party into that role. I cannot see how that can be done without walking away from their traditional values."
That sounds like what Blair did when he and Brown re-invented the Labour Party and called it New Labour. And now it's coming back to haunt the party, with a fairly decisive swing against New Labourites and a search for its roots, which Corbyn and his supporters judge to be well left of centre. They regard New Labour as indeed "walking away from their traditional values".
Blair's loud, ill-judged intervention the other day was music to their ears. It confirmed what they wanted to get away from.
|
|
I see Burnham has said that, should he win, he'll he'll want Corbyn in his team. So would I; better inside the tent pithing out, than outside pithing in!
|
Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are fully entitled to say what they want about all this. They have both led the party and been prime minister. They are proven big Labour beasts.
Time will tell whether Jeremy Corbyn is up to joining them. There are other contenders too. But as I said in another thread, the party is in a sort of occlusion at the moment, owing to the SDP and Celtic nationalists fragmenting the mainstream vote. Too complicated for an old cat like me used to Box-andCox politics.
It's said some Labour members/voters have defected to UKIP. Can't say I'm really surprised.
|
"some Labour members/voters have defected to UKIP. "
Yes - I am personally able to confirm that statement!
|
>>It's said some Labour members/voters have defected to UKIP. Can't say I'm really surprised.
Me neither. But unless they're as single-issue as UKIP, they'll wander off again soon. The question is, where to.
|
>> unless they're as single-issue as UKIP, they'll wander off again soon. The question is, where to.
One shudders to think FMR. They aren't going to swerve to the left are they?
|
Like I said, I quite fancy the chances of the Lib Dems. I reckon in time to come we'll look back at this point as the beginning of their rise.
|
I'd forgotten the SDP had swallowed the Liberals and become the Lib Dems.
They aren't going to govern though are they? They shot their bolt by accepting subsidiary status in a coalition government.
|
|
Yes, a golden opportunity for the Lib Dems to become the Centre Left Party. An incredibly lucky break for them. Hope they don't screw it up.
|
>>Tony Blair and Gordon Brown are fully entitled to say what they want about all this. They have both led the party and been prime minister. They are proven big Labour beasts.>>
True.
But Tony Blair was elected Prime Minster, Gordon Brown was self-appointed. There is a rather important difference.
|
>> But Tony Blair was elected Prime Minster, Gordon Brown was self-appointed. There is a rather
>> important difference.
We don not elect a Prime Minister, the role goes to the leader for the time being of the party commanding a majority in the Commons. In my liftetime both parties have changed leader at least twice between elections - Cons MacMillan to Home and Thatcher to Major, Lab Wilson to Callaghan and Blair to Brown.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 18 Aug 15 at 09:11
|
>>We don not elect a Prime Minister, the role goes to the leader for the time being of the party commanding a majority in the Commons.>>
That is precisely why I stated "elected" - voters listen to the party leaders and their ideas and choose the leader and policies that fit in with their views when voting individually. The man or woman whose party is first past the post gets the job...:-)
In the case of Brown he demanded that Blair stood down after the promise made some years earlier.
Last edited by: Stuartli on Tue 18 Aug 15 at 14:50
|
I think Burnham will win he is young let's hope with a vision and sensible policies.Corbyn would be a good team member.People are scared of radical policies scrapping trident etc.
But why would they be scared a nuclear war on any level is suicidal.
|
|
It's a deterrent and a crucial one.
|
|
Sorry I have heard the same justification for years.It doesn't wash with me anymore.
|
Labour imploding.
Bitchiness amongst the leadership contestants.
Torygraph today.
tinyurl.com/opsaw3n
Last edited by: Roger. on Tue 18 Aug 15 at 08:26
|
Kendall wants a full breakdown of the results for reasons of 'transparency'. She clearly doesn't understand the democratic principle. The only implicit reason to analyse the votes in this way is to see what went 'wrong' and 'fix' it.
Once it has been decided who has the franchise then the result is the result. That's just how it works.
|
The one thing that is certain about the Corbyn craze, is that it will have changed British politics significantly, for ever. The other certain thing, is that nobody can possibly predict with any level of certainty how it will affect it.
1. Labour out of power for a Generation and Tory supremacy.
2. Tory infighting through loss of opposition causes collapse of Cameron Government.
Which will it be?!
|
>>Once it has been decided who has the franchise then the result is the result. That's just how it works. >>
What seems to me to have been a perfectly democratic method set up (albeit somewhat long winded) to elect a new Labour leader, makes it even more amusing that there have now been demands to try and ensure that Corbyn doesn't win...:-)
|
>> >>
>> What seems to me to have been a perfectly democratic method set up (albeit somewhat
>> long winded) to elect a new Labour leader, makes it even more amusing that there
>> have now been demands to try and ensure that Corbyn doesn't win...:-)
>>
Democracy's great till you get the result you don't want, then it stinks.
The people have spoken, the b'stads.
|
>> Democracy's great till you get the result you don't want, then it stinks.
>>
>> The people have spoken, the b'stads.
>>
Reason why Labour lost:
1. Ed M was crap.
2. The voters did not understand us..
|
>> Labour imploding.
>> Bitchiness amongst the leadership contestants.
Sounds like UKIP right after they got wiped out at the polls.
|
>> >> Labour imploding.
>> >> Bitchiness amongst the leadership contestants.
>>
>> Sounds like UKIP right after they got wiped out at the polls.
>>
Say what you like about Nigel Farage, he's consistent.
Stood in 7 elections to the House of Commons and won none..
It's all the fault of the voters...
Last edited by: madf on Wed 19 Aug 15 at 11:25
|
>> >> Labour imploding.
>> >> Bitchiness amongst the leadership contestants.
>>
>> Sounds like UKIP right after they got wiped out at the polls.
>>
......................with more votes than the Lib Dems and Greens combined.
|
>>.....................with more votes than the Lib Dems and Greens combined.>>
All part of the First Past The Post system. Labour have lost the last two elections now even with a built-in number of seats advantage so have decided to cry Foul as a result, but would have been quite satisfied if it had gone in their favour.
The LibDems have regularly called for Proportional Representation, but were quite happy to join a coalition in 2010; two years later Clegg turned down proposed boundary changes in what was described as a fit of spite at the time.
|
>> The LibDems have regularly called for Proportional Representation, but were quite happy to join a
>> coalition in 2010; two years later Clegg turned down proposed boundary changes in what was
>> described as a fit of spite at the time.
>>
Let's get it right. They were quite happy to join the coalition partly due to securing the promise of a referendum on electoral reform (partly out of a correct sense of responsibility that we were in a time of national crisis and a stable, responsible government was needed), which the Tories then jiggered by making sure an unpopular system was proposed, which they then deliberately misdescribed to the electorate and opposed. The LibDems were then in no mood to support gerrymandered boundary changes designed to benefit the Tories alone.
|
|
I see Paddy Power bookmakers has already accepted a Corbyn victory and started paying out winning bets. www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/corbyn-win-done-deal-bookmaker-pays-out-%c2%a3100000-on-bets/ar-BBlQP2r?ocid=spartandhp
Last edited by: smokie on Wed 19 Aug 15 at 13:23
|
"Paddypower are paying out £100,000 in bets on Corbyn".
Nice bit of cheap advertising for the bookies in question as all the media are reporting it. I expect they are hoping he'll actually lose to generate even more headlines.
|
>>I see Paddy Power bookmakers has already accepted a Corbyn victory and started paying out winning bets. >>
Now you tell me...:-( :-(
|
>>Let's get it right. They were quite happy to join the coalition ...>>
This is a link from the particular period:
www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/aug/06/nick-clegg-blocks-boundary-changes
|
>> I agree with Nick.
Who he?
Clegg... ah, sorry. Damn.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Wed 19 Aug 15 at 14:58
|
>> I agree with Nick.>>
Ah, the man who took his MPs down from 62 to 57 five years ago and from that figure to eight this time round?
His beliefs didn't seem to bring him a furniture store load of seats to enable any followers to enjoy his party...:-)
|
>> The LibDems were then
>> in no mood to support gerrymandered boundary changes designed to benefit the Tories alone.
>>
Just because you wouldn't like the result, that in itself isn't gerrymandering.
Presumably it will have some semblance of fairness if this lot are involved:
tinyurl.com/otnwbqw
|
>>
>> Just because you wouldn't like the result, that in itself isn't gerrymandering.
>>
>> Presumably it will have some semblance of fairness if this lot are involved:
>>
>> tinyurl.com/otnwbqw
The boundary commission works within a legal framework. If the framework is a political stitch up then no amount of 'fairness' within the commission can overcome the politics.
|
>> The boundary commission works within a legal framework. If the framework is a political stitch
>> up then no amount of 'fairness' within the commission can overcome the politics.
>>
Would you both agree though... that... the current set up is biased towards Labour... and ..that the set up ought to be as neutral as possible?
I'll take a non reply as a 'no' by the way.
|
There can surely be no argument that the current set up needs reform. Equally I would have thought that parliamentary representation should be reasonably fair - so voting areas of similar population, bearing in mind some balance for Rural versus Urban.
Wasn't that what Cameron was trying to do? Without doubt it favoured Consersvative, but was that because it was an unfair split boundaries or because that is actually a fairer representation of how the country should be represented?
|
The Boundaries Commission is an independent body. It has Advisory Powers only. to quote from their website:
"A new law in 2011 set the timing of reviews of all constituencies to take place at fixed five year intervals, whilst also removing the ability of the Commission to undertake interim reviews. Although the first review under these new arrangements began in early 2011, Parliament postponed that review in 2013 for five years."
The reason for the postponement was that the Liberals voted against the implementation of the Boundary Commission recommendations as a protest against the Conservatives policy not to allow the House of Lords to become an elected House. If the reforms had been implemented the Conservatives would have probably won up to 20 additional seats.
boundarycommissionforengland.independent.gov.uk/general-information-what-we-do-and-how-we-do-it/
|
>> Would you both agree though... that... the current set up is biased towards Labour... and
>> ..that the set up ought to be as neutral as possible?
The current set up, in so far as it relate to constituency size, appears to favour Labour but it's not massive and there's a trade off with urban/rural and keeping constituencies that broadly reflect local government and other links between communities.
It's odd that the reforms address the size issue but none of the wider unfairness of FPTP.
|
>>The current set up, in so far as it relate to constituency size, appears to favour Labour
The story I heard was that the previous time there had been a review, Labour protested endlessly to the boundary commission to amend it in their favour. The Tories were asleep and didn't notice, so lost maybe 20 (?) seats on account of it.
|
> The boundary commission works within a legal framework. If the framework is a political stitch
>> up then no amount of 'fairness' within the commission can overcome the politics.
>>
I believe that the commission is independent. Is there a political stitch up, are they bound in some way that makes the process unfair?
|
|
Just received my voting email through this afternoon.... now to decide!
|
>> Just received my voting email through this afternoon.... now to decide!
>>
Vote Corbyn and ensure British socialism gets the leader it deserves.
|
|
I hope someone knows how to post the big Adams cartoon from the middle of today's Terrorflag. It made me giggle.
|
>> I hope someone knows how to post the big Adams cartoon from the middle of
>> today's Terrorflag. It made me giggle.
This one?
www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/getting-it-right/11171179/Telegraph-latest-cartoon-gallery.html
|
>> This one?
>> www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/getting-it-right/11171179/Telegraph-latest-cartoon-gallery.html
No, the next one, today's. No 2 in the list.
(And thanks Bromptonaut).
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 20 Aug 15 at 18:25
|
>>Vote Corbyn
Those against HS2 might do exactly that...
|
>> >>Vote Corbyn
>>
>> Those against HS2 might do exactly that...
You kind of get the idea that a vote for Corbyn is a vote to return to the dark ages.
|
>>Vote Corbyn
>>Those against HS2 might do exactly that...
>>You kind of get the idea that a vote for Corbyn is a vote to return to the dark ages.
Every cloud has a silver lining.
|
>> You kind of get the idea that a vote for Corbyn is a vote to
>> return to the dark ages.
>>
NO Not the Dark Ages..
"Jeremy Corbyn says he wants a "fundamental shift" in economic policy and for Labour to be a "credible alternative" rather than "Tory light". To those who say he wants to take the party back to the 1980s, he has said he'd go back a decade further, to the 1970s Wilson/Callaghan Labour government"
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-33772024
As someone who lived through that era, anyone who wants to go back to it is certifiable...
|
Oh what a surprise; David Blanchflower, one of the signatories, writes for the Grauniad.
Wonder where they found the other forty; Zimbabwe, or Venezuela perhaps?
|
|
Any group of economists with Professor Blanchflower as a member is forever tainted by his 2009 pronouncement that UK unemployment would rise to over 4 million with Austerity..
|
Wry observation from a CAB colleaue yesterday:
If Ted Heath were in Labour leadership contest he wouldn't be the most right wing candidate on the slate.
|
>> Any group of economists with Professor Blanchflower as a member is forever tainted by his
>> 2009 pronouncement that UK unemployment would rise to over 4 million with Austerity..
>>
In fairness to the talented economist and dribbler, I don't think the scale of impact of in-work benefits on unemployment was foreseen. Although such benefits had been around for a while, they had been expanded in the later years of the Labour government.
The US has had Earned Income Tax Credit since the mid 70s, and it is now the biggest component of federal monetary assistance. Its purpose was and is to increase employment, and by implication reduce unemployment allowing that more people will enter the labour market.
The effects are complex because when these benefits are paid on a large scale, they inevitably raise taxes on higher earners at some point, but in the US they have been shown (in a complicated proof of the bleeding obvious I suppose) to reduce actual wages and so increase employment for those with lower skills.
I think this might also be a factor in the so-called productivity puzzle, which is the question as to why UK productivity (measured using GDP as the numerator) has remained more or less flat during the "recovery".
|
|
Corbyn appears to be very popular with the hoi polloi, despite everybody saying he would make the party unelectable.
|
|
Politics isn't my strong point but isn't that article stating that everybody is wrong and he is (or ought to be) electable?
Last edited by: Focusless on Tue 8 Sep 15 at 16:55
|
"Politics isn't my strong point but isn't that article stating that everybody is wrong and he is (or ought to be) electable?"
Funny you should say that, but that's how I saw it.
|
>> "Politics isn't my strong point but isn't that article stating that everybody is wrong and
>> he is (or ought to be) electable?"
>>
>> Funny you should say that, but that's how I saw it.
I think what it says is "We hope he is electable"
|
Well, I freely admit I don't fully understand politics but my understanding is very representative of my work colleauges and the working folk in general.
He is electable, as we'll see. How long for I don't know.
I do however think it will be a good thing for the Labour Party.
For years now they have become more and more centre biased and they need to find a direction and stick to it.
So many ex Labour voters like me, thought they went too far to the left and started to vote elsewhere.
Then they started to form their policies to gain votes instead of following their beliefs.
This left so many of us with three wishy, washy centre parties that where you voted simply didn't matter...so we didn't bother.
Until UKIP came along. They're not afraid to say what they believe in, be it right or wrong and most respect that.
If Corbyn succeeds as a party leader it will define a lot of people who have stood with one leg either side of the fence for so long, waiting for Labour to find some direction....any direction.
BTW, I won't be voting for them, either way.
Pat
|
Well he may be electable..
but a Labour supporting website does not bear that out.. tinyurl.com/p3mtp9w
|
|
I don't give a damn whether he's electable or not. If he becomes Labour leader I'll have to vote for him anyway, won't I? It's a non-issue. He supports Labour principles as I have always understood them.
|
|
Labour have got to be careful how they play out this drone strike against the two British ISIS fighters. Most people (Based on a survey of everyone I've spoken to) don't give a stuff on the legal niceties of the killings and are pleased they got what was coming to them. Make too much song and dance about it and they could suffer another Belgrano style vote loser.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Tue 8 Sep 15 at 18:25
|
>> Make too much song and dance about it and they could suffer another Belgrano style vote loser.
Yes, Labour has these fits of utter soppiness. I try to look the other way. I don't suppose it thinks any of the Isil maniacs should be killed, not just the British ones. Fortunately these model aircraft wonks don't care about that. Kill 'em all, say I. They're a drag on the industry.
|
"Labour have got to be careful how they play out this drone strike.........'
My thoughts exactly.
|
>> Labour have got to be careful how they play out this drone strike against the
>> two British ISIS fighters. Most people (Based on a survey of everyone I've spoken to)
>> don't give a stuff on the legal niceties of the killings and are pleased they
>> got what was coming to them.
OTOH the UK security forces of previous for extra judicial execution not least involving Irish people - as I'm sure you know. If the smoke clears from this one and the intelligence wasn't really that hot and/or they do 'same again' and it turns messy the public will suddenly find a whole lot of stuff to give.
Worryingly often I find myself agreeing with libertarian Conservatives & share David Davis's response to this one.
Cameron's WMD moment?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 8 Sep 15 at 19:56
|
|
I think it's unlikely tbh, must of the comments regard process and legality. Most people don't care about that. Bad people dead=good is every person who spoke about it today that i know. Judges, lawyers etc will no doubt find it fascinating because it's their thing. Most members of the public don't give a stuff about it. I genuinely find it hard to believe any lack of intelligence fluff that will create some sort of public outcry over these two.
|
>> I think it's unlikely tbh, must of the comments regard process and legality. Most people
>> don't care about that. Bad people dead=good is every person who spoke about it today
>> that i know. Judges, lawyers etc will no doubt find it fascinating because it's their
>> thing. Most members of the public don't give a stuff about it. I genuinely find
>> it hard to believe any lack of intelligence fluff that will create some sort of
>> public outcry over these two.
As things look at the moment that's true. But if it turns out they were just Walter Mitties and whatever bad they were up to could have been stopped by other means?
And that's without exploring how it plays in other places.
|
>> Most people don't care about that. Bad people dead=good
Ah, but what if they don't agree with the definition of "bad" next time, but by then its too late because the checks and balances have gone?
How many people support Tony Blair's stance and actions over Iraq2? But all he was trying to do was attack "bad" people.
Just because this time the Government is doing the right thing, does not mean that they should always be able to do what they want.
Now I couldn't give a stuff for the wannabe terrorist getting killed in the process.Not one damn.
But I do worry about a Government or an Armed Force taking action outside our law.
|
> Ah, but what if they don't agree with the definition of "bad" next time, but by then its too late because the checks and balances have gone?
What check and balance are you thinking of?
>> How many people support Tony Blair's stance and actions over Iraq2? But all he was trying to do was attack "bad" people.
>>
that was controversial, this particular time it's not.
>> Just because this time the Government is doing the right thing, does not mean that they should always be able to do what they want.
>> But I do worry about a Government or an Armed Force taking action outside our law.
This time it was outside the law?
|
>> that was controversial, this particular time it's not.
Its level of controversy is not a great way of deciding whether its ok or not.
>> >> But I do worry about a Government or an Armed Force taking action outside our law.
>> This time it was outside the law?
I don't know. I'm a bit busy to pay close attention, but I thought that was exactly the query?
|
>> Its level of controversy is not a great way of deciding whether its ok or not
For controversial read unpopular.
>> >> >> But I do worry about a Government or an Armed Force taking action
>> outside our law.
>> >> This time it was outside the law?
>>
>> I don't know. I'm a bit busy to pay close attention, but I thought that
>> was exactly the query?
>>
My understanding is it wasn't quite in the spirit of an understanding/convension in parliament that any strikes in libya would be brought before parliament.
|
>> that was controversial, this particular time it's not.
It (Saddam's WMD ready at a moment's notice) wasn't particularly controversial when it came out. It was gleefully reported at the time by the usual suspects in the media as though London was about to hear raid alarms.
It was only AFTER Gilligan's revelations in May 03, the suicide of David Kelly and the inquiry whitewash that followed that it blew up.
|
It (Saddam's WMD ready at a moment's notice) wasn't particularly controversial when it came out.
>> It was gleefully reported at the time by the usual suspects in the media as though London was about to hear raid alarms.
>>
>> It was only AFTER Gilligan's revelations in May 03, the suicide of David Kelly and
>> the inquiry whitewash that followed that it blew up.
I wasn't talking about wmd but the decision to invade iraq several months before.
|
>> I wasn't talking about wmd but the decision to invade iraq several months before.
But surely WMD were the justification for the invasion. Once they were proved to be a delusion the rationale collapsed.
|
> But surely WMD were the justification for the invasion. Once they were proved to be
>> a delusion the rationale collapsed.
>>
I'll try again, the decision to invade iraq was controversial with the public, this airstrike isn't.
|
The WMD issue led to the forced resignation of the BBC Director General. I actually said to my BBC department boss that standing by the reporter was effectively going to war over the wrong issue as the BBC would lose as although in one sense the report was true, no-one had actually said what was alleged they did. (Reporter had 'sexed up' the story).
The resultant Hutton Inquiry of course did not look into the fact that Tony Blair was telling porkies and while Andrew Gilligan was right in one sense, he did not have a shred of evidence to back up his story, and the fact the BBC directorate backed him up was misguided.
I was poo pooed at the time.
|
>> But if it turns out they were just Walter Mitties and whatever bad they were up to could have been stopped by
>> other means?
>>
Do you really think anyone in the real (non PC) world will care, it was their decision to play with the big boys.
Mitties or not.
|
>> >> But if it turns out they were just Walter Mitties and whatever bad they
>> were up to could have been stopped by
>> >> other means?
>> >>
the fact they took the trouble to go to Syria (and lets face it you don't get there by accident or pure chance) to fight for IS/ISIS/IZAL or whatever you call them, automatically makes him an enemy of this country - one of those responsible for the dead baby on the beach (if you want to look at it that way)
The fact they were there is sufficient proof of guilt. Blow him away sure, don't care for the legality of it. The fact he is one of ours, in effect absolves us of the crime of getting involved in another countries affairs.
Last edited by: Zero on Tue 8 Sep 15 at 20:42
|
>> Do you really think anyone in the real (non PC) world will care, it was
>> their decision to play with the big boys.
>>
>> Mitties or not.
Politics is fickle whatever the binary views of those issuing green thumbs hereabouts. The real (non PC) world, or at least the trumpets of the press, might make a difference.
See Syria refugees.
|
>> As things look at the moment that's true. But if it turns out they were
>> just Walter Mitties and whatever bad they were up to could have been stopped by
>> other means?
>>
>> And that's without exploring how it plays in other places.
>>
I suppose it's possible like i said but unlikely. Look at the comments on this thread very few people will be bothered.
Have a look at who announced this and ask why? Why announce this strike and not others?
|
>> But if it turns out they were just Walter Mitties and whatever bad they
>> were up to could have been stopped by other means?
If your other means are the nice friendly social workers of the SAS, are they supposed to knock on these guys front doors and ask if they are in and if they are Walter Mitties or real terrorists? You need a reality check!
|
>> If your other means are the nice friendly social workers of the SAS, are they
>> supposed to knock on these guys front doors and ask if they are in and
>> if they are Walter Mitties or real terrorists? You need a reality check!
I'm making two points:
(1) That personally I'm very uncomfortable about 'taking people out' when they're UK citizens.
Others with a libertarian/human rights bent will feel same. Like it or not those views affect politics more than they grip the man in the street
(2) While the rest of the public may well cheer now they can change their tune pretty quickly. A John Charles de Menezes type killing might be the trigger.
|
>> A John Charles de Menezes type killing might be the trigger.
>>
Caused by an out of control trigger happy bunch of Met police. Hardly a cool calm considered decision.
|
>> Caused by an out of control trigger happy bunch of Met police.
That wasn't how it was.
|
>> Funny you should say that, but that's how I saw it.
>>
When I saw the URL was Red Pepper the conclusion seemed an ill match.
|
|
You can find many instances in the past where Team GB has seriously overstepped the mark when dealing with it's enemies, or it's perceived enemies. But to suggest that it's always essential to stick rigidly to the rules while the other side flout them with impunity is just not practical or even possible. Sometimes the odd sly one below the belt is necessary, and in the case of these two it's a case of good riddance.
|
|
Can we have another thread mods, this one is a bit long.
|
Labour Leadership Contest - sooty123
