***** This thread is now closed, please CLICK HERE to go to Volume 5 *****
==========================================================
Volume 4 of the continuing debate.....move away from that big red button Mr Corbyn
Last edited by: VxFan on Sun 25 Oct 15 at 19:37
|
Corbyn is now getting the media's "Farage Treatment", honed over many moths !
I almost feel sorry for him :-)
|
|
Are you getting butterflies?
|
No, but I think that Jeremy Corbyn does believe in the policies he espouses.
I also disagree with most of his ideas, but the media, true to form, is as ever, playing the man, not the ball.
Edit - bit heavy on my commas there!
Last edited by: Roger. on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 13:32
|
Moths, man. Moths.
Never mind.
|
|
He just needs a wing man.
|
>> Moths, man. Moths.
>>
>> Never mind.
>>
I geddit! :-)
|
After the R4 interview this morning.
and
www.bbc.co.uk/news/live/uk-politics-34396241
What a charming fellow Corbyn is.
|
>> What a charming fellow Corbyn is.
Not sure 'charming' is the ideal word, but it will do as far as I'm concerned.
Can't help wondering how you managed to see the light though HK.
:o}
|
>> Edit - bit heavy on my commas there!
>>
¡Las Mariposas!
|
Eh?
He's now willing to have Trident... but wouldn't be prepared to use it if it was needed???
Well what would be the point of having it then?
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
What a first class spanner.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 17:00
|
|
You might indeed not be willing to use it, but FFS the whole point of it is to make people think you will.
|
>> Well what would be the point of having it then?
That's the question he's asking I think.
It's not an unreasonable one.
|
>>That's the question he's asking I think.
>>
>>It's not an unreasonable one.
I was wondering if you could spin it, I knew you'd try.
But the truth is that spending all that money and then stating that you would not use it is ridiculous.
There's arguments for having it, arguments for not having it, but his position? Ridiculous. As Westpig said, what a total spanner. Obviously he is far better suited to argue, rebel and sulk than he is to lead.
|
The less you want to use it, the more you have to pretend that you would. So he's fallen at the first hurdle on that.
Whilst I can respect his belief that ever using a Trident missile in anger would be wrong, even to avert what might appear to be a greater evil, I do not respect his decision to say that without any qualification as to whether an alternative is needed, what it might be, and if not required why not.
The first rule of negotiating anything is not to paint yourself into a corner before you start.
|
The point is being missed that Trident isn't an independent British deterrent but part of a creaking old cold-war American network.
The billions or trillions of dollars it costs us go straight to the US. Does America really need this pocket money? I'm sure we could think of better uses for it.
|
I don't quite know who is missing that point, unless you mean Corbyn, but its not relevant, is it?
"I want to pay for it but I won't use it".
Surely just pointless, whoever is getting the money, if you've stated that you'd never use it anyway.?
|
|
The Trident missiles are leased from the USA and are only loaded and unloaded at Kings Bay, Georgia. There is an emergency unloading and a warhead changing facility in the UK.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 17:58
|
The billions or trillions of dollars it costs us go straight to the US. Does America really need this pocket money? I'm sure we could think of better uses for it.
Lefties don't do economics.. and you have proved it.
We actually build the subs and fit them ourselves and employ thousands of people in the UK to do all that.
Why do you think the Unions were in favour of keeping Trident? And hence Labour policy changed..from a stupid one to an even more stupid one.. spend the money and don't use them
Anyone who says that obviously thinks £100B is small change or is an idiot - or both.
Just saying... :-)
Last edited by: madf on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 18:00
|
>>>> Anyone who says that obviously thinks £100B is small change or is an idiot -
>> or both. Just saying... :-)
>>
Corbyn and his ilk think all sums are small change. Want some more? Easy, just print it as you need it and you can pay for anything you want.
|
>> We actually build the subs and fit them ourselves and employ thousands of people in the UK to do all that.
Think I don't know that madf?
I'm entirely in favour of Trident. It's the status quo. I was just shaking the tree a bit to see what fell out.
Everyone says they will never use it. What they mean is, unless they feel they really have to, but that won't happen if they can help it.
|
The alternative to having a plan is having no plan, which I don't consider acceptable.
If JC rejects the nuclear deterrent plan, he should come up with another one before he bins it.
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
>>
>> What a first class spanner.
>>
'Didn't do the USA much good on 9/11'
That leapt out at me. Is he really so stupid?
|
>> >>
>> That leapt out at me. Is he really so stupid?
>>
Like many who were politicised at a very early age his intellectual development ceased to progress after the age of sixteen and he clings stubbornly to the comforting beliefs he has held all his life, blissfully ignoring both any lessons that have been learned in the past and the changing world in which we live. It effects most of his type in a similar way, people of all persuasions but is particularly prevalent among the left (Foot, Miliband) though Thatcher also had a touch of it.
Last edited by: Robin O'Reliant on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 19:10
|
>> 'Didn't do the USA much good on 9/11'
>>
>> That leapt out at me. Is he really so stupid?
Open question:
In what way is he 'really so stupid'?
|
Well, is the civil war starting earlier than expected?
Gen sec of of GMB union, Paul Kenny: "accept or resign" (Labour Trident policy and Corbyn's fudge)
Maria Eagle, Shadow Defence: "not helpful" (Corbyn's position on Trident)
Andy Burnham, Shadow Home Secretary: might resign over Trident
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11900788/labour-conference-day-four-live.html
This is unprecedented stuff, he's the leader FFS?... and he's only just started? Shambles doesn't even begin to cover it.
Last edited by: Westpig on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 19:50
|
>> In what way is he 'really so stupid'?
He might not be stupid, but it's a stupid point.
It's a bit like saying you won't let your child have a polio jab because the kid next door had one and he still got run over.
|
>>In what way is he 'really so stupid'?
Inept might be a better work. Mind you, total plank has its place as well.
For years the man has been sniping, whining, complaining and protesting. Full of how everybody else was doing an awful job, how nobody else knew the right way.
Essentially he is now in the position where it has been said "Well go on, then you do it the right way". Sadly it turns out he is clueless about communication, negotiation, management, partnership, practicalities, media, operational Government, international politics, real world application etc. etc.
In fact what *is* he good at other than protesting?
He is an incompetent. A professional "disagree-er" who has never envisaged having the problem of having to deal with the real world application of his mouth's emissions.
If he were a Tory and performing like this Bromp would be referring to it for years to come. As it is, then I fully expect 12 months of stuff being brushed under the carpet.
I've got a packet of wine gums that says he doesn't last until next year's conference. this one is going to crash and burn.
|
"I've got a packet of wine gums that says he doesn't last until next year's conference. this one is going to crash and burn.
I have two opinions:
he has a massive mandate and will just keep going till 2020.
or
He will not be able to cope at his age with the change in lifestyle from "do what you want and say what you want and be disorganised " to "be organised, competent and focussed" and will resign citing mental strain.
|
Open question:
>>
>> In what way is he 'really so stupid'?
>>
Because That's not its function. Its not designed to deter every single attack conceivable. You wouldn't stop locking your car because you could be a victim of burglary.
Last edited by: sooty123 on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 20:12
|
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34399565
"The Labour leader said 187 countries "don't feel the need to have a nuclear weapon to protect their security", and asked "why should those five need it themselves?".
IIRC 196 countries of which NINE have nuclear weapons leaving 187 without nuclear weapons
How does he know? Has he asked the likes of Iran or Tonga ?
|
I don't think he can legitimately infer from the fact that the 187 do not have any that they don't want them; virtually none has the option. Quite a lot are not at all secure, and yet more rely on an alliance with nuclear powers for their security.
So a pretty carp comment really - no more than glib rhetoric, but that doesn't make him unique unfortunately.
Last edited by: Manatee on Wed 30 Sep 15 at 23:34
|
|
Many of the countries without nuclear weapons live under the protective umbrella of those who do have them. Nuke Ireland for instance and their European/NATO allies will take a dim view.
|
Comes down to the whole question of deterrence
Nobody wants to use them
Those that have them would use them
hope is
Nobody will use them
If you say you will not use them you stop having the deterrent as you fail the "would" test
|
>>If you say you will not use them you stop having the deterrent as you fail the "would" test
Having the deterrent is enough to deter anyone attacking us with nukes - whatever JC may say IMO.
|
|
Nuclear weapons keep the peace. Trident must stay.
|
|
The Army would say that wouldn't they. They would spend the deterrent budget on Army kit very quickly.The RAF were not too pleased when the Navy was given the nuclear deterrent.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Fri 2 Oct 15 at 17:57
|
As ON says it's mainly a coded language for switching spending to the army. The date of the article is a good clue. Its part of trying to keep the cuts off the army in sdsr10. To a certain extent it worked, although that's more to do to with Afghanistan. I don't think any of them really object to nuclear weapons per se. It is the risk to the army budget that is the issue.
ON at the time CAS was actually in favour. The advance of technology was plain for most of the top raf officers to see. Especially the vulnerability of the v force to SAMs. The old bomber command boys would be very much as you describe though.
|
>>It seems even senior military people doubt the rationale for renewal of Trident:
I would hope so. Surely no sane. rational military man would ever use or see the need for nuclear weapons.
However, its not sane, rational military men we're worried about, is it? After all, aside from anything else, rational and sane military men do not have the authority to start or go to war.
Raging loony dictators and politicians, on the other hand......
So whilst the opinion of senior military people is interesting, its hardly the most compelling of reasons to do anything.
|
I liked the leader-page cartoon in today's comic, a massive pack of hulking Tory and LibDem forwards thundering down on a tiny Jeremy Corbyn in the role of hapless full-back, arms spread wide to stop them.
Somehow presents Corbyn in a heroic, Horatio-at-the-bridge light. Perhaps the cartoonist is more pro-Corbyn than his employers.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Sat 3 Oct 15 at 18:22
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34508959
>>
>> A u turn on the deficit pledge.
The so called 'charter' has nothing to do with fiscal probity and everything to do with politicking by George Osborne. McDonnell was silly to accept it in first place and has now taken the line he should have adopted from the outset.
|
>> The so called 'charter' has nothing to do with fiscal probity and everything to do
>> with politicking by George Osborne.
Neither here nor there, but then he's politician so to be expected.
McDonnell was silly to accept it in first place and
>> has now taken the line he should have adopted from the outset.
>>
That's the real issue, he fell into so an obvious trap. By all accounts the meeting was interesting, no need to be a fly, you could hear them down the corridor.
|
I have a horrible suspicion that some of the people at Westminster don't actually understand debt and deficit and the relationship between the two, and just how much debt there really is including the off balance sheet borrowing.
And none of the people who do understand it, which includes Osborne and I hope McDonnell, is prepared to explain it.
|
|
I gather that the idiot McDonnell doesn't think it's a u-turn because he didn't mean it when he agreed with it previously. Or something like that.
|
>> I gather that the idiot McDonnell doesn't think it's a u-turn because he didn't mean
>> it when he agreed with it previously. Or something like that.
The single most important thing a chancellor needs is credibility, which in turn builds confidence at home and abroad.
To build credibility, you need to be seen to be not an idiot, and someone who does not keep changing their mind.
|
Changing your mind isn't necessarily the sign of weakness it's made out to be. It's a positive if someone is prepared to change their mind when presented with compelling argument and act swiftly, decisively and effectively. Sticking to a wrong position just because you don't want to be seen to be changing your mind is quite foolish.
I don't want a Chancellor who is rigid in the face of changing, unforeseen circumstance.
Not that I'm saying I'd trust McDonnell any further than I could throw him.
|
|
Dianne Abbott was on the radio this morning and gave a very clear explanation on the issue and the policy change...JC can't do any wrong. As someone put it, it's easy to make a career of being a protesting MP - not so easy when you're in the driving seat. The man's spinning like a top.
|
You are all wrong - as usual:-)
I trust John McDonnell to end the stupidity our current Chancellor has kept up for the past 5 years: borrowing money to finance current expenditure. It's like gin - the way to ruin.
I have every faith that a Labour Government under Jeremy Corbyn would prove far more economical with the truth about our money than the current Tory one which runs the country for the benefit of Toffs and bankers.
You all need compulsory re-education.. Edit: which you will receive come JC's ascendancy to power.
Last edited by: madf on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 13:55
|
|
Alanovic and Brompton. You are about the only two people I know who are (likely or possible) Labour voters. After, now, a month of Corbynism, what do you think about voting Labour?
|
I don't know how many times I've said it, but I've never voted Labour and I'm highly unlikely to do so as I distrust their economic policies/record enormously. And that's the biggest issue for me in a General Election.
Across General, European and Local elections I have voted Tory, LibDem, UKIP and Green in my voting history (but only ever Tory or LibDem in a General Election). I can see no reason yet to vote Labour under Corbyn. The way they run my local authority is nothing short of Stalinist, they are an utter disgrace, totally unaccountable.
I think the man you're after is Armel Coussine, he's a declared Labour voter.
|
>> Alanovic and Brompton. You are about the only two people I know who are (likely
>> or possible) Labour voters. After, now, a month of Corbynism, what do you think about
>> voting Labour?
Early days, it's four and a half years to next GE. Being seriously sceptical of Trident's efficacy and no fan of austerity I've no quibble with a lot of the policy stuff. McDonnell is right to oppose the fiscal charter. I suspect there are those on the Tory benches worried that it might see Gideon hoisted by his own petard. His record to date on deficit reduction doesn't shine does it?
Labour somehow needs to get its media and presentation into gear. Last weeks fuss about Corbyn's induction to the Privy Council was a complete non-story; Cameron wasn't enrolled for months after being elected leader. There is also a perfectly good means of induction that doesn't involve a fawning performance in front of HM.
But then the serious, supposedly impartial media (Laura Koensberg I'm looking at you) cannot accept a straight 'I'm thinking about it' answer to questions of no political import - kissing the Queen's hand. There's no hope of any restraint amongst the expat owned right wing rabble of a UK press.
I'd really like him to succeed but suspect it'll end in a revolver + whisky scenario.
My vote remains with (Sir) Keir Starmer as future leader.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 15:27
|
I'll put this in my diary so I am reminded of it before I decide who to vote for if I am still around in 2020.
Mr McDonnell said he had changed his mind on parliamentary tactics but denied changing his economic policy. He said they had seen the bill as a "gimmick" so had intended to "ridicule it" by voting for it.
Changing his mind I could accept, as long as he doesn't do it every verse end; but he's just made that last bit up.
|
When this fiasco started, I was smirking to myself... the opposing team was shooting itself in the foot, which was good, because their madcap policies couldn't be foisted on the country any time soon.
Trouble is, it's gone beyond that.
It is so bad, it's likely to bring our country's reputation into disrepute.. and having no credible opposition isn't healthy.
How long before Labour implodes?
Last edited by: Westpig on Tue 13 Oct 15 at 18:20
|
>> >>
>> How long before Labour implodes?
>>
About a month ago now.
|
I think Corbyn provides a refreshing change to the irksome media-managed champagne socialists that have bothered the electorate in recent years. I think I wrote on here that I give Corbyn two years, I don't think he will be leader by 2020. Burnham will, timed for about 2018 when the Tories will be infighting again over Europe.
For now I find the whole Corbyn thing highly entertaining.
|
>> But then the serious, supposedly impartial media (Laura Koensberg I'm looking at you) cannot >>accept a straight 'I'm thinking about it' answer to questions of no political import
I know!
That Laura Kuenssberg had exactly the same attitude on telly the other night!
;-0
|
>> My vote remains with (Sir) Keir Starmer as future leader.
>>
He has a very good CV. I very much doubt, however, if today's rank and file would ever vote in a knight of the oldest order of British chivalry as their leader; and there's not a cat in hell's chance of him handing that KCB back without appearing disrespectful to the Queen and thus making the same mistake Corbyn did.
|
>> He has a very good CV. I very much doubt, however, if today's rank and
>> file would ever vote in a knight of the oldest order of British chivalry as
>> their leader;
Hmmmmm,
While I don't wish any ill on the 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor Starmer could well be up against Sir George Osborne. Whatever you think about knighthoods and how they play with the rank and file surely one awarded for public service is a step above inheriting it from Dad?
AFAIK Starmer doesn't use his title and, given the scenario above, I cannot see the Tories or their lackies in the press being too keen to emphasise it.
And, in the alternative, I don't think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson will be wanting a fight based on 'poshness' either.
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 13:16
|
>> While I don't wish any ill on the 17th Baronet of Ballentaylor Starmer could well
>> be up against Sir George Osborne. Whatever you think about knighthoods and how they play
>> with the rank and file surely one awarded for public service is a step above
>> inheriting it from Dad?
>>
Not disputed. I'm inclined to agree with you that the Tories wouldn't press it for the very reasons you refer to. The hard Left, though, is another matter, I predict that it would be they who cause any mischief, which would do neither side any good.
|
AFAIK Starmer doesn't use his title and, given the scenario above, I cannot see the
>> Tories or their lackies in the press being too keen to emphasise it.
>>
>> And, in the alternative, I don't think Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson will be wanting
>> a fight based on 'poshness' either.
>>
Thing is it's expected from the tories so no one is overly bothered. Labour on the other hand are judged by a different standard, possibly unfair but there we go.
|
It would be typical of Labour to campaign on poshness and elect a posh leader..
But as the activists who elected Corbyn
a:> would never accept it
and
b:> appear to want to lose elections by alienating anyone who does not agree with their stance on everything..and anything.
it is of zero importance.
|
How does this work?
Trident and CND don't go together.
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34558956
|
>> How does this work?
It doesn't work. Certainly not when PM. Therefore he has admitted he has no expectation of being PM and therefore getting his party elected. This (his election as party leader) is all starting to smell like some gigantic publicity stunt.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 17:31
|
|
Maybe it's a cunning plan. Corbyn and McDonnell are trying to look as stupid as they can, to make their replacements in election year look more appealing.
|
>> Maybe it's a cunning plan. Corbyn and McDonnell are trying to look as stupid as
>> they can, to make their replacements in election year look more appealing.
>>
Perhaps they are learning from history after all, or perhaps they're not bright enough to avoid repeating it; though Foot or Healey would have been a more than able replacement for either of the current clowns.
Wonder who they're grooming as the next Welsh windbag?
|
>> How does this work?
Another non story; absolutely nothing new in it. The guy has been in CND all his adult life. Previously a vice chair he's now vice president. Or is it the other way round? Whichever, the difference is only of interest to students of CND's constitution.
He's openly opposed to nuclear weapons in general and Trident replacement in particular. He was elected by his party's membership in full knowledge of that.
My opinion on his future remains as set out at 15:26 on Tuesday.
Last edited by: VxFan on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 17:32
|
>> www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-34558956
>>
>> Another non story; absolutely nothing new in it.
To observers of (previously) labour backbenchers possibly not. But to the majority of people it's very much news. He was a nobody, all this is new to a lot of people.
|
>> Another non story; absolutely nothing new in it.
How can you possibly say that? It is a BIG deal.
He is the leader of the opposition.
He is the leader of the only party that can realistically challenge the current one for government.
In theory he could be PM.
How can he possibly have a high ranking position in CND and have his finger on the button of Trident?
If he's so principled about the nuclear option, his policies should be about banning Trident. If he's willing to accept consensus within his party about Trident, he should step away from the CND.
That's what leaders have to do. He's a leader in name only.
How can you say all this is a non story? Are you an ostrich?
|
>> >> Another non story; absolutely nothing new in it.
>>
>> How can you possibly say that? It is a BIG deal.
Let me try again; what's new? You'd have to have been asleep since mid-summer not to be aware of Corbyn's stance on nuclear weapons. His position in CND cannot have been a secret either.
There's a perfectly legitimate political view that, whether on moral or cost grounds, renewing Trident doesn't make sense. There are even a few Conservatives opponents coming from the cost/benefit against current threats angle. Ditto some ex military.
The ostriches are those trying to avoid debate by by replaying the eighties argument that opponents are a threat to national security.
|
>>The ostriches are those trying to avoid debate by by replaying the eighties argument
Really? All the ostriches I can see have the heads buried in the sand Corbyn's CND position under the carpet and try to dismiss it as irrelevant old news.
|
>> Really? All the ostriches I can see have the heads buried in the sand Corbyn's
>> CND position under the carpet and try to dismiss it as irrelevant old news.
Whether it's relevant or not 'Corbyn in CND' is not 'new' news!!
|
>> Whether it's relevant or not 'Corbyn in CND' is not 'new' news!!
>>
That alone, i'd agree with... however...
...he's just had an opportunity to distance himself from CND, which as the leader of a party that subcribes to Trident, ought to be his position.
He has not though, has he?...he's taken up another significant role in CND.
This makes 'new' news, because something has changed and he's deliberately missed an opportunity to lead.
|
>> ...he's just had an opportunity to distance himself from CND, which as the leader of
>> a party that subcribes to Trident, ought to be his position.
I love the way people with absolutely zero commitment to the Labour Party know what ought to be its leader's position. If he did what you're advocating you'd be on the rooftops shouting about his hypocrisy......
His party is divided on the issue. Neither he or any successor will change that.
Europe has a similar capacity to depth charge the conservative party
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 16:28
|
>> I love the way people with absolutely zero commitment to the Labour Party know what
>> ought to be its leader's position.
Oh I see. Because I'm not a Labour man I'm not allowed to have an opinion on a politician who is the leader of a significant British political party, one that could easily be running my country in 5 years time????
|
>> Oh I see. Because I'm not a Labour man I'm not allowed to have an
>> opinion on a politician who is the leader of a significant British political party
Ahh right. I read it wrong. Thought you were commenting from the p.o.v of a dyspeptic right leaning Ex-Copper.
If you were really a 'concerned citizen' then I profusely apologise.
|
>> Ahh right. I read it wrong. Thought you were commenting from the p.o.v of a
>> dyspeptic right leaning Ex-Copper.
>>
>> If you were really a 'concerned citizen' then I profusely apologise.
Ex Police officers that suffer from irritability are not allowed to comment on stuff they find concerning?
|
Oh dear.
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/11938212/Jeremy-Corbyn-campaign-part-funded-by-Hamas.html
Not getting any better then.
Can't wait for the bicycling civil servant's take.
Last edited by: Westpig on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 19:52
|
I've simply no idea without more background/perspective.
A Telegraph piece written by Andrew Gilligan doesn't exactly sound objective though does it?
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Sat 17 Oct 15 at 20:03
|
I see it as a humorous gesture or gesticulation, Westpig.
What's wrong with Hamas anyway compared to those odious fascist Israeli mofos? Or the loathsome rabbit-toothed Republican geezer with the ill-fitting blond rug whose name I can't even bear to remember?
I'll take Hamas any day.
|
>>Or the loathsome rabbit-toothed Republican geezer with the ill-fitting blond rug whose name I can't even bear to remember?
Trumps!
|
>>Or the loathsome
>> rabbit-toothed Republican geezer with the ill-fitting blond rug whose name I can't even bear to
>> remember?
Do you know... i'm with you on that one. What a truly awful human being.
|
>> Do you know... i'm with you on that one. What a truly awful human being.
Even worse, is the fact the American Public have embraced him sufficiently to keep him active in the race.
|
>> Even worse, is the fact the American Public have embraced him sufficiently to keep him
>> active in the race.
>>
Surely they won't???
|
>> Surely they won't???
www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/us/2016_republican_presidential_nomination-3823.html
(link to polling data showing Trump in the lead for Republican nomination)
Of course it's still six months to first Primary. The numbers will change as the no-hopers drop out and Trump could easily lose his lustre under pressure. IIRC Carly Fiorina succeeded in showing him up during the recent debates.
|
>> Can't wait for the bicycling civil servant's take.
Ex civil servant to be strictly accurate
|
The death today of Michael Meacher, MP for Oldham West and Royton, gives Labour its first by election test after Corbyn's election.
Should be a safe seat....
Last edited by: Bromptonaut on Wed 21 Oct 15 at 18:26
|
|
Interesting for ukip as well, didn't they do quite well there? We'll see if they do as well this time.
|
Strong stuff from the DCI originally heading the investigation into old sexual allegations from Leon Brittan...
..."unlawful" and "baseless witch hunt".
Tom Watson comes out badly as does the senior hierarchy of the Met
www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/11944910/Tom-Watson-questioned-over-role-in-Lord-Brittan-police-investigation-live.html
|
|
He came across for years as a fearless challenger of wrongdoing....obviously gone to his head - an ego as big as he is...all his credibility gone now - idiot.
|
Kind of makes you wonder how much his word in the past should be trusted as well.
If anything has ever been done based on his word which has not been subsequently and independently proven, then it should be revisited.
|
|
Trust a politician, not something I would do.
|
|
Would perverting the course of justice apply to Watson?
|
My take FWIW:
Watson's mistakes were (a) to quote the alleged victim (not 'Jane' who made the rape allegation) who described Brittan as being “as close to evil as any human being could get†and (b) not apologising quickly and wholeheartedly to Lady Brittan. The Met are equally culpable for failing to inform Brittan and his family that the investigation, or some aspects of it, had been dropped.
The Met may also be guilty of mistreatment of DCI Settle - pity that the Commissioner hasn't given evidence as he was asked too.
The pattern in sex abuse cases against the famous/prominent (see Clifford, Hall, Harris and Savile) has been for the Police to disbelieve complainants and attempt to discredit them and their stories. That's why we are where we are now, including taking seriously some truly lurid tales about Harvey Proctor and Ted Heath.
Watson is quite within his rights to ask Police to reconsider the case against Brittan. That DCI Settle 'took the hump' at Watson doing so and Settle's superiors sidelined him isn't really anything to do with merits or otherwise of the allegations 'Jane' is making.
Commitee chair Vaz, as ever, cannot resist the temptation to 'Grandstand' by telling Watson he's not Sherlock Holmes.
And unless the allegations are demonstrably invented AND Watson knew that then there's not a snowball's chance of of a perverting the course of justice charge standing.
|
Something in the comic today carping about Corbyn's new but ill-fitting morning dress and the prime minister's scruffy, incorrect one.
New but ill-fitting: hired in a hurry from Moss Bros or similar perhaps by an aide.
Scruffy and incorrect: inherited or borrowed usually from a relation or close friend.
Penguin suits... don'tcha just love 'em? Mouldy and with century-old soup stains on the satin lapels, or stiff and smelling of dry-cleaning products. Got to dig out some black shoes too. More trouble than it's worth. Wouldn't like to see it vanish completely though.
|
>> Something in the comic today carping about Corbyn's new but ill-fitting morning dress
That, and all the stories linked to piece WP posted alleging Hamas links too.
Why are the Barclays so frightened of Jezza?
|
>> Why are the Barclays so frightened of Jezza?
I don't think they are, not at all. They obsess about him as an aunt Sally. But they don't give a damn really.
|
>> Something in the comic today carping about Corbyn's new but ill-fitting morning dress and the
>> prime minister's scruffy, incorrect one.
They were in *evening* dress, not morning dress. Quite different.
|
|
Yeah, silly of me... but a friend whose best man I was wore scruffy evening tails with his morning dress.
|
Labour conference - Roger.
