Just watched the Corbyn interview, he wanted Bin Laden on trial - I think this is the last thing the US and it's Allies wanted as the scope for embarrassing disclosures would've been legion.
Interestingly at the end of the segment he said Gaddafi was next and this would cause further problems in the region.
Always worth looking beyond the headlines !!
Then he was wrong, wasn't he? Gaddafi was lynched by a mob of Libyans, possibly shot by some of his own bodyguards. Claims from the Egyptians that the French were involved are about as convincing as the idea of Ed Miliband as Prime Minister.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Perhaps, although Tory infiltrators and hard left entryists surely won't have swung it for Corbyn if he wins by a large margin, they don't have the numbers. If he wins and if he is a disaster, infiltrators and entryists may have done nothing but add to his win, not made it.
Hattie went on TV and said that anyone could pay three pounds and vote for the next Labour leader, "anyone" includes Tories4Corbyn and the whole ragbag of rent-a-trot types that have been flocking in. Let us also not forget that 97,000 voters that UNITE miraculously found down the back of the sofa on the last possible day of voter registration.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Does that include the people who nominated him and those in his constituency? The Tories for Corbyn, will have as much impact on his election as the Tories for Palmer did.
Mr. Jonathan, not sure that's needed. UKIP did what they've done for the last half dozen elections. They campaign stupidly, spreading support wide and shallow. It's as if they either don't care or don't understand how FPTP works.
If they'd focused on 6-12 seats, they'd have multiple MPs. Instead, they've got 1.
That said, if Labour collapses [still think Labour will not disintegrate entirely], they'd placed to sweep the north, with many second places.
And that's the gamble but it's too early to say that it was the wrong one. After all, the Lib Dems pursued the targeting strategy ruthlessly for a quarter of a century only for the internal logic of that process to leave them much further back than where they started. Would 6-8 UKIP MPs really make that much difference? Yes, Cameron's majority is small so at the margins it might but there are lots of other parties to deal with.
On the other hand, as you say, if Corbyn's views push, say 10% from Lab to UKIP on immigration and foreign policy, then that could hand Farage dozens of seats come the next GE.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Is it in the Tories' interests that the rest of the world registers that an anti-Western, anti-capitalist class warrior is the leader of the opposition in the UK and draw wider conclusions about us as a result? Corbyn's election will be welcomed by entities across the globe who wish the UK ill. All those who voted for him, for whatever reason, share responsibility for that.
Bernie Sanders is closing in on Hillary in the U.S. and his views are not a million miles from Corbyn's either, Europe and Latin America are full of Corbyn style leftist populists
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Perhaps, although Tory infiltrators and hard left entryists surely won't have swung it for Corbyn if he wins by a large margin, they don't have the numbers. If he wins and if he is a disaster, infiltrators and entryists may have done nothing but add to his win, not made it.
That doesn't devalue my 'instantly dismissed' point. I'm sure many of these folk will still indulge in pious wankerism about the need for an effective centre-left opposition, but it doesn't mean their views should have any currency.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
I agree with you that the rise of individual choice is a key factor but I'm not sure that I understand your question. What similar developments are you talking about?
Collectivism has declined markedly in all societies where living conditions have improved and access to consumer goods, multi-channel TV and the internet has increased. This applies whether they are multicultural or monocultural.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Is it in the Tories' interests that the rest of the world registers that an anti-Western, anti-capitalist class warrior is the leader of the opposition in the UK and draw wider conclusions about us as a result? Corbyn's election will be welcomed by entities across the globe who wish the UK ill. All those who voted for him, for whatever reason, share responsibility for that.
I think you are concentrating rather too hard on what probably amounts to a couple of hundred Tories with a rather juvenile sense of humour, and overlooking the almost 100,000 hard left people the unions found down the back of the sofa, and probably substantial more than that from the Greens, TUSC, CPGB-ML, SWP and Uncle Tom Cobly that also signed up, and just possibly might have a larger number of votes.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
Just watched the Corbyn interview, he wanted Bin Laden on trial - [Snipped]
Always worth looking beyond the headlines !!
Is there any record of him saying this before Bin Laden was killed? Easy to say after the event. Did he, for instance, support the U.S. going into Afghanistan in 2001 to try and find Bin Laden? Did he support the US's demand to Afghanistan before the invasion that it hand over Bin Laden?
Sadly, I now have to go and get some work done for tomorrow. If I don't have time to come back on later, thank you all for the company over the last few weeks. I've enjoyed the debates, and learned a lot, and I hope to be back soon when the pressure from the start of term has eased.
Is there any record of him saying this before Bin Laden was killed? Easy to say after the event. Did he, for instance, support the U.S. going into Afghanistan in 2001 to try and find Bin Laden? Did he support the US's demand to Afghanistan before the invasion that it hand over Bin Laden?
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
I agree with you that the rise of individual choice is a key factor but I'm not sure that I understand your question. What similar developments are you talking about?
Collectivism has declined markedly in all societies where living conditions have improved and access to consumer goods, multi-channel TV and the internet has increased. This applies whether they are multicultural or monocultural.
Oh I agree that this is down to a more individualist society which has been largely promoted by those on the right. My comment was addressed to the way that the Left's embrace of a very specific multicultural creed risked undermining collective support for a welfare system based on help your neighbour, where the implicit assumption is that your neighbour is someone much like you rather than someone who hates you.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Is it in the Tories' interests that the rest of the world registers that an anti-Western, anti-capitalist class warrior is the leader of the opposition in the UK and draw wider conclusions about us as a result? Corbyn's election will be welcomed by entities across the globe who wish the UK ill. All those who voted for him, for whatever reason, share responsibility for that.
I think you are concentrating rather too hard on what probably amounts to a couple of hundred Tories with a rather juvenile sense of humour, and overlooking the almost 100,000 hard left people the unions found down the back of the sofa, and probably substantial more than that from the Greens, TUSC, CPGB-ML, SWP and Uncle Tom Cobly that also signed up, and just possibly might have a larger number of votes.
All those who voted for Corbyn are equally as responsible for all the effects of his victory. Obviously, the vast majority of such people will be hardened leftists and Useful Idiots, but Tories who got involved will also have to man (or woman) up and accept their votes will be welcomed by this country's enemies, while dismaying many of its friends - and that this may have real world consequences, some of which may not be as welcome for the government as others.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
In the interests of accuracy, Macleod was Colonial Secretary in the early 1960s when Lord Salisbury made those remarks. I appreciate that many SNP supporters view Osborne (or any Tory) as holding that portfolio today.
Those were the days! We were less mealy mouthed then. We had a Minister for War not a poxy Minister of Defence...
Not just a Minister but a Secretary of State for War no less...and the occupant around that time was the brave, gallant and rather naughty...
Mr. Jonathan, not sure that's needed. UKIP did what they've done for the last half dozen elections. They campaign stupidly, spreading support wide and shallow. It's as if they either don't care or don't understand how FPTP works.
If they'd focused on 6-12 seats, they'd have multiple MPs. Instead, they've got 1.
That said, if Labour collapses [still think Labour will not disintegrate entirely], they'd placed to sweep the north, with many second places.
UKIP were concentrating on a narrow range of seats, but my impression is that they relied too much on unfocused "human wave" types of campaigning, rather than the excellent targeting that the Conservatives used. When I went down to Rochester & Strood, I thought the campaign was shambolic. Lots of people were just milling around, or serving as the backdrop to photoshoots, or handing out leaflets in the town centre, but not enough proper canvassing. And, when we did do some canvassing much of the data was plain wrong. And canvassers should have been told the purpose of canvassing is to identify supporters, not to win converts.
That, and fear of Labour/SNP led people to conclude voting UKIP was too much of a risk.
This understates the amateurish chaos that was the ukip ground campaign. Too many of our campaigners ie local volunteers were arguably vote losers, I commented a week before the election that if an evening's canvassing was filmed and shown at a labour or conservative conference they'd roar with laughter. UKIP simply don't have the resources or infrastructure to mount a serious campaign, hence the result. I was at the heart of the action in Kent, at times it was shambolic.
The labour/SNP threat was the single biggest factor, but lessons must be learned for future campaigns if progress is to be made.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Perhaps, although Tory infiltrators and hard left entryists surely won't have swung it for Corbyn if he wins by a large margin, they don't have the numbers. If he wins and if he is a disaster, infiltrators and entryists may have done nothing but add to his win, not made it.
That doesn't devalue my 'instantly dismissed' point. I'm sure many of these folk will still indulge in pious wankerism about the need for an effective centre-left opposition, but it doesn't mean their views should have any currency.
I won't dismiss anyone's points instantly. Give the number of times I've been very wrong about outcomes - the GE, IndyRef - that would be silly of me. Even Corbyn can be right on some things, and so can Tory entryists who simultaneously will complain about his influence.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
That is indeed to key issue. Fine if that's what the party wanted, but the system they had set up was in fact designed to prevent an unacceptable outcome.
Just watched the Corbyn interview, he wanted Bin Laden on trial... Always worth looking beyond the headlines !!
And also worth looking at the many many comments recognising that (the other bits I've snipped have not been discussed as much) and saying the issue is how he could so easily (for someone who is supposed to be a good communicator) have described that point without any troublesome equating with 9/11 or describing it as a tragedy. As we've seen with furore over 'swarming' migrants, politicians love to crticise imprecise or emotive terminology, or things that are inelegantly expressed. His points could have been made very easily without saying tragedy.
Such comments by Corbyn make little difference. Minds are already made up.
He is of course one of the worst types of cheerleaders who likes to think he's got some solidarity with such radical violent types because inside it makes him feel like a big man through association. The most he'd do in reality is throw a copy of some Communist treatise at you before running away.
Did he, for instance, support the U.S. going into Afghanistan in 2001 to try and find Bin Laden?
Oh so that's what that war was for.
Well it can't have been for Afghanistan's oil, which is the usual criticism made by the Corbynites of such ventures, can it?
Incidentally, Bin Laden would have been found and dealt with much sooner if the U.S. had stayed focused on Afghanistan rather than messing around in Mesopotamia. But whatever the U.S. did it would have been wrong for Corbyn and co.,.
Sadly, I now have to go and get some work done for tomorrow. If I don't have time to come back on later, thank you all for the company over the last few weeks. I've enjoyed the debates, and learned a lot, and I hope to be back soon when the pressure from the start of term has eased.
Have a great autumn!
Hasten ye back....you are one of our must read contributors.
The £3ers may not have realised as all this is just a bit of a lark for them, but long-time Labour members such as Nick Palmer knew full well that when they voted for Corbyn they were voting for an anti-western, anti-capitalist, class warrior who has spent decades sharing platforms with people who advocate and celebrate the killing of British, American and other western citizens to achieve their political goals. Given that, they should not be surprised at today's Sun headline and the many, many more that will follow in the weeks and months to come.
Mike is right - Corbyn and all those who serve under him will be spending most of their time talking about why it was a tragedy Bin Laden was killed, why ISIS isn''t all bad, why it was right to invite IRA leaders to the Commons a fortnight after they attempted to assassinate the Cabinet, and so on. They can argue about context and advocate engaging with your enemies and offer all the other specious excuses made for Corbyn's activities before this June, and maybe the odd person will buy it. But what they will not be talking about are the issues that actually affect voters. The Tories will be doing that. And the LibDems. And the SNP. And UKIP. Labour, though, will have excluded itself. And all for the sake of a summer jerk off when it thought that nobody was watching.
This process represents the most spectacular abdication of political responsibility seen for many a long year in the UK. I hope Nick and his mates are proud. And if that is personal, so be it. I am personally offended and angered by their unthinking selfishness and the consequences it will have, not for them - they'll be fine, of course - but for the vulnerable, left behind, exploited people they claim to care about.
I can feel your pain southam and I do sympathise.
However, Labour seemed to have given up actually caring about the working class a long time ago although they continued to talk a good game.
FWIW I admit I despise the Labour party for how they act but the UK does derserve and need a competent opposition.
On the bright side for tory haters, the last time they had a very long time in power I grew to loath them too.
It just took New Labour to show me that actually they were not as bad as I thought and certainly preferable to run the country in my view.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
I agree with you that the rise of individual choice is a key factor but I'm not sure that I understand your question. What similar developments are you talking about?
Collectivism has declined markedly in all societies where living conditions have improved and access to consumer goods, multi-channel TV and the internet has increased. This applies whether they are multicultural or monocultural.
Oh I agree that this is down to a more individualist society which has been largely promoted by those on the right. My comment was addressed to the way that the Left's embrace of a very specific multicultural creed risked undermining collective support for a welfare system based on help your neighbour, where the implicit assumption is that your neighbour is someone much like you rather than someone who hates you.
I'd say declining support for welfare is less about multiculturalism and much more about perceptions about people getting a free ride.
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
Everyone should come to semi sunny Belfast. Quite pleasant here. I was working until about 5 this morning and it was 14 degrees outside for much of the night.
This advert has been brought to you by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
"Yes there are and they are repelled by Corbyn. The U.S. asked Afghanistan to give up Bin Laden after 9/11. They didn't. Nor did Pakistan. Hence the action they took. Second, the U.S. has put others involved with 9/11 on trial"
This doesn't sound like a rule most liberals would find very liberal. Would you extend the same extradition rules to Hamas who want to put Netanyahu amongst others on trial for war crimes? Rules for the most powerful that don't apply to anyone else isn't very liberal.
As an aside those who spent decades in Guantanamo Bay wouldn't have your unquestioning faith in US justice
Your logic of "the US isn't perfect therefore everyone else is no worse" is the kind of nonsense that Corbyn has trotted out for years and is why he will lead Labour to their biggest crisis since 1931 should he be elected and still be in place come the election.
It is simply absurd to argue that just because money is too powerful in US justice (and the US in general), then the American political, judicial and economic systems are at least as bad as a terrorist dictatorship.
I admire your optimism David. This is looking more like Labour's worst crisis since the split of 1914. With hindsight, it wasn't fully repaired until the 1940s.
And at least in 1931 and 1914, they had the excuse of fairly important outside events as the proximate cause for their internal catastrophe. Even allowing for the uselessness of the other three candidates, nobody is forcing Labour to elect Corbyn!
In both 1914 and 1931, Labour got lucky with the Liberals splitting even more badly. Remarkably, they seem to have completed the hat-trick this time.
Incidentally, I am suffering my first stinking cold and sore throat of the autumn - and it is still August! It is barely a month since recovering from a prolonged bout of bronchitis. What I want for Xmas is a new pair of lungs.
That's pretty rotten luck. Feel better soon.
I've been walking around in London more than usual the last few weeks, and my lungs felt foul from the diesel fumes (amongst other things). Reminds me of how glad I am to live outside the Big Smoke, and especially that I never had to face London in the 50s.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
I'm with @SouthamObserver on this, and I think, with respect, that one or two people who are questioning the premise of this thread are somewhat missing the point. It's the way Corbyn does things, as much as what he does, that's going to cause a problem, viz:
1) You can criticise the UDV/UFF and Loyalist organisations, and consider that in principle a united Ireland is the best solution for all people of that Ireland, and talk to people who agree with that aim, to try and achieve it. That's fine, even laudable. It can be done very easily without openly supporting a terrorist organisation openly responsible for the murder of numerous British subjects and trying to rationalise their crimes.
2) You can be a fierce critic of Israel's heavy-handed militarist policies, and believe that Palestinians both need and deserve a better deal than they're getting, without needing to call Hamas (a group which was for a long time bankrolled by the theocratic dictatorship of Iran) your 'friends' or openly share a platform with neo-Nazi Holocaust deniers (views which I would point out are not merely wrong and grossly offensive to Jews, but also to Austrians, Germans, Czechs, Poles and Russians).
3) You can think that America's tactics over Osama bin Laden - the illegal invasion of a theoretically allied country, destabilising it further, what appears to have been a 'shoot on sight' policy, a severe risk to non-combatants in the operation - were unedifying and even criminally irresponsible, without describing the death of one of the 21st century's worst mass murderers as 'a tragedy'.
There is a clear pattern emerging that Corbyn, a bit like Reagan, sees only good guys and bad guys. However, he has decided that the Americans and British are 'bad guys' and therefore anyone opposed to them, or their interests, must be good guys - despite the fact that even without being a starry-eyed fan of the Americans, it is easy to see why they are opposed to quite a number of homosexual-stoning, child-murdering, almost nihilist groups around the world. That leads him into doing absolutely unconscionable things like this. To put it crudely, he is now being revealed as an apologist for murderers. Even without his socio-economic agenda, which would perhaps have been cutting-edge in Khrushchev's Russia more than fifty years ago, every revelation like this will probably cost Labour one seat at the next election.
The really frightening thing is how many in the Labour party and its wider allied movement not merely cannot see this but actually think such views are both fine and praiseworthy.
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
Cricket ion Cardiff, though. Australia Women (The Southern Stars) 54-5
Yes Shrubsole 4 for 11 in 4 overs. I was just bemoaning the absence of county cricket on the last bank holiday of the summer - good example of how to kill off the game by its administrators.
Speakers at a Osama Bin Laden Memorial Event the soon to be acclaimed Dear Leader of the Labour Party has issued the following topical call to the faithful :
" .... and finally comrades I have decided that the evil banks whose actions precipitated the election of the unbelievers in 2010 should no longer have public holidays named generically after them. No more 'Bank Holidays'.
Instead such days of prayer for the soul of the Left and their leaders shall be changed. We shall keep a historical link to the former name whilst bringing the meaning closer to the people and their daily lives. These days will be renamed -'Cash Utilization National Terminal" Days - C*U*N*T Holidays."
Huge cheers were heard from the masses in Broxtowe Town Hall led by the former head of the re-educated 'Tories For Palmer' group and assisted by the recently appointed Jezzbollah Commissar for Nottinghamshire - Nicholas 'The Cat' Palmer - apparently so named because he expects to undergo nine political lives in the Labour Party.
A clearly risible scenario. Under the economic stewardship of the Dear Leader, cash will be superfluous. The Dear Leader will provide everything you need.
Your card has been marked for expressing such doubts about the Dear Leader.
You clearly misunderstand the full nature of C*U*N*T Holidays.
The faithful on such days exchange amounts from their accounts for paper slips with sayings from the "Islington Red Book". One in a million slips will be signed by the Dear Leader and then exchanged for a Peoples Holiday in Broxtowe Public Conveniences.
Your failure to fully acquaint yourself with the true meaning has been noted in your Re-Education File.
Comrade, my secret police are better than your secret police....
Better in that they kill and torture more people, errrr enemies of the State? ;-)
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
On this piece I think that's something of the Guido method involved.
It is Harry Cole after all.
The emergence of the video might have forced the splash before someone else did it.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
Here's the list: Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
Clegg maybe, Farron certainly not, the LDs are back to being opportunists
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
And yet they're most in favour of a federal EU state.
Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
Odd. Three members of the Campaign Group didn't vote for him. Who did Cryer, Lavery and Mearns vote for ?
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Perhaps, although Tory infiltrators and hard left entryists surely won't have swung it for Corbyn if he wins by a large margin, they don't have the numbers. If he wins and if he is a disaster, infiltrators and entryists may have done nothing but add to his win, not made it.
Yes I hope if he wins, he wins big , then at least Labour supporters can blame themselves.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal.
It seems many former LD voters did not agree, and many in politics still don't given all the talk that crops up periodically of progressive lefty alliances.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
And yet they're most in favour of a federal EU state.
Theoretically (although not currently), that's not incompatible.
You want to have power devolved to the lowest level possible. But you also want to avoid duplicating functions between states: is there any need to have 30 different bodies all doing the same tests to see if a medicine is safe for human consumption, for example?
Note: I'm not suggesting the EU is actually like this. Merely pointing out, that it is not theoretically incompatible.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
I'd very much like to know exactly why Nick Palmer an ex MP who knows the way of politics has voted for Corbyn. It does not make any sense to me , and as sure as eggs are eggs he would not have done had he still been an MP.. Is it being out of politics and not caring any more?>
No idea, perhaps he is reliving his youth (wasn't he a marxist at one time?)
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
Your having a giraffe. After supporting Leveson so strongly they have given up any right to being called Liberal, not to mention strongly support state involvement in running schools, the illiberalism of wanting politicians to decide about the EU and not the electorate. The Statist Democrats might be more appropriate, or possibly given their preposterous proposals for HoL reforms, the just The Statists might be best.
I'd very much like to know exactly why Nick Palmer an ex MP who knows the way of politics has voted for Corbyn. It does not make any sense to me , and as sure as eggs are eggs he would not have done had he still been an MP.. Is it being out of politics and not caring any more?>
No idea, perhaps he is reliving his youth (wasn't he a marxist at one time?)
What was it Lord Salisbury said about another Tory Chancellor Iain Macleod - "too clever by half". That fits Osborne to a T, although Macleod by every all account was an infinitely more decent human being.
Osborne believes he can obtain a quick political trick against the SNP and a Corbyn led Labour Party by pre-announcing Trident expenditure before the Parliamentary vote.
In fact he will further energise the SNP who march to an entirely different drumbeat and, at UK level, expose himself to taunts that he places party politics above all else - defense of the realm, social security budget for the poor and vulnerable etc.
Osborne like Macleod will never be Prime Minister.
Maybe Osborne will "further energise the SNP". Maybe not.
But with 56MPs they have little more to gain. And as they are already resolutely anti Government.. and vote against it,, short of persistent filibusters they can do nowt..
It's rather like saying don't upset the wolves as they will howl more. Lots of noise to little effect..
The SNP's problem is the Tories have little to lose in Scotland.
So it’s written off for the next generation (at least)?
How does making a huge long term commitment equate to writing off?
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
And yet they're most in favour of a federal EU state.
Strictly speaking a Federal state means devolving down as much as possible. The point of controversy is in the existence of the 'state' in the first place. I do not see the conservatives (right or left) being in favour of increasing central control. So the whole premise is wrong. As an example the NHS reforms were about giving GPs and GP commissioners more responsibility and also the whole point of allowing more private contractors into the NHS is about more responsibility. But with all that sort of thing comes accountability. Is not this the point behind elected police commissioners and elected mayors? You may or may not like the ideas but it is not direction and control from the centre.
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
Your having a giraffe. After supporting Leveson so strongly they have given up any right to being called Liberal, not to mention strongly support state involvement in running schools, the illiberalism of wanting politicians to decide about the EU and not the electorate. The Statist Democrats might be more appropriate, or possibly given their preposterous proposals for HoL reforms, the just The Statists might be best.
I wouldn't even call them Democrats. Their refusal to give us an EU referendum in the last parliament and the fact they know full well their bill to trigger future referendums on a future transfer of powers is a circumventable piece of deception.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame. I have done my bit to at least try to keep an opposition that is required to hold any goverment to account. My vote is 1 YC 2 AB 3 LK
Have not filled in number 4 , hope my £3 helps.
If one thinks back to 2001 I don't remember many Labour supporters wanting to sabotage the Tory election - or anything like this happening in the past. Of course Blair and his cronies dreamed of a one party state but not their supporters.
They weren't able to do so in the same way - full members only, not just us £3ers.
Is this the first intervention he has made in the labour contest? Seems like the LDs have been waiting it out like the Tories.
I believe so, Farron I presume will position the LDs left of a Cooper or Burnham or Kendall led Labour Party but right of a Corbyn led Labour Party
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
And yet they're most in favour of a federal EU state.
Theoretically (although not currently), that's not incompatible.
You want to have power devolved to the lowest level possible. But you also want to avoid duplicating functions between states: is there any need to have 30 different bodies all doing the same tests to see if a medicine is safe for human consumption, for example?
Note: I'm not suggesting the EU is actually like this. Merely pointing out, that it is not theoretically incompatible.
That's an argument for global co-operation, not a federal EU.
I'd very much like to know exactly why Nick Palmer an ex MP who knows the way of politics has voted for Corbyn. It does not make any sense to me , and as sure as eggs are eggs he would not have done had he still been an MP.. Is it being out of politics and not caring any more?>
No idea, perhaps he is reliving his youth (wasn't he a marxist at one time?)
I never understand why people doff their cap to NPEXMP, an ex MP and skilled at politics no doubt, ....... Perhaps he is displaying his
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
You may see it as a problem, but it's part of the platform on which he and the Tories got elected and are the UK government
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Rising living standards between 1500 and 1950 didn't destroy a sense of collective nationalism. Why would they be the cause of rising individualism after that? Rising living standards should make people feel more comfortable in looking after themselves and be able to better afford to raise a family, to build a business, to take part in civic society. Equally, new forms of communications should improve the ability to organize clubs and charities.
No, what caused a decline in a collective identity is,
(1) The rise in a mentality of life being something for pure material and personal enjoyment rather than to achieve something in your lifetime. (I do accept parts of the right bought into this as much as the left.) (2) Moral relativism, where all moral systems are considered equal and fair enough, so there was a breakdown in common values among people of different backgrounds, so we feel less like one nation. (3) The bringing here of large numbers of people at a rate faster than they could be integrated into the shared culture of the existing population. This again made the sense of collective identity breakdown.
I'm with @SouthamObserver on this, and I think, with respect, that one or two people who are questioning the premise of this thread are somewhat missing the point. It's the way Corbyn does things, as much as what he does, that's going to cause a problem, viz:
- snipped for space -
The really frightening thing is how many in the Labour party and its wider allied movement not merely cannot see this but actually think such views are both fine and praiseworthy.
Bravo sir.
Yes think the points made by "ydoethur" are broadly correct. And I think most people in the UK, indeed the world - with the exception of all the lefty anti american racists (their anti americanism is tantamount to racism) - can understand for instance what the search for bin ladin and his HQ was all about. Corbyn's mind set and his thought processes are utterly warped. But then, everyone also knew this before he was nominated.
Yes but the "too clever by half" Chancellor didn't pitch his argument this morning on Trafalger class submerines but on Trident. He seemed unprepared when the BBC Scotland interviewer pointed out that the specifically Trident component of the base provides but 520 civilian jobs, on the MODs own figures!
He wanted to make the political point and was found out - that is his problem.
You may see it as a problem, but it's part of the platform on which he and the Tories got elected and are the UK government
He did not half start stuttering though when called out on job numbers, he never managed to explain how 520 = 19,000.
In fairness to Mr Corbyn we are talking about a man who got 2 E grade A levels without any mitigating circumstances and whose further education was a brief, unsuccessful, period in North London Polytechnic.
The poor man is obviously just more than a bit thick and it is wrong to mock him for that or even his understandably simplistic view of the world. Of course it does raise questions of his suitability for a major role but that is up to the Labour party.
I think the status of the role will come down to accommodate him.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
Here's the list: Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
I see that my own MP Tulip Nitwit is on the list....... Hardly surprising: when she attended a pre-election debate at my son's school, she was by far the weakest of the three main candidates, being particularly feeble on the question of freedom of speech.
Fascinating that the Left destroyed collectivism. There was me thinking it was rising living standards, more choice and new forms of communication that were largely responsible. I should have known it was multiculturalism.
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
So how does that explain similar developments in countries where immigration is low or non-existent?
It doesn't. Countries like Norway, Japan, Denmark and Finland still have very strong collective national identities.
That's an argument for global co-operation, not a federal EU.
Not really. Taking the medicine example, the body doing the tests has, at the end of the day, to be accountable. It must be possible for someone adversely affected by their incompetence/negligence to seek redress through the courts. That requires that the body is subject to the laws of the state in which the people affected by its decisions live. A supra-state body, say something under the umbrella of the UN, could not be held accountable and therefore could not be given any power which would affect individuals.
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
Much as many of us are taking an obvious pleasure in the situation, I think that may of them, like me, fear for the potential impact on the UK's governance of the lack of proper opposition (SNP doesn't count)
As several PBers have pointed out, some liberal principles have not been followed by the Lib Dems in practice.
After merging with the SDP, the Liberals have been infiltrated by some SDP interventionists like Vince Cable.
Of course, for many people to be "free" government has to intervene to stop others blocking their freedom and to ensure there is equal opportunity for everyone to progress the way they choose.
It may need more of those supporters of liberal principles to join (or re-join) the Lib Dems for their policies to follow the theory in practice.
But the original point is that being liberal is different from being left or right, as demonstrated by some PBers examples.
"I am no Corbyn fan and agree that he has crossed the line in many of his statements. Beyond that, there is something worrying about the issue in this thread. "
I think you've hit the nail on the head. There's so much to dislike about Corbyn and so much that really irritates but reading these threads where 98% of posters are opponents also points up those things that make him such an appealing prospect.
Obviously the biggest one is not being Cooper Kendall or Burnham but there's more than that. When I got my first job as an assistant to a well known photographer one of the most useful bits of advice she gave me was 'to zig when everyone else zags'.
Corbyn's been doing that for years and it's quite an asset
Multiculturalism frays the bonds of social solidarity, as David Goodhart has observed. People will pay taxes to provide welfare for an unemployed miner who, in the last analysis, will fight for you. They are less inclined to do so for some hate preacher from a far away country who makes it clear he will fight against you.
The Left's embrace of identity politics has undermined a wider sense of collective purpose.
Oh I agree that this is down to a more individualist society which has been largely promoted by those on the right. My comment was addressed to the way that the Left's embrace of a very specific multicultural creed risked undermining collective support for a welfare system based on help your neighbour, where the implicit assumption is that your neighbour is someone much like you rather than someone who hates you.
I'd say declining support for welfare is less about multiculturalism and much more about perceptions about people getting a free ride.
Well, yes, there is something in that. But the two are linked: if someone comes here from overseas and gets benefits on Day One, then you have a mixture of people getting something for nothing coupled with, in some cases, a sense that people are using our generosity to undermine us.
When people live in enclosed communities speaking a different language, not behaving like us, unwilling to engage with us, using textbooks provided by a very foreign country - Saudi Arabia - for instance, and seeking to justify it all under the guise that this is "their" culture, it is hard to see why the rest of us should see such people as our neighbours. Anything which fractures the social cohesion of a people - and multiculturalism, at least as practised here, is only one of the factors - will not help in engendering a sense of collective solidarity, a sense of being all in it together and therefore standing together and helping each other.
Bluntly, Abu Qatada was here for years on benefits. I saw no good reason why I and other should pay for people like him to live here. I owe him nothing. This is not me not being neighbourly. This is me having a better sense of self-preservation and belief in Britishness than those fools of politicians and commentators who think that letting into the country people who do not want to be British and who actively hate us and seek to undermine us and who do it at our expense is somehow a good thing.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
Oh codswallop, the only people who behaved idiotically was the PLP that put him on the ballot, in contravention of the whole point of the way their system was designed, relying on the MPs to keep out nutters and anyone they couldn't work with. Once the nutters get on the ballot you and they can hardly blame people for acting in their own interests, for the Tories to try and saddle Labour with an unelectable leader, and the far left for trying to get their man into power.
Is it in the Tories' interests that the rest of the world registers that an anti-Western, anti-capitalist class warrior is the leader of the opposition in the UK and draw wider conclusions about us as a result? Corbyn's election will be welcomed by entities across the globe who wish the UK ill. All those who voted for him, for whatever reason, share responsibility for that.
I think you are concentrating rather too hard on what probably amounts to a couple of hundred Tories with a rather juvenile sense of humour, and overlooking the almost 100,000 hard left people the unions found down the back of the sofa, and probably substantial more than that from the Greens, TUSC, CPGB-ML, SWP and Uncle Tom Cobly that also signed up, and just possibly might have a larger number of votes.
All those who voted for Corbyn are equally as responsible for all the effects of his victory. Obviously, the vast majority of such people will be hardened leftists and Useful Idiots, but Tories who got involved will also have to man (or woman) up and accept their votes will be welcomed by this country's enemies, while dismaying many of its friends - and that this may have real world consequences, some of which may not be as welcome for the government as others.
I wholeheartedly agree. Corby and people like him are too malevolent for this to be treated as a game.
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
Or better yet, used the nominations process correctly rather than indulging in some kind of 'mass debate', which looks more like a homophone for the phrase with every passing day.
Here's the list: Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
I see that my own MP Tulip Nitwit is on the list....... Hardly surprising: when she attended a pre-election debate at my son's school, she was by far the weakest of the three main candidates, being particularly feeble on the question of freedom of speech.
Were there questions from the audience? I doubt she'd have been expecting the sort of questioning you might be able to throw her way.
Mr. Antifrank, there's also the possibility that the Conservatives don't think they'll have much impact. After all, Brown, Kinnock and Blair opposing Corbyn hasn't changed much.
Freckin' SLEPs. I thought the up-speed drum-beat for Astute-7 would mean that T-boats would retire in England!
You weren't alone in that thinking, Mr. Thoughts. It was so widespread the RN that most thought it was the actual plan.
Are you suggesting the Tridents should be based somewhere else? The only realistic place would be the USA, where they test fire. When you consider that the whole point of a Trident submarine is its warheads which are stored at Coulport near Faslane as well, it immediately becomes difficult to move them. Not impossible but as soon as you start looking you realise it becomes difficult. For instance a place in Milford Haven would mean dodging oil tankers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977 ''Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, says it's inconceivable that the MoD would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.'' ''the Royal United Services Institute's Malcolm Chalmers says even though - time and expense allowing - Devonport might work as an alternative to Faslane, it couldn't recreate Coulport. Coulport possesses a huge floating dock where warheads are placed inside the missiles, 3km from the small village of Garelochhead on one side and the small village of Ardentinny on the other, Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee heard in 2012. Any new warhead storage facility would need similar distances from population centres for loading and offloading warheads from missiles.''
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise what is really driving the lefty Nat surge. Scotland is part of the UK and defence is not devolved. This move is the right one.
That's an argument for global co-operation, not a federal EU.
Not really. Taking the medicine example, the body doing the tests has, at the end of the day, to be accountable. It must be possible for someone adversely affected by their incompetence/negligence to seek redress through the courts. That requires that the body is subject to the laws of the state in which the people affected by its decisions live. A supra-state body, say something under the umbrella of the UN, could not be held accountable and therefore could not be given any power which would affect individuals.
So a global government then, which is in any case inevitable in the long term.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
Much has been written on the dangers of a Corbyn win for the Labour Party; but what of it's impact on the rest of the country?
I see the dangers of Fascism and Anti-Semitism and a slow insidious attack on the majority White Christian population by so called friends of Corbyn, riding on his back (with his connivance) to power.
The Conservatives who voted for him on here for partisan reasons should bow their head in shame.
Perhaps a little list of those types could be compiled so any hypocritical prating from them on the disastrous, malign influence that Corbyn will have on British politics can be instantly dismissed.
This seems a little sinister but then who's surprised given the source
Far too busy on PB today.. you should all be out there sweltering in a traffic jam..
Chance would be a fine thing: it's chucking it down.
briiliant sunshine in God's country
One of the hottest and best summers I ever had in this country was in Pitlochry: swimming, walking, just being out in the open. It was simply glorious. It was the year I passed my Bar exams and my boyfriend's father, a Scottish judge (apologies - am not meaning to sound boastful) rang me to tell my results.... He was a lovely man.
Freckin' SLEPs. I thought the up-speed drum-beat for Astute-7 would mean that T-boats would retire in England!
You weren't alone in that thinking, Mr. Thoughts. It was so widespread the RN that most thought it was the actual plan.
Are you suggesting the Tridents should be based somewhere else? The only realistic place would be the USA, where they test fire. When you consider that the whole point of a Trident submarine is its warheads which are stored at Coulport near Faslane as well, it immediately becomes difficult to move them. Not impossible but as soon as you start looking you realise it becomes difficult. For instance a place in Milford Haven would mean dodging oil tankers. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977 ''Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, says it's inconceivable that the MoD would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.'' ''the Royal United Services Institute's Malcolm Chalmers says even though - time and expense allowing - Devonport might work as an alternative to Faslane, it couldn't recreate Coulport. Coulport possesses a huge floating dock where warheads are placed inside the missiles, 3km from the small village of Garelochhead on one side and the small village of Ardentinny on the other, Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee heard in 2012. Any new warhead storage facility would need similar distances from population centres for loading and offloading warheads from missiles.''
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise what is really driving the lefty Nat surge. Scotland is part of the UK and defence is not devolved. This move is the right one.
Don't be an ass. The conversation was about the Trafalgar boats being kept at Devonport until they were retired. It had sod all to do with Trident and the trident carrying boats.
Not a fan of corbyn but seems to me he was saying the act of assassinating an enemy without trial was a tragedy rather than the passing of bin laden... That said he probably is far too sympathetic to people like that to be leader of the opposition
Very doubtful. Different areas have different needs. We're fragmenting, rather than coalescing. As for the obvious counterpoint of the EU, that's an argument against larger, artificially crammed together nations. Just look how the currency crisis is going.
Hard to make sense of the Tory press logic here.Their story goes Corbyn is unelectable,which must be a good thing from the Murdoch/Dacre/Barclay Bros point of view,so why spend every day trashing him? The Sun goes the same way as Blair,Mandelson and the rest of the gang maybe out of old times sake and godparently love but everyone is cocking a deaf un.
On this piece I think that's something of the Guido method involved.
It is Harry Cole after all.
The emergence of the video might have forced the splash before someone else did it.
No. It's simple. Establish a story now which then becomes fixed in voters' minds. See "Labour are economically incompetent " - established in the six months after the 2010 GE when Labour were choosing a Leader..
If no-one defends it publicly, it becomes a fact of life.
So establishing that" Jeremy Corbyn is anti British" is the new theme. And the Sun has a LOT of Mr Corbyn's quotes to choose from...
Within six months of being elected Labour Leader (if indeed he is), it is likely that 60% of the electorate will actively dislike or hate Mr Corbyn - and by extension the Party he leads will suffer in polling.
(snip)Coulport possesses a huge floating dock where warheads are placed inside the missiles, 3km from the small village of Garelochhead on one side and the small village of Ardentinny on the other, Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee heard in 2012. Any new warhead storage facility would need similar distances from population centres for loading and offloading warheads from missiles.'' (snip)
I've walked past Coukport, and the road leading to it is very high quality for the area and, so I've been told, was not on maps for years after it was built. The security - and only the bits I could see from the road - were also quite impressive. Very James Bond. I daresay there were layers of security hidden out of sight as well.
I love walking along the side of a remote west-coast loch, only to come across a large RN ship replenishing from a heavily-disguised POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) depot.
I've never seen a submarine in the lochs though, and I'd love to have seen the floating dry dock the Yanks had at Holy Loch.
Someone ought to ask Corbyn whether he supports this:
"The United Nations was under fire last night for sending a Costa Rican human rights lawyer to Britain to investigate ‘absurd’ claims that Government welfare reforms have violated the rights of the disabled. Catalina Devandas Aguilar is expected to visit the UK in the coming months to spearhead an inquiry into claims that Britain is guilty of ‘grave or systematic violations’ of the rights of the disabled."
Not a fan of corbyn but seems to me he was saying the act of assassinating an enemy without trial was a tragedy rather than the passing of bin laden
And as pointed out he could have done that without saying the word tragedy, thus opening himself up to such attacks (which he would not be vulnerable too without other comments and stories giving it some kind of credence) of sympathizing and so on. He would definitely criticise an opponent for inelegant phrasing - and his supporters definitely would, how many times do we see people on all sides of politics say 'X said Y, claiming they meant Z, but it was the mask slipping/reflective of their true position? - so he cannot expect otherwise himself.
But the original point is that being liberal is different from being left or right, as demonstrated by some PBers examples.
Liberalism these days has been rather appropriated by the left, as Leonard Reed put it
There was a word that I always liked; the classical economists used it: liberal. The word liberal really meant, in the classical sense, the liberalization of the individuals from the tyranny of the State. That word was expropriated by our opponents and it has now come to mean liberality with other people’s money. The word was taken over. And so I, more than anybody else, was responsible for introducing and publicizing and perhaps making world-wide the word libertarian. I am sorry I ever did it. Why? Because the word libertarian has now been just as much expropriated as the word liberal
Very doubtful. Different areas have different needs. We're fragmenting, rather than coalescing. As for the obvious counterpoint of the EU, that's an argument against larger, artificially crammed together nations. Just look how the currency crisis is going.
Once Earth is just one of many human planets, yes.
On the substance, it looks pretty astute in hindsight, doesn't it? The US assassinated the Al Qaeda leadership and Al Qaeda got replaced by people less moderate than them. Then they took out the Libyan government too, and that didn't work out as well as they'd hoped. Tragedy after tragedy, each one creating the next tragedy.
"less moderate"
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
I was in New York on 9/11. It didn't seem to me that what happened was a moderate form of political debate...
Comments
If Labour didn't want this idiotic performance over the last few months, and the potentially absurd outcome, they shouldn't have put in place this damn stupid system.
On the other hand, as you say, if Corbyn's views push, say 10% from Lab to UKIP on immigration and foreign policy, then that could hand Farage dozens of seats come the next GE.
Have a great autumn!
Off topic - Bravo to Cyclefree, regarding her comments yesterday about the growing threat facing us.
...John Profumo.
When will US networks pick up on it, if at all, I wonder?
The labour/SNP threat was the single biggest factor, but lessons must be learned for future campaigns if progress is to be made.
He is of course one of the worst types of cheerleaders who likes to think he's got some solidarity with such radical violent types because inside it makes him feel like a big man through association. The most he'd do in reality is throw a copy of some Communist treatise at you before running away.
Incidentally, Bin Laden would have been found and dealt with much sooner if the U.S. had stayed focused on Afghanistan rather than messing around in Mesopotamia. But whatever the U.S. did it would have been wrong for Corbyn and co.,.
However, Labour seemed to have given up actually caring about the working class a long time ago although they continued to talk a good game.
FWIW I admit I despise the Labour party for how they act but the UK does derserve and need a competent opposition.
On the bright side for tory haters, the last time they had a very long time in power I grew to loath them too.
It just took New Labour to show me that actually they were not as bad as I thought and certainly preferable to run the country in my view.
This advert has been brought to you by the Northern Ireland Tourist Board.
If there was a prize for the most erudite and sagacious poster of the year Mrs Free would win hands down.
I've been walking around in London more than usual the last few weeks, and my lungs felt foul from the diesel fumes (amongst other things). Reminds me of how glad I am to live outside the Big Smoke, and especially that I never had to face London in the 50s.
It is Harry Cole after all.
The emergence of the video might have forced the splash before someone else did it.
Diane Abbott, Rushanara Ali, Margaret Beckett, Richard Burgon, Dawn Butler, Ronnie Campbell, Sarah Champion, Jeremy Corbyn, Jo Cox, Neil Coyle, Jon Cruddas, Clive Efford, Frank Field, Louise Haigh, Kelvin Hopkins, Rupa Huq, Imran Hussain, Huw Irranca-Davies, Sadiq Khan, David Lammy, Clive Lewis, Rebecca Long-Bailey, Gordon Marsden, John McDonnell, Michael Meacher, Grahame Morris, Chi Onwurah, Kate Osamor, Tulip Siddiq, Dennis Skinner, Cat Smith, Andrew Smith, Gareth Thomas, Emily Thornberry, Jon Trickett, Catherine West.
Lib Dems are neither right nor left but liberal. For example .....
Labour (Left) and Conservative (Right) are both in favour of the central government running things and being controlling. Lib Dems believe in the centre having as little control over people's lives as possible.
Odd. Three members of the Campaign Group didn't vote for him. Who did Cryer, Lavery and Mearns vote for ?
They are not responsible adults.
You want to have power devolved to the lowest level possible. But you also want to avoid duplicating functions between states: is there any need to have 30 different bodies all doing the same tests to see if a medicine is safe for human consumption, for example?
Note: I'm not suggesting the EU is actually like this. Merely pointing out, that it is not theoretically incompatible.
For example.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/10402330/Nick-Clegg-is-rejecting-liberalism-just-as-the-Conservatives-are-embracing-it.html
I do not see the conservatives (right or left) being in favour of increasing central control. So the whole premise is wrong.
As an example the NHS reforms were about giving GPs and GP commissioners more responsibility and also the whole point of allowing more private contractors into the NHS is about more responsibility. But with all that sort of thing comes accountability. Is not this the point behind elected police commissioners and elected mayors? You may or may not like the ideas but it is not direction and control from the centre.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LPn0KFlbqX8
No, what caused a decline in a collective identity is,
(1) The rise in a mentality of life being something for pure material and personal enjoyment rather than to achieve something in your lifetime. (I do accept parts of the right bought into this as much as the left.)
(2) Moral relativism, where all moral systems are considered equal and fair enough, so there was a breakdown in common values among people of different backgrounds, so we feel less like one nation.
(3) The bringing here of large numbers of people at a rate faster than they could be integrated into the shared culture of the existing population. This again made the sense of collective identity breakdown.
After merging with the SDP, the Liberals have been infiltrated by some SDP interventionists like Vince Cable.
Of course, for many people to be "free" government has to intervene to stop others blocking their freedom and to ensure there is equal opportunity for everyone to progress the way they choose.
It may need more of those supporters of liberal principles to join (or re-join) the Lib Dems for their policies to follow the theory in practice.
But the original point is that being liberal is different from being left or right, as demonstrated by some PBers examples.
When people live in enclosed communities speaking a different language, not behaving like us, unwilling to engage with us, using textbooks provided by a very foreign country - Saudi Arabia - for instance, and seeking to justify it all under the guise that this is "their" culture, it is hard to see why the rest of us should see such people as our neighbours. Anything which fractures the social cohesion of a people - and multiculturalism, at least as practised here, is only one of the factors - will not help in engendering a sense of collective solidarity, a sense of being all in it together and therefore standing together and helping each other.
Bluntly, Abu Qatada was here for years on benefits. I saw no good reason why I and other should pay for people like him to live here. I owe him nothing. This is not me not being neighbourly. This is me having a better sense of self-preservation and belief in Britishness than those fools of politicians and commentators who think that letting into the country people who do not want to be British and who actively hate us and seek to undermine us and who do it at our expense is somehow a good thing.
2) we're seeing the Icke-ification of Jeremy Corbyn.
The only realistic place would be the USA, where they test fire. When you consider that the whole point of a Trident submarine is its warheads which are stored at Coulport near Faslane as well, it immediately becomes difficult to move them.
Not impossible but as soon as you start looking you realise it becomes difficult. For instance a place in Milford Haven would mean dodging oil tankers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-28009977
''Dr Nick Ritchie, a lecturer in international security at the University of York, says it's inconceivable that the MoD would allow LNG plants and oil refineries to stay open if Trident was relocated to Milford Haven.''
''the Royal United Services Institute's Malcolm Chalmers says even though - time and expense allowing - Devonport might work as an alternative to Faslane, it couldn't recreate Coulport.
Coulport possesses a huge floating dock where warheads are placed inside the missiles, 3km from the small village of Garelochhead on one side and the small village of Ardentinny on the other, Westminster's Scottish Affairs Committee heard in 2012. Any new warhead storage facility would need similar distances from population centres for loading and offloading warheads from missiles.''
I think you need to wake up and smell the coffee and realise what is really driving the lefty Nat surge. Scotland is part of the UK and defence is not devolved. This move is the right one.
WTF????????
OBL was a moderate in your eyes?
I see the dangers of Fascism and Anti-Semitism and a slow insidious attack on the majority White Christian population by so called friends of Corbyn, riding on his back (with his connivance) to power.
Very doubtful. Different areas have different needs. We're fragmenting, rather than coalescing. As for the obvious counterpoint of the EU, that's an argument against larger, artificially crammed together nations. Just look how the currency crisis is going.
No. It's simple. Establish a story now which then becomes fixed in voters' minds. See "Labour are economically incompetent " - established in the six months after the 2010 GE when Labour were choosing a Leader..
If no-one defends it publicly, it becomes a fact of life.
So establishing that" Jeremy Corbyn is anti British" is the new theme. And the Sun has a LOT of Mr Corbyn's quotes to choose from...
Within six months of being elected Labour Leader (if indeed he is), it is likely that 60% of the electorate will actively dislike or hate Mr Corbyn - and by extension the Party he leads will suffer in polling.
What's the name of the terrorist from Ibiza?
I love walking along the side of a remote west-coast loch, only to come across a large RN ship replenishing from a heavily-disguised POL (Petrol, Oil, Lubricants) depot.
I've never seen a submarine in the lochs though, and I'd love to have seen the floating dry dock the Yanks had at Holy Loch.
"The United Nations was under fire last night for sending a Costa Rican human rights lawyer to Britain to investigate ‘absurd’ claims that Government welfare reforms have violated the rights of the disabled.
Catalina Devandas Aguilar is expected to visit the UK in the coming months to spearhead an inquiry into claims that Britain is guilty of ‘grave or systematic violations’ of the rights of the disabled."
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3216438/Now-meddling-sends-lawyer-Britain-probe-benefits-reforms-violate-human-rights-disabled.html
To misquote the Bard "The gentlemen do protest too much, methinks!"
Would you suggest a fireman shouting at people to leave a burning building was 'protesting too much'?
What did you make of his Falklands comments?