Reluctant to engage with an anonymous bloke on Twitter, or even the sainted Dan Hodges, but when I was proposing ID cards I was on the other side of that argument - I suggested that people with nothing to hide had nothing to fear, and people said ah, but once the power is in place it may be misused.
"Was it reasonable to kill these particular people?" is a different question from "Should we be clear about the process and preconditions for Britain to kill our own citizens without trial?" The latter clarity is a perfectly reasonable demand, and it should be made irrespective of what most people feel about this specific case.
There has to be a practical difference between a tactical measure and a strategic decision.
Traditionally government doesn't get involved in operational decisions, but devolves that authority to the military. But it is right that a "strategic" decision such as a declaration of war should be debated and determined by Parliament.
A targeted strike, such as this case, falls somewhere in between. Parliament and probably not even the Intelligence Committee can't get involved simply because there is often a very limited window for the military to act. Hence this is properly a delegated authority for the executive.
That said, it is reasonable that there are clear guidelines and limitations on that delegated authority. It was right that they got approval from the AG. I can see it would be helpful for the IC to agree with the AG/government parameters for future decisions. I don't see that it would be a good idea to publish the legal advice received in this case or any agreed parameters set by the IC: why give your enemy any clues on your proposed actions.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
this article needs to be read while reminding oneself that the author does not necessarily have electoral success of the Labour party as their top priority.
Mind you, neither does the Labour party at the moment, apparently.
Well, this is true. But if I were really trying to undermine Labour I'd be arguing that they need to keep Corbyn in place until 2020. As you note, the damage is being done right now; the question is how to undo it as best they can. Perhaps a little water will clear them of this deed?
1) and 2) makes me think the government are sending messages.
I agree. I do not for a moment believe that these were the first Britons killed in Syria by UK forces, as there have been many stories about UK involvement in raids in Syria, and if some of the stories are correct the sheer number of ISIS terrorists killed makes it likely a few British terrorists have been involved.
They might have been the first British terrorists killed by a UK air strike in Syria, though reading what Cameron said in parliament he was not as precise as the press reports imply.
Show of hands. Who believes this bullshit story that the intelligence services got wind of a terrorist plot to blow up a high profile target so they sent a drone to Al-Raqqah to take out the two miscreants? It's beyond incredible! They can't even find 'Jihad John'
My guess is post rationalization after a stray bomb
My guess is that the intelligence services flagged an opportunity to take out a known couple of terrorists who had made threats against the UK and were known to be communicating and inciting others within the UK to take action. Perhaps there was evidence of an immenient plot, perhaps not.
But the military (RAF) will have confirmed they had the capability to take advantage of this opportunity but, as it was inside Syria and could have political implications, it went to the attorney general for legal advice and then to the PM for a decision.
The PM decided it was an opportunity the UK could not afford to let slip.
Plato.. The thing about all this that really scares me is the deafening sound of knees knocking... what on earth has happened to the British people when we quake with fear at the thought of some sort of retaliation when we carry out an action designed to protect the citizens from an attack by religious nutjobs....The PM who gives the order is damned if he does and doubly damned if he doesn't..
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
They were well aware of what fate awaited them if we got the opportunity.
Many more of their ilk are aware today, hopefully they will get the not-so-subtle hint.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
Reach and capability. If they are in this country, we can probably arrest and charge them with relative ease. As they are in Syria, we have three options:
1) Try them in absentia, which will take a great deal of time, risk intelligence sources, alert them and probably not stop their plotting.
2) Try to arrest them. They are in what is essentially a non-existent state, so we cannot go through official channels. This means we would either try to get them out of the country (very difficult), or put boots on the ground to capture them. This risks troops, and creates many other practical and legal issues.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
The difference is that the police can't arrest them in Syria, nor can they be extradited as they could be from a functioning and friendly other state. Would the same happen in the UK? Obviously the use of drones wouldn't but deadly force can be used if the situation justifies it.
The use of a drone to kill 2 people believed to be terrorists is a lot more complicated than some on here are making out. Because, like the shooting of the IRA men in Gibraltar, it has consequences. Two enemies (I assume the government got that bit right) of Britain dead. How many more enemies created? Just like the invasion of Iraq. Illegal or legal war, looking at it now no sane person would argue it made the situation better for either Iraq or the rest of the world. At the time opponents of the war were castigated for wanting an evil and cruel dictator to stay in place, as if we were in favour of what he was doing. But it was naive to suppose that removing him would be like waving a magic wand and everything would be alright. You can interfere in things for the right reasons and still get the wrong results - often utterly predictably. Sometimes the best course of action is not the obvious one. That's what I think Tim Farron was on about when I heard him on the radio this morning. He didn't come out and say it was the wrong thing to do to use a drone to kill two people who probably represented a threat to this country. He said you have to be very careful when you do things because they could have all sorts of consequences which made things worse. And also that it was better to act lawfully than not lawfully, for the same reason.
I do not know what Cameron's long term strategy for dealing with ISIS style terrorism and the Middle East is. Does Cameron?
They'll be enemies no matter what we do. I'm fed up of appeasment using this excuse. If it's not this, it;ll be something else motivating them, which suprise suprise is all our fault.
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
this article needs to be read while reminding oneself that the author does not necessarily have electoral success of the Labour party as their top priority.
Mind you, neither does the Labour party at the moment, apparently.
Well, this is true. But if I were really trying to undermine Labour I'd be arguing that they need to keep Corbyn in place until 2020. As you note, the damage is being done right now; the question is how to undo it as best they can. Perhaps a little water will clear them of this deed?
Hard for those MPs who put Corbyn on the ballot to find enough soap and water to cleanse their hands.
1) and 2) makes me think the government are sending messages.
I agree. I do not for a moment believe that these were the first Britons killed in Syria by UK forces, as there have been many stories about UK involvement in raids in Syria, and if some of the stories are correct the sheer number of ISIS terrorists killed makes it likely a few British terrorists have been involved.
They might have been the first British terrorists killed by a UK air strike in Syria, though reading what Cameron said in parliament he was not as precise as the press reports imply.
Agreed. This attack was spoken about in Parliament in order to send the message, there's undoubtedly plenty more British involvement in the area which is rightly being kept quiet.
I seem to recall an interview with Cameron a couple of years ago where he was asked what was the worst thing about the job of PM - he was unequivocal that it was when dealing with live situations involving the military abroad, where the outcome was unknown and could end in the loss of innocent life. I imagine that every former PM would answer the question in the same way, they are all decent human beings under the surface.
The thing about all this that really scares me is the deafening sound of knees knocking. The thing about all this that really scares me is the deafening sound of knees knocking
It's worse than that even - some parts of the British left appear to be exhibiting signs of Stockholm Syndrome with regard to ISIS and radical Islam more generally
Listening to the Broadcast media and in particular the BBC and Sky over the refugee/migrant crisis and the drone strike just highlights how completely out of touch they are with the person in the street. It is the case that everyone is affected by distressing pictures but it is not the case that the majority want to open their homes to refugees but prefer a sensible compromise. Also it is inconceivable that the public will not only endorse the drone strike but would have no problems with other strikes. The Governments first duty is to safeguard the public and I am sure David Cameron's decision will be welcomed by the public at large.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
A practical one. In the UK they could be arrested and put on trial. That was not possible given their geographical location (extraction missions are the stuff of Hollywood, not reality). Hence the importance of the AG's agreement that they were an immanent threat to the UK - a targeted strike was therefore both pre-emptive self-defence and the only viable method to prevent an attack
If you can, it may be worth backing Manor to win some points in 2016 (I'd want at least 4-5, preferably longer). They're reportedly getting Mercedes engines. Which is interesting as I thought there was a 4 team limit and there's already Lotus, Force India and William [as well as the main team].
Red Bull will reportedly have Ferrari engines (I think they'll also supply Haas).
Both those stories suggest Renault may buy and supply what is currently Lotus.
Cameron deliberately broke the rules of Government in that both he*, and particularly Fallon, authorised action leading to the extra judicial extermination of British Citizens in a an area where they were forbidden, by a vote in the House of Commons.
No he didn't. The Govenment (the executive, not Parliament) is allowed to do this unless explicitly forbidden by law (uefbl). The parliamentary resolution didn't have the status of a law and so was purely advisory. The Government, via the Ministry of Defence and the Armed Forces, can kill anybody they damn well please uefbl.
(in passing, this is another example in a very long list - not just you, I'm not having a dig at you here - of everybody simply not understanding the rules of the UK)
One thing I did notice was that Cameron has not answered the question of why he wasn't involved in the decision to kill. Two options exist, 1/. that the operation was proceeding so fast that there wasn't time to find him and involve him in the decision, or 2/. that the military suspected that he didn't have the danglies to commit and kept him deliberately out of the loop.
The armed forces kill people frequently (its their job). Asking PM permission for each decision is wildly impractical.
These men were threatening Britain and threatening to kill Britons. Limp-wristed, weak-kneed appeasement does nothing but embolden those who would harm us.
Mr. NorthWales, I agree. Media coverage recently has been bizarrely off-centre.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
If they were burning people to death and throwing gays of roofs in the UK,then I think plod might get involved. Unless it was South Yorkshire or the Met, of course...:-(
If you can, it may be worth backing Manor to win some points in 2016 (I'd want at least 4-5, preferably longer). They're reportedly getting Mercedes engines. Which is interesting as I thought there was a 4 team limit and there's already Lotus, Force India and William [as well as the main team].
Red Bull will reportedly have Ferrari engines (I think they'll also supply Haas).
Both those stories suggest Renault may buy and supply what is currently Lotus.
There's multiple sources now for both Manor getting Mercedes power and RB getting Ferrari. Well done Mercedes for telling the soft drinks makers to go and do one, and good luck to Ferrari in convincing RB that they're not getting older development PUs.
The Renault bid for Lotus could well still fall apart, with all sorts of politics in play. The French basically have no money so have turned to Bernie for help sort it out. It's a big mess that will get messier before it gets resolved.
"All in all, Labour cannot move against Corbyn until his credibility is utterly shot, not just with the public at large but also with enough of the likes of Nick Palmer - mainstream members who voted for him as being worth a throw of the dice - to prevent the risk of any member of the far left from getting near the leadership again. There will be a cost to that but there's going to be a cost to whatever route Labour takes."
I think David Herdson has this absolutely right. At some stage, fundamentally decent, but totally misguided Labour members will come to realise that having as leader an anti-western, anti-capitalist apologist for terrorism who has spent 40 years sharing platforms with people who wish nothing but ill on the UK and its allies is not only politically stupid but also morally indefensible. At this stage, blinded by the grief and shock of Labour's defeat in may they are not yet ready to admit this. To move against Corbyn before they are is not feasible. Just how long it takes them to snap out of their current state of mind is harder to tell. I suspect there is some way to go yet, but that a defeat in the London mayoral election may act as something of a wake up call.
Sounds right !......Corbyn has to be utterly discredited and humiliated before he is yanked off the stage ...The Tory print media will do a hatchet job on this fool but its in their own interests to keep him on stage as long as possible to thereby maximise the damage and toxicate the Labour brand
The LP are like a recovering alcoholic always in danger of a relapse back to it ''good old days ''and poor Corbyn is 100% pure meth ; all the good work that Blair has done rehabilitating the image of Labour and trying to convince the electorate that are trustworthy with the levers of power has been for nothing as they have defaulted back to their traditional 1970s socialist positions ...indeed , Corbyn is a total and complete labourholic and its becoming increasingly clear that the UK only has one electable political party
Plato.. The thing about all this that really scares me is the deafening sound of knees knocking... what on earth has happened to the British people when we quake with fear at the thought of some sort of retaliation when we carry out an action designed to protect the citizens from an attack by religious nutjobs....The PM who gives the order is damned if he does and doubly damned if he doesn't..
The use of a drone to kill 2 people believed to be terrorists is a lot more complicated than some on here are making out. Because, like the shooting of the IRA men in Gibraltar, it has consequences. Two enemies (I assume the government got that bit right) of Britain dead. How many more enemies created? Just like the invasion of Iraq. Illegal or legal war, looking at it now no sane person would argue it made the situation better for either Iraq or the rest of the world. At the time opponents of the war were castigated for wanting an evil and cruel dictator to stay in place, as if we were in favour of what he was doing. But it was naive to suppose that removing him would be like waving a magic wand and everything would be alright. You can interfere in things for the right reasons and still get the wrong results - often utterly predictably. Sometimes the best course of action is not the obvious one. That's what I think Tim Farron was on about when I heard him on the radio this morning. He didn't come out and say it was the wrong thing to do to use a drone to kill two people who probably represented a threat to this country. He said you have to be very careful when you do things because they could have all sorts of consequences which made things worse. And also that it was better to act lawfully than not lawfully, for the same reason. I do not know what Cameron's long term strategy for dealing with ISIS style terrorism and the Middle East is. Does Cameron?
There may be some point purpose and logic to what you are writing but I do not see it. Do you?
Does anyone seriously think that our Governments, of all hues, have not over the years been prepared to have MI6 and other departments use lethal force without trial? How naive can you get.
I have met one of the people they have used. Fingerprintss surgically removed, all traces of his past erased from the system. A ghost that does not officially exist.
They'll be enemies no matter what we do. I'm fed up of appeasment using this excuse. If it's not this, it;ll be something else motivating them, which suprise suprise is all our fault.
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
And that's exactly what I mean. If only it was a simple as you make out, Mr (?) SB we could just kill the lot of them and it would all be over. Just like Vietnam, say. Or the Crusades. Or the Troubles. And plenty of other examples where those came from. You would have thought by now that mankind would have learned enough from history to find a better way, but it seems that lust for power and ideological fundamentalism trump rational thought just about every time.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
They were well aware of what fate awaited them if we got the opportunity. Many more of their ilk are aware today, hopefully they will get the not-so-subtle hint.
Correct. ism grows ever more absurd. As are a few other people when faced with the realities of fighting these terrorists. We need more drone strikes. And parliament needs to say yes. However we need to remember that the nation is faced with self servers like David Davis.
Does anyone seriously think that our Governments, of all hues, have not over the years been prepared to have MI6 and other departments use lethal force without trial? How naive can you get.
I have met one of the people they have used. Fingerprints surgically removed, all traces of his past erased from the system. A ghost that does not officially exist.
Quite. Very naive to think that Syria and the surrounding area are not crawling with 'ghost' MI6 operatives and deniable SAS and SBS units. Drone strikes don't call themselves in except on TV shows.
Edit: Recall the huffing and puffing from some when it took a few hours longer than expected to get an evacuation plane into Libya a couple of years back - turns out the 'diplomats' it delivered with large muscles and green bags appeared a few days later in the middle of the desert to call in a Hercules or two, that ensured no British were left behind. We are good at this shit. Really really good at it.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Corbyn needs to hang around long enough to serve one purpose: to kill red-in-tooth-and-claw socialism stone dead as a political option in the UK. It will be a service he is doing not only for the UK, but for the Labour Party too.
MrsB, you're calling the UK/armed forces/those who support Cameron's decision 'fundamentalists'?
Interesting choice of word, given the context.
This isn't a political dispute. It's the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis.
In Northern Ireland, both sides had clear political goals. The goal of ISIS is to kill every Yazidi, institutionalise rape of non-Muslims, burn to death or decapitate prisoners, conquer the entire coast of the Mediterranean, and tax and kill those who do not convert.
How are we to negotiate or take a moderate stance on that? Accept crucifixion of children but ask for beheadings to only happen on Tuesdays?
They'll be enemies no matter what we do. I'm fed up of appeasment using this excuse. If it's not this, it;ll be something else motivating them, which suprise suprise is all our fault.
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
And that's exactly what I mean. If only it was a simple as you make out, Mr (?) SB we could just kill the lot of them and it would all be over. Just like Vietnam, say. Or the Crusades. Or the Troubles. And plenty of other examples where those came from. You would have thought by now that mankind would have learned enough from history to find a better way, but it seems that lust for power and ideological fundamentalism trump rational thought just about every time.
Different game, different rules.
The two terrorists killed would not hesitate to detonate the contents of their rucksacks whilst you gave them a hug. They'd likely feel even more satisfaction knowing that they'd wiped out some soft Western liberals.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
They'll be enemies no matter what we do. I'm fed up of appeasment using this excuse. If it's not this, it;ll be something else motivating them, which suprise suprise is all our fault.
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
And that's exactly what I mean. If only it was a simple as you make out, Mr (?) SB we could just kill the lot of them and it would all be over. Just like Vietnam, say. Or the Crusades. Or the Troubles. And plenty of other examples where those came from. You would have thought by now that mankind would have learned enough from history to find a better way, but it seems that lust for power and ideological fundamentalism trump rational thought just about every time.
Not really. They were not within the jurisdiction of the UK nor within any other jurisdiction that was useable. The normal course of justice (evidence, arrest, trial, verdict, punishment) could not proceed. The usual substitute in these occasions is warfare: killing the opposition in whatever manner comes to hand uefbl.
They'll be enemies no matter what we do. I'm fed up of appeasment using this excuse. If it's not this, it;ll be something else motivating them, which suprise suprise is all our fault.
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
And that's exactly what I mean. If only it was a simple as you make out, Mr (?) SB we could just kill the lot of them and it would all be over. Just like Vietnam, say. Or the Crusades. Or the Troubles. And plenty of other examples where those came from. You would have thought by now that mankind would have learned enough from history to find a better way, but it seems that lust for power and ideological fundamentalism trump rational thought just about every time.
There is no better way. We live in a dangerous world with people, organisations and sometimes even countries seeking to do us harm.
The alternative is to allow an safe haven for ISIS and others to have a base to launch attack after attack on our country, which they would no doubt do,
No one thinks they're the bad guy. Anyone has rationality or reason or greviance for the things they do, everyone has a 'justification'.
The only way is to deal with them before they can. Sometimes they'll get through. But any PM should first and foremost have a responsilibity for the safety of people in this country.
Does anyone seriously think that our Governments, of all hues, have not over the years been prepared to have MI6 and other departments use lethal force without trial? How naive can you get.
I have met one of the people they have used. Fingerprints surgically removed, all traces of his past erased from the system. A ghost that does not officially exist.
Quite. Very naive to think that Syria and the surrounding area are not crawling with 'ghost' MI6 operatives and deniable SAS and SBS units. Drone strikes don't call themselves in except on TV shows.
Edit: Recall the huffing and puffing from some when it took a few hours longer than expected to get an evacuation plane into Libya a couple of years back - turns out the 'diplomats' it delivered with large muscles and green bags appeared a few days later in the middle of the desert to call in a Hercules or two, that ensured no British were left behind. We are good at this shit. Really really good at it.
I was told a brilliant story this past weekend about just how far our SAS/SBS guys went to get intelligence in Iraq. I won't repeat it here for obvious reasons, but it made me go "bloody hell! That is ballsy!"
The Tories don't want corbyn to resign or be ousted in a coup , they want him to remain on the political stage for as long as possible thereby making labour unelectable for possibly a generation ...they want him to suffer the death of a thousand cuts , to be publically crucified for the sins of the LP..they want to make a frightening example out of him !
On topic: I'm with David Herdson on this. I think a swift coup is simply not feasible.
The key point is that Jeremy Corbyn is a symptom, not a cause, of Labour's problem. The party can only recover when it finally gets to the stage that it wants to recover and is prepared to unite in order to do so. Not only is it far from that point, it is actively ramping up the civil war and loony-left self-indulgence. Things will get worse for Labour before they get better, and the sane wing of the party will simply have to try to hold on as best they can until circmstances are more propitious.
The Tories don't want corbyn to resign or be ousted in a coup , they want him to remain on the political stage for as long as possible thereby making labour unelectable for possibly a generation ...they want him to suffer the death of a thousand cuts , to be publically crucified for the sins of the LP..they want to make a frightening example out of him !
Will he sing "Always look on the bright side of life"?
"All in all, Labour cannot move against Corbyn until his credibility is utterly shot, not just with the public at large but also with enough of the likes of Nick Palmer - mainstream members who voted for him as being worth a throw of the dice - to prevent the risk of any member of the far left from getting near the leadership again. There will be a cost to that but there's going to be a cost to whatever route Labour takes."
I think David Herdson has this absolutely right. At some stage, fundamentally decent, but totally misguided Labour members will come to realise that having as leader an anti-western, anti-capitalist apologist for terrorism who has spent 40 years sharing platforms with people who wish nothing but ill on the UK and its allies is not only politically stupid but also morally indefensible. At this stage, blinded by the grief and shock of Labour's defeat in may they are not yet ready to admit this. To move against Corbyn before they are is not feasible. Just how long it takes them to snap out of their current state of mind is harder to tell. I suspect there is some way to go yet, but that a defeat in the London mayoral election may act as something of a wake up call.
Sounds right !......Corbyn has to be utterly discredited and humiliated before he is yanked off the stage ...The Tory print media will do a hatchet job on this fool but its in their own interests to keep him on stage as long as possible to thereby maximise the damage and toxicate the Labour brand
The LP are like a recovering alcoholic always in danger of a relapse back to it ''good old days ''and poor Corbyn is 100% pure meth ; all the good work that Blair has done rehabilitating the image of Labour and trying to convince the electorate that are trustworthy with the levers of power has been for nothing as they have defaulted back to their traditional 1970s socialist positions ...indeed , Corbyn is a total and complete labourholic and its becoming increasingly clear that the UK only has one electable political party
On topic: I'm with David Herdson on this. I think a swift coup is simply not feasible.
The key point is that Jeremy Corbyn is a symptom, not a cause, of Labour's problem. The party can only recover when it finally gets to the stage that it wants to recover and is prepared to unite in order to do so. Not only is it far from that point, it is actively ramping up the civil war and loony-left self-indulgence. Things will get worse for Labour before they get better, and the sane wing of the party will simply have to try to hold on as best they can until circmstances are more propitious.
I agree. There's no point starting a civil war with the left when you'll lose.
I'm not following this closely, for obvious reasons, but what happens if Corbyn wins and is not a total disaster but a borderline competent leader? How could they ditch him if that happens?
Podemos and IU (the renamed Communist Party) have agreed to run a merged list at Spanish elections later this year.
IU has been polling 3-4% in the polls, while Podemos is on about 16%.
There are two ways this could play out: One, it could result in the combined party up around the 20% mark - still in third, and 10% behind the PP, but scoring much better in seat numbers than previously. Two, given Podemos's historic criticisms of the Communists, and their claim to "not be like other political parties" is could cause some of their more moderate members to drift in the direction of PSOE and Citizen's.
A wild guess would be that Podemos will take 2% of the IU vote, with the other 1.5% splitting between PSOE and Citizen's.
The best bet, currently, would be that the PP gets around 30% of the vote and 40% of the seats, and is able to govern in coalition with Citizen's.
The wildcard is Catalonia, where the various nationalist groupings have created a single "independence" platform, which is polling around 40-44% in the region. (Citizen's in a strong second in Catalonia.) There have been suggestions that if the nationalists score 50+% then they will go for UDI. (I would be surprised if they did this, but hey...)
The independence bloc in Catalonia is running explicitly on a platform of declaring independence if it gets a majority of seats.
I still don't think they'll declare UDI without a referendum. And I think - even if independence were won - it would be a negotiated departure from Spain.
UDI would certainly mean no EU; what currency would they use? How would the government borrow? What asset's would be Catalonia's rather than the Spanish government's.
The latest opinion polls have support for independence on 44%, and support has been falling since mid 2012 (when it was briefly above 50%). I think support for "disorganised" independence would be much lower.
Yes, support for independence is falling. But the bloc is explicitly seeking a mandate for UDI. If it gets its majority and then does not do as promised it will immediately fracture. Of course, it would be nothing more than a ridiculous self-defeating gesture, but that is where things have got to. Basically, it is a clusterf**k which the PP has as much, if not more, responsibility for creating as Convergencia and the ERC. All that was needed to solve the whole problem was a deal for Catalonia along the lones of the one that the Basques already have. But if the PP wins enough seats to govern after the general election - though I am not as sure as you that they will - there will not be any negotiation with Catalonia about anything and the whole mess will continue.
The best hope for a resolution now is that the Bloc does not get an overall majority of seats.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Sounds a bit Jason Bourne.
Whoops. That was for MM with his 'ghost' post. Not Mr. Herdson!
Does anyone seriously think that our Governments, of all hues, have not over the years been prepared to have MI6 and other departments use lethal force without trial? How naive can you get.
I have met one of the people they have used. Fingerprints surgically removed, all traces of his past erased from the system. A ghost that does not officially exist.
Quite. Very naive to think that Syria and the surrounding area are not crawling with 'ghost' MI6 operatives and deniable SAS and SBS units. Drone strikes don't call themselves in except on TV shows.
Edit: Recall the huffing and puffing from some when it took a few hours longer than expected to get an evacuation plane into Libya a couple of years back - turns out the 'diplomats' it delivered with large muscles and green bags appeared a few days later in the middle of the desert to call in a Hercules or two, that ensured no British were left behind. We are good at this shit. Really really good at it.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Sounds a bit Jason Bourne.
Whoops. That was for MM with his 'ghost' post. Not Mr. Herdson!
Might be the first time I've been compared to Jason Bourne.
I'm not following this closely, for obvious reasons, but what happens if Corbyn wins and is not a total disaster but a borderline competent leader? How could they ditch him if that happens?
The aim, which the tories did so well with Ed Miliband is keep him weakened, but not to finish him off.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
================= I agree with this too , corbyn's version of 1970s socialism is completely anachronistic in 21st C UK , indeed it seems positively Luddite to me , but it must be allowed to run its natural course before it can be safely jettisoned ...Corbynism must be allowed to become a laughing stock and only then should he slink off the stage , well and truly humiliated
Corbynmania reminds me of a religious revival or cult that may have broken out in 19th C Imperial India or Africa ...the colonial administrators would wisely contain it like a dangerous bushfire and then allow it to burn itself out in an orgy of self flagellation
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
War.
These enemies were in a war zone and killed by means of war. Had they been residing in the UK the Police would have been involved. By their own choices this wasn't an option.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Sounds a bit Jason Bourne.
Whoops. That was for MM with his 'ghost' post. Not Mr. Herdson!
Might be the first time I've been compared to Jason Bourne.
Lol. I'll be watching out now for any mention of Treadstone in your posts.
Clearly killing British Citizens abroad is very serious and, at the very least, needs strong parliamentary oversight. The potential for abuse is scary. I am surprised that people who complain about things like ID cards are not up in arms.
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Sounds a bit Jason Bourne.
Whoops. That was for MM with his 'ghost' post. Not Mr. Herdson!
Might be the first time I've been compared to Jason Bourne.
Lol. I'll be watching out now for any mention of Treadstone in your posts.
I've got some threads coming up about George Osborne entitled
"The Osborne Identity of this Government", "The Osborne Supremacy" and the "The Osborne Legacy"
Well at least PB has a distinguished greybeard constituency to counsel against the impetuous advice of youngsters like me ;-) You are probably correct as it is of course a question of balancing risks as - provided you accept that Labour needs to move to the centre - the question ought to just be one of timing. There might not be the resolve or mechanism to pull off an immediate coup in any case (not least in preventing Corbyn or a Corbynite from standing again).
But the assumption that eventually Corbyn will do the decent thing, or that the PLP will move against him might not hold true either. There is clearly an existential threat here - at least as far as being a party that aspire to national power goes.
I'd agree with all that (apart from the impetuosity claim!).
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Sounds a bit Jason Bourne.
Whoops. That was for MM with his 'ghost' post. Not Mr. Herdson!
Might be the first time I've been compared to Jason Bourne.
Who knows, if you drive around in an old mini, accompanied by a girl with strange colored hair, it might happen again
MrsB, you're calling the UK/armed forces/those who support Cameron's decision 'fundamentalists'?
Interesting choice of word, given the context.
This isn't a political dispute. It's the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis.
In Northern Ireland, both sides had clear political goals. The goal of ISIS is to kill every Yazidi, institutionalise rape of non-Muslims, burn to death or decapitate prisoners, conquer the entire coast of the Mediterranean, and tax and kill those who do not convert.
How are we to negotiate or take a moderate stance on that? Accept crucifixion of children but ask for beheadings to only happen on Tuesdays?
Sorry, can see the way I worded that left it open to misinterpretation. I meant ISIS are the ideological fundamentalists with a lust for power.
Let me try and make myself clearer, especially for the benefit of Mr Flightpath01.
My view is that if it was easy to obliterate terrorism by killing terrorists, we wouldn't have this problem. Any simplistic idea that we can charge around the world solving problems by killing people is doomed to failure. That doesn't mean that it is always the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is the right thing to do. Just that it is unlikely to make a lot of difference overall. And sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves. What the prime minister and government do in the Middle East will have consequences. I would like to be sure that they have thought about what those consequences are and have ideas about how to deal with them. At the moment I don't have that feeling.
I would like to take this drone incident at face value. Unfortunately, the long history of British governments being economical with the truth (google Death on the Rock, for example), makes me worry. That worry may not be justified. But I would be happier if the Intelligence Select Committee were able to give the matter the once over.
In the case of these two people, they appear to have been British citizens. What if they were Saudis and the Saudi government didn't agree with what happened? What if the drone had taken out a wedding party by mistake, as in Afghanistan? The scope for disaster is worrying, and I worry. I want some reassurance that proper thought and control has gone into this and we aren't at the mercy of a few gung-ho armchair warriors.
Some people on here are very sure of their position and shrug off doubts. I would be very worried if they were in charge of the country. I feel happier having a government that agonises about killing people than I would with a government that turned to killing as their first option.
You are all entitled to disagree with me. You are all entitled to think I am an idiot and tell me you are glad I'm not in charge of the country. But I am equally entitled to think the same of you.
While I don't have any sympathy for the dead traitors, it does seem that they were killed without trial... Would we do the same to those plotting the same crimes while residing within the UK? What is the difference?
Reach and capability. If they are in this country, we can probably arrest and charge them with relative ease. As they are in Syria, we have three options:
1) Try them in absentia, which will take a great deal of time, risk intelligence sources, alert them and probably not stop their plotting.
2) Try to arrest them. They are in what is essentially a non-existent state, so we cannot go through official channels. This means we would either try to get them out of the country (very difficult), or put boots on the ground to capture them. This risks troops, and creates many other practical and legal issues.
3) Kill them, as we did.
Mmm. But we say the target presented a "clear and present danger" (allegedly to the Queen). It's not obvious how he had that status while driving around in Syria, as opposed to trying to come back to Britain, in which case we could potentially have arrested him.
It would be useful if a trusted independent body - the ISC is the obvious one - were able to confirm that there was indeed some reason to suppose him to be a clear and present danger where he was or, alternatively, that there is a doctrine that can be clearly set out about when and where we feel OK about killing citizens without trial.
I'm not criticising the operation since I don't have enough information, and I don't expect the Government to give it to me as, now, a random private individual. But I'd like them to give it to somebody independent to confirm.
I have absolutely no problem with these two being killed. They deserved everything they got and then some. Hopefully others will learn a a major lesson or they too will end up blown to smithereens.
However, I do have a problem with the idea that it is wrong to report that there is a level of unease about this development and that in reporting this unease you are somehow endorsing it. In a democracy, it is not the job of the media to act as a cheerleader for government actions - especially when they do involve the killing of British citizens. Some outlets may choose to applaud such actions and ask no questions, but that does not mean that all should.
The execution of these two is no doubt legal, but there is a line somewhere. Is it not right that we seek to explore where it is?
I simultaneously shed no tears for the dead ISIS members and consider every dead ISIS member a good thing, whilst acknowledging that a few years ago the Tories were promoting the assistance of forces that ended up becoming ISIS and seeking assurances there are checks and balances to such activities, as is necessary in a democracy.
I think the biggest problem is that this whole Corbynmania tells the public that a lot of ~Labour~ supporters lurked under this stone and now they're running around on the carpet.
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
The Tories don't want corbyn to resign or be ousted in a coup , they want him to remain on the political stage for as long as possible thereby making labour unelectable for possibly a generation ...they want him to suffer the death of a thousand cuts , to be publically crucified for the sins of the LP..they want to make a frightening example out of him !
I'm as much against Jihadists as the next man, but it strikes me that these two were really not much more than a couple of dIckhead show-off inadequates who would have pooped their pants at the first sign of real danger.
One of the biggest threats to global security and the forces of democracy right now is the Saudi promotion of fundamentalism worldwide, this needs to be tackled as a matter of extreme urgency.
@jimwaterson: Guardian leader in 1996 calls Corbyn "a fool" who Labour would "be better off without" due to his "gesture politics" http://t.co/FpGSURKspo
On topic: I'm with David Herdson on this. I think a swift coup is simply not feasible.
The key point is that Jeremy Corbyn is a symptom, not a cause, of Labour's problem. The party can only recover when it finally gets to the stage that it wants to recover and is prepared to unite in order to do so. Not only is it far from that point, it is actively ramping up the civil war and loony-left self-indulgence. Things will get worse for Labour before they get better, and the sane wing of the party will simply have to try to hold on as best they can until circmstances are more propitious.
The sane wing of the party needs to do the hard thinking they've failed to do in the last few years so that they can produce a social democratic left of centre story that speaks to the society of today and tomorrow not that of 70 or more years ago.
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
Thatcher was not telegenic or even particularly popular in her party, other than as a reason to vote against Heath, when she became leader. But she came out of some intellectual ferment on the right about the role of the state, how to address the problems all societies were then facing and what the role of the right should be. And that was going on and was largely led by others before she even thought of standing for leader. That provided some intellectual ballast to her leadership and premiership. It's that which is missing from the sane bits of Labour.
The Tories don't want corbyn to resign or be ousted in a coup , they want him to remain on the political stage for as long as possible thereby making labour unelectable for possibly a generation ...they want him to suffer the death of a thousand cuts , to be publically crucified for the sins of the LP..they want to make a frightening example out of him !
Even more, they will want to tar the entire Labour Party with the Corbyn brush. As it happens Labour are enthusiastically painting the brush all over themselves at the moment, so that should be straightforward.
"Treatment for gangrene involves removing the affected tissue, preventing infection or treating any existing infection, and treating the problem that led to gangrene developing."
I think the biggest problem is that this whole Corbynmania tells the public that a lot of ~Labour~ supporters lurked under this stone and now they're running around on the carpet.
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
Things can change surprisingly quickly. The nation needs an opposition ready to step into power. One way or another we will get one. Nature abhors a vacuum. The whacky unelectable IDS era Tories were a distant memory by 2010.
I'm not following this closely, for obvious reasons, but what happens if Corbyn wins and is not a total disaster but a borderline competent leader? How could they ditch him if that happens?
The aim, which the tories did so well with Ed Miliband is keep him weakened, but not to finish him off.
Too true , Corbyn is Miliband on steroids , they want to keep him around as long as possible ; they want him to be a rotten carcass polluting the drinking water of the LP...the cadaverous corpse of the 1970s Labour Party resurrected from the grave by the lightening bolt of ''true socialism ''
NP Adolf didn't lead the PANZERS into battle either.. are you saying the command and control post should be near the vicinity of the hit.. .how naive for a former MP.
I'm as much against Jihadists as the next man, but it strikes me that these two were really not much more than a couple of dIckhead show-off inadequates who would have pooped their pants at the first sign of real danger.
I am the next man. It sends a message to other dickheads.
Germany has a declining population and one that is growing older rapidly. It needs new blood to do the work and fund the non-productive parts of the economy, and this is a great way to get it. Their problems are not ours. I am not sure how many Turkish immigrants to Germany have ended up in the UK, but I doubt it is many. I imagine it will be the same with the Syrians. Why come here when you can live there? The reporting on this from both the left and right wing papers has been shocking.
Would Germany like to take the 20000 we have pledged to take..it would solve a couple of probs at one go and make 20000 homeless people already here very happy..
''I am the next man. It sends a message to other dickheads.''
This act for some reason reminds me of that scene in the Untouchables film where the accountant guy is murdered in the lift, and 'touchable' is written in blood above him.
I have absolutely no problem with these two being killed. They deserved everything they got and then some. Hopefully others will learn a a major lesson or they too will end up blown to smithereens.
However, I do have a problem with the idea that it is wrong to report that there is a level of unease about this development and that in reporting this unease you are somehow endorsing it. In a democracy, it is not the job of the media to act as a cheerleader for government actions - especially when they do involve the killing of British citizens. Some outlets may choose to applaud such actions and ask no questions, but that does not mean that all should.
The execution of these two is no doubt legal, but there is a line somewhere. Is it not right that we seek to explore where it is?
Yes indeed - NickPalmer's suggestion that the Intelligence Committee of Parliament should review it, in confidence if necessary, strikes me as an option worth considering.
I think where some of us may have a concern is that some of those asking questions are not sensible people asking legitimate questions about the proper boundaries of legal action etc - e.g. like you - but people who automatically assume that anything the British government does is wrong. In short, the concern is with the motives and a priori positions of those doing the questioning rather than the questions themselves.
It is fair I think to tease out the motivations of those making accusations of illegality against the British government because some of those who do so will never accept that the British government should ever do anything to protect their citizens. Their concern for the law is a fig leaf.
I think the biggest problem is that this whole Corbynmania tells the public that a lot of ~Labour~ supporters lurked under this stone and now they're running around on the carpet.
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
Things can change surprisingly quickly. The nation needs an opposition ready to step into power. One way or another we will get one. Nature abhors a vacuum. The whacky unelectable IDS era Tories were a distant memory by 2010.
Via a Parliamentary coup and coronation, I would note. Though IDS was given a chance.
I think the biggest problem is that this whole Corbynmania tells the public that a lot of ~Labour~ supporters lurked under this stone and now they're running around on the carpet.
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
Things can change surprisingly quickly. The nation needs an opposition ready to step into power. One way or another we will get one. Nature abhors a vacuum. The whacky unelectable IDS era Tories were a distant memory by 2010.
I think the biggest problem is that this whole Corbynmania tells the public that a lot of ~Labour~ supporters lurked under this stone and now they're running around on the carpet.
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
Things can change surprisingly quickly. The nation needs an opposition ready to step into power. One way or another we will get one. Nature abhors a vacuum. The whacky unelectable IDS era Tories were a distant memory by 2010.
Comments
Traditionally government doesn't get involved in operational decisions, but devolves that authority to the military. But it is right that a "strategic" decision such as a declaration of war should be debated and determined by Parliament.
A targeted strike, such as this case, falls somewhere in between. Parliament and probably not even the Intelligence Committee can't get involved simply because there is often a very limited window for the military to act. Hence this is properly a delegated authority for the executive.
That said, it is reasonable that there are clear guidelines and limitations on that delegated authority. It was right that they got approval from the AG. I can see it would be helpful for the IC to agree with the AG/government parameters for future decisions. I don't see that it would be a good idea to publish the legal advice received in this case or any agreed parameters set by the IC: why give your enemy any clues on your proposed actions.
They might have been the first British terrorists killed by a UK air strike in Syria, though reading what Cameron said in parliament he was not as precise as the press reports imply.
But the military (RAF) will have confirmed they had the capability to take advantage of this opportunity but, as it was inside Syria and could have political implications, it went to the attorney general for legal advice and then to the PM for a decision.
The PM decided it was an opportunity the UK could not afford to let slip.
Many more of their ilk are aware today, hopefully they will get the not-so-subtle hint.
1) Try them in absentia, which will take a great deal of time, risk intelligence sources, alert them and probably not stop their plotting.
2) Try to arrest them. They are in what is essentially a non-existent state, so we cannot go through official channels. This means we would either try to get them out of the country (very difficult), or put boots on the ground to capture them. This risks troops, and creates many other practical and legal issues.
3) Kill them, as we did.
Just like the invasion of Iraq. Illegal or legal war, looking at it now no sane person would argue it made the situation better for either Iraq or the rest of the world. At the time opponents of the war were castigated for wanting an evil and cruel dictator to stay in place, as if we were in favour of what he was doing. But it was naive to suppose that removing him would be like waving a magic wand and everything would be alright.
You can interfere in things for the right reasons and still get the wrong results - often utterly predictably. Sometimes the best course of action is not the obvious one.
That's what I think Tim Farron was on about when I heard him on the radio this morning. He didn't come out and say it was the wrong thing to do to use a drone to kill two people who probably represented a threat to this country. He said you have to be very careful when you do things because they could have all sorts of consequences which made things worse. And also that it was better to act lawfully than not lawfully, for the same reason.
I do not know what Cameron's long term strategy for dealing with ISIS style terrorism and the Middle East is. Does Cameron?
F*** em. two less dead terrorists, and hopefully tomorrow they'll be two more, and then two more.
I seem to recall an interview with Cameron a couple of years ago where he was asked what was the worst thing about the job of PM - he was unequivocal that it was when dealing with live situations involving the military abroad, where the outcome was unknown and could end in the loss of innocent life. I imagine that every former PM would answer the question in the same way, they are all decent human beings under the surface.
It's worse than that even - some parts of the British left appear to be exhibiting signs of Stockholm Syndrome with regard to ISIS and radical Islam more generally
If you can, it may be worth backing Manor to win some points in 2016 (I'd want at least 4-5, preferably longer). They're reportedly getting Mercedes engines. Which is interesting as I thought there was a 4 team limit and there's already Lotus, Force India and William [as well as the main team].
Red Bull will reportedly have Ferrari engines (I think they'll also supply Haas).
Both those stories suggest Renault may buy and supply what is currently Lotus.
https://twitter.com/LadPolitics/status/641177381462540288
(in passing, this is another example in a very long list - not just you, I'm not having a dig at you here - of everybody simply not understanding the rules of the UK) The armed forces kill people frequently (its their job). Asking PM permission for each decision is wildly impractical.
These men were threatening Britain and threatening to kill Britons. Limp-wristed, weak-kneed appeasement does nothing but embolden those who would harm us.
Mr. NorthWales, I agree. Media coverage recently has been bizarrely off-centre.
The Renault bid for Lotus could well still fall apart, with all sorts of politics in play. The French basically have no money so have turned to Bernie for help sort it out. It's a big mess that will get messier before it gets resolved.
By the way, the excellent Joe Saward beat you to the Monza headline joke
The LP are like a recovering alcoholic always in danger of a relapse back to it ''good old days ''and poor Corbyn is 100% pure meth ; all the good work that Blair has done rehabilitating the image of Labour and trying to convince the electorate that are trustworthy with the levers of power has been for nothing as they have defaulted back to their traditional 1970s socialist positions ...indeed , Corbyn is a total and complete labourholic and its becoming increasingly clear that the UK only has one electable political party
When everyday it's endless liberal bed-wetting about everything, well no wonder it saps confidence from Mr Clapham Omnibus.
Hope the Renault deal goes through.
Miss Plato, indeed.
I have met one of the people they have used. Fingerprintss surgically removed, all traces of his past erased from the system. A ghost that does not officially exist.
You would have thought by now that mankind would have learned enough from history to find a better way, but it seems that lust for power and ideological fundamentalism trump rational thought just about every time.
I would certainly guard against any expectation that Corbyn will resign should results go poorly. He probably will need to be levered out - but that will be a much easier job if he's already discredited among the mainstream of the Labour movement. As you rightly say, there is a big question about how much damage he and his supporters would do in the meantime but offsetting that is the question of how much damage they would do were an early coup to be mounted, whether it's successful or not - if it is, the risk is of a continual resistance in the name of the disenfranchised movement; if it's not, it gives justification for organisation moves against those who tried it.
Gives new meaning to M
Edit: Recall the huffing and puffing from some when it took a few hours longer than expected to get an evacuation plane into Libya a couple of years back - turns out the 'diplomats' it delivered with large muscles and green bags appeared a few days later in the middle of the desert to call in a Hercules or two, that ensured no British were left behind. We are good at this shit. Really really good at it.
Interesting choice of word, given the context.
This isn't a political dispute. It's the Khmer Rouge, or the Nazis.
In Northern Ireland, both sides had clear political goals. The goal of ISIS is to kill every Yazidi, institutionalise rape of non-Muslims, burn to death or decapitate prisoners, conquer the entire coast of the Mediterranean, and tax and kill those who do not convert.
How are we to negotiate or take a moderate stance on that? Accept crucifixion of children but ask for beheadings to only happen on Tuesdays?
Different game, different rules.
The two terrorists killed would not hesitate to detonate the contents of their rucksacks whilst you gave them a hug. They'd likely feel even more satisfaction knowing that they'd wiped out some soft Western liberals.
These people are beyond reason.
The alternative is to allow an safe haven for ISIS and others to have a base to launch attack after attack on our country, which they would no doubt do,
No one thinks they're the bad guy. Anyone has rationality or reason or greviance for the things they do, everyone has a 'justification'.
The only way is to deal with them before they can. Sometimes they'll get through. But any PM should first and foremost have a responsilibity for the safety of people in this country.
The key point is that Jeremy Corbyn is a symptom, not a cause, of Labour's problem. The party can only recover when it finally gets to the stage that it wants to recover and is prepared to unite in order to do so. Not only is it far from that point, it is actively ramping up the civil war and loony-left self-indulgence. Things will get worse for Labour before they get better, and the sane wing of the party will simply have to try to hold on as best they can until circmstances are more propitious.
The best hope for a resolution now is that the Bloc does not get an overall majority of seats.
The Conservatives did their part well, but if Labour had been either more loyal or had more backbone [to axe him], it wouldn't've worked as well.
I agree with this too , corbyn's version of 1970s socialism is completely anachronistic in 21st C UK , indeed it seems positively Luddite to me , but it must be allowed to run its natural course before it can be safely jettisoned ...Corbynism must be allowed to become a laughing stock and only then should he slink off the stage , well and truly humiliated
Corbynmania reminds me of a religious revival or cult that may have broken out in 19th C Imperial India or Africa ...the colonial administrators would wisely contain it like a dangerous bushfire and then allow it to burn itself out in an orgy of self flagellation
These enemies were in a war zone and killed by means of war. Had they been residing in the UK the Police would have been involved. By their own choices this wasn't an option.
If this had been in the UK, I'd advocate arrest. But that wasn't an option. It was do nothing, or kill them.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34185353
Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn,
Corbyn, Corbyn, Corbyn, Rawhide!
"Germany can cope with at least 500,000 asylum-seekers a year for several years, Vice Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel has said."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-34185353
And I'm sure they will get them.
"The Osborne Identity of this Government", "The Osborne Supremacy" and the "The Osborne Legacy"
I hope the Labour Party don't take your advice.
Let me try and make myself clearer, especially for the benefit of Mr Flightpath01.
My view is that if it was easy to obliterate terrorism by killing terrorists, we wouldn't have this problem. Any simplistic idea that we can charge around the world solving problems by killing people is doomed to failure.
That doesn't mean that it is always the wrong thing to do. Sometimes it is the right thing to do. Just that it is unlikely to make a lot of difference overall. And sometimes it can cause more problems than it solves.
What the prime minister and government do in the Middle East will have consequences. I would like to be sure that they have thought about what those consequences are and have ideas about how to deal with them. At the moment I don't have that feeling.
I would like to take this drone incident at face value. Unfortunately, the long history of British governments being economical with the truth (google Death on the Rock, for example), makes me worry. That worry may not be justified. But I would be happier if the Intelligence Select Committee were able to give the matter the once over.
In the case of these two people, they appear to have been British citizens. What if they were Saudis and the Saudi government didn't agree with what happened? What if the drone had taken out a wedding party by mistake, as in Afghanistan? The scope for disaster is worrying, and I worry. I want some reassurance that proper thought and control has gone into this and we aren't at the mercy of a few gung-ho armchair warriors.
Some people on here are very sure of their position and shrug off doubts. I would be very worried if they were in charge of the country. I feel happier having a government that agonises about killing people than I would with a government that turned to killing as their first option.
You are all entitled to disagree with me. You are all entitled to think I am an idiot and tell me you are glad I'm not in charge of the country. But I am equally entitled to think the same of you.
It would be useful if a trusted independent body - the ISC is the obvious one - were able to confirm that there was indeed some reason to suppose him to be a clear and present danger where he was or, alternatively, that there is a doctrine that can be clearly set out about when and where we feel OK about killing citizens without trial.
I'm not criticising the operation since I don't have enough information, and I don't expect the Government to give it to me as, now, a random private individual. But I'd like them to give it to somebody independent to confirm.
Merkel's taking all the immigrants/migrants and refugees so we don't have to.
However, I do have a problem with the idea that it is wrong to report that there is a level of unease about this development and that in reporting this unease you are somehow endorsing it. In a democracy, it is not the job of the media to act as a cheerleader for government actions - especially when they do involve the killing of British citizens. Some outlets may choose to applaud such actions and ask no questions, but that does not mean that all should.
The execution of these two is no doubt legal, but there is a line somewhere. Is it not right that we seek to explore where it is?
I know it's not quite the case, but those voters who felt Tony & Co were safe to elect, will be wondering actually how far Labour is from another Miliant. Not at all.
So whether or not MPs kill of Corbyn - the damage is done. 30yr after supposedly killing off Militant - they're back and in charge. Who could trust them again?
They've utterly failed to do this and muttering about being pro-aspiration is not even a start.
They might start by asking themselves "What is the point of a left of a centre party?" "What is it for?" "What does it / what should it stand for?" And "What does that mean for the sort of policies we might want to present to the British people?"
Until they do that, no amount of telegenic candidates with good back stories is going to help them, IMO.
Thatcher was not telegenic or even particularly popular in her party, other than as a reason to vote against Heath, when she became leader. But she came out of some intellectual ferment on the right about the role of the state, how to address the problems all societies were then facing and what the role of the right should be. And that was going on and was largely led by others before she even thought of standing for leader. That provided some intellectual ballast to her leadership and premiership. It's that which is missing from the sane bits of Labour.
"Treatment for gangrene involves removing the affected tissue, preventing infection or treating any existing infection, and treating the problem that led to gangrene developing."
Sad to say, I think that may apply in detail.
This act for some reason reminds me of that scene in the Untouchables film where the accountant guy is murdered in the lift, and 'touchable' is written in blood above him.
I think where some of us may have a concern is that some of those asking questions are not sensible people asking legitimate questions about the proper boundaries of legal action etc - e.g. like you - but people who automatically assume that anything the British government does is wrong. In short, the concern is with the motives and a priori positions of those doing the questioning rather than the questions themselves.
It is fair I think to tease out the motivations of those making accusations of illegality against the British government because some of those who do so will never accept that the British government should ever do anything to protect their citizens. Their concern for the law is a fig leaf.
Mr. Observer, that's an argument for Germany taking hordes of migrants. But it's not an argument for them demanding the rest of the EU does the same.
They've invited the world and its neighbour in, and are now trying to force some of the many, many who will arrive onto other countries.
Just rope, throw an' brand 'em
Soon we'll be livin' high an' wide
Sounds like Labour to me