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.
Yes - just a mere 12 years after he was outed, the Cons returned with a majority.
''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.
Going deep into memory drain, I think the name 'Untouchables' was coined by the press after Capone tried to bribe one of Eliot Ness's 11 men and Ness told the press about the attempt.
There really isn't a comparison between IDS and Corbyn - and we all know it. IDS wasn't knocking about with terrorism supporters en masse.
Precisely. IDS was the equivalent of Ed M - a decent guy but out of his depth and temperamentally unsuited to be leader (Andy Burnham would be very similar). Comrade Corbyn is in a completely different league of moral and ideological toxicity.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so. And of course they have to find that right leader.
There really isn't a comparison between IDS and Corbyn - and we all know it. IDS wasn't knocking about with terrorism supporters en masse.
Precisely. IDS was the equivalent of Ed M - a decent guy but out of his depth and temperamentally unsuited to be leader (Andy Burnham would be very similar). Comrade Corbyn is in a completely different league of moral and ideological toxicity.
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.
Too true , who'd of thought that the Tories of IDS could evolve or mutate into the Tories of Cameron ? and yet they did by following the zeitgeist
The corbyn-like socialists are like a secular religion whereby any failure is perceived to be due to lack of orthodoxy and purity ..they do so remind me of a group of Christian fundamentalists determined to deny the obvious facts of evolution by dwelling in a fantasy world of their own making
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.
Given the Tory party's close connections with the Saudis, I don't think they are in any position to talk about terrorism supporters.
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.
Given the Tory party's close connections with the Saudis, I don't think they are in any position to talk about terrorism supporters.
The Tory party does not have any closer connections with the Saudis than the Labour party has had. They both deal with the regime when in government, and have nothing to do with them outside of government.
Lest we forget, IDS's party armed Islamic terrorists in Libya, Syria, Afghanistan and others, whilst also militarily sponsoring the world's biggest source of terrorism and extremism, Saudi Arabia.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
Whatever else IDS was, he was a patriot. I'm not sure the same could be said about Corbyn. It's not the first word that comes to mind to describe someone who supports foreigners killing British troops.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them. That crosses a line which makes him unfit to be the leader of a political party, let alone the main opposition party and one which once had serious and great politicians in it.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so. And of course they have to find that right leader.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
Whatever else IDS was, he was a patriot. I'm not sure the same could be said about Corbyn. It's not the first word that comes to mind to describe someone who supports foreigners killing British troops.
Excellent point. Ed Miliband merely disliked Britain - Jezza ups the ante 2 notches.
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.
Too true , who'd of thought that the Tories of IDS could evolve or mutate into the Tories of Cameron ? and yet they did by following the zeitgeist
The corbyn-like socialists are like a secular religion whereby any failure is perceived to be due to lack of orthodoxy and purity ..they do so remind me of a group of Christian fundamentalists determined to deny the obvious facts of evolution by dwelling in a fantasy world of their own making
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.
The Turkish immigrants came over a very long period and were living in Germany decades before they had the right to move to the UK. Syrian (and Afghan and Eritrean) refugees are more akin to the Somali Dutch population. Even if only 20% come here, that's an extra 100k for us to deal with every year.
Whilst not shedding a tear for the 2 British jihadls smeared over the desert by a reaper, I think it is right that the legality of it should be thoroughly examined and reported upon. We should be uneasy that British citizens, no matter how traitorous they are, are openly being executed by the state. Of course, nations indulge in the odd bit of clandestine wetwork, but a Hellfire down your throat is a bit too obvious to hide! To be fair, I think it's clear that ISIS and their ilk aren't going to be turned away from their aims by negotiation or by diplomacy, I'm afraid it's going to have to come down to who has the biggest stick, and who isn't afraid to use it. At the minute, we seem a little shy in wielding our stick. It's also obvious that we have Special Forces operating in and around the areas involved, and I guess, from talking to people involved, that that number will inevitably increase. There is going to come a time when the government is going to have to s#!t or get off the pot, concerning it's intentions in fighting radical Islam, and that time is fast approaching. Cameron is going to have to commit to "declaring war" on ISIS at some point. What form that takes is the tricky bit. One thing that we must understand, is that there will, sometime in the not too distant future, be a significant successful terrorist attack on mainland Britain. Everybody is training for it, everybody expects it. When it does happen, I guess it will focus minds and then decisions will have to be made- but, those decisions have to be rational, adequate, and above all legal.
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.
They wanted to be "martyrs". Well, now they've got what they wanted.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them.
Except of course he didn't and you are spouting hysterical nonsense just like you do every day.
And IDS and most Tories are no patriots, quite the opposite. They despise most ordinary Britons and hold no allegiance to anything other than themselves, the party and the global rich.
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.
They could get an absolute majority of seats in Catalonia on 38-39% of the vote (and their poll rating is 42-43%).
If they declare UDI with the support of less than 40% of the people, then there would be rioting on the streets of Barcelona.
Given the Tory party's close connections with the Saudis, I don't think they are in any position to talk about terrorism supporters.
Piffle. You were on slightly firmer ground yesterday when you were making the diametric opposite charge, of the Tories being close to Israel, given that there is a prominent Conservative Friends of Israel group. (There's also a Labour equivalent, of course).
And then getting the public to believe in them. It took a very long time to recover from the loss of trust in Labour as a brand.
Sticking a nice face on their Party won't undo all of this. Blair was a phenomenon like we've never seen. He wasn't just a good frontman - it was Labour being almost another Party/ending Clause 4 et al.
Now we've had 5yrs of Walter Softy socialism from EdM, and the prospect of a future led by Militant. Anyone who thinks Labour will *bounce* back from that is kidding themselves.
We'd never pretend the Tories would if they did the same.
There really isn't a comparison between IDS and Corbyn - and we all know it. IDS wasn't knocking about with terrorism supporters en masse.
Precisely. IDS was the equivalent of Ed M - a decent guy but out of his depth and temperamentally unsuited to be leader (Andy Burnham would be very similar). Comrade Corbyn is in a completely different league of moral and ideological toxicity.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them.
And IDS and most Tories are no patriots, quite the opposite. They despise most ordinary Britons
Except they don't - despite you weally weally wanting them to.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so. And of course they have to find that right leader.
Whilst not shedding a tear for the 2 British jihadls smeared over the desert by a reaper, I think it is right that the legality of it should be thoroughly examined and reported upon. We should be uneasy that British citizens, no matter how traitorous they are, are openly being executed by the state. Of course, nations indulge in the odd bit of clandestine wetwork, but a Hellfire down your throat is a bit too obvious to hide! To be fair, I think it's clear that ISIS and their ilk aren't going to be turned away from their aims by negotiation or by diplomacy, I'm afraid it's going to have to come down to who has the biggest stick, and who isn't afraid to use it. At the minute, we seem a little shy in wielding our stick. It's also obvious that we have Special Forces operating in and around the areas involved, and I guess, from talking to people involved, that that number will inevitably increase. There is going to come a time when the government is going to have to s#!t or get off the pot, concerning it's intentions in fighting radical Islam, and that time is fast approaching. Cameron is going to have to commit to "declaring war" on ISIS at some point. What form that takes is the tricky bit. One thing that we must understand, is that there will, sometime in the not too distant future, be a significant successful terrorist attack on mainland Britain. Everybody is training for it, everybody expects it. When it does happen, I guess it will focus minds and then decisions will have to be made- but, those decisions have to be rational, adequate, and above all legal.
We have a similar situation here - Obama has a Kill List that he is working his way through.
It's not exactly due process or transparent, but it gets the job done.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
Whatever else IDS was, he was a patriot. I'm not sure the same could be said about Corbyn. It's not the first word that comes to mind to describe someone who supports foreigners killing British troops.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them. That crosses a line which makes him unfit to be the leader of a political party, let alone the main opposition party and once which had serious and great politicians in it.
I hold no candle for IDS, far from it. But comparing him to Corbyn is absurd.
Corbyn has spent 40 years sharing platforms with declared enemies of the UK and never once taking them to task for the things they advocate. if there are any speeches, articles or pamphlets by Corbyn in which he explicitly denounces the IRA's killing of British soldiers or Hamas's dictatorship or the targeting of civilians by Hezbollah then we would have heard of it by now. He has spent his political career opposing capitalism, sees the world through the prism of class and has never demonstrated anything that resembles even mild affection for the UK. Politically, IDS may have been anathema to the Labour government, but it knew it could share confidential information with him. This government can never have the same level of confidence with regards to Corbyn.
Whose the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
You would rather workers experienced the nirvana of working for 1970s British Rail ?
You don't trust the British people to make their own decisions - you want the state to do their thinking for them - that's how much you dislike the proles.
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.
(snip)
As well as possibly being perpetrators themselves, they might have been acting as conduits for materials, men and intelligence relating to the plot. If they are wise, then IS will be becoming more knowledgeable on how the same communications networks they rely on can also betray them. By removing this individual in particular, we might have removed one link in a chain, ruining the plot.
That's one possibility. Another is that we were afraid that we might not be able to stop them coming in.
It'll be interesting to see if there are any arrests on this matter over here.
Whose the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
You would rather workers experienced the nirvana of working for 1970s British Rail ?
You don't trust the British people to make their own decisions - you want the state to do their thinking for them - that's how much you dislike the proles.
Erm, democratic government is supposed to be the British people making their own decisions, as opposed to all power and decision making being handed over to foreign oligarchs, as in the Tory master plan.
According to Navy Lt. Cmdr. Jim Brooks, a spokesman for the Defense Intelligence Agency, such playing cards have been used as far back as the Civil War and again in World War II—Army Air Corps decks printed with the silhouettes of German and Japanese fighter aircraft fetch hundreds of dollars today—and in the Korean War. Troops often play cards to pass the time, and seeing the names, faces and titles of the wanted Iraqis during their games will help soldiers and Marines in case they run into the wanted individuals in the field, Brooks said.[1]
Whilst not shedding a tear for the 2 British jihadls smeared over the desert by a reaper, I think it is right that the legality of it should be thoroughly examined and reported upon. We should be uneasy that British citizens, no matter how traitorous they are, are openly being executed by the state. Of course, nations indulge in the odd bit of clandestine wetwork, but a Hellfire down your throat is a bit too obvious to hide! To be fair, I think it's clear that ISIS and their ilk aren't going to be turned away from their aims by negotiation or by diplomacy, I'm afraid it's going to have to come down to who has the biggest stick, and who isn't afraid to use it. At the minute, we seem a little shy in wielding our stick. It's also obvious that we have Special Forces operating in and around the areas involved, and I guess, from talking to people involved, that that number will inevitably increase. There is going to come a time when the government is going to have to s#!t or get off the pot, concerning it's intentions in fighting radical Islam, and that time is fast approaching. Cameron is going to have to commit to "declaring war" on ISIS at some point. What form that takes is the tricky bit. One thing that we must understand, is that there will, sometime in the not too distant future, be a significant successful terrorist attack on mainland Britain. Everybody is training for it, everybody expects it. When it does happen, I guess it will focus minds and then decisions will have to be made- but, those decisions have to be rational, adequate, and above all legal.
We have a similar situation here - Obama has a Kill List that he is working his way through.
It's not exactly due process or transparent, but it gets the job done.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
An interesting discussion on Twitter about the US Presidency amongst some very bright political scientists (click through on the timestamp to see the rest of the conversation). I agree that it should be close to 50/50.
Whose the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
You would rather workers experienced the nirvana of working for 1970s British Rail ?
You don't trust the British people to make their own decisions - you want the state to do their thinking for them - that's how much you dislike the proles.
Erm, democratic government is supposed to be the British people making their own decisions, as opposed to all power and decision making being handed over to foreign oligarchs, as in the Tory master plan.
Yes and the democratically elected government decided to free the Royal Mail from the shackles of state control.
Or would you like British Airways owned and run by the British government instead of evil foreigners ?
And then getting the public to believe in them. It took a very long time to recover from the loss of trust in Labour as a brand.
Sticking a nice face on their Party won't undo all of this. Blair was a phenomenon like we've never seen. He wasn't just a good frontman - it was Labour being almost another Party/ending Clause 4 et al.
Now we've had 5yrs of Walter Softy socialism from EdM, and the prospect of a future led by Militant. Anyone who thinks Labour will *bounce* back from that is kidding themselves.
We'd never pretend the Tories would if they did the same.
There really isn't a comparison between IDS and Corbyn - and we all know it. IDS wasn't knocking about with terrorism supporters en masse.
Precisely. IDS was the equivalent of Ed M - a decent guy but out of his depth and temperamentally unsuited to be leader (Andy Burnham would be very similar). Comrade Corbyn is in a completely different league of moral and ideological toxicity.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so.
No political party has a right to exist.
They can and do disappear.
The right alternative and Labour are toast; the SNP showed that.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so. And of course they have to find that right leader.
Whose the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
You would rather workers experienced the nirvana of working for 1970s British Rail ?
You don't trust the British people to make their own decisions - you want the state to do their thinking for them - that's how much you dislike the proles.
Erm, democratic government is supposed to be the British people making their own decisions, as opposed to all power and decision making being handed over to foreign oligarchs, as in the Tory master plan.
Christ, SO really is the most hysterical and nonsensical of a really mental bunch here, and he is not even supposedly a PB Tory.
SO is the sane wing of the Labour party. I could actually vote for Labour under a Southam leadership. Hopefully, you'll vote Corbyn in. Things will get really messy, and then the type of party advocated by the likes of Southam will emerge, phoenix-like from the wreckage, and there will be a decent opposition to the Tories.
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.
[snip]
It needs to be a much wider debate than that. There are any number of questions that need both asking and answering about the rights of combatants (on both sides) when states intervene in civil wars, or when they act against non-traditional armed forces, particularly in failed states.
Existing international and domestic law has a lot of catching up to do with these new types of conflict (or perhaps, conflicts which are newly regarded as of international consequence), and the debate on how to regulate those participating in them needs to be a wide one culminating ultimately in a revised Geneva Convention.
Happy to do a thread on this if it's worth discussing further?
Christ, SO really is the most hysterical and nonsensical of a really mental bunch here, and he is not even supposedly a PB Tory.
A brief word of advice - by all means constructively criticize someone's argument, but when you start personal insults it reflects more on you than on them and makes it hard to take you seriously.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
I'm not a tribalist - I didn't support new labour's neocon and Thatcherite activities either, and voted green through that period. I've been drifting to labour as they recover some vague reason for existing.
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"?
That's right ...J C is the ''life of Jeremy '' and we all know how the movie ends
I originally thought that Corbyn was like ''Brian '' insomuch that he never wanted to be the messiah , but only wanted to shake things up a bit ; however , it's now increasingly clear that he's determined to have his crowded hour , that he has managed to delude himself that he really is the messiah come to lead the faithful to the promised land ..unfortunately for him its all going to end up with crucifixion and public humiliation , but not to worry , he and his cohorts can sing in unison ''always look on the bright side of life '' !
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
I'm not a Blind tribalism be- I didn't support new labour's neocon and Thatcherite activities either, and voted green through that period. I've been drifting to labour as they recover some vague reason for existing.
Mate, the Labour party in it's current form is about as bad as it can be. No sane person from it's perceived voter base should put a cross anywhere near the words "Labour Party" until it decides where the feck it is going, and who it thinks it should represent. It certainly doesn't represent me, and I'm a damn striking union member!
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.
They could get an absolute majority of seats in Catalonia on 38-39% of the vote (and their poll rating is 42-43%).
If they declare UDI with the support of less than 40% of the people, then there would be rioting on the streets of Barcelona.
I doubt it - the pro-Spanish Catalans are very low key. They have been very effectively cowed by the vocal nature of the Independence side. But there would definitely be riots if the independence bloc won an absolute majority and did not proceed with UDI. Not that it will have much practical effect.
The solution to this complete mess lies not only in Barcelona but also in Madrid. The PP created the problem by refusing to contemplate further powers for the Catalan government. They are not going to change their position. So, if the Bloc does win its majority and the PP are returned to government then there is little hope for resolution. However, Ciudadanos was born in Catalonia as Ciutadans and does want a solution. That may push them towards PSOE in December. Should that happen and the Bloc not win on 27th a resolution may be in sight.
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.
[snip]
It needs to be a much wider debate than that. There are any number of questions that need both asking and answering about the rights of combatants (on both sides) when states intervene in civil wars, or when they act against non-traditional armed forces, particularly in failed states.
Existing international and domestic law has a lot of catching up to do with these new types of conflict (or perhaps, conflicts which are newly regarded as of international consequence), and the debate on how to regulate those participating in them needs to be a wide one culminating ultimately in a revised Geneva Convention.
Happy to do a thread on this if it's worth discussing further?
Christ, SO really is the most hysterical and nonsensical of a really mental bunch here, and he is not even supposedly a PB Tory.
SO is the sane wing of the Labour party. I could actually vote for Labour under a Southam leadership. Hopefully, you'll vote Corbyn in. Things will get really messy, and then the type of party advocated by the likes of Southam will emerge, phoenix-like from the wreckage, and there will be a decent opposition to the Tories.
Indeed - and one of the sanest, most thoughtful and nicest posters here.
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.
[snip]
It needs to be a much wider debate than that. There are any number of questions that need both asking and answering about the rights of combatants (on both sides) when states intervene in civil wars, or when they act against non-traditional armed forces, particularly in failed states.
Existing international and domestic law has a lot of catching up to do with these new types of conflict (or perhaps, conflicts which are newly regarded as of international consequence), and the debate on how to regulate those participating in them needs to be a wide one culminating ultimately in a revised Geneva Convention.
Happy to do a thread on this if it's worth discussing further?
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.
[snip]
It needs to be a much wider debate than that. There are any number of questions that need both asking and answering about the rights of combatants (on both sides) when states intervene in civil wars, or when they act against non-traditional armed forces, particularly in failed states.
Existing international and domestic law has a lot of catching up to do with these new types of conflict (or perhaps, conflicts which are newly regarded as of international consequence), and the debate on how to regulate those participating in them needs to be a wide one culminating ultimately in a revised Geneva Convention.
Happy to do a thread on this if it's worth discussing further?
I would certainly be interested in that. Philip Bobbitt's book "Terror and Consent: The Wars for the 21st Century" is very good on the legal, politican and ethical issues raised by the wars on or against terrorism.
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.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Christ, SO really is the most hysterical and nonsensical of a really mental bunch here, and he is not even supposedly a PB Tory.
I went through all this in the 80s. Corbyn and his mates were on the other side. I saw them actively supporting all anti-British interests then and they have never stopped. You can throw every insult in the world at me. It's water of a duck's back. What you can't do is show that I am wrong. Like me, you know what Corbyn has been doing for the last 40 years. You can say it doesn't matter because voters do not care. I disagree.
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.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
I'm not a Blind tribalism be- I didn't support new labour's neocon and Thatcherite activities either, and voted green through that period. I've been drifting to labour as they recover some vague reason for existing.
Mate, the Labour party in it's current form is about as bad as it can be. No sane person from it's perceived voter base should put a cross anywhere near the words "Labour Party" until it decides where the feck it is going, and who it thinks it should represent. It certainly doesn't represent me, and I'm a damn striking union member!
It is heading in the direction of very mild social democracy, which is where I would be very happy for it to stay - halting and reversing the most egregious privatisations, ending foreign adventurism, providing a counterbalance against the untrammelled power of wealthy elites, that sort of thing. The kind of sane stuff needed to save capitalism.
It was Harold Wilson who said ''The Labour Party is a crusade or it is nothing '' but the existential crises for Labour is that it has ran out of ''sacred causes'' to crusade for ; it has ran out of metaphorical dragons to slay and has became increasingly anachronistic and Luddite , left behind by the tide of history , a hollowed out shell of its former self ..it is now rapidly becoming nothing
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
'UK public assets' is shorthand for 'government subsidized at taxpayers expense'.
So if the UK government sells such an asset it realizes an immediate cash injection and the asset is still there, although no longer hemorrhaging taxpayers hard earned cash.
So the cash drain is stopped and the government gets some cash.
That's a win win. Your problem with this is.........?
If Mr Wisemann is representative of the Corbynites that will reflect the face of Labour, then Southam Observer’s apocalyptic comments IMHO, I fear are somewhat sugar coated.
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.
The Turkish immigrants came over a very long period and were living in Germany decades before they had the right to move to the UK. Syrian (and Afghan and Eritrean) refugees are more akin to the Somali Dutch population. Even if only 20% come here, that's an extra 100k for us to deal with every year.
My guess is that the large majority will stay put. Germany is a rich country that wants mass immigration.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices
'UK public assets' is shorthand for 'government subsidized at taxpayers expense'.
So if the UK government sells such an asset it realizes an immediate cash injection and the asset is still there, although no longer hemorrhaging taxpayers hard earned cash.
So the cash drain is stopped and the government gets some cash.
That's a win win. Your problem with this is.........?
He's bothered that Israeli's might have bought into UK businesses?
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.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Nick, you seem a nice bloke but (there had to be a but), this response is, as they say, not even wrong. To say you can support Blair and Corbyn in the same post and decade for that matter is precisely why people despair of the Labour Party today.
You want power only for power's sake and for no greater good. The good question was asked what is the Centre Left for. My version of it is: what changed for the Labour Party and in particular for the current leadership candidates betweeen five to and five past 10pm on May 7th? We are asking the same thing.
Blair's and Corbyn's policies are so far apart, are diametrically opposed, that to say you can support both is to betray that desire for power above all else and to the detriment of your party, the country and the people.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
I'm not a Blind tribalism be- I didn't support new labour's neocon and Thatcherite activities either, and voted green through that period. I've been drifting to labour as they recover some vague reason for existing.
Mate, the Labour party in it's current form is about as bad as it can be. No sane person from it's perceived voter base should put a cross anywhere near the words "Labour Party" until it decides where the feck it is going, and who it thinks it should represent. It certainly doesn't represent me, and I'm a damn striking union member!
It is heading in the direction of very mild social democracy, which is where I would be very happy for it to stay - halting and reversing the most egregious privatisations, ending foreign adventurism, providing a counterbalance against the untrammelled power of wealthy elites, that sort of thing. The kind of sane stuff needed to save capitalism.
Not under Jeremy Corbyn it isn't. It's heading towards something well to the left of social democracy.
If the majority of the Party wants Corbyn to be the leader then that is what they want.
Given the influx of £3 registered supporters (and indeed new members) then that remains to be seen, even if Corbyn wins overall.
A "freeze date" (of the previous leader's resignation) is essential for such matters. You won't catch the Tories inadvertently accepting a bunch of Kippers into their next leadership contest.
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
I don't know why our government's go through these pretexts.
The position is simple. They killed him first, answering questions later.
When did the AG give his advice: before or after the killing ?
If afterwards, then the Defence Secretary carried out an action, the legality of which he was not aware of at the time.
It will then be argued that there was "imminent and present danger", so he could not wait for the advice.
So, Khan had plans and the government knew of the attacks ? It won't do, if there was no time to consult the AG if Khan was going to attack in the "future".
Finally, I heard Lord Carlisle on the radio [ Blair's arse-licker , now Cameron's.
He said the PM was accountable to Parliament for this. So he will publish the details ? No, he can't be transparent.
My guess is that the large majority will stay put.
Of course they will. By the time they get citizenship they'll have learnt to speak German fluently, their children will be in German schools, they'll have jobs in Germany, they'll have homes in German towns, they'll have developed social networks and roots in Germany.
If the majority of the Party wants Corbyn to be the leader then that is what they want.
Given the influx of £3 registered supporters (and indeed new members) then that remains to be seen, even if Corbyn wins overall.
A "freeze date" (of the previous leader's resignation) is essential for such matters. You won't catch the Tories inadvertently accepting a bunch of Kippers into their next leadership contest.
All these people are voting according to the rules of the Party. Corbyn did not make the rules.
I doubt it - the pro-Spanish Catalans are very low key. They have been very effectively cowed by the vocal nature of the Independence side. But there would definitely be riots if the independence bloc won an absolute majority and did not proceed with UDI. Not that it will have much practical effect.
The solution to this complete mess lies not only in Barcelona but also in Madrid. The PP created the problem by refusing to contemplate further powers for the Catalan government. They are not going to change their position. So, if the Bloc does win its majority and the PP are returned to government then there is little hope for resolution. However, Ciudadanos was born in Catalonia as Ciutadans and does want a solution. That may push them towards PSOE in December. Should that happen and the Bloc not win on 27th a resolution may be in sight.
I'm afraid I think you are completely wrong.
UDI is a very serious step. It is incredibly rare for it to happen, and when it does happen it is usually because there is overwhelming support for a measure. If support for Catalonian independence was 65%, and the Spanish government was being obstructive, then UDI would clearly be the best way forward.
But independence trails staying with Spain in the polls. It is only because of the nature of Spain's PR system that the "Yes to Independence" group could scrape a majority in Catalonia.
Let's say the Independence bunch get the 68 seats in the legislature required on 42% of the vote. To declare UDI - and cast themselves outside the EU, without a currency, with the vast bulk of their trade being with Spain, with no clear separation of assets, without an army - would be extraordinary.
Should Junts pel Sí win the election on 26 September, they will demand independence talks with the central government. I believe that the Spanish government will say that they are willing to talk following a referendum to be held in 2017. It will be a traditional "kicking the can down the road" solution. And I believe that JPS - with only a marginal, and sub 50%, mandate - will have to accept it.
Mr. Dair, you genuinely don't believe it's legitimate to take out terrorists seeking to orchestrate murder in the UK [in a place where arrest is not feasible]?
If Mr Wisemann is representative of the Corbynites that will reflect the face of Labour, then Southam Observer’s apocalyptic comments IMHO, I fear are somewhat sugar coated.
I'm rapidly coming round to the view that Corbyn is not the real problem. Corbyn could shut up for five years, but the hangers-on and the new Labour supporters (Labour supporters who having been voting for other parties) will be the real problem. Corbyn can shut up, but they won't. Their whataboutism will do a lot of damage to the Labour Party.
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.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
Labour seem obsessed with categories, the left, the centre left, the Blairites, the Brownites etc etc. They have become a group of people where the factions loathe each other, Cooper dropped her guard last week and the contempt for Corbyn was there for all to see, it was hard to believe they represented the same party.
A split into 2 or even 3 new parties seems inevitable, you can sense large swathes of Labour willing Corbyn to fail spectacularly.
My guess is that the large majority will stay put.
Of course they will. By the time they get citizenship they'll have learnt German, their children will be in German schools, they'll have jobs in Germany, they'll have homes in German towns, they'll have developed social networks and roots in Germany.
And, Germany needs them to work and pay taxes. The population of working age Germans is declining rapidly.
Now, how do we expel the racist Hungary out of our dear beloved EU.
''ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.''
Frankly I think that is giving ISIS far, far more respect than it deserves.
My guess is that the large majority will stay put.
Of course they will. By the time they get citizenship they'll have learnt German, their children will be in German schools, they'll have jobs in Germany, they'll have homes in German towns, they'll have developed social networks and roots in Germany.
And, Germany needs them to work and pay taxes. The population of working age Germans is declining rapidly.
Now, how do we expel the racist Hungary out of our dear beloved EU.
Who's the real patriot, those who advocate selling off UK public assets to foreigners at knock down prices and sending off UK soldiers to die in unnecessary wars that threaten UK security, or those who oppose these things. I consider myself far more of a patriot than the spivs and traitors of the Tory party.
Have a word with yerself, man. Your beloved Labour party are the ones who liked to have foreign adventures, invading Afghanistan and Iraq. Sure, the Tory party supported those adventures, and had to deal with the aftermath, but please don't bleat about warmongering Tories. I seem to recall your lot weren't adverse to selling off a few state trinkets abroad either. Blind party tribalism just makes you look foolish.
I'm not a Blind tribalism be- I didn't support new labour's neocon and Thatcherite activities either, and voted green through that period. I've been drifting to labour as they recover some vague reason for existing.
Mate, the Labour party in it's current form is about as bad as it can be. No sane person from it's perceived voter base should put a cross anywhere near the words "Labour Party" until it decides where the feck it is going, and who it thinks it should represent. It certainly doesn't represent me, and I'm a damn striking union member!
It is heading in the direction of very mild social democracy, which is where I would be very happy for it to stay - halting and reversing the most egregious privatisations, ending foreign adventurism, providing a counterbalance against the untrammelled power of wealthy elites, that sort of thing. The kind of sane stuff needed to save capitalism.
Does it not strike you than handing the Tories a 100-seat majority on a plate might not be the best means to achieve those ends?
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
They blew up Palmyra. The Saudis do not have anything to blow up.
Can a non-Muslim even go anywhere near Makkah or Medina ?
Mr. Dair, you genuinely don't believe it's legitimate to take out terrorists seeking to orchestrate murder in the UK [in a place where arrest is not feasible]?
At the moment they attempt to enter the United Kingdom.
Before that, it is, to me, completely unlawful extra-judicial killing.
If they have the means to attack from outside the United Kingdom a formal declaration of war should be required.
Yes, it is harder and more inconvenient. That is what designates being on the right side of a conflict.
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them.
Except of course he didn't and you are spouting hysterical nonsense just like you do every day.
And IDS and most Tories are no patriots, quite the opposite. They despise most ordinary Britons and hold no allegiance to anything other than themselves, the party and the global rich.
If the majority of the Party wants Corbyn to be the leader then that is what they want.
Given the influx of £3 registered supporters (and indeed new members) then that remains to be seen, even if Corbyn wins overall.
A "freeze date" (of the previous leader's resignation) is essential for such matters. You won't catch the Tories inadvertently accepting a bunch of Kippers into their next leadership contest.
All these people are voting according to the rules of the Party. Corbyn did not make the rules.
Yes, the rules are stupid. On the face of it the whole election is a colossal cock-up (though it's actually a well planned manoeuvre by Unite). I am arguing that Labour need to undo the damage asap. Others are suggesting holding off a bit. Very few are suggesting that electing Corbyn is good news for the party.
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
What do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia?
Do exactly what we are doing to ISIS ? Wait a minute, they have oil.
But we are not a bunch of hypocrites, are we ? No, never.
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
What do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia?
Do exactly what we are doing to ISIS ? Wait a minute, they have oil.
But we are not a bunch of hypocrites, are we ? No, never.
Wage war, you mean?
Who do you think would replace the House of Saud, awful as they are?
Anyone - ANYONE - who joins ISIS is a legitimate target for drone attacks. If we can't arrest them, we should kill them.
If you need convincing, check this recent ISIS vid (be warned: it is horrifying even by their standards). Sometimes we DO need to see these things to realize what we are confronting. ISIS are intent on genocide, and they glory in it.
Mr. Dair, then we must part ways entirely [when they're outside the UK].
If the choice of what to do about men encouraging and orchestrating terrorism in the UK is 1) do nothing and 2) kill them, I'm more than happy for them to be killed.
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.
Leaving aside the more pejorative bits, this is something I broadly agree with. I voted Corbyn because he offers a concept of change that I don't necessarily agree with in every detail but which seems to me attractive and coherent enough to be a challenging alternative to the Government, presented in an engagingly mild way. I didn't feel that the other candidates were offering that (nor, to be frank, did Ed). I'm bored with campaigning on the basis of "Vote for us to keep the Tories out" - and ultimately I think it's a formula for losing.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
Why do you think, then, that this hasn't been done by the centre left? Loss of nerve? Loss of faith? Or just not the right people around?
Labour seem obsessed with categories, the left, the centre left, the Blairites, the Brownites etc etc. They have become a group of people where the factions loathe each other, Cooper dropped her guard last week and the contempt for Corbyn was there for all to see, it was hard to believe they represented the same party.
A split into 2 or even 3 new parties seems inevitable, you can sense large swathes of Labour willing Corbyn to fail spectacularly.
It won't split because of that horrible FPTP. If there was PR or even AV, then Yes ! The Tories would also split. There is very little similarity between Nadine Dorries and David Cameron.
I live up here in the north east of England about 1 mile from Tony Blair's former house and it's clear to me that most of the Labour'' tribal voters ''here support Corbyn ..they don't view politics in a analytical way of Left /Right on the political spectrum but see it in an emotional way like a quasi religion ; hence , when Corbyn talks in platitudes about socialism he chimes and connects with them like a preacher man ....I have given up trying to talk sense to them as you cannot reason people out of a position they arrived at through emotion ...they think Corbyn is an austere, saintly , Gandhi-like figure
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.
Well he was a "bastard" and universally mocked.
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them.
Except of course he didn't and you are spouting hysterical nonsense just like you do every day.
And IDS and most Tories are no patriots, quite the opposite. They despise most ordinary Britons and hold no allegiance to anything other than themselves, the party and the global rich.
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?
ISIS do have a political aim. The restoration of a Caliphate and it's expansion to cover at least Europe on top of its historical extent and the imposition of a legal system founded on Sharia instead of Roman and/or Common Law.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
Is ISIS doing anything which Saudi Arabia isn't ? ISIS is even financed by Saudi Arabians / Kuwaitis / Emiratis.
What do you suggest we do about Saudi Arabia?
Do exactly what we are doing to ISIS ? Wait a minute, they have oil.
But we are not a bunch of hypocrites, are we ? No, never.
The best reason for finding alternative sources of energy (fracking, green, nuclear, whatever) is that it will cut off the money supply to this vile regime. Mind you, it is quite likely that whatever replaces it will be as bad or worse. But if we no longer need the oil, then they or any of their likely successors cannot hold us to ransom in the same way.
Comments
You have to wonder whether Labour aren't just electing the worst possible leader. They are also electing him at the worst possible time.
Having said that, Jonathan is right that recovery, when the Labour Party finally comes to its senses, could be quite quick, if they unite around the right leader on a sane platform. The problem is getting to the point where they want and are able to do so. And of course they have to find that right leader.
The corbyn-like socialists are like a secular religion whereby any failure is perceived to be due to lack of orthodoxy and purity ..they do so remind me of a group of Christian fundamentalists determined to deny the obvious facts of evolution by dwelling in a fantasy world of their own making
He was entitled to oppose the invasion of Iraq. But the proper course was to say that the troops should be withdrawn not to encourage people to kill them. That crosses a line which makes him unfit to be the leader of a political party, let alone the main opposition party and one which once had serious and great politicians in it.
http://creationmuseum.org/
To be fair, I think it's clear that ISIS and their ilk aren't going to be turned away from their aims by negotiation or by diplomacy, I'm afraid it's going to have to come down to who has the biggest stick, and who isn't afraid to use it. At the minute, we seem a little shy in wielding our stick.
It's also obvious that we have Special Forces operating in and around the areas involved, and I guess, from talking to people involved, that that number will inevitably increase. There is going to come a time when the government is going to have to s#!t or get off the pot, concerning it's intentions in fighting radical Islam, and that time is fast approaching. Cameron is going to have to commit to "declaring war" on ISIS at some point. What form that takes is the tricky bit.
One thing that we must understand, is that there will, sometime in the not too distant future, be a significant successful terrorist attack on mainland Britain. Everybody is training for it, everybody expects it. When it does happen, I guess it will focus minds and then decisions will have to be made- but, those decisions have to be rational, adequate, and above all legal.
And IDS and most Tories are no patriots, quite the opposite. They despise most ordinary Britons and hold no allegiance to anything other than themselves, the party and the global rich.
If they declare UDI with the support of less than 40% of the people, then there would be rioting on the streets of Barcelona.
Sticking a nice face on their Party won't undo all of this. Blair was a phenomenon like we've never seen. He wasn't just a good frontman - it was Labour being almost another Party/ending Clause 4 et al.
Now we've had 5yrs of Walter Softy socialism from EdM, and the prospect of a future led by Militant. Anyone who thinks Labour will *bounce* back from that is kidding themselves.
We'd never pretend the Tories would if they did the same.
It's not exactly due process or transparent, but it gets the job done.
Corbyn has spent 40 years sharing platforms with declared enemies of the UK and never once taking them to task for the things they advocate. if there are any speeches, articles or pamphlets by Corbyn in which he explicitly denounces the IRA's killing of British soldiers or Hamas's dictatorship or the targeting of civilians by Hezbollah then we would have heard of it by now. He has spent his political career opposing capitalism, sees the world through the prism of class and has never demonstrated anything that resembles even mild affection for the UK. Politically, IDS may have been anathema to the Labour government, but it knew it could share confidential information with him. This government can never have the same level of confidence with regards to Corbyn.
Winds in western Canada, otherwise nothing much to report.
You don't trust the British people to make their own decisions - you want the state to do their thinking for them - that's how much you dislike the proles.
That's one possibility. Another is that we were afraid that we might not be able to stop them coming in.
It'll be interesting to see if there are any arrests on this matter over here.
https://twitter.com/election_data/status/641193705353932800
Or would you like British Airways owned and run by the British government instead of evil foreigners ?
They can and do disappear.
The right alternative and Labour are toast; the SNP showed that.
http://www.gramophone.co.uk/feature/my-music-ed-balls
It is good to read that a politician has passion for something outside politics.
Existing international and domestic law has a lot of catching up to do with these new types of conflict (or perhaps, conflicts which are newly regarded as of international consequence), and the debate on how to regulate those participating in them needs to be a wide one culminating ultimately in a revised Geneva Convention.
Happy to do a thread on this if it's worth discussing further?
One day only.
I originally thought that Corbyn was like ''Brian '' insomuch that he never wanted to be the messiah , but only wanted to shake things up a bit ; however , it's now increasingly clear that he's determined to have his crowded hour , that he has managed to delude himself that he really is the messiah come to lead the faithful to the promised land ..unfortunately for him its all going to end up with crucifixion and public humiliation , but not to worry , he and his cohorts can sing in unison ''always look on the bright side of life '' !
The solution to this complete mess lies not only in Barcelona but also in Madrid. The PP created the problem by refusing to contemplate further powers for the Catalan government. They are not going to change their position. So, if the Bloc does win its majority and the PP are returned to government then there is little hope for resolution. However, Ciudadanos was born in Catalonia as Ciutadans and does want a solution. That may push them towards PSOE in December. Should that happen and the Bloc not win on 27th a resolution may be in sight.
We could do with more like him.
I supported Blair on the same sort of conditional basis. If the centre-left is to revive, it needs to offer ideals, coherence and a plausible road map of how to get from where we are. Otherwise, the centre-left will opt for the further left, as we're probably doing this week.
When did the writer come to Britain from North Korea / China / Saudi Arabia ?
Even Putin and Medvedev went through the pretence of switching jobs to give the impression that they were following rules.
If the majority of the Party wants Corbyn to be the leader then that is what they want. THe writer can always leave the Labour Party.
BTW, I did not vote for Corbyn, in any position.
So if the UK government sells such an asset it realizes an immediate cash injection and the asset is still there, although no longer hemorrhaging taxpayers hard earned cash.
So the cash drain is stopped and the government gets some cash.
That's a win win. Your problem with this is.........?
If Mr Wisemann is representative of the Corbynites that will reflect the face of Labour, then Southam Observer’s apocalyptic comments IMHO, I fear are somewhat sugar coated.
I expect we'll see a lot more of that from lots of people in the next few months.
You want power only for power's sake and for no greater good. The good question was asked what is the Centre Left for. My version of it is: what changed for the Labour Party and in particular for the current leadership candidates betweeen five to and five past 10pm on May 7th? We are asking the same thing.
Blair's and Corbyn's policies are so far apart, are diametrically opposed, that to say you can support both is to betray that desire for power above all else and to the detriment of your party, the country and the people.
Horrible.
A "freeze date" (of the previous leader's resignation) is essential for such matters. You won't catch the Tories inadvertently accepting a bunch of Kippers into their next leadership contest.
Now you don't have to like their aims, I certainly do not, but you can't claim they do not exist - as they clearly do. You also can't base a rote opposition to this based on atrocities - the British do not have a very good record on this throughout history.
The whole debate on this thread (and in the media) seems to be based purely on revenge and threat. This is NOT ENOUGH to call yourself the good guys.
Being the good guys is SUPPOSED to be harder. It means following a distinct rule of law and recognising certain tenets of human rights regardless of how inconvenient that becomes.
There is no declaration of war on Islamic State, or on Syria or on Iraq. Any combat involvement by the United Kingdom in those territories is extra-judicial killing and fundamentally undermines the claim that in this the United Kingdom are the good guys.
The position is simple. They killed him first, answering questions later.
When did the AG give his advice: before or after the killing ?
If afterwards, then the Defence Secretary carried out an action, the legality of which he was not aware of at the time.
It will then be argued that there was "imminent and present danger", so he could not wait for the advice.
So, Khan had plans and the government knew of the attacks ? It won't do, if there was no time to consult the AG if Khan was going to attack in the "future".
Finally, I heard Lord Carlisle on the radio [ Blair's arse-licker , now Cameron's.
He said the PM was accountable to Parliament for this. So he will publish the details ? No, he can't be transparent.
So, how will he be accountable ?
Blair is still walking the streets, a free man !
UDI is a very serious step. It is incredibly rare for it to happen, and when it does happen it is usually because there is overwhelming support for a measure. If support for Catalonian independence was 65%, and the Spanish government was being obstructive, then UDI would clearly be the best way forward.
But independence trails staying with Spain in the polls. It is only because of the nature of Spain's PR system that the "Yes to Independence" group could scrape a majority in Catalonia.
Let's say the Independence bunch get the 68 seats in the legislature required on 42% of the vote. To declare UDI - and cast themselves outside the EU, without a currency, with the vast bulk of their trade being with Spain, with no clear separation of assets, without an army - would be extraordinary.
Should Junts pel Sí win the election on 26 September, they will demand independence talks with the central government. I believe that the Spanish government will say that they are willing to talk following a referendum to be held in 2017. It will be a traditional "kicking the can down the road" solution. And I believe that JPS - with only a marginal, and sub 50%, mandate - will have to accept it.
A split into 2 or even 3 new parties seems inevitable, you can sense large swathes of Labour willing Corbyn to fail spectacularly.
Now, how do we expel the racist Hungary out of our dear beloved EU.
Merkel ! Merkel !! Merkel !!!
Frankly I think that is giving ISIS far, far more respect than it deserves.
Labour's '45 minutes' lie poisoned the well for anything HMG does since.
They blew up Palmyra. The Saudis do not have anything to blow up.
Can a non-Muslim even go anywhere near Makkah or Medina ?
Before that, it is, to me, completely unlawful extra-judicial killing.
If they have the means to attack from outside the United Kingdom a formal declaration of war should be required.
Yes, it is harder and more inconvenient. That is what designates being on the right side of a conflict.
Erm...plotting numerous attacks on Western targets, many of them civilian...?? Genocide...??
But we are not a bunch of hypocrites, are we ? No, never.
Who do you think would replace the House of Saud, awful as they are?
If the choice of what to do about men encouraging and orchestrating terrorism in the UK is 1) do nothing and 2) kill them, I'm more than happy for them to be killed.