Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.
It's because the Left in France is patriotic in a way the Left in Britain no longer is. Cf Corbyn's repulsive remarks today, refusing to properly defend British citizens even when under fire IN BRITAIN.
Sorry to be living in a vacuum, but could someone please point me to the particular comment(s) by Corbyn?
If our politics were less polarised towards either/or---In my experience, for instance, many folk say they hate the LDs because "you don't know where they stand"---I could imagine a place for a minority Corbynite faction with no real power and with the rest of us spread in a balanced spectrum to their right. But here we like to have a simple test, with a winner standing over a bloodied loser. Here, we expend our energies, and create employment, on interpreting laws and customs within an evolved unwritten constitution.
Just theorising.
Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.
The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".
He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.
"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.
Thanks. Granted, that's pretty bloody bad.
According to reports Corbyn also speculated whether the French were right to bomb the ISIS capital of Raqqa (as they did) in response to the massacre. Which begs the obvious question: In what circumstances would he ever attack Islamist terrorists/terror states in retaliation for attacks on UK citizens?
The implied answer is that Corbyn would NEVER defend Britain in this way.
He is beyond unelectable.
As I've said a few times, given our system, he is entirely inappropriate to lead Labour. He would have a place leading a small wedge party to the extreme left.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
If all of the mainstream French politicians swing to the Right on security, defence and immigration, that should lock Le Pen out fairly comfortably.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
What do you doubt?
The french mainstream is currently on catch up with Le Pen. A sudden swing in her direction wont stop her getting in to the presidential runoffs.
Oh I see. I think she's very likely to make the runoffs. But this is about Hollande also trying to make it too and, if he does, being sufficiently tough to hold onto tactical votes from the soft-right to stop her.
Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.
It's because the Left in France is patriotic in a way the Left in Britain no longer is. Cf Corbyn's repulsive remarks today, refusing to properly defend British citizens even when under fire IN BRITAIN.
Sorry to be living in a vacuum, but could someone please point me to the particular comment(s) by Corbyn?
If our politics were less polarised towards either/or---In my experience, for instance, many folk say they hate the LDs because "you don't know where they stand"---I could imagine a place for a minority Corbynite faction with no real power and with the rest of us spread in a balanced spectrum to their right. But here we like to have a simple test, with a winner standing over a bloodied loser. Here, we expend our energies, and create employment, on interpreting laws and customs within an evolved unwritten constitution.
Just theorising.
Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.
The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".
He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.
"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.
Thanks. Granted, that's pretty bloody bad.
According to reports Corbyn also speculated whether the French were right to bomb the ISIS capital of Raqqa (as they did) in response to the massacre. Which begs the obvious question: In what circumstances would he ever attack Islamist terrorists/terror states in retaliation for attacks on UK citizens?
The implied answer is that Corbyn would NEVER defend Britain in this way.
He is beyond unelectable.
Actually, it's beyond funny now. As a pbTory, I don't care whether him remaining as Labour leader helps the Tories from a narrowly partisan perspective in GE2020 anymore.
He's a danger to this country, and a traitor. He in no way deserves to be leader of HM Opposition and is constantly debasing the office and our reputation overseas.
I want him out.
I'd agree with you, but I have some bets on him staying for a bit with his optimal departure time being 2020 (Any time after 2017 will do though xD)
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
ISIS vows to attack Washington next in chilling new video and vows EVERY nation involved in Syrian airstrikes will 'suffer France's fate' as CIA director warns 'this is not a one-off'
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
It is not a matter of calling it, he is saying what he believes. What he believes, though, makes him unelectable. But this is what Labour wants.
The Momentum tendency in Labour mainly want to transmogrify labour. Winning a general election would be an unheard of bonus. They first are interested in evicting the labour PLP moderates in order to complete their take over. The PLP have already missed one chance to revolt. Time is already running out. If they do not walk out and create their new party soon it will be too late. They will be thrown out anyway and not survive to fight the 2020 election.
Labour had a lucky escape, nearly voted in a tory as leader!
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 10m10 minutes ago Yvette Cooper was among those who criticised @jeremycorbyn for saying he opposed shoot-to-kill for terrorists.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 15m15 minutes ago Tonight's PLP was brutal for @jeremycorbyn. One MP: "I've never seen that level of discontent. I've never seen the PLP so angry."
Corbyn is Labours own suicide bomber. He will take the whole party to hell with him.
Nick and his mates will run happily over the ledge. They have absolutely no idea just how poisonous they are making Labour and just how unelectable. And this was all so obvious. If you elect an apologist for terrorism what you get is an apologist for terrorism.
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
If all of the mainstream French politicians swing to the Right on security, defence and immigration, that should lock Le Pen out fairly comfortably.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
What do you doubt?
The french mainstream is currently on catch up with Le Pen. A sudden swing in her direction wont stop her getting in to the presidential runoffs.
Oh I see. I think she's very likely to make the runoffs. But this is about Hollande also trying to make it too and, if he does, being sufficiently tough to hold onto tactical votes from the soft-right to stop her.
Well I had a quiet chuckle this pm when watching some french lefty on the BBC condemning Le Pen for "exploiting" the crisis and then in the next sentence saying Hollande would gain support from it. She didn't seem to realise they were both doing the same thing.
Labour had a lucky escape, nearly voted in a tory as leader!
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 10m10 minutes ago Yvette Cooper was among those who criticised @jeremycorbyn for saying he opposed shoot-to-kill for terrorists.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 15m15 minutes ago Tonight's PLP was brutal for @jeremycorbyn. One MP: "I've never seen that level of discontent. I've never seen the PLP so angry."
That's what they said after the last meeting of the PLP, (IIRC).
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
Labour had a lucky escape, nearly voted in a tory as leader!
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 10m10 minutes ago Yvette Cooper was among those who criticised @jeremycorbyn for saying he opposed shoot-to-kill for terrorists.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 15m15 minutes ago Tonight's PLP was brutal for @jeremycorbyn. One MP: "I've never seen that level of discontent. I've never seen the PLP so angry."
That's what they said after the last meeting of the PLP, (IIRC).
The thing it doesn't seem to matter how crap the leader...Brown, Miliband, Corbyn, the PLP just never stand up and do the right thing.
ISIS vows to attack Washington next in chilling new video and vows EVERY nation involved in Syrian airstrikes will 'suffer France's fate' as CIA director warns 'this is not a one-off'
Perhaps we should heat Raqqa up to a nice toasty temperature, 10 million degrees or so...
What the f...?! I'm not about to sudden advocate sudden authoritarian or military shifts myself, and I have spoken to plenty of people in the last few days who are resolutely opposed to bombing Syria, but I don't even understand the thought process whereby someone arrives at the conclusions of that spokesman.
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
What is this united position that we were led to believe Labour had agreed on? Tickling suicide bombers with feather dusters?
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Good grief. That's meaningless, it's not as if the PM was arguing for an incoherent plan.
ISIS vows to attack Washington next in chilling new video and vows EVERY nation involved in Syrian airstrikes will 'suffer France's fate' as CIA director warns 'this is not a one-off'
Perhaps we should heat Raqqa up to a nice toasty temperature, 10 million degrees or so...
If ISIS did manage to detonate a nuclear device in the UK, via terrorism, then I think this we could come the closest we ever might to Trident actually being used:
"State-Sponsored Terrorism
3-11. We know that international terrorists are trying to acquire radiological weapons. In future, there are risks that they may tryto aquire nuclear weapons. While our nuclear deterrent is not designed to deter non-state actors, it should influence the decision-making of any state that might consider transferring nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to terrorists. We make no distinction between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead, whether, for example, by missile or sponsored terrorists. Any state that we can hold responsible for assisting a nuclearattack on our vital interests can expect that this would lead to a proportionate response. "
@PolhomeEditor: Despite testimony of several MPs, Jeremy's top spinner insisted his critics are a "voluble" minority and that the mainstream PLP back him.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
As MikeK pointed out on the last thread: Corbyn is not a pacifist. He refused to condemn the IRA, Hamas or Hezbollah. His pacifism is restricted to his own people, he seems relaxed about violent acts by others. Ditto Milne.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
As MikeK pointed out on the last thread: Corbyn is not a pacifist. He refused to condemn the IRA, Hamas or Hezbollah. His pacifism is restricted to his own people, he seems relaxed about violent acts by others. Ditto Milne.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
Jeremy Corbyn (like his chosen Chancellor) is very definitely NOT a pacifist. He wholly supports armed struggle, just so long as this struggle is AGAINST us (e.g. the IRA), or America (Islamists, anarchists) or of couyse Israel (all of Islam). At a pinch Corbyn will support attacks on all westerners in general (Putin),
What he reviles is western liberal democracy defending itself. We must not do this, as we are evil capitalist exploiters who deserve to suffer.
This is genuinely his position. And he is Leader of the Opposition.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Corbyn will not be leader in 2020.
You've been a supporter of Corbyn, IIRC, until now. Do you resile, following his ludicrous and horrible opinions as expressed today?
I'm not sure I've really been that big a supporter - I only placed him 3rd on my ballot.
I still support most of his economic stances, and I do think already the Tax Credits government u-turn is slight vindication of him (if the Labour leader had been someone who put up more equivocal opposition to the tax credit cuts, the govt would have felt less pressure). However, his foreign policy / defence stances always worried me, and unfortuantely I now see I should've been even more worried.
Labour had a lucky escape, nearly voted in a tory as leader!
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 10m10 minutes ago Yvette Cooper was among those who criticised @jeremycorbyn for saying he opposed shoot-to-kill for terrorists.
Kevin Schofield @PolhomeEditor 15m15 minutes ago Tonight's PLP was brutal for @jeremycorbyn. One MP: "I've never seen that level of discontent. I've never seen the PLP so angry."
Corbyn is Labours own suicide bomber. He will take the whole party to hell with him.
Ouch - but if Labour are not careful the party ill be tainted for a generation at least.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
As MikeK pointed out on the last thread: Corbyn is not a pacifist. He refused to condemn the IRA, Hamas or Hezbollah. His pacifism is restricted to his own people, he seems relaxed about violent acts by others. Ditto Milne.
That's a killer line which is going to get deployed at some critical point to a devastating effect.
It could be as damaging as Miliband's response to the accusation that the last labour government over spent.
(1) I've never heard Corbyn argue for any restriction on immigration (2) He wants (at best) to drastically reduce the armed forces - perhaps he might let us have a part-time militia (3) He's on the record as wanting that - even the Queen knows that (4) He would almost certainly start immediate negotiations with Argentina to that effect
It might be more accurate to say they are personal positions, rather than official UK Labour Party policy positions, but when the guy is up as the main alternative candidate for Prime Minister, that stuff still matters.
If Mauricio Macri wins the Argentine presidency on Sunday he has promised to negotiate with the UK and take a less hostile tone than Kirchner's favoured candidate, Daniel Scioli
There is nothing* to negotiate unless the Falkland Islanders wish it so.
Unless it's about regional economic cooperation and improved trade, which is absolutely up for negotiation.
Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.
It's because the Left in France is patriotic in a way the Left in Britain no longer is. Cf Corbyn's repulsive remarks today, refusing to properly defend British citizens even when under fire IN BRITAIN.
Sorry to be living in a vacuum, but could someone please point me to the particular comment(s) by Corbyn?
If our politics were less polarised towards either/or---In my experience, for instance, many folk say they hate the LDs because "you don't know where they stand"---I could imagine a place for a minority Corbynite faction with no real power and with the rest of us spread in a balanced spectrum to their right. But here we like to have a simple test, with a winner standing over a bloodied loser. Here, we expend our energies, and create employment, on interpreting laws and customs within an evolved unwritten constitution.
Just theorising.
Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.
The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".
He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.
"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.
Thanks. Granted, that's pretty bloody bad.
According to reports Corbyn also speculated whether the French were right to bomb the ISIS capital of Raqqa (as they did) in response to the massacre. Which begs the obvious question: In what circumstances would he ever attack Islamist terrorists/terror states in retaliation for attacks on UK citizens?
The implied answer is that Corbyn would NEVER defend Britain in this way.
He is beyond unelectable.
Actually, it's beyond funny now. As a pbTory, I don't care whether him remaining as Labour leader helps the Tories from a narrowly partisan perspective in GE2020 anymore.
He's a danger to this country, and a traitor. He in no way deserves to be leader of HM Opposition and is constantly debasing the office and our reputation overseas.
I want him out.
I agree. Even people who want to see Labour out of office for as long as possible must now surely support his swift removal as leader of the opposition.
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Good grief. That's meaningless, it's not as if the PM was arguing for an incoherent plan.
Isn't there some sort of rule of politics that the more a statement is so bland no person could conceivably disagree with it, the more it conceals something very bitter? Honestly, that is a pretty weaksauce rebuttal, Corbyn spokesman, you must be able to do better than that. Labour has an incredibly robust base of support, the Tories will have been cutting for 10 years in 2020, it should be an open goal for you.
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
If all of the mainstream French politicians swing to the Right on security, defence and immigration, that should lock Le Pen out fairly comfortably.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
I should add that, IMHO, the issue in this country absolutely is defence spending.
We should be increasing it.
Doesn't seem likely. The public won't accept tax rises to pay for it or cuts of the size elsewhere to make up the difference, given the largest available budgets are health and welfare, and as popular as many welfare cuts might be, we seem to have reached the bottom of what has been deemed politically acceptable.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
He won't be PM of course or win the election, his job will be to make modest progress as Michael Howard did for the Tories and then hand over to Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasey or Dan Jarvis after an election defeat
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
I would say you are right. Mr Corbyn's tragedy is that he adopted the dogma he absorbed when young as the guiding principles of his life.
He's stuck to that dogma unswervingly all his life. He hasn't had any practice in deciding which is a least-bad choice among several because his 'principles' have always given him the one right answer pat.
He is now being faced with real moral dilemmas that require actual answers, and dilemmas that have no perfect decisions.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
It could happen. Benn has a certain statesmanlike aura about him which most politicians these days sorely lack. I can see him being Labour's equivalent of Michael Howard replacing IDS in 2003.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Seeing even the solidly left-wing tyson respond with fortitude to these attacks over the weekend was quite a wake-up call for me. I note that even Roger has not tried to defend it.
Corbyn has called this badly wrong.
IMHO Mr Corbyn hasn't "called it" at all. He's simply sticking to his principles in the teeth of the most difficult circumstances he's ever encountered.
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
There's a difference between principles and dogma: principles are guides to your ethics and values; dogma says those principles are always incontrovertibly true and are never open to any form of interpretation.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
I would say you are right. Mr Corbyn's tragedy is that he adopted the dogma he absorbed when young as the guiding principles of his life.
He's stuck to that dogma unswervingly all his life. He hasn't had any practice in deciding which is a least-bad choice among several because his 'principles' have always given him the one right answer pat.
He is now being faced with real moral dilemmas that require actual answers, and dilemmas that have no perfect decisions.
It's likely to be a personal tragedy for him.
Yes, I think that's right. He's let it define him as a person.
He's now totally unable to separate the man himself from his politics and, if he did, he might lose his sense of identity as a person.
(1) I've never heard Corbyn argue for any restriction on immigration (2) He wants (at best) to drastically reduce the armed forces - perhaps he might let us have a part-time militia (3) He's on the record as wanting that - even the Queen knows that (4) He would almost certainly start immediate negotiations with Argentina to that effect
It might be more accurate to say they are personal positions, rather than official UK Labour Party policy positions, but when the guy is up as the main alternative candidate for Prime Minister, that stuff still matters.
If Mauricio Macri wins the Argentine presidency on Sunday he has promised to negotiate with the UK and take a less hostile tone than Kirchner's favoured candidate, Daniel Scioli
There is nothing* to negotiate unless the Falkland Islanders wish it so.
Unless it's about regional economic cooperation and improved trade, which is absolutely up for negotiation.
I'm surprised his people would advocate such a stance with an upcoming election, even if they do indeed mean it and they naturally are not questioning the Argentinian claim in any way - it just seems unnecessary to bring it up.
The cynic in me suggests it could be helpful for them to unfreeze the issue a bit, that way they can freeze it again as a distraction later on - keep it up all the time, they have nowhere to go to escalate things short of actual war, which is not on the agenda.
"Lib Dems his by-election campaign trail with classic dodgy bar chart
The Lib Dems have hit the campaign trail in the Oldham West by-election with a classic example of their most fabled vote-winning technique: the leaflet bar chart. The party has a long history of dodgy bar charts – and the latest is one of their best ever."
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
He won't be PM of course or win the election, his job will be to make modest progress as Michael Howard did for the Tories and then hand over to Chuka Umunna, Stella Creasey or Dan Jarvis after an election defeat
PLEASE stop trying to make Chuka happen! He's not going to happen.
The PLP manage don't like the cut of Corbyn's jib.
AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO PRECISELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Eat Their Own Feet...
Actually, Corbynista's are leading the nation... in their prism of the world.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Thought: if immigration, security, defence, crime, and "social cohesion" dominate the 2020 election, and if that election is conducted with Corbyn as Labour leader, Labour could poll around 20%.
I guess we're going to find out what Labour's core vote really is.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
It could happen. Benn has a certain statesmanlike aura about him which most politicians these days sorely lack. I can see him being Labour's equivalent of Michael Howard replacing IDS in 2003.
With the difference being that, unlike Howard, a Benn-led Labour would be facing the Tories' Gordon Brown rather than the Tories' Tony Blair.
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Good grief. That's meaningless, it's not as if the PM was arguing for an incoherent plan.
Isn't there some sort of rule of politics that the more a statement is so bland no person could conceivably disagree with it, the more it conceals something very bitter? Honestly, that is a pretty weaksauce rebuttal, Corbyn spokesman, you must be able to do better than that. Labour has an incredibly robust base of support, the Tories will have been cutting for 10 years in 2020, it should be an open goal for you.
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
If all of the mainstream French politicians swing to the Right on security, defence and immigration, that should lock Le Pen out fairly comfortably.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
I should add that, IMHO, the issue in this country absolutely is defence spending.
We should be increasing it.
Doesn't seem likely. The public won't accept tax rises to pay for it or cuts of the size elsewhere to make up the difference, given the largest available budgets are health and welfare, and as popular as many welfare cuts might be, we seem to have reached the bottom of what has been deemed politically acceptable.
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would ameliorate some of the cuts in justice, the home office and policing, and fund a rise in defence spending with it whilst maintaining the present trajectory for a balanced budget by GE2020.
Actually, Corbynista's are leading the nation... in their prism of the world.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
@elashton: On legality of Emwazi air strike, Corbyn's spokesman says: "There clearly is a question mark over it. That's not in doubt."
Thought: if immigration, security, defence, crime, and "social cohesion" dominate the 2020 election, and if that election is conducted with Corbyn as Labour leader, Labour could poll around 20%.
I guess we're going to find out what Labour's core vote really is.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Corbyn will not be leader in 2020.
You've been a supporter of Corbyn, IIRC, until now. Do you resile, following his ludicrous and horrible opinions as expressed today?
I'm not sure I've really been that big a supporter - I only placed him 3rd on my ballot.
I have this idea that arch-Corbynites rank other Labour members based on where they placed Corbyn on the ballot. A tier 3 Labourite in your case, to be watched closely no doubt, like an EU supporting Tory would be watched in their ranks, but not necessarily a threat. A tier 4 is a traitor, and an unTiered is an actual, no joke, demon in disguise. Tier 2s are welcome to break bread with the purity of the Tier1s, they can be the face to the public, but no more.
It's a shame this is flaring up over some serious stuff, as party civil wars seem pretty funny otherwise, I can only hope the Tory one will be hilarious.
(1) I've never heard Corbyn argue for any restriction on immigration (2) He wants (at best) to drastically reduce the armed forces - perhaps he might let us have a part-time militia (3) He's on the record as wanting that - even the Queen knows that (4) He would almost certainly start immediate negotiations with Argentina to that effect
It might be more accurate to say they are personal positions, rather than official UK Labour Party policy positions, but when the guy is up as the main alternative candidate for Prime Minister, that stuff still matters.
If Mauricio Macri wins the Argentine presidency on Sunday he has promised to negotiate with the UK and take a less hostile tone than Kirchner's favoured candidate, Daniel Scioli
There is nothing* to negotiate unless the Falkland Islanders wish it so.
Unless it's about regional economic cooperation and improved trade, which is absolutely up for negotiation.
Thought: if immigration, security, defence, crime, and "social cohesion" dominate the 2020 election, and if that election is conducted with Corbyn as Labour leader, Labour could poll around 20%.
I guess we're going to find out what Labour's core vote really is.
Id like to say Corbyn has destroyed his chances of clinging on as Labour leader. But considering the PLP appear to be a bunch of frightened sheep, I'd suggest he's got a good couple of years in him yet.
When it gets to midterm, minds might be more focussed. But this just continues to be proof that Labour MPs have a pathological fear of defesestrating leaders.
"Lib Dems his by-election campaign trail with classic dodgy bar chart
The Lib Dems have hit the campaign trail in the Oldham West by-election with a classic example of their most fabled vote-winning technique: the leaflet bar chart. The party has a long history of dodgy bar charts – and the latest is one of their best ever."
They are hilarious, particularly now they will be forced to work even harder to make the prospect of being the best placed to beat [insert party x] argument seem even remotely plausible. Have they ever gone so dodgy they've gotten in legal trouble over them?
Id like to say Corbyn has destroyed his chances of clinging on as Labour leader. But considering the PLP appear to be a bunch of frightened sheep, I'd suggest he's got a good couple of years in him yet.
When it gets to midterm, minds might be more focussed. But this just continues to be proof that Labour MPs have a pathological fear of defesestrating leaders.
I suspect the deciding factor will be the London mayoral election.
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
No bet. I reckon Corbyn will finesse the remarks and do just enough to stay in position, while remaining, quite clearly, a quisling c*nt.
Labour are entirely doomed in 2020 tho. I've got lefty friends (NOT the usual grumpy suspects) emailing and tweeting me their violent contempt of his opinions.
If the Tories replace Cameron with a noticeably priapic orang utan they would still beat Corbyn's :Lbour.
Corbyn will not be leader in 2020.
You've been a supporter of Corbyn, IIRC, until now. Do you resile, following his ludicrous and horrible opinions as expressed today?
I'm not sure I've really been that big a supporter - I only placed him 3rd on my ballot.
I have this idea that arch-Corbynites rank other Labour members based on where they placed Corbyn on the ballot. A tier 3 Labourite in your case, to be watched closely no doubt, like an EU supporting Tory would be watched in their ranks, but not necessarily a threat. A tier 4 is a traitor, and an unTiered is an actual, no joke, demon in disguise. Tier 2s are welcome to break bread with the purity of the Tier1s, they can be the face to the public, but no more.
It's a shame this is flaring up over some serious stuff, as party civil wars seem pretty funny otherwise, I can only hope the Tory one will be hilarious.
I'm always going to be amused that I've found myself in the right-wing half of the Labour Party. In particular, I never would've thought I'd be to the right of Nick Palmer, when less than a year ago I would sometimes be debating with him about pro-austerity Miliband & Balls were!
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
Ron Paul offers his solution to Paris: http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris 'Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.
We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it’s too late.'
-Like I said the other day, for its own good and the good of the world, America needs to recognise it is a power amongst powers; it cannot and should not rule over the entire world. Americanism in one country is what we need. Then the world can move forward.
Actually, Corbynista's are leading the nation... in their prism of the world.
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
@elashton: On legality of Emwazi air strike, Corbyn's spokesman says: "There clearly is a question mark over it. That's not in doubt."
@paulwaugh: Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
Good grief. That's meaningless, it's not as if the PM was arguing for an incoherent plan.
Isn't there some sort of rule of politics that the more a statement is so bland no person could conceivably disagree with it, the more it conceals something very bitter? Honestly, that is a pretty weaksauce rebuttal, Corbyn spokesman, you must be able to do better than that. Labour has an incredibly robust base of support, the Tories will have been cutting for 10 years in 2020, it should be an open goal for you.
To be honest, I think Hollande is being even harder than Cameron would be - "France will destroy IS". I also note "no new cuts in the defence budget", whereas I think parts of the armed forces will be proposed to be cut next week in the UK to fund others:
If all of the mainstream French politicians swing to the Right on security, defence and immigration, that should lock Le Pen out fairly comfortably.
I somehow doubt it. The issue isn't defence spending..
I should add that, IMHO, the issue in this country absolutely is defence spending.
We should be increasing it.
Doesn't seem likely. The public won't accept tax rises to pay for it or cuts of the size elsewhere to make up the difference, given the largest available budgets are health and welfare, and as popular as many welfare cuts might be, we seem to have reached the bottom of what has been deemed politically acceptable.
In the current climate, I think the public might well accept cuts elsewhere for defence spending.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would cut health. I cannot believe, even with increasing pressures, that there is no scope for even the most minimal of cutting within it, and yet it is always portrayed as on the verge of collapse no matter what is proposed and more money is always the answer. I doubt I would get elected with such a stance.
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
Hollande has become a very impressive leader as many thought he would be. 'Left-wing' is not the dirty word in France that it is on here.
It's because the Left in France is patriotic in a way the Left in Britain no longer is. Cf Corbyn's repulsive remarks today, refusing to properly defend British citizens even when under fire IN BRITAIN.
Sorry to be living in a vacuum, but could someone please point me to the particular comment(s) by Corbyn?
If our politics were less polarised towards either/or---In my experience, for instance, many folk say they hate the LDs because "you don't know where they stand"---I could imagine a place for a minority Corbynite faction with no real power and with the rest of us spread in a balanced spectrum to their right. But here we like to have a simple test, with a winner standing over a bloodied loser. Here, we expend our energies, and create employment, on interpreting laws and customs within an evolved unwritten constitution.
Just theorising.
Jeremy Corbyn says he is "not happy" with UK police or security services operating a "shoot-to-kill" policy in the event of a terror attack.
The Labour leader told the BBC such an approach could "often be counter-productive".
He also declined to answer what he called the "hypothetical question" of whether he would ever back military intervention against extremists.
"I'm not saying I would or I wouldn't," he said.
Thanks. Granted, that's pretty bloody bad.
According to reports Corbyn also speculated whether the French were right to bomb the ISIS capital of Raqqa (as they did) in response to the massacre. Which begs the obvious question: In what circumstances would he ever attack Islamist terrorists/terror states in retaliation for attacks on UK citizens?
The implied answer is that Corbyn would NEVER defend Britain in this way.
He is beyond unelectable.
His purpose is not to be elected PM, it is to take over the labour party, to eat it away from within. When you see how labour have disappeared in Scotland and how useless they are in Wales, the he has a good chance I'd say.
Vaz went on to give contradictory answers about his views, saying that there should not be blasphemy laws in the UK, before adding, "If somebody brings it forward in parliament I'll vote for it… Obviously it depends what's in the bill. But I have no objection to it being brought before parliament and having a debate about it."
That's our Keith summed up right there....
Just like he is against the Christmas Coke van due to evil sugar, but then quite happy to open a sweet shop and say nice things about it.
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
Cooper is politically dead at the moment, she is not even in the Shadow Cabinet for starters and came a poor third in the leadership election. Benn is the only viable alternative, he is Shadow Foreign Secretary and still leftwing enough for the membership not to kick up too much of a fuss if he takes over, as showed yesterday by his reservations on Syrian airstrikes before a political solution and helped by his surname. In the same way the fact Michael Howard was clearly of the right helped Tory members avoid getting too annoyed he replaced IDS
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
How does Benn defeat Corbyn in a vote of the Labour / Momentum / Stop the War membership?
He doesn't need to, he would easily get the 20% of MPs required to launch a challenge, even if he does not authorise it, and Corbyn would not get enough MPs to nominate him so Benn would be elected unopposed
Seriously, we're going over this again?
A Labour Party historian on the Sunday Politics a few weeks ago said there was nothing in the rules that suggested this could not happen, once a challenge is launched and a challenger achieves sufficient nominations then Labour rules could well be interpreted to require reopening of nominations for a new ballot
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
Cooper is politically dead at the moment, she is not even in the Shadow Cabinet for starters and came a poor third in the leadership election. Benn is the only viable alternative, he is Shadow Foreign Secretary and still leftwing enough for the membership not to kick up too much of a fuss if he takes over, as showed yesterday by his reservations on Syrian airstrikes before a political solution and helped by his surname. In the same way the fact Michael Howard was clearly of the right helped Tory members avoid getting too annoyed he replaced IDS
I think Corbyn will have to row back from his disgusting comments today. Or he will be ousted.
Fancy a bet, Sean?
What odds will you give me Corbyn is still in place on Jan 1st 2016?
I do not see any way they can. He will still get the votes of the Momentum bunch and we see every day that NP supports him
I remain of the view Hilary Benn will replace Corbyn in two years time in a Howard like manoeuvre with almost unanimous backing from the PLP, probably following Labour falling behind UKIP in a by-election in a formerly Labour held seat
Please God this happens .... if Benn were then to succeed Cameron as the next Prime Minister, my 949/1 bet then delivers!
It could happen. Benn has a certain statesmanlike aura about him which most politicians these days sorely lack. I can see him being Labour's equivalent of Michael Howard replacing IDS in 2003.
A friend has placed on his FB timeline comparing ISIS's actions in France to Israel.
His favoured course of action? Dialogue with ISIS.
He just doesn't get it.
I might quit Facebook. It turns normal sensible people into wankers.
I probably include myself in that.
I generally don't post much on it - and I use it to keep in touch with friends which is good - but I just couldn't resist posting those quotes from Corbyn.
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
Cooper is politically dead at the moment, she is not even in the Shadow Cabinet for starters and came a poor third in the leadership election. Benn is the only viable alternative, he is Shadow Foreign Secretary and still leftwing enough for the membership not to kick up too much of a fuss if he takes over, as showed yesterday by his reservations on Syrian airstrikes before a political solution and helped by his surname. In the same way the fact Michael Howard was clearly of the right helped Tory members avoid getting too annoyed he replaced IDS
(1) I've never heard Corbyn argue for any restriction on immigration (2) He wants (at best) to drastically reduce the armed forces - perhaps he might let us have a part-time militia (3) He's on the record as wanting that - even the Queen knows that (4) He would almost certainly start immediate negotiations with Argentina to that effect
It might be more accurate to say they are personal positions, rather than official UK Labour Party policy positions, but when the guy is up as the main alternative candidate for Prime Minister, that stuff still matters.
If Mauricio Macri wins the Argentine presidency on Sunday he has promised to negotiate with the UK and take a less hostile tone than Kirchner's favoured candidate, Daniel Scioli
There is nothing* to negotiate unless the Falkland Islanders wish it so.
Unless it's about regional economic cooperation and improved trade, which is absolutely up for negotiation.
I'm surprised his people would advocate such a stance with an upcoming election, even if they do indeed mean it and they naturally are not questioning the Argentinian claim in any way - it just seems unnecessary to bring it up.
The cynic in me suggests it could be helpful for them to unfreeze the issue a bit, that way they can freeze it again as a distraction later on - keep it up all the time, they have nowhere to go to escalate things short of actual war, which is not on the agenda.
Macri is a successful former businessman and Mayor of Buenos Aires, unlike Kirchner hopefully he would not screw up the Argentine economy and thus have to rely on the cry to take back the Malvinas!
Comments
He's a pacifist. This is what pacifists believe.
Whether his principles have been adequately thought through is another matter. If they haven't, the impact of reality may be catastrophic for him personally.
We should be increasing it.
ISIS vows to attack Washington next in chilling new video and vows EVERY nation involved in Syrian airstrikes will 'suffer France's fate' as CIA director warns 'this is not a one-off'
The PLP have already missed one chance to revolt. Time is already running out. If they do not walk out and create their new party soon it will be too late. They will be thrown out anyway and not survive to fight the 2020 election.
In other words, the former implies you think; the latter implies you do not. Thinking does not make you a sell-out.
Besides which, there are pacifists who recognise there are some circumstances in which there is no alternative but to use lethal force to prevent a far greater evil.
Corbyn cannot name a single one. That's dogma, bordering on fanaticism.
Not what I was expecting...
Merkel to start back pedalling on immigration ?
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/kommentar-ueber-die-fluechtlingspolitik-ist-das-merkels-kehrtwende-13915963.html
"State-Sponsored Terrorism
3-11. We know that international terrorists are trying to acquire radiological weapons. In future, there are risks that they may tryto aquire nuclear weapons. While our nuclear deterrent is not designed to deter non-state actors, it should influence the decision-making of any state that might consider transferring nuclear weapons or nuclear technology to terrorists. We make no distinction between the means by which a state might choose to deliver a nuclear warhead, whether, for example, by missile or sponsored terrorists. Any state that we can hold responsible for assisting a nuclearattack on our vital interests can expect that this would lead to a proportionate response. "
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/27378/DefenceWhitePaper2006_Cm6994.pdf
I think Cooper has a reasonable* chance of being Labour leader in 2020. Reasoning:
Corbyn cannot survive like this, he will have to go, even if not immediately.
Burnham has tied himself to Corbyn, so he cannot lead.
A female leader might provide a break from all of this - and she is standing up to the current leadership.
(* For some value of reasonable.)
I still support most of his economic stances, and I do think already the Tax Credits government u-turn is slight vindication of him (if the Labour leader had been someone who put up more equivocal opposition to the tax credit cuts, the govt would have felt less pressure). However, his foreign policy / defence stances always worried me, and unfortuantely I now see I should've been even more worried.
It could be as damaging as Miliband's response to the accusation that the last labour government over spent.
“We will maintain forever our claim to the Falklands. But our relations with Britain should be broadened.”
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/southamerica/falklandislands/11947020/mauricio-macri-argentina-britain-falklands.html
AND THEY'RE GOING TO DO PRECISELY NOTHING ABOUT IT.
He's stuck to that dogma unswervingly all his life. He hasn't had any practice in deciding which is a least-bad choice among several because his 'principles' have always given him the one right answer pat.
He is now being faced with real moral dilemmas that require actual answers, and dilemmas that have no perfect decisions.
It's likely to be a personal tragedy for him.
He's now totally unable to separate the man himself from his politics and, if he did, he might lose his sense of identity as a person.
So he must go.
The cynic in me suggests it could be helpful for them to unfreeze the issue a bit, that way they can freeze it again as a distraction later on - keep it up all the time, they have nowhere to go to escalate things short of actual war, which is not on the agenda.
The Lib Dems have hit the campaign trail in the Oldham West by-election with a classic example of their most fabled vote-winning technique: the leaflet bar chart. The party has a long history of dodgy bar charts – and the latest is one of their best ever."
http://labourlist.org/2015/11/lib-dems-his-by-election-campaign-trail-with-classic-dodgy-bar-chart/
Paul Waugh @paulwaugh 14m14 minutes ago
Corbyn spksmn insisted PLP united on overall position on Syria, points out Cameron tday came round to Lab position that coherent plan needed
I guess we're going to find out what Labour's core vote really is.
His favoured course of action? Dialogue with ISIS.
He just doesn't get it.
It's a good job I'm not CoE. I would freeze education, health, international aid and abolish the triple-lock.
I would ameliorate some of the cuts in justice, the home office and policing, and fund a rise in defence spending with it whilst maintaining the present trajectory for a balanced budget by GE2020.
@Samfr: These tweets make more sense when you remember the spokesman is Seumas Milne. https://t.co/m8SuD2kQtb
It's a shame this is flaring up over some serious stuff, as party civil wars seem pretty funny otherwise, I can only hope the Tory one will be hilarious.
When it gets to midterm, minds might be more focussed. But this just continues to be proof that Labour MPs have a pathological fear of defesestrating leaders.
I probably include myself in that.
tomorrow...
I could squeam and squeam.
Which is the Corbyn position.
Further clear evidence of the three-quid-reverse-takeover by the watermelons.
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-16/ron-paul-what-should-be-done-about-paris
'Here is the alternative: Focus on trade and friendly relations, stop shipping weapons, abandon “regime change” and other manipulations, respect national sovereignty, and maintain a strong defense at home including protecting the borders from those who may seek to do us harm.
We should abandon the failed policies of the past, before it’s too late.'
-Like I said the other day, for its own good and the good of the world, America needs to recognise it is a power amongst powers; it cannot and should not rule over the entire world. Americanism in one country is what we need. Then the world can move forward.
"Labour MP Keith Vaz would have “no problem” with reintroduction of UK blasphemy laws"
http://www.secularism.org.uk/news/2015/11/labour-mp-keith-vaz-would-have-no-problem-with-reintroduction-uk-blasphemy-laws
On more depressing matters, in my neck of the woods we have definitely moved onto another stage of the 'terror attack response' cycle, with people unprompted seeming angry that some others were reacting to France but not other acts of violence in other parts of the world, ie that even displays of sympathy can be an overreaction, let alone any suggested action. We are well on the way to acting normally again in a week or so.
That's our Keith summed up right there....
Just like he is against the Christmas Coke van due to evil sugar, but then quite happy to open a sweet shop and say nice things about it.
http://blogs.new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/theresa-may-the-paris-attacks-have-nothing-to-do-with-islam/
Is it more embarassing than fellating Ed Balls ?
It has everything to do with Islam*. They are the f##king self proclaimed Islamic State for f##ks sake.
* As posted on previous thread, that doesn't mean all Muslims / strands of Islam.
The picture you see is no portrait of me.
I mostly just link to stories about trains, coastal walkers, and piccies of my son. Those tend to be rather uncontroversial ...
My friends tend to be rather widespread geographically. If it wasn't for the fact Facebook makes keeping up with them easy, I'd probably quit.
They all need to "learn leassons" in the bleeding obvious
And presumably the IRA's bombing campaign had nothing to do with Ireland?