Labour MPs would've nuts if they wanted to get a coup caught up in a legal fight, regardless of who is actually right.
That was written by a tax lawyer I will take the view of Labour's in-house constitutional lawyers. If Labour lose a by-election to UKIP in a formerly safe Labour seat a coup is certainly better than suicide!
You miss my point. Regardless of who is right, there are at least good arguments to be made that Jeremy Corbyn automatically has the right to stand again. This would be near certain to end up in court. What do you think will be happening during the period while that court case is being prepared for and heard? It would make everything we've seen so far look like a Quaker prayer meeting.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
@SamCoatesTimes: So growing signs we are now expecting Jeremy Corbyn to offer a free vote on Monday. Not totally clear, but looks increasingly likely
EDIT: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has no considered view on the use of British Forces in combat against our enemies...
Yet if Cameron had all the Conservatives on side, he would have had the vote and won it as there are more Conservative MPs than all the others put together.
It's strange no one on here wants to talk about the Conservatives who won't back our leader and are obsessing about the Labour MPs who won't back theirs.
As usual you deliberately miss the point. Cameron has made it clear he wants a clear majority across the house to provide a solid mandate for the action. Anyone who listened to his careful and patient responses in the H/C would acknowledge his position is entirely and 100% genuine - hence the support strongly expressed by many of his opponents.
It is a surreal set of affairs, but clearly the Labour leadership and his inner clique of matey lefties (Abbott not withstanding) consider the war with their shadow cabinet and elected MP's more important than fighting the Tories.
Civil wars are always the worst, nastiest, most destructive and horrible kinds of conflict. The Labour Party will now show us all how it's done- and at the end there will be little remaining.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
Well, they aren't quite as numerous or, currently on most issues, as vocal, so not as obviously noteworthy, but it does show his inherent weakness.
It all shows that for all his faux-Churchillian bluster, Cameron's argument for bombing is simply political. If he can't convince people in his own party, how does he expect to convince the rest of the country ?
We're back to the uncomfortable truth that the horrific Paris attacks have changed nothing - we were an IS target before we are no more or less a target now. The only way to destroy IS will be to physically occupy the ground on which they operate but we do that in the certain knowledge IS will disperse and the likelihood of domestic terror won't subside with the fall of Raqqa or Mosul.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
Corbyn won all 3 sections. He can only be defenestrated when the members and NEC see what a catastrophe they have inflicted on the party.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
Corbyn should be backing air strikes in Syria, if only because his hero Vladimir has recently started them.
Labour MPs would've nuts if they wanted to get a coup caught up in a legal fight, regardless of who is actually right.
That was written by a tax lawyer I will take the view of Labour's in-house constitutional lawyers. If Labour lose a by-election to UKIP in a formerly safe Labour seat a coup is certainly better than suicide!
You miss my point. Regardless of who is right, there are at least good arguments to be made that Jeremy Corbyn automatically has the right to stand again. This would be near certain to end up in court. What do you think will be happening during the period while that court case is being prepared for and heard? It would make everything we've seen so far look like a Quaker prayer meeting.
Good arguments made by Corbynistas, I would expect the legal case to be pretty watertight anyway before any coup was launched then the successor elected unopposed, perhaps almost unanimously by Labour MPs, if Corbyn still wants to try and cling on he can, even if he won a legal challenge the PLP could then even just rename the party with their new leader and leave Corbyn with the rump
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
How about the fact they are throwing gays off roofs, committing genocide, beheading charity workers, perpetuating acts of terror against people in beaches and bars, disrupting the world order to the point that the Turks are shooting down Russian planes, and our generally liberal and democratic friends in France are asking for a bit of solidarity?
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
Corbyn should be backing air strikes in Syria, if only because his hero Vladimir has recently started them.
And bombing ISIS, a terrorist mafia, as part of a UN sanctioned international coalition is not 'going to war'.
The most ridiculous, ludicrous, pathetic, risible and downright preposterous element of this Corbyn consultation about the Syrian bombing is why would you consult widely in the first instance? We need leadership.. this is not the Xfactor, some public vote. We voted six months ago- we are not in a Swiss plebescite- and I doubt very much that the Swiss authorities would act in this way.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
Corbyn won all 3 sections. He can only be defenestrated when the members and NEC see what a catastrophe they have inflicted on the party.
No he did not, he lost MPs as IDS lost MPs and union members votes were not given in the breakdown. It was the fact he never had the backing of his MPs which did for IDS and the same would be true for Corbyn
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Labour MPs would've nuts if they wanted to get a coup caught up in a legal fight, regardless of who is actually right.
That was written by a tax lawyer I will take the view of Labour's in-house constitutional lawyers. If Labour lose a by-election to UKIP in a formerly safe Labour seat a coup is certainly better than suicide!
You miss my point. Regardless of who is right, there are at least good arguments to be made that Jeremy Corbyn automatically has the right to stand again. This would be near certain to end up in court. What do you think will be happening during the period while that court case is being prepared for and heard? It would make everything we've seen so far look like a Quaker prayer meeting.
Good arguments made by Corbynistas, I would expect the legal case to be pretty watertight anyway before any coup was launched then the successor elected unopposed, perhaps almost unanimously by Labour MPs, if Corbyn still wants to try and cling on he can, even if he won a legal challenge the PLP could then even just rename the party with their new leader and leave Corbyn with the rump
You can't just make a legal case watertight. This is a matter of interpretation of words. They are either clear or they're not. They aren't clearly in the dissident MPs' favour. So any plan has to assume there will be a legal challenge that will be fully heard and which the MPs might well lose.
Ownership of the party assets and control of the membership (and the databases of information) and the party apparatus are vital. Starting a new party is hard. British politics is not exactly brimming with success stories on that front.
Just back from an interesting CLP meeting. Opinion on Syria was surprisingly more balanced than I expected: quite a few were in support of it. The motion opposing air strikes was carried by just one vote, although as a caveat to that, quite a few of us (including me) who oppose air strikes abstained because the wording of the motion was a load of emotive Stop the War-type bollocks comparing air strikes to "euthanasia", which we didn't want to support.
The MP said his feeling from canvassing in Oldham was that it was indeed very tight. He said the feeling was that the Labour vote was holding up reasonably well (though that might just be a positive spin), but that there were loads of Tories tactically planning to vote UKIP.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Really? It allowed John Major in 1997 and William Hague in 2001 to lead the party to the 2 worst defeats in their modern history, only once IDS arrived did it finally lose its patience
Corbyns tactics in asking everyone for their opinion is like a Premier League Manager asking the supporters of the club and the supporters of other clubs, what his team selection should be..In no way could this be remotely called leadership and it needs someone in the Shadow Cabinet to tell him....we may have to wait a while,,
A few interesting titbits from Labour members on who they think should succeed Corbyn (amongst those who think Corbyn should step down now or before the next election).
Amongst Labour voters in 2015 it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 14%, Umunna 9%, Jarvis 9%, Benn 4%, David Miliband 4%, Alan Johnson 3%, Keir Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 3%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%.
Amongst full party members it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 15%, Jarvis 10%, Umunna 8%, Benn 5%, Alan Johnson 4%, David Miliband 3%, Keith Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 2%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%. (Amongst those who voted for Corbyn Jarvis is preferred followed by Benn; among those who voted for Cooper it is Yvette again followed by Jarvis; amonst those who voted for Burnham it is Andy again followed by Chuka Umunna; amongst those who voted for Liz Kendall Chuka Umunna is now their preferred choice followed by Dan Jarvis with Liz only third) https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h15sm4vwaa/TimesResults_151123_LabourMembers.pdf (p7)
Amazes me that there is not more support for Creasey
A few interesting titbits from Labour members on who they think should succeed Corbyn (amongst those who think Corbyn should step down now or before the next election).
Amongst Labour voters in 2015 it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 14%, Umunna 9%, Jarvis 9%, Benn 4%, David Miliband 4%, Alan Johnson 3%, Keir Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 3%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%.
Amongst full party members it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 15%, Jarvis 10%, Umunna 8%, Benn 5%, Alan Johnson 4%, David Miliband 3%, Keith Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 2%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%. (Amongst those who voted for Corbyn Jarvis is preferred followed by Benn; among those who voted for Cooper it is Yvette again followed by Jarvis; amonst those who voted for Burnham it is Andy again followed by Chuka Umunna; amongst those who voted for Liz Kendall Chuka Umunna is now their preferred choice followed by Dan Jarvis with Liz only third) https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h15sm4vwaa/TimesResults_151123_LabourMembers.pdf (p7)
Amazes me that there is not more support for Creasey
So little, in fact, that neither of you can spell her name!
The most ridiculous, ludicrous, pathetic, risible and downright preposterous element of this Corbyn consultation about the Syrian bombing is why would you consult widely in the first instance? We need leadership.. this is not the Xfactor, some public vote. We voted six months ago- we are not in a Swiss plebescite- and I doubt very much that the Swiss authorities would act in this way.
@rosschawkins: Hmm - so this isn't going to be a consultation of only Labour members views. Anyone can idiots aowrite in. https://t.co/lieMOyFpm0
I think you are right about the leadership issue.
I came to the painful conclusion last night that, if I had to commit myself one way or the other, I would prefer to stand with a Mr Cameron who turned out to be wrong on this than a Mr Corbyn who turned out to be right on this.
The reason is that I have a deep mistrust of Mr Corbyn's motivations. For me, it is better to be with someone who, in general, has motives I consider reasonably good than with someone who has motives I consider appalling.
But I am thankful I don't have any sort of say in decisions like these.
Labour MPs would've nuts if they wanted to get a coup caught up in a legal fight, regardless of who is actually right.
That was written by a tax lawyer I will take the view of Labour's in-house constitutional lawyers. If Labour lose a by-election to UKIP in a formerly safe Labour seat a coup is certainly better than suicide!
You miss my point. Regardless of who is right, there are at least good arguments to be made that Jeremy Corbyn automatically has the right to stand again. This would be near certain to end up in court. What do you think will be happening during the period while that court case is being prepared for and heard? It would make everything we've seen so far look like a Quaker prayer meeting.
Good arguments made by Corbynistas, I would expect the legal case to be pretty watertight anyway before any coup was launched then the successor elected unopposed, perhaps almost unanimously by Labour MPs, if Corbyn still wants to try
You can't just make a legal case watertight. This is a matter of interpretation of words. They are either clear or they're not. They aren't clearly in the dissident MPs' favour. So any plan has to assume there will be a legal challenge that will be fully heard and which the MPs might well lose.
Ownership of the party assets and control of the membership (and the databases of information) and the party apparatus are vital. Starting a new party is hard. British politics is not exactly brimming with success stories on that front.
Might, maybe, who cares, if Labour loses Oldham a seat it won EVEN in 1983 when Foot led it to its worst defeat since 1918 or any other Labour seat to UKIP the party is effectively dead anyway so any action no matter how reckless is better than no action even if there is a legal challenge. The party membership is now comprised of Trots, while as two recent polls show Labour voters are now closer to Cameron on airstrikes than their own leader and the party is in dire financial straights with very few assets left. Most of the money they do have comes from the unions and they will dump Corbyn for a new leader and even party if it looks more electable. If virtually the entire PLP defects to a new party it would automatically become the main opposition in the Commons and take with it most Labour voters, leaving what remains of the Labour Party to Corbyn, Abbott and McDonnell, at which point they can conduct the final funeral rites!
@SamCoatesTimes: So growing signs we are now expecting Jeremy Corbyn to offer a free vote on Monday. Not totally clear, but looks increasingly likely
EDIT: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has no considered view on the use of British Forces in combat against our enemies...
Yet if Cameron had all the Conservatives on side, he would have had the vote and won it as there are more Conservative MPs than all the others put together.
It's strange no one on here wants to talk about the Conservatives who won't back our leader and are obsessing about the Labour MPs who won't back theirs.
Well, they aren't quite as numerous or, currently on most issues, as vocal, so not as obviously noteworthy, but it does show his inherent weakness.
I think the Labour problem is that Corbynistas are conviction voters. They will oppose intervention regardless of the circumstances - can anyone tell me when Jehadi Jez has ever voted for any military intervention?
@SamCoatesTimes: So growing signs we are now expecting Jeremy Corbyn to offer a free vote on Monday. Not totally clear, but looks increasingly likely
EDIT: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has no considered view on the use of British Forces in combat against our enemies...
Yet if Cameron had all the Conservatives on side, he would have had the vote and won it as there are more Conservative MPs than all the others put together.
It's strange no one on here wants to talk about the Conservatives who won't back our leader and are obsessing about the Labour MPs who won't back theirs.
As usual you deliberately miss the point. Cameron has made it clear he wants a clear majority across the house to provide a solid mandate for the action. Anyone who listened to his careful and patient responses in the H/C would acknowledge his position is entirely and 100% genuine - hence the support strongly expressed by many of his opponents.
Yes you are correct about deliberately missing the point. Pretty pathetic misrepresentation on just about everything by Corbyn's useful idiots.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
How about the fact they are throwing gays off roofs, committing genocide, beheading charity workers, perpetuating acts of terror against people in beaches and bars, disrupting the world order to the point that the Turks are shooting down Russian planes, and our generally liberal and democratic friends in France are asking for a bit of solidarity?
All calls for an emotional response. But an emotional response will not work, that's the whole point. It will not stop those atrocities of which you speak, it will just make us 'feel' we're doing something.
I would also be more inclined to heed the Hollande government's call for 'solidarity' if France had not been one of the prime movers in fomenting an islamist uprising in Syria in the first place. Paris was a tragedy, but that weekend has been daily life in Damascus and Aleppo for years. That hasn't stopped France from funding, training and arming the islamist scum of the world and sending them to Syria.
Jeremy Corbyn is mocked for calling for a ‘negotiated settlement’ with Assad and other parties in the conflict — how wet! — but at least he is trying to think about the future. Cameron’s Syria plan is to get himself worked up, throw a few more bombs at the baddies, and hope for the best. We have to ask: which leader is the more deluded?
I don't have many issues with most of the piece, but I would say that Corbyn may be thinking of the future, but that's the only thing he is thinking about. I don't believe he has any ideas about confronting issues as they are now, even if that means taking a bad option as it is still comparatively the best available (inaction through inability to think of something else or as an automatic response is not positively choosing not to act, so I discount that). He is so opposed to imagined scenarios he would do nothing ever, it doesn't matter what the situation is. That doesn't mean Cameron's plan is a good one, or well thought out or helpful (though some may feel it is all of those things), but I don't know that Corbyn's thinking of the future is as praiseworthy as it might otherwise be, if combined with an awareness of present realities to deal with rather than ignore. Seeking endlessly more views, more info, as a way to stave off everyone just taking a stand (which in fairness he at least has), right or wrong, suggests he is playing politics like everyone else.
It often seems to be the way that someone's perceived strength can also be their weakness. Cameron's flexible, or just lacking in direction. Corbyn's thoughtful, or just ignoring dealing with things that need dealing with now. Merkel is measured and calm, or a ditherer.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Really? It allowed John Major in 1997 and William Hague in 2001 to lead the party to the 2 worst defeats in their modern history, only once IDS arrived did it finally lose its patience
Nobody could have won in 97. Between 97-01 the party was shell shocked so wasn't in a position to do much. By 2003 the party was back to concerning itself with winning or nit losing badly.
A few interesting titbits from Labour members on who they think should succeed Corbyn (amongst those who think Corbyn should step down now or before the next election).
Amongst Labour voters in 2015 it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 14%, Umunna 9%, Jarvis 9%, Benn 4%, David Miliband 4%, Alan Johnson 3%, Keir Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 3%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%.
Amongst full party members it is Burnham 21%, Cooper 15%, Jarvis 10%, Umunna 8%, Benn 5%, Alan Johnson 4%, David Miliband 3%, Keith Starmer 3%, Liz Kendall 3%, Tom Watson 2%, Stella Creasey 2%, Angela Eagle 1%. (Amongst those who voted for Corbyn Jarvis is preferred followed by Benn; among those who voted for Cooper it is Yvette again followed by Jarvis; amonst those who voted for Burnham it is Andy again followed by Chuka Umunna; amongst those who voted for Liz Kendall Chuka Umunna is now their preferred choice followed by Dan Jarvis with Liz only third) https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/h15sm4vwaa/TimesResults_151123_LabourMembers.pdf (p7)
Amazes me that there is not more support for Creasey
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Really? It allowed John Major in 1997 and William Hague in 2001 to lead the party to the 2 worst defeats in their modern history, only once IDS arrived did it finally lose its patience
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Cowering under the table will encourage rather than discourage Daesh. If in doubt on this principle, ask the Israelis.
Even the most stupid football club would not send a circular around its fans about who do you want as next manager. It would be ridiculed to the extreme.
So, here we have Corbyn, doing said above, regarding something about life and death. I think out of all his antics, circulating an email to members about bombing Syria, this is profoundly the most inept.
Corbyns tactics in asking everyone for their opinion is like a Premier League Manager asking the supporters of the club and the supporters of other clubs, what his team selection should be..In no way could this be remotely called leadership and it needs someone in the Shadow Cabinet to tell him....we may have to wait a while,,
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
How about the fact they are throwing gays off roofs, committing genocide, beheading charity workers, perpetuating acts of terror against people in beaches and bars, disrupting the world order to the point that the Turks are shooting down Russian planes, and our generally liberal and democratic friends in France are asking for a bit of solidarity?
All calls for an emotional response. But an emotional response will not work, that's the whole point. It will not stop those atrocities of which you speak, it will just make us 'feel' we're doing something.
At the time of Paris it was widely predicted by many that, in the usual fashion, despite all the calls about how things would need to be different this time, things would go back to normal pretty quickly. Give it a few more weeks or months (or up to the first bombing error or casualty), and I'm sure the majority of the public will have progressed to the same stage as you and emotional calls will not be heeded.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Really? It allowed John Major in 1997 and William Hague in 2001 to lead the party to the 2 worst defeats in their modern history, only once IDS arrived did it finally lose its patience
Nobody could have won in 97. Between 97-01 the party was shell shocked so wasn't in a position to do much. By 2003 the party was back to concerning itself with winning or nit losing badly.
Major was an asset in 1992 by 1997 he was seen as weak, Heseltine may have made it closer and Ken Clarke would have given Blair a tougher time than Hague did and may have made some progress in 2001
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Cowering under the table will encourage rather than discourage Daesh. If in doubt on this principle, ask the Israelis.
That's the problem, isn't it. We're in serious danger of doing "something" just because it makes us feel better, not because it's sensible.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
How about the fact they are throwing gays off roofs, committing genocide, beheading charity workers, perpetuating acts of terror against people in beaches and bars, disrupting the world order to the point that the Turks are shooting down Russian planes, and our generally liberal and democratic friends in France are asking for a bit of solidarity?
All calls for an emotional response. But an emotional response will not work, that's the whole point. It will not stop those atrocities of which you speak, it will just make us 'feel' we're doing something.
I would also be more inclined to heed the Hollande government's call for 'solidarity' if France had not been one of the prime movers in fomenting an islamist uprising in Syria in the first place. Paris was a tragedy, but that weekend has been daily life in Damascus and Aleppo for years. That hasn't stopped France from funding, training and arming the islamist scum of the world and sending them to Syria.
Not an emotional response at all - a hard-headed response to seek to join an alliance to begin to defend against an evil force. Cameron's proposal as he made clear was not a simple short-term solution that would finish the job - it was a start of a long, difficult and dangerous process of which military action was a small part. What is the alternative proposed by Mr. Corbyn?
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
How about the fact they are throwing gays off roofs, committing genocide, beheading charity workers, perpetuating acts of terror against people in beaches and bars, disrupting the world order to the point that the Turks are shooting down Russian planes, and our generally liberal and democratic friends in France are asking for a bit of solidarity?
All calls for an emotional response. But an emotional response will not work, that's the whole point. It will not stop those atrocities of which you speak, it will just make us 'feel' we're doing something.
I would also be more inclined to heed the Hollande government's call for 'solidarity' if France had not been one of the prime movers in fomenting an islamist uprising in Syria in the first place. Paris was a tragedy, but that weekend has been daily life in Damascus and Aleppo for years. That hasn't stopped France from funding, training and arming the islamist scum of the world and sending them to Syria.
Regarding leadership as a weathervane, I've always found this quote on it and democracy a pretty interesting argument.
simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric...that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision
Granted, it was Guy Verhofstadt who said it, and we know why he doesn't like populism driving what politicians might do.
Labour lawyers GRM Law state that Corbyn would need to get 35 MPs nominations if a leadership ballot was triggered by a challenger getting sufficient nominations, they cite the 1988 Labour leadership contest where both Kinnock and Tony Benn needed nominations to go forward to the ballot paper exactly as I have said before
Running such a fixed "election" would be the only way to top the disaster of Corbyns election.
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Why? Howard replaced IDS without the Tory members being consulted despite 60% of them voting for IDS, that did not split the Tory Party beyond repair. If a few £3 Trotskyites decide to sod off as a result I would expect most mainstream Labourites would say good riddance!
The Tory party is a different, more ruthless beast.
Really? It allowed John Major in 1997 and William Hague in 2001 to lead the party to the 2 worst defeats in their modern history, only once IDS arrived did it finally lose its patience
Major won in 1992
Yes but then he was seen as a Brixton boy made good, who offered 'Thatcherism with a more human face' and was a likeable and down to earth leader. By 1997 though he was seen as weak and indecisive and unable to lead his party let alone the country (even if by then the party had effectively become unleadable)
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
Isn't this a crusade?
Why are Crusades considered unacceptable, yet the Islamic forcible conquest and conversion of large parts of Christian Europe, Zoarastonist Iran and Hindu India not condemned in the same terms?
I really despair of looking at politics only from how it impacts on your team. It is fine with sport- Morihno's implosion is truly delicious. But, politics. Labour's chaos is not good, end of. We need to bring it to a close, or create another oppositional party worthy of taking on the Tories because quite frankly the LD's do not cut it.
I agree with that. If I were in Oldham, I'd vote Blue as usual. I dislike tactical voting anyway but particularly dislike it for game-playing purposes.
Fact is that Labour will dump Corbyn when they are ready to accept that he's not the answer. A by-election loss is unlikely to persuade many undecideds on that score (because there aren't many), and unlikely to switch many from the pro- to anti-Corbyn. It will reconfirm what the antis believe but for now, what is that worth.
There is, as an aside, a counter-case to be made that a UKIP breakthrough in seats like Oldham would be ideal for the Tories: it would concentrate both Labour and UKIP fire on each other while giving a clearer ride for the Blues, as well as splitting the anti-Tory WWC vote. It's not a case I'd push too far but nor is it one I'd dismiss out of hand.
Tories are famously adverse to tactical voting. I think most new kipper votes here will be ex labour.
They were not averse to tactical voting at the Bradford West by- election. Many Tories went for Galloway.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Even the most stupid football club would not send a circular around its fans about who do you want as next manager. It would be ridiculed to the extreme.
So, here we have Corbyn, doing said above, regarding something about life and death. I think out of all his antics, circulating an email to members about bombing Syria, this is profoundly the most inept.
Corbyns tactics in asking everyone for their opinion is like a Premier League Manager asking the supporters of the club and the supporters of other clubs, what his team selection should be..In no way could this be remotely called leadership and it needs someone in the Shadow Cabinet to tell him....we may have to wait a while,,
He is not fighting the government or ISIS or anybody except his own front benchers and the bulk of his parliamentary party. So thats the reason behind this ringaround. The main battle going on now is for control of the Labour Party. Its ironic that Corbyn is using terror tactics.
I really despair of looking at politics only from how it impacts on your team. It is fine with sport- Morihno's implosion is truly delicious. But, politics. Labour's chaos is not good, end of. We need to bring it to a close, or create another oppositional party worthy of taking on the Tories because quite frankly the LD's do not cut it.
I agree with that. If I were in Oldham, I'd vote Blue as usual. I dislike tactical voting anyway but particularly dislike it for game-playing purposes.
Fact is that Labour will dump Corbyn when they are ready to accept that he's not the answer. A by-election loss is unlikely to persuade many undecideds on that score (because there aren't many), and unlikely to switch many from the pro- to anti-Corbyn. It will reconfirm what the antis believe but for now, what is that worth.
There is, as an aside, a counter-case to be made that a UKIP breakthrough in seats like Oldham would be ideal for the Tories: it would concentrate both Labour and UKIP fire on each other while giving a clearer ride for the Blues, as well as splitting the anti-Tory WWC vote. It's not a case I'd push too far but nor is it one I'd dismiss out of hand.
Tories are famously adverse to tactical voting. I think most new kipper votes here will be ex labour.
They were not averse to tactical voting at the Bradford West by- election. Many Tories went for Galloway.
That wasn't entirely tactical; it was the electorate in part having a laugh and in part sticking it to the establishment.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
Isn't this a crusade?
Why are Crusades considered unacceptable, yet the Islamic forcible conquest and conversion of large parts of Christian Europe, Zoarastonist Iran and Hindu India not condemned in the same terms?
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
Indeed so - Churchill was MP there 1900 - 1906 and the Tories held Oldham West from 1968 -1970. Oldham East was the more Tory part of the town and was one of Labour's few gains in 1959.
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
They can, but will they?
I'm not denigrating the people of Oldham though - a great many seats are similarly safe for one side or another, and outside of rare events will vote in the same old party no matter who leads it. That's loyalty right there; can so many be angered by Corbyn, the man the members chose, to stop them showing that loyalty again, even if in reduced fashion? I doubt it.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
I've had mine - and sent a reply in:
Jeremy,
To send our men and women into danger, in order to rain bombs down on a foreign power is obviously one of the most serious decisions a Prime Minister will make in his time in office.
It is certainly not something that should be used for political games, by anyone on any side. So I would urge you to grant your MPs a free vote on the matter as the decision must ultimately be between them and their conscience.
My personal view is that unlike Iraq, but even more so than Afghanistan - ISIS, like Al Qaeda mean to do us harm. The strike on Paris, comes from an ideological motivation that Daesh exudes to the world. In my view it is a breach of Article 5 of NATO - And as Daesh holds an area of territory within Syria and Iraq, we must do all we can to degrade their capability within. This means pursuing channels, one of which must be military action.
Eliminating Jeep by jeep, tank by tank, Jihadi by Jihadi the ISlamic State will work on two fronts. First up it will restrict their operational capacity... if we do not act now, will we act when they try and take Baghdad, or Instanbul ? And secondly I feel alot of young men are attracted to the apparent success of Daesh. If they are seen to be losing the war in Iraq and Syria then they will become a less attractive proposition, which may well help stem the flow of recruits.
As unpalatable as war often is, I believe that this time, unlike Iraq it is the correct and right course of action.
So the answers that come back will be exactly what he wants to hear - then can point to support of members. It's an echo chamber x1000
A tweetaround of StopTheWarCorbynistas.
Labour really are stuffed aren't they?
Sounds like over 100 Labour MP's have suddenly found some balls.
"humiliating" says the Telegraph.
To add to the earlier post
"Half of Labour MPs will defy Jeremy Corbyn next week over military action in Syria, it has emerged as senior figures in the party openly questioned his leadership. Senior party sources told The Telegraph on Friday night that as many as 115 Labour MPs are preparing to back a government motion allowing British fighter jets to bomb targets in Syria. On Friday Mr Corbyn was in open conflict with Tom Watson, the deputy leader, and Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, who are both calling for air strikes."
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
There is no point the UK being involved in striking IS unless its going to bring proper resources. If its a similar situation to the RAF involvement in Iraq where a single or two Tornados seem to pop out once a day , its not going to add anything effective even as a component of an alliance of countries.
@SamCoatesTimes: So growing signs we are now expecting Jeremy Corbyn to offer a free vote on Monday. Not totally clear, but looks increasingly likely
EDIT: Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has no considered view on the use of British Forces in combat against our enemies...
Yet if Cameron had all the Conservatives on side, he would have had the vote and won it as there are more Conservative MPs than all the others put together.
It's strange no one on here wants to talk about the Conservatives who won't back our leader and are obsessing about the Labour MPs who won't back theirs.
As usual you deliberately miss the point. Cameron has made it clear he wants a clear majority across the house to provide a solid mandate for the action. Anyone who listened to his careful and patient responses in the H/C would acknowledge his position is entirely and 100% genuine - hence the support strongly expressed by many of his opponents.
What does "a clear majority" mean ? It's more likely he wants other parties to hide behind when his much-vaunted policy unravels. That's basically how he operated from 2010.
If Labour retain 80% of their support in Oldham it might not be enough to win. They polled 54.8% at the general election and 43.8% could easily be a losing percentage in this particular contest.
'At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?'
Why ban a laughing stock?
Meanwhile interesting to see just a whiff of panic in the thread header here...is Cameron now the big hope for Lib Dem Europhiles?
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
But terrorism against the citizens of your own country?
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
I've had mine - and sent a reply in:
Jeremy,
To send our men and women into danger, in order to rain bombs down on a foreign power is obviously one of the most serious decisions a Prime Minister will make in his time in office.
It is certainly not something that should be used for political games, by anyone on any side. So I would urge you to grant your MPs a free vote on the matter as the decision must ultimately be between them and their conscience.
My personal view is that unlike Iraq, but even more so than Afghanistan - ISIS, like Al Qaeda mean to do us harm. The strike on Paris, comes from an ideological motivation that Daesh exudes to the world. In my view it is a breach of Article 5 of NATO - And as Daesh holds an area of territory within Syria and Iraq, we must do all we can to degrade their capability within. This means pursuing channels, one of which must be military action.
Eliminating Jeep by jeep, tank by tank, Jihadi by Jihadi the ISlamic State will work on two fronts. First up it will restrict their operational capacity... if we do not act now, will we act when they try and take Baghdad, or Instanbul ? And secondly I feel alot of young men are attracted to the apparent success of Daesh. If they are seen to be losing the war in Iraq and Syria then they will become a less attractive proposition, which may well help stem the flow of recruits.
As unpalatable as war often is, I believe that this time, unlike Iraq it is the correct and right course of action.
Yours Sincerely,
I was a bit more concise!
Anyone else wanting to express their views can do so on this link:
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
But terrorism against the citizens of your own country?
If you have that, you need to man up and have a civil war/revolution. Not one for foreign powers to involve themselves with.
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
Indeed so - Churchill was MP there 1900 - 1906 and the Tories held Oldham West from 1968 -1970. Oldham East was the more Tory part of the town and was one of Labour's few gains in 1959.
Though Labour were not even the main opposition party in 1906 and it was Labour even in 1983
If Labour retain 80% of their support in Oldham it might not be enough to win. They polled 54.8% at the general election and 43.8% could easily be a losing percentage in this particular contest.
I don't think it would. That would only leave a maximum of 12.4% for Con, LD, Grn and MRLP combined. I really don't see those dropping below a combined 15% and probably it'll be higher.
3/4 Oldham voters had a negative view of Corbyn on BBC News at 10
Bah, what are they going to do about it? Not vote in Labour?
Surprising as it may seem Oldham voters are not sheep and can pick up a pencil and put an x in a box which is not next to the name of the Labour candidate!
They can, but will they?
I'm not denigrating the people of Oldham though - a great many seats are similarly safe for one side or another, and outside of rare events will vote in the same old party no matter who leads it. That's loyalty right there; can so many be angered by Corbyn, the man the members chose, to stop them showing that loyalty again, even if in reduced fashion? I doubt it.
The polls show there is a clear difference between Labour voters and members and the mood on the ground seems to be it will be tight, we will find out next week
At what point does the Labour leadership's support for terrorism mean that the government has to consider making the Labour Party a proscribed organisation?
Many would argue that supporting Apartheid South Africa was tantamount to supporting terrorism. Plenty of Tories have done that over the years.
Opposing South African sanctions = support for terrorism is a bit of a stretch.
So the answers that come back will be exactly what he wants to hear - then can point to support of members. It's an echo chamber x1000
A tweetaround of StopTheWarCorbynistas.
Labour really are stuffed aren't they?
Sounds like over 100 Labour MP's have suddenly found some balls.
"humiliating" says the Telegraph.
The article says that the conservatives are going to vote solidly for air strikes (as part of a UN mandated international coalition). The DUP 8 are also voting for it. This may encourage Labour rebels I guess. I am a bit dubious of the 'labour are in a mess' press hysteria. Labour are in a mess of course. A mess if they vote for the strikes and a mess if they do not. But I do wonder if the headlines match the hype. The mess that Labour are in is that there is civil war if Corbyn goes and civil war if Corbyn stays. Labour's version of Catch-22.
If Labour retain 80% of their support in Oldham it might not be enough to win. They polled 54.8% at the general election and 43.8% could easily be a losing percentage in this particular contest.
I don't think it would. That would only leave a maximum of 12.4% for Con, LD, Grn and MRLP combined. I really don't see those dropping below a combined 15% and probably it'll be higher.
I know I'm out of step with most people in thinking the Tories will get around 7%, the LDs 3.5% and the Greens 1.5%.
I've just had my email as a Labour member asking for my views on Syria. Clearly Corbynites are hoping to appeal to the membership to counter the MP's through this stunt.
FWIW- and despite all my lefty, liberal misgivings which I have shared on this site- and there are many- my inclination is to bomb the Jihadi, Isis dickwads and lets suffer the consequences. I don't think it'll help, but bombing those Islamist nobheads somehow makes me feel better.
Never a terribly good reason to go to war.
Isn't this a crusade?
Why are Crusades considered unacceptable, yet the Islamic forcible conquest and conversion of large parts of Christian Europe, Zoarastonist Iran and Hindu India not condemned in the same terms?
I blame Sir Steven Runciman. His History of the Crusades is beautifully written, but wildly biased in favour of Islam. It promoted the myth of tolerant Islam v intolerant Christianity.
In fact, the Crusader States were beacons of religious tolerance, for their time.
Comments
Anything other than the selectorate voting Corbyn out would split the party beyond repair.
Civil wars are always the worst, nastiest, most destructive and horrible kinds of conflict. The Labour Party will now show us all how it's done- and at the end there will be little remaining.
We're back to the uncomfortable truth that the horrific Paris attacks have changed nothing - we were an IS target before we are no more or less a target now. The only way to destroy IS will be to physically occupy the ground on which they operate but we do that in the certain knowledge IS will disperse and the likelihood of domestic terror won't subside with the fall of Raqqa or Mosul.
http://new.spectator.co.uk/2015/11/jeremy-corbyn-is-more-sensible-about-syria-than-david-cameron/
Quite right too.
Guess it makes sense: he has more spines than the rest of the Labour Party put together.
https://youtu.be/QsunFLYG_4c
Ownership of the party assets and control of the membership (and the databases of information) and the party apparatus are vital. Starting a new party is hard. British politics is not exactly brimming with success stories on that front.
The MP said his feeling from canvassing in Oldham was that it was indeed very tight. He said the feeling was that the Labour vote was holding up reasonably well (though that might just be a positive spin), but that there were loads of Tories tactically planning to vote UKIP.
Labour really are stuffed aren't they?
I came to the painful conclusion last night that, if I had to commit myself one way or the other, I would prefer to stand with a Mr Cameron who turned out to be wrong on this than a Mr Corbyn who turned out to be right on this.
The reason is that I have a deep mistrust of Mr Corbyn's motivations. For me, it is better to be with someone who, in general, has motives I consider reasonably good than with someone who has motives I consider appalling.
But I am thankful I don't have any sort of say in decisions like these.
Pretty pathetic misrepresentation on just about everything by Corbyn's useful idiots.
I would also be more inclined to heed the Hollande government's call for 'solidarity' if France had not been one of the prime movers in fomenting an islamist uprising in Syria in the first place. Paris was a tragedy, but that weekend has been daily life in Damascus and Aleppo for years. That hasn't stopped France from funding, training and arming the islamist scum of the world and sending them to Syria.
I don't have many issues with most of the piece, but I would say that Corbyn may be thinking of the future, but that's the only thing he is thinking about. I don't believe he has any ideas about confronting issues as they are now, even if that means taking a bad option as it is still comparatively the best available (inaction through inability to think of something else or as an automatic response is not positively choosing not to act, so I discount that). He is so opposed to imagined scenarios he would do nothing ever, it doesn't matter what the situation is. That doesn't mean Cameron's plan is a good one, or well thought out or helpful (though some may feel it is all of those things), but I don't know that Corbyn's thinking of the future is as praiseworthy as it might otherwise be, if combined with an awareness of present realities to deal with rather than ignore. Seeking endlessly more views, more info, as a way to stave off everyone just taking a stand (which in fairness he at least has), right or wrong, suggests he is playing politics like everyone else.
It often seems to be the way that someone's perceived strength can also be their weakness. Cameron's flexible, or just lacking in direction. Corbyn's thoughtful, or just ignoring dealing with things that need dealing with now. Merkel is measured and calm, or a ditherer.
Still, she seems miles and away superior to the tedious drongos above her in the list, imho.
Even the most stupid football club would not send a circular around its fans about who do you want as next manager. It would be ridiculed to the extreme.
So, here we have Corbyn, doing said above, regarding something about life and death. I think out of all his antics, circulating an email to members about bombing Syria, this is profoundly the most inept.
simply following nationalist and populist rhetoric...that is for me not a democracy. A democracy, in my opinion, is a political leader developing a vision and then trying to convince the public opinion to follow his vision
Granted, it was Guy Verhofstadt who said it, and we know why he doesn't like populism driving what politicians might do.
So thats the reason behind this ringaround.
The main battle going on now is for control of the Labour Party. Its ironic that Corbyn is using terror tactics.
"humiliating" says the Telegraph.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/matt/?cartoon=12021846&cc=11971107
I'm not denigrating the people of Oldham though - a great many seats are similarly safe for one side or another, and outside of rare events will vote in the same old party no matter who leads it. That's loyalty right there; can so many be angered by Corbyn, the man the members chose, to stop them showing that loyalty again, even if in reduced fashion? I doubt it.
Jeremy,
To send our men and women into danger, in order to rain bombs down on a foreign power is obviously one of the most serious decisions a Prime Minister will make in his time in office.
It is certainly not something that should be used for political games, by anyone on any side. So I would urge you to grant your MPs a free vote on the matter as the decision must ultimately be between them and their conscience.
My personal view is that unlike Iraq, but even more so than Afghanistan - ISIS, like Al Qaeda mean to do us harm. The strike on Paris, comes from an ideological motivation that Daesh exudes to the world. In my view it is a breach of Article 5 of NATO - And as Daesh holds an area of territory within Syria and Iraq, we must do all we can to degrade their capability within. This means pursuing channels, one of which must be military action.
Eliminating Jeep by jeep, tank by tank, Jihadi by Jihadi the ISlamic State will work on two fronts. First up it will restrict their operational capacity... if we do not act now, will we act when they try and take Baghdad, or Instanbul ?
And secondly I feel alot of young men are attracted to the apparent success of Daesh. If they are seen to be losing the war in Iraq and Syria then they will become a less attractive proposition, which may well help stem the flow of recruits.
As unpalatable as war often is, I believe that this time, unlike Iraq it is the correct and right course of action.
Yours Sincerely,
"Half of Labour MPs will defy Jeremy Corbyn next week over military action in Syria, it has emerged as senior figures in the party openly questioned his leadership.
Senior party sources told The Telegraph on Friday night that as many as 115 Labour MPs are preparing to back a government motion allowing British fighter jets to bomb targets in Syria.
On Friday Mr Corbyn was in open conflict with Tom Watson, the deputy leader, and Hilary Benn, the shadow foreign secretary, who are both calling for air strikes."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12021973/Jeremy-Corbyn-faces-humiliation-as-more-than-100-Labour-MPs-plan-to-defy-leader-over-Syria-air-strikes.html
Why ban a laughing stock?
Meanwhile interesting to see just a whiff of panic in the thread header here...is Cameron now the big hope for Lib Dem Europhiles?
Anyone else wanting to express their views can do so on this link:
http://www.labour.org.uk/page/s/syria-consultation
We have both Amazon prime and netflix subscriptions.
Anyone able to offer advice about pros and cons of either option?
Newsnight has more Mark Clarke details
Labour -50.19 UKIP +184.84
U/O 44.5 (Turnout)
U +37.5 O -50
Lib Dems: 5% line
U +40.83 O -45
I am a bit dubious of the 'labour are in a mess' press hysteria.
Labour are in a mess of course. A mess if they vote for the strikes and a mess if they do not. But I do wonder if the headlines match the hype.
The mess that Labour are in is that there is civil war if Corbyn goes and civil war if Corbyn stays. Labour's version of Catch-22.
In fact, the Crusader States were beacons of religious tolerance, for their time.