Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
If Labour or any party had a politician of the stature of Bevin they would be elected by a massive landslide and would retain power for as long as that politician lived. He was a giant even in an age of giants and compared to him our current crop of political leaders are a bunch of limp-wristed, shallow weaklings who seek power only for power's sake.
If memory serves someone once asked Cameron why he wanted to be Prime Minister and he replied, "I think I'd be rather good at it". Can you imagine Bevin ever giving such a self-centred wishy-washy answer?
Edited extra bit: TSE suggests that Alan Johnson is a politician in the Bevin mould, well only as much a domestic house cat can be compared to a full grown Bengal Tiger. They are both cats in the same way that Johnson and Bevin were both trade-unionists there the equivalence ends.
Churchill described Bevin as the the most outstanding figure that the Labour movement had produced. Apparently the officials at the FO were also highly impressed with his ability to master a brief while keeping his own judgement.
Although there is quite simply no person of similar ability available to Labour now, there doesn't need to be. What killed Lansbury's leadership was the brute truth that Bevin deployed in his speech, criticising Lansbury for hawking his conscience from conference to conference, asking to be told what to do with it. It was devastating because it was so obviously true, though Bevin's stature undoubtedly helped him gain a hearing. A similar attack on Corbyn today wouldn't work, no matter who made it, as his supporters have too much scope for rejecting the claims of his critics. Give it three years and it might be a different matter.
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
If Labour or any party had a politician of the stature of Bevin they would be elected by a massive landslide and would retain power for as long as that politician lived. He was a giant even in an age of giants and compared to him our current crop of political leaders are a bunch of limp-wristed, shallow weaklings who seek power only for power's sake.
If memory serves someone once asked Cameron why he wanted to be Prime Minister and he replied, "I think I'd be rather good at it". Can you imagine Bevin ever giving such a self-centred wishy-washy answer?
Edited extra bit: TSE suggests that Alan Johnson is a politician in the Bevin mould, well only as much a domestic house cat can be compared to a full grown Bengal Tiger. They are both cats in the same way that Johnson and Bevin were both trade-unionists there the equivalence ends.
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
I did the Lansbury analogy yesterday, I left out the Ernie Bevin part as I couldn't nail down who it could be.
Alan Johnson was my first thought, but Alan Johnson was an ex trade union boss but Bevin was a current trade union boss when he made his intervention.
The Lansbury analogy can be easily made because it fits so well. For that matter, Cameron and Osborne can be fitted relatively well to the Baldwin and Chamberlain of 1935. But just because they fit, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a fit for Bevin or Attlee. It wasn't inevitable that Lansbury would be replaced in 1935 any more than it's inevitable that Corbyn will go before 2020. One key difference is in the number of MPs. After the disaster of 1931, Labour was almost certain to make gains and those MPs who did survive MacDonald'd treachery were highly likely to keep their seat; that's far from the case now.
(In fact, at this stage in the 1931 parliament, Lansbury hadn't even become leader: Henderson, despite having lost his seat, continued to lead the party).
So Labour will win a landslide in 2029?
There's just the little matter of winning World War III first, TSE.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
ISIS are just the warm up act. WWIII is the Anglosphere vs the EU ;-)
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
If Labour or any party had a politician of the stature of Bevin they would be elected by a massive landslide and would retain power for as long as that politician lived. He was a giant even in an age of giants and compared to him our current crop of political leaders are a bunch of limp-wristed, shallow weaklings who seek power only for power's sake.
If memory serves someone once asked Cameron why he wanted to be Prime Minister and he replied, "I think I'd be rather good at it". Can you imagine Bevin ever giving such a self-centred wishy-washy answer?
Edited extra bit: TSE suggests that Alan Johnson is a politician in the Bevin mould, well only as much a domestic house cat can be compared to a full grown Bengal Tiger. They are both cats in the same way that Johnson and Bevin were both trade-unionists there the equivalence ends.
Churchill described Bevin as the the most outstanding figure that the Labour movement had produced. Apparently the officials at the FO were also highly impressed with his ability to master a brief while keeping his own judgement.
Although there is quite simply no person of similar ability available to Labour now, there doesn't need to be. What killed Lansbury's leadership was the brute truth that Bevin deployed in his speech, criticising Lansbury for hawking his conscience from conference to conference, asking to be told what to do with it. It was devastating because it was so obviously true, though Bevin's stature undoubtedly helped him gain a hearing. A similar attack on Corbyn today wouldn't work, no matter who made it, as his supporters have too much scope for rejecting the claims of his critics. Give it three years and it might be a different matter.
That ties in neatly with our discussion about intellectuals.
Virginia Woolfe burst into tears when she heard Bevin's speech.
There are obviously women sitting in all areas of that room The front is just a row of men sitting together like you would see in Eton or White's But Asian so Kippers can have all the angry feels
Also I empathise with the man second left in front row. If I had to listen to a Labour Party meeting I would end up adopting his coping mechanism
If there are still people around who remember it, it isn't history in my book.
When one of my offspring was doing History GCSE, one of the modules related to Irish history encompassing some of the recent Troubles - Bloody Sunday, the civil rights marches etc. I lived through that and felt a bit odd answering questions for history essays about stuff that I was living through at approximately the same age.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
I was just about to ask, "What is Paul Nuttall doing these days." It strikes me that if there truly is a Corbyn Opportunity for UKIP, Nuttall is the man to seize it.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
I did the Lansbury analogy yesterday, I left out the Ernie Bevin part as I couldn't nail down who it could be.
Alan Johnson was my first thought, but Alan Johnson was an ex trade union boss but Bevin was a current trade union boss when he made his intervention.
The Lansbury analogy can be easily made because it fits so well. For that matter, Cameron and Osborne can be fitted relatively well to the Baldwin and Chamberlain of 1935. But just because they fit, it doesn't necessarily follow that there is a fit for Bevin or Attlee. It wasn't inevitable that Lansbury would be replaced in 1935 any more than it's inevitable that Corbyn will go before 2020. One key difference is in the number of MPs. After the disaster of 1931, Labour was almost certain to make gains and those MPs who did survive MacDonald'd treachery were highly likely to keep their seat; that's far from the case now.
(In fact, at this stage in the 1931 parliament, Lansbury hadn't even become leader: Henderson, despite having lost his seat, continued to lead the party).
So Labour will win a landslide in 2029?
There's just the little matter of winning World War III first, TSE.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
ISIS are just the warm up act. WWIII is the Anglosphere vs the EU ;-)
Oooh the British Indian/Pakistani/Bangladeshi Army needs to be formed PDQ.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
If there are still people around who remember it, it isn't history in my book.
When one of my offspring was doing History GCSE, one of the modules related to Irish history encompassing some of the recent Troubles - Bloody Sunday, the civil rights marches etc. I lived through that and felt a bit odd answering questions for history essays about stuff that I was living through at approximately the same age.
I'll bet. In all seriousness, people do need to know about that sort of recent events, but it's hard to get a good picture for true historical analysis when events are so fresh and raw. They still can't march down streets or fly flags without argument, so true objective analysis must be bloody difficult to manage.
'The more educated you are the more likely you’ll approve of JC as LAB leader'
Aka kids who have done low quality 'degrees' and have no memory of the 70s and 80s are attracted to this superannuated Trot.
Not just kids. Look at all those educated people, in their middle age and later, who supported Communism and continued to do so, despite and in the face of all the evidence, or even because of all the evidence. See, for instance, Eric Hobsbawm - lauded despite his support for one of the most disgusting regimes of the 20th century.
I think we have to accept that a lot of people are attracted to rubbish ideas - like controlling what others can think or say (as in the "trigger"/"safe space" nonsense - an idea so daft that only a baby who wants to be back in its cot could possibly think it worthwhile) - because they are attracted to power and control (and, if necessary, the violence needed to achieve such power and control). They are against the violence, power and control of the state or the oppressive classes not because they are against these things but because it is not them in charge. And they are attracted to movements which give them the chance to strut around and exercise power and control over others.
Generally speaking, the worst rulers of the twentieth century were people of high intelligence. That goes for their propagandists and cheerleaders.
Indeed, intelligence without morality is dangerous. Nor are the two correlated.
When people are seen as categories rather than as individuals, when they are seen as means to an end, when they are seen as people to be changed, to be perfected and if not perfected to be discarded, then we end up wading in blood.
You'd have thought that the 20th century would have taught us that, at least. IS (and groups like them) seem intent on repeating the model of Fascism, Nazism and Communism. There is always more blood to be shed in the pursuit of perfection.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
More or less the entire British political establishment has told Mr Corbyn he is wrong (and harmful to Labour) for decades, and especially since the summer. Why would he suddenly start listening just because a few (dozen) MPs say so? Or indeed the voters of Oldham?
I'm with Mr Kirkup, Corbyn is going nowhere. Any SCad resignations will just be replaced by true believers I reckon.
I think so. However, there are not enough true believers to fill all the posts and hardly any who are competent and house-trained, so we will see a lot more car-crash interviews and even less effective opposition. But it will go on.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Not a fan of Labour but I see women sat next to men in the second row so not segregated. Who knows why groups are as they are but this is dishonest.
Yes it seems it's just Muslim women that are segregated
Or they're not segregated but rather grouped for another reason. Who knows? Clearly neither you not Nutall.
In fact they're not segregated either. In the second and further back rows there are lots of Muslim looking men and women sat next to each other. So making false assumptions all over based on casual racism.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
If Labour or any party had a politician of the stature of Bevin they would be elected by a massive landslide and would retain power for as long as that politician lived. He was a giant even in an age of giants and compared to him our current crop of political leaders are a bunch of limp-wristed, shallow weaklings who seek power only for power's sake.
If memory serves someone once asked Cameron why he wanted to be Prime Minister and he replied, "I think I'd be rather good at it". Can you imagine Bevin ever giving such a self-centred wishy-washy answer?
Edited extra bit: TSE suggests that Alan Johnson is a politician in the Bevin mould, well only as much a domestic house cat can be compared to a full grown Bengal Tiger. They are both cats in the same way that Johnson and Bevin were both trade-unionists there the equivalence ends.
What's wrong with being good at it?
There is nothing wrong in a PM being good at his/her job. I would rather have someone who wanted the office for reasons that were not centred around him/her otherwise, aside from other considerations, how are we to decide how good at the job they actually are.
More or less the entire British political establishment has told Mr Corbyn he is wrong (and harmful to Labour) for decades, and especially since the summer. Why would he suddenly start listening just because a few (dozen) MPs say so? Or indeed the voters of Oldham?
I'm with Mr Kirkup, Corbyn is going nowhere. Any SCad resignations will just be replaced by true believers I reckon.
I think so. However, there are not enough true believers to fill all the posts and hardly any who are competent and house-trained, so we will see a lot more car-crash interviews and even less effective opposition. But it will go on.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Because he was. We don't have those.
Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'
We some prats yes. Always have always will.
Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated. Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was. As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?
He told them: "Mind the way so I can get in the car please." But when they refused to move aside, he said: "You're actually very rude the way you behave." As Mr Corbyn is driven away, one photographer tells another: "Apparently we were quite rude."
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Because he was. We don't have those.
Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'
We some prats yes. Always have always will.
Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated. Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was. As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?
No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.
As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
You may be right on numbers, the Parliament website says working majority is currently 17.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Because he was. We don't have those.
Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'
We some prats yes. Always have always will.
Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated. Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was. As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?
No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.
As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory
It is terrible that murderers killed people in Paris on Friday. Just as it is terrible that murderers killed thousands in our country during the Troubles. The fact that you are saying Powell was right about migration in this country because of atrocities in another is a pretty weak argument.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
Now I know that there are a few people still on the left who object to this line of thought or try to resist it. They like to call themselves the ‘decent left’ among other things. But they should recognise that they have lost. Their party is headed by a Marxist who is supported by a Stalinist and seconded by someone who while spending this week denying he is a Maoist was once again shown to be a supporter of IRA violence. Knowing when you have lost is important. It means you can begin the mourning process.
And a very serious ouch here
One minor point of interest to me over recent days has been watching some survivors of the left who have spent the last decade attacking anyone who has written on terrorism and Islamism now beginning to talk like old pros about Islamism and terrorism. You’d almost think they’d spent the last decade addressing these issues, rather than trying to shut down anyone who did address them. I suppose they’ll make some running of it and bluff along for a while, but these people seem to me little use to anyone...
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Was Wilson a cabinet minister in his twenties? I rather thought he entered Parliament for the first time in 1945 and got his first cabinet ranked job (President of the Board of Trade) in 1947.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Wilson was 31 when appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1947. Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
His logic was that mass immigration in the 60s would lead to the demographic we now have... And he was called scaremonger for saying it
He said that demographic would lead to segregated towns, religious factions, and minority demands that would lead to bloody violence...
It's the reason we are debating bombing Syria yet people still say he was wrong
Because he was. We don't have those.
Watch last Monday's 'Dispatches'
We some prats yes. Always have always will.
than the 80's?
No one said all towns are segregated, but large parts of big cities are.
As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory
It is terrible that murderers killed people in Paris on Friday. Just as it is terrible that murderers killed thousands in our country during the Troubles. The fact that you are saying Powell was right about migration in this country because of atrocities in another is a pretty weak argument.
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
Is Jeremy Corbyn the George Lansbury of our day? After a dreadful General Election in 1931 the Labour party had few leading figures left and Lansbury assumed the leadership. He had a pacifist background and was able to re-enthuse the party and rebuild its membership. However politics became increasingly dominated by foreign affairs. When sanctions were proposed against Italy Lansbury opposed them despite the wishes of the party. Eventually Ernie Bevin accused him of 'hawking his conscience' around the country. Lansbury resigned. Who is the new Ernie Bevin?
I did the Lansbury analogy yesterday, I left out the Ernie Bevin part as I couldn't nail down who it could be.
Alan Johnson was my first thought, but Alan Johnson was an ex trade union boss but Bevin was a current trade union boss when he made his intervention.
Labour is less George Lansbury and more Angela Lansbury. You can allocate the bedknobs and broomsticks according to political taste.
Personally I always thought Jessica Fletcher was a serial killer, I mean how many of her friends died when she was around.
Then she blamed some poor innocent for her crimes
Literal-script from the Quaran. And from the typical eejit....
He told them: "Mind the way so I can get in the car please." But when they refused to move aside, he said: "You're actually very rude the way you behave." As Mr Corbyn is driven away, one photographer tells another: "Apparently we were quite rude."
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Wilson was 31 when appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1947. Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
There is a school of thought that says including victories over the French shouldn't count. Is the military equivalent of beating the Grand Duchy of Luxembourg at association football.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
He needs to be certain though of a majority.
Or he could just use royal prerogative.
Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
"We need a comprehensive and coherent strategy coordinated through the United Nations to defeat ISIL/Daesh."
She may as well say "do nothing".
I don't get all this stuff from Corbynistas on the UN. Here is the wording of the UN resolution on ISIS:
"The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
I have no voice in parliament on air strikes, even though my MP is Labour she will not be voting on the motion.
How can you not vote on something this fundamental? I assume her desire to vote for it is counter balanced by the shit she will be in with the leadership if she does? If so, pathetic.
@PickardJE: DATA ALERT: Labour says 75% of 107,875 responses to consultation on Syria oppose bombing: "Figures are based on an initial sample of 1900."
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.
I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
He needs to be certain though of a majority.
Or he could just use royal prerogative.
Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.
Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?
Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.
I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.
Define big. I think the threat is less than it was when my town was bombed by the IRA. I think there is a threat that needs taking seriously we disagree on scale.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
He needs to be certain though of a majority.
Or he could just use royal prerogative.
Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.
Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?
Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.
Cameron can undo precedence. Especially a relatively recent one. That's the "beauty" of the UK constitution. The politics of doing that are horrible of course.
Cameron has a 17 majority. Add in DUP that gives 25. SNP are against, as are other smaller parties such as Greens.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
He needs to be certain though of a majority.
Or he could just use royal prerogative.
Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.
Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?
Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.
Cameron can undo precedence. Especially a relatively recent one. That's the "beauty" of the UK constitution. The politics of doing that are horrible of course.
Of course he can. I think he should win a majority on this though given there's already been a vote.
@PickardJE: DATA ALERT: Labour says 75% of 107,875 responses to consultation on Syria oppose bombing: "Figures are based on an initial sample of 1900."
Maybe the next 1900 weren't looking quite so decisive ;-)
@chrisshipitv: NEW: Labour says 75 per cent of party members responding to weekend consultation oppose UK bombing in Syria
As someone who believes in a more transparent, open, direct democracy approach - what Jez is doing to Labour is fascinating - and highlighting all the issues of it being done badly...
There seems to be a fundamental mis-match of understanding about what the role of an MP is - should they represent their constituents, those that voted for them, or the party members?
There are arguments that can be made for either the 1st 2, but It should be obvious to anyone that taking the 3rd approach is desperately flawed as a long-term strategy.
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.
I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.
Define big. I think the threat is less than it was when my town was bombed by the IRA. I think there is a threat that needs taking seriously we disagree on scale.
Well parliament is voting on bombing Syria and poor Syrians unlucky enough to live under IS rule will be in big danger so I'd say the threat was pretty big
But seriously Philip, you are one of the most pinnicity people on here, and I'd rather just agree to disagree than debate all day over something which I will not change my mind about
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Maybe that suggests "our" expectations of Prime Ministers should be reassessed, if our forecasting model predicts that the bottom 50 per cent of results happen 85 per cent of the time. "Our" being people with an interest in history / politics / etc.
On the comparison between Corbyn and Blair - yes Blair made all the right noises, looked deep in thought at the Cenotaph, grabbed the 'centre ground'. But what we actually got was 17 years of bad, profligate, socialist Government, incorporating an element of laissez faire Thatcherism on mergers and acquisitions that gave us the worst of both worlds, and from which our economy hasn't even begun to recover.
Likewise, what are we scared of today? A Government that can't or won't secure our safety? A Government that can't or won't keep the lights on? A Government that is sitting on a debt pile, but spends way beyond its means? Let me introduce you to the present.
I prefer bad politicians that are obviously bad politicians, rather than bad ones with a coating of PR gloss.
After almost thirty years I have rejoined the Conservative Party: Stopsley beer (and ribbing Sean-Fear) is a start. Only left to rid the party of Scoots-bourne Yorkshire mongs and then we have a free England.
@chrisshipitv: NEW: Labour says 75 per cent of party members responding to weekend consultation oppose UK bombing in Syria
As someone who believes in a more transparent, open, direct democracy approach - what Jez is doing to Labour is fascinating - and highlighting all the issues of it being done badly...
There seems to be a fundamental mis-match of understanding about what the role of an MP is - should they represent their constituents, those that voted for them, or the party members?
There are arguments that can be made for either the 1st 2, but It should be obvious to anyone that taking the 3rd approach is desperately flawed as a long-term strategy.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
It's a pity we don't have any posters from France. (And if we do and they are lurking: "Bonjour. Aujourd'hui est le moment pour nous donner votre perspective.") If, say, Cameron feels that he cannot get a big enough majority from parties across the House and therefore doesn't seek a vote, how will this be viewed by our allies?
Effectively, it will look as if Britain - a country not shy of involving itself in conflicts around the globe - is no longer able to do this because one of its main political parties is unwilling to support this. And this will be despite the very direct appeal of the President of France, a country with whom we are allied, which was attacked in a brutal way, a socialist making an appeal in a way that is rare, and despite most civilised people thinking that IS are, to put it mildly, beyond the pale.
Even if this is seen as down to the Labour party, it must surely have consequences for how Britain is viewed by its allies within Europe (and elsewhere). How would the French react to Britain's renegotiation demands re the EU if Britain - for all its talk of solidarity etc - turns its back on France's request for help in its hour of need?
It is ironic that a Labour party led by socialists who are always wittering on about class solidarity etc across national boundaries is proposing to turn its back on fellow socialists in France who are asking for our help.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
@PickardJE: DATA ALERT: Labour says 75% of 107,875 responses to consultation on Syria oppose bombing: "Figures are based on an initial sample of 1900."
Maybe the next 1900 weren't looking quite so decisive ;-)
It doesn't say "random" sample, so probably flawed even before we get into more details.
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Maybe that suggests "our" expectations of Prime Ministers should be reassessed, if our forecasting model predicts that the bottom 50 per cent of results happen 85 per cent of the time. "Our" being people with an interest in history / politics / etc.
True, although the reverse also holds: how many outright failures have there been as PM post-war? Eden, Heath, Brown perhaps? And even those could point to some successes or reasons for 'failure' that were outside their control.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
If the Viet Cong had just bombed Paris, threatened London, and were sponsoring terrorism throughout the world, then the answer would have been different.
I think the current majority is 16, isn't it? 15 after the GE (allowing for Sinn Fein staying away), plus an extra temporary 1 following the death of Michael Meacher. Add in the 8 DUP and you get to a majority of 32, and the 2 UUP will I think also be on side, so starting point is 36.
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
If Cameron thinks military action is the right course of action he should go ahead with whatever majority he can get, otherwise he is basically outsourcing matters of national security to Seamus Milne.
He needs to be certain though of a majority.
Or he could just use royal prerogative.
Actually I think this is a crucial point. Going to war always used to be something PMs could do on their own. In theory they still could - but not in practical reality. I think the first Syria vote3 was what changed it. I don't think this is necessarily a good thing. Decision by committee can oftentimes be no decision or indecision. I don't think we are safer for it.
Precedence was set with the Iraq War vote wasn't it?
Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.
Cameron can undo precedence. Especially a relatively recent one. That's the "beauty" of the UK constitution. The politics of doing that are horrible of course.
And it's the politics that matters. If a PM took a country into war or any serious military action against a vote in parliament, he could and should expect an immediate vote of no confidence - which is why parliament generally gets a vote these days as one way or another, one would be generated anyway.
True, although the reverse also holds: how many outright failures have there been as PM post-war? Eden, Heath, Brown perhaps? And even those could point to some successes or reasons for 'failure' that were outside their control.
I think there were more "failures" than "successes". Eden, Brown - Heath, but if you like the EU then he was obviously more consequential - and there were people like Churchill, Macmillan, Major, Wilson who achieved little to change things their way. Generally I think if we are overwhelmed or merely whelmed by Prime Ministers for only 17 of 70 years, I would instead reassess expectations and would be inclined to expect less of prime ministers. Therefore I think Major and Callaghan were good under difficult and extreme constraints respectively. I think Brown was unconstrained and did much worse than expected. I think Cameron was good under the constraint of no majority but is in fact proving to be unable to use a majority.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
Maybe, just maybe, the 'Light-blue' should have really moved Oz a few thousand klicks East. How are those F-111Ks anyhaps...?
The United Kingdom is the undisputed World Champion of wars.
We'll spank ISIS back into the Stone Age.
We are 3 and 0 in world wars if you count the Napeolonic kerfuffle as WW0. Is it just a clean-sweep in group stage though?
Unofficially amongst military historians the 7 Years War is counted as the first proper World War. Europe, Africa, The Caribbean, Canada and India as well as numerous smaller places.
We won that one as well.
I nearly included the Seven Years War. As well as global scope it also had very long-lasting consequences. On the other hand I think that when we use the term "world war" there is also the idea of mobilising all the resources of a nation, of nationalist ideology and of a remorseless war that ends in the collapse of the losing side and reorganisation of their home state by the victors. As I understand it, those elements are not there in the Seven Years War but are to some extent in Napoleonic France. But we could certainly see the Seven Years War as WW-1.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
You're bang wrong, it shows the strength of the argument
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
7/7 was one terrorist attack more than a decade ago now.
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
Let's leave it, we aren't going to agree.
I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.
Define big. I think the threat is less than it was when my town was bombed by the IRA. I think there is a threat that needs taking seriously we disagree on scale.
How many people died when your town was bombed by the IRA? Paris - 130. London - 50+. Madrid - 200. Bali - 150(?). New York - 3000. The IRA attacked more often but they killed fewer at any time. The Islamist groups are not engaged in a limited war: they want to kill as many as possible, so while the risk of being attacked in any given year is smaller than it was for the IRA, the risk of being killed probably isn't, unless you live in N Ireland.
Chris Bryant on Daily Politics saying he couldn't look a constituent in the eye if he didn't back air strikes, and a terrorist act killed hundreds in London...
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
But he may be being trained, financed and resourced through ISIS in Syria, controlled from ISIS in Syria, told when to go out into the streets and bomb and shoot and behead through ISIS from Syria...
Miss Cyclefree, aye. It's similar to mistaking IQ for intelligence (or, worse, common sense).
I've think in politics too many mistake passion for logic.
If those opposing one another took a look at the world through both ends of the telescope, rather than through one end the whole time, more logic would prevail.
But then what do I know...
In politics, too many mistake intelligence for an ability to run things. Perhaps the two most intellectually capable MPs of the post-war era were Enoch Powell and Harold Wilson. IIRC, one became the youngest full professor in the Empire (at 24?); the other, the first achieved the first starred double first from Oxford in ten years (or something like that). Powell could, perhaps, have become PM but was famously driven mad by his own logic; the other did become PM but underwhelmingly so and ended with a reputation for little more than clever tactics.
Er, the Open University?
What about it? The fact that one of the most brilliant MPs could claim the highlight of his career was the creation of a university - laudable though that policy was - is faint praise indeed. I stand by my judgement of his premiership as 'underwhelming' (and I'm being kind there).
Are there even three postwar prime ministers who were not "underwhelming"?
Probably not but then you have to rate their achievements and legacy against what was expected of them before they got the job. Major, for example, rose without trace in a way that Wilson - a cabinet minister in his twenties - certainly didn't.
Wilson was 31 when appointed President of the Board of Trade in 1947. Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Apologies. I thought he was 29. Still extraordinarily young for the period. I'd agree about Vietnam - not a decision Blair would have taken.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Interesting you should raise that at this juncture.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
If the Viet Cong had just bombed Paris, threatened London, and were sponsoring terrorism throughout the world, then the answer would have been different.
Then the argument that we must help and ally because they are an ally is a load of dingos' kidneys?
By the way, I only noticed the change to your avatar yesterday. My sincere commiserations on your loss.
It's a pity we don't have any posters from France. (And if we do and they are lurking: "Bonjour. Aujourd'hui est le moment pour nous donner votre perspective.") If, say, Cameron feels that he cannot get a big enough majority from parties across the House and therefore doesn't seek a vote, how will this be viewed by our allies?
Effectively, it will look as if Britain - a country not shy of involving itself in conflicts around the globe - is no longer able to do this because one of its main political parties is unwilling to support this. And this will be despite the very direct appeal of the President of France, a country with whom we are allied, which was attacked in a brutal way, a socialist making an appeal in a way that is rare, and despite most civilised people thinking that IS are, to put it mildly, beyond the pale.
Even if this is seen as down to the Labour party, it must surely have consequences for how Britain is viewed by its allies within Europe (and elsewhere). How would the French react to Britain's renegotiation demands re the EU if Britain - for all its talk of solidarity etc - turns its back on France's request for help in its hour of need?
It is ironic that a Labour party led by socialists who are always wittering on about class solidarity etc across national boundaries is proposing to turn its back on fellow socialists in France who are asking for our help.
The username was chosen after my domicile at the time.
It was hard to get UK news in French media. They protested everything, hard. Far right is a very real thing in France - mate of a mate was beaten to death by skinheads for being pro-gay marriage, fascist salutes not uncommon at the football.
Comments
You then have to subtract Tory rebels (some of whom may abstain rather than vote against, of course). Not sure how many of those there will be.
Of the other parties, I presume that the LibDems will be firmly against action, given that there is no reason to suppose that they will stick to their principles on this. The SNP will presumably also be against, although they have made some comments suggesting their position is not entirely clear-cut. The one Green definitely against. Not sure about the 3 SDLP, but I imagine against. Ditto Sylvia Hermon. Douglas Carswell might perhaps vote with the government - I'm not sure. So, of the opposition MPs other than Labour/DUP/UUP, Cameron may get one or two but he's probably going to plan on the basis of none.
He'll want a decent-sized mandate for this from the Commons, so I think he needs at least 20 Labour MPs, preferably quite a few more.
Although there is quite simply no person of similar ability available to Labour now, there doesn't need to be. What killed Lansbury's leadership was the brute truth that Bevin deployed in his speech, criticising Lansbury for hawking his conscience from conference to conference, asking to be told what to do with it. It was devastating because it was so obviously true, though Bevin's stature undoubtedly helped him gain a hearing. A similar attack on Corbyn today wouldn't work, no matter who made it, as his supporters have too much scope for rejecting the claims of his critics. Give it three years and it might be a different matter.
Virginia Woolfe burst into tears when she heard Bevin's speech.
I know it's Movember but still, that's no excuse for the bizarre chin wig.
Was essential to winning WW2
Here we go again...cue excuses.
When people are seen as categories rather than as individuals, when they are seen as means to an end, when they are seen as people to be changed, to be perfected and if not perfected to be discarded, then we end up wading in blood.
You'd have thought that the 20th century would have taught us that, at least. IS (and groups like them) seem intent on repeating the model of Fascism, Nazism and Communism. There is always more blood to be shed in the pursuit of perfection.
I think so. However, there are not enough true believers to fill all the posts and hardly any who are competent and house-trained, so we will see a lot more car-crash interviews and even less effective opposition. But it will go on.
Yes I think the problem is that facing up to the problem would mean too many people admitting they were wrong, and someone they demonised was right.
Unfortunately that is more important than what's best for the country to them
Enoch even predicted that...
http://youtu.be/-dRuPPSKNhE
It may well be a voluntary act, which hints at the culture which underpins it.
Kippers have a Labour campaign photo to use on the doorstep. That's the top and bottom of it.
Our towns are not all segregated. I live on a street with people from all sorts of nationalities and faiths who get along and are not segregated.
Religious factionalism will always exist as long as religion is a pox on the world always has been but is less now than it was.
As for minority demands leading to violence don't make me laugh. My town was bombed by the IRA in the Troubles. I grew up in the 80's where religious violence waw real and not a paranoia. How many have died in the last decade from 2006-2015 in this so called violence you imagine we have and how is it worse than the 80's?
But when they refused to move aside, he said: "You're actually very rude the way you behave."
As Mr Corbyn is driven away, one photographer tells another: "Apparently we were quite rude."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12024093/Jeremy-Corbyn-on-verge-of-denying-MPs-free-vote-on-Syrian-air-strikes-live.html
Only a matter of time before the famous Jahadi Jez temper flairs up for real.
As for the rest of your post, tell that to the people in Paris the other Friday. Just because we have foiled similar attacks here doesn't mean everything's hunky dory
http://www.parliament.uk/mps-lords-and-offices/mps/current-state-of-the-parties/
SNP guy on Marr yesterday said they'll be voting against I believe (didn't actually see it).
We won that one as well.
Perhaps his greatest achievement was keeping Britain out of the Vietnam War.
Powells logic applied to anywhere with a large volume of people from different religions and was based on his experience of India before it was partitioned, so it is entirely consistent to point to the atrocities on France, and note the background of the perpetrators. Just as it is with the murder of Lee Rigby and 7/7 here
And he has been proven right time and time again
http://www.jostevens.co.uk/air_strikes_in_syria_vote
You would think that with a commons majority and the Ulster unionists, that would be a done deal.
/End Les Rosbif jingoistic mode/
She may as well say "do nothing".
If one murder years ago and one bombing over a decade ago are the levels of attacks we are talking about then frankly your concerns seem much ado about nothing. Those attacks are awful but just as last night I argued with someone here that rape needs blaming on criminals not men in general, so too here we need to hold into account the individuals and those who support them. Not blame a tiny number of people on an entire class of people.
You are acting the same as the person last night banging on about feminism.
We had far more than one day of bombing and one murder during the Troubles.
"The Security Council determined today that the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant/Sham (ISIL/ISIS) constituted an “unprecedented” threat to international peace and security, calling upon Member States with the requisite capacity to take “all necessary measures” to prevent and suppress its terrorist acts on territory under its control in Syria and Iraq."
How much more do Labour want?
I think there is a big threat from home grown terrorists in England and you don't, fair enough.
Cameron has used prerogative to bomb Syria in an isolated incident already.
@AGKD123: Just to add to this, it's garbage. Total, complete, utter garbage. Look up "voodoo poll" and that's what it is https://t.co/i8mc2rr9cv
Maybe, but the fact is that the person likely to carry out such an attack is in London now, not Syria
There seems to be a fundamental mis-match of understanding about what the role of an MP is - should they represent their constituents, those that voted for them, or the party members?
There are arguments that can be made for either the 1st 2, but It should be obvious to anyone that taking the 3rd approach is desperately flawed as a long-term strategy.
But seriously Philip, you are one of the most pinnicity people on here, and I'd rather just agree to disagree than debate all day over something which I will not change my mind about
Likewise, what are we scared of today? A Government that can't or won't secure our safety? A Government that can't or won't keep the lights on? A Government that is sitting on a debt pile, but spends way beyond its means? Let me introduce you to the present.
I prefer bad politicians that are obviously bad politicians, rather than bad ones with a coating of PR gloss.
Effectively, it will look as if Britain - a country not shy of involving itself in conflicts around the globe - is no longer able to do this because one of its main political parties is unwilling to support this. And this will be despite the very direct appeal of the President of France, a country with whom we are allied, which was attacked in a brutal way, a socialist making an appeal in a way that is rare, and despite most civilised people thinking that IS are, to put it mildly, beyond the pale.
Even if this is seen as down to the Labour party, it must surely have consequences for how Britain is viewed by its allies within Europe (and elsewhere). How would the French react to Britain's renegotiation demands re the EU if Britain - for all its talk of solidarity etc - turns its back on France's request for help in its hour of need?
It is ironic that a Labour party led by socialists who are always wittering on about class solidarity etc across national boundaries is proposing to turn its back on fellow socialists in France who are asking for our help.
Stop being an apologist for the indefensible.
One of the key reasons being advanced as to why we should get involved militarily in Syria is because our ally, France, has asked for our support. We must, so the argument goes, show that we are a reliable ally. So war it is.
However, when 50 or so years ago another ally asked, damn near begged, for our support, even token support ("Just one battalion of the Black Watch") in another war we told them to feck off. That refusal to help an ally is seen, by some, as a jolly good thing to have done.
If the Viet Cong had just bombed Paris, threatened London, and were sponsoring terrorism throughout the world, then the answer would have been different.
And we did win it, indeed, although that verdict was partially reversed by the misunderstanding with the American colonies.
His replacements may be prevented by air strikes.
By the way, I only noticed the change to your avatar yesterday. My sincere commiserations on your loss.
It was hard to get UK news in French media.
They protested everything, hard.
Far right is a very real thing in France - mate of a mate was beaten to death by skinheads for being pro-gay marriage, fascist salutes not uncommon at the football.
But I've moved back to the UK now.