"New Order's Peter Hook is suing his ex-bandmates for "many millions of pounds" in the High Court, accusing them of secretly "pillaging" the group's name and starving him of cash.
The legendary bassist says he is already £2.3 million out of pocket due to the underhand tactics of his "former friends" - Bernard Sumner and Stephen and Gillian Morris.
He claims they have asset stripped the New Order name, keeping him in the dark about what they were up to until the move became a "fait accompli".
A new company the trio set up without telling him has generated an income of £7.8 million in four years - but Mr Hook is getting just a tiny fraction of that, the court heard.
And his barrister, Mark Wyeth QC, said: "It was as though George Harrison and Ringo Starr had got together at George's house one Friday night and had acted together to divest Paul McCartney of his shareholding in the Beatles, and didn't tell Yoko about it either."
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Foxinsox opined that he was playing party politics - go figure. In fact Cameron is acting in the national interest - I doubt he will be that bothered by the by-election either way.
Mr. Abode, I got blocked by someone with whom I'd had some short (entirely civil) discussions. No idea why [I disagreed with him, but it was completely courteous, both ways].
It does seem a bit odd.
Still, that's why the term 'echo chamber' is often so accurate.
Twitter is an odd thing really. The whole echo chamber thing just seems to get worse, and I believe Corbyn wanted Watson to look at using Twitter to engage and inform party policy. I find that idea utterly barmy (though I guess symptomatic of labours woes)
And Diane Abbott is the worse for blocking people. Probably explains why she always comes across as living in some entirely parallel universe.
When I see Abbott on supposedly serious programmes such as This Week I wonder what happened to political discourse, she is truly awful.
Who was/is the most prejudiced. Enoch Powell or Diane Abbott?
I'm not saying I'm a fan/detractor of either, just wondering.
I don't know much about Powell tbh, after his "speech" he increased his majority which suggests his views resonated at the time. I can't comment on the prejudices of either, I've never heard Abbott say anything remotely interesting or insightful.
Out of interest who do you think is most prejudiced and why?
Well I don't know enough either, but I think it is quite widely agreed that Powell made some very prescient points in an unfortunate way, wherease Abbott makes no prescient points and has an unfortunate way of sounding condescending every time she speaks.
Powell was probably 100 times more intelligent than her. Then again, I'm probably more intelligent than her...
Interesting but I'm not sure why you wanted to compare prejudice.
I was being a bit sarcastic sorry, that Abbott had been mentioned as a sighing, eye-rolling MP with a BBC platform. I have no problem with her being given a platform, I'd be much more liberal and un-PC about who gets a platform. But some have questioned Abbott's bigotry towards the white working class. I was - sarcastically - wondering whether Powell would've been allowed the same latitude of a BBC platform, however unpalatable his own views.
No need to apologise, irony on the internet is often misconstrued.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Interesting point. They might reason that there's no need to go softly because there's no effective mechanism to remove Corbyn unless he resigns?
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
Indeed. I imagine the thinking goes something like this:
- Economic/foreign policy is directed towards splitting Labour - likely net gain = 20-25 seats - Scottish policy is directed towards splitting the SNP between fervent Out-Nats and Nats who can accept being part of the UK - likely net gain = 1 or 2 Scottish seats
Labour are tainted by the extreme left whether Corbyn is ousted or not.
The potential if WWC desert Labour, the sort of thing that might happen if UKIP win in Oldham is two fold:
- stronger right-wing presence in Parliament if UKIP take pooer seats in the North - chance of gaining another 20 or 30 seats where UKIP split the Lab vote in slightly more affulent seats - MC southern UKIP voters return to Tory fold, ensuring Essex seats stay Tory
Thus kicking Labour where Tories can't, and diffusing the southern UKIP problem. Probably get Carswell back, too.
Political implications aside, I wish Cameron had just used his prerogative powers to extend the air strikes to Syria as soon as Hollande asked. We look like a weak ally now, and have done for weeks.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
I wonder how the Conservatives see a UKIP win affecting matters. It would obviously give a boost to UKIP as a anti-Labour force and might convince UKIP to train their fire in that direction. OK, that's good for Con. However, it's quite possible that next several by-elections will be in Tory-held seats in which a revitalised UKIP will be a dangerous opponent.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
It'll apply pressure onto Corbyn, but I'm not sure it, or a loss in Oldham West, will be enough to shift him yet. And if he did go, there doesn't seem to be a likely replacement that will be able to solve the party's multi-sided civil war.
Which is all good for the Conservatives, but bad for the country.
As a matter of interest, how soon after the vote will the bombing be allowed to start? I assume in such matters of war the Lords don't get involved?
"New Order's Peter Hook is suing his ex-bandmates for "many millions of pounds" in the High Court, accusing them of secretly "pillaging" the group's name and starving him of cash.
The legendary bassist says he is already £2.3 million out of pocket due to the underhand tactics of his "former friends" - Bernard Sumner and Stephen and Gillian Morris.
He claims they have asset stripped the New Order name, keeping him in the dark about what they were up to until the move became a "fait accompli".
A new company the trio set up without telling him has generated an income of £7.8 million in four years - but Mr Hook is getting just a tiny fraction of that, the court heard.
And his barrister, Mark Wyeth QC, said: "It was as though George Harrison and Ringo Starr had got together at George's house one Friday night and had acted together to divest Paul McCartney of his shareholding in the Beatles, and didn't tell Yoko about it either."
The Oldham Vote - I did wonder why Cameron was so keen to have a vote on approval for bombing on Wednesday, Thursday's headlines might not help Labour to get a vote out in Oldham.
Have to agree If I were in Oldham and 50+ Lab MPs vote for bombing on Wednesday I wouldnt vote Lab on Thursday
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
Never underestimate the Tory spin machine, I doubt Mr Bickley and Mr Carswell have ever met. Well in fact they have, I've had lunch with them both, but its unlikely they have a meaningful relationship though both are very decent men. Its quite amusing how much time the tories spend fussing over a party with one MP though.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
It'll apply pressure onto Corbyn, but I'm not sure it, or a loss in Oldham West, will be enough to shift him yet. And if he did go, there doesn't seem to be a likely replacement that will be able to solve the party's multi-sided civil war.
Which is all good for the Conservatives, but bad for the country.
As a matter of interest, how soon after the vote will the bombing be allowed to start? I assume in such matters of war the Lords don't get involved?
Isn't Wednesday a good choice because almost all MPs aim to be in Westminster that day as its PMQs?
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
I wonder how the Conservatives see a UKIP win affecting matters. It would obviously give a boost to UKIP as a anti-Labour force and might convince UKIP to train their fire in that direction. OK, that's good for Con. However, it's quite possible that next several by-elections will be in Tory-held seats in which a revitalised UKIP will be a dangerous opponent.
The majority of the Tory-UKIP switchers in Tory-held seats are, as far as I can tell from both polling and personal experience, immensely concerned with status anxiety. The painting of UKIP as a party of the WWC will bring the generally older, generally C1-A voters back to the Tory fold.
I expect CCHQ would be willing to gamble that this would offset any wwc boost for UKIP in those seats.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
Never underestimate the Tory spin machine, I doubt Mr Bickley and Mr Carswell have ever met. Well in fact they have, I've had lunch with them both, but its unlikely they have a meaningful relationship though both are very decent men. Its quite amusing how much time the tories spend fussing over a party with one MP though.
I imagine it's more the 4m votes rather than the 1 MP that's concentrating minds.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Mr. Jessop, that fine appears an appropriate way to go.
For people who are bored, here are the byelaws as used by the Midland Counties Railway in 1840, including the following. I bet there's something very similar still in force today:
"VI Any Passenger being in a state of intoxication or committing any nuisance or wilfully interfering with the comfort of other Passengers or obstructing any of the Company's Officers in the discharge of their duty or not attending to the directions of the Guard in cases where the personal safety of himself or any of the Passengers is concerned will be immediately removed from the Company's Premises or in case he shall at the time be travelling then at the next Station or as soon after the offence as conveniently may be and forfeit his fare "
Edit: and below are the modern versions. I was wrong - they have changed - see section 6 "unacceptable behaviour. But the cards would probably come under clauses 1,2,8, and possibly even 7.
Burgeon still finding time to lay into Dan Hodges.
Re Mike Gapes - others replied faster than me.
The Oldham Vote - I did wonder why Cameron was so keen to have a vote on approval for bombing on Wednesday, Thursday's headlines might not help Labour to get a vote out in Oldham.
Many Oldham asian votes will have already been sent in by someone.
It sounds like someone recorded the whole thing on their phone. There's a lot of verbatim quotes.
One quote from Corbyn seems to give the clue to how much he despises our whole society. He seems to blame us our society for these suicide bombers. The reality is it is his supporters the likes of Stop The War who are feeding paranoia. He is quite bonkers. I see that Mandelson was at the meeting so its not just for MPs.
A spokesman for Mr Corbyn said: "By refusing a full two-day debate, David Cameron is demonstrating he knows the debate is running away from him, and that the case he made last week is falling apart.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Net migration for students should at some point reach zero though as students leaving match off with students arriving.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Net migration for students should at some point reach zero though as students leaving match off with students arriving.
But do many leave? In many years we had no records on who was leaving.
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Net migration for students should at some point reach zero though as students leaving match off with students arriving.
But do many leave? In many years we had no records on who was leaving.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
A more Machiavellian Tory source suggests there will be huge splits in the UKIP parliamentary party were John Bickley to become an MP, he has as much in common, politically, with Douglas Carswell as Ted Heath had with Thatcher.
Even more to the point, it will convince UKIP that the working-class strategy is right for them (which it is). UKIP could be the Opposition in 5 years' time.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Net migration for students should at some point reach zero though as students leaving match off with students arriving.
Not quite. Universities are constantly expanding the number of foreign students as they bring relatively huge fees with them. So the net number will drift upwards. More of an issue though is whether they have leave to remain after the course.
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
If there weren't so many Muslims in the UK I would have less of a problem with bombing the Islamic State, but I fear it will stir up trouble and cause more division, more "us and them"
Also, no one seems to mention the non fundamentalist Syrians living under IS rule.. many of them will die from our bombing
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
Someone on Saturday (A. Meeks?) made the simplest and most devastating response to this rather facile point. We, as in the West, have asymmetric aims to ISIS. So what they want doesn't really come into it.
Only if we as a civilisation bought into the stupid apocalyptic death cult idea they have would 'but its what they want us to do' be a worthwhile argument. As it is, it is only liberal whining.
'He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.'
We shouldn't bomb ISIS because its what they want:
It's probably not exactly what the dead ones want
Really, who gives a toss what IS want? Of all the arguments against bombing, this is one of the weakest. Those who put it forward are not, usually, sensible military strategists sensibly warning us not to walk into a trap but people who will grab at any excuse, however feeble, to justify doing nothing, which is what they want to do anyway.
IS want to defeat the West. Let's make sure they don't succeed, are defeated instead and that we work out what we want and how to achieve it.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
Net migration for students should at some point reach zero though as students leaving match off with students arriving.
But do many leave? In many years we had no records on who was leaving.
That's the point, nobody knows who is here
The coalition government committed in 2010 to reintroducing exit checks. From 8 April 2015, we will collect information on passengers leaving the UK as we do for those entering.
Blimey. Bit of a wait. So we'll have to wait till next year for reliable emigration statistics.
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
Someone on Saturday (A. Meeks?) made the simplest and most devastating response to this rather facile point. We, as in the West, have asymmetric aims to ISIS. So what they want doesn't really come into it.
Only if we as a civilisation bought into the stupid apocalyptic death cult idea they have would 'but its what they want us to do' be a worthwhile argument. As it is, it is only liberal whining.
The dysfunction at the heart of Govt over immigration. Emanating from Osborne with the Business department's support. "As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether." http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
For Osborne it kicks the fiscal timebomb can down the road. Of course he is a big fan.
Anyway, despite travelling in on the tube and not being a stick insect I did not get one of these fat-shaming cards. This is a pity because I'd have rather enjoyed taking it, very politely thanking the person giving it to me and apologising profusely for not being able to reciprocate, my "You are a Wanker" cards still being at the printers.
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
But that battle'll come sometime anyway, and the longer it is delayed, the more territory they may take, the more innocents get hurt, and the more time they have to propagandise more people to their sick views.
If they threaten us, we should not fail to fight them, just because that is what they want.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I particularly admire the quiet and dignified way in which Jezza has surrounded himself with apologists for murder and terrorism. The likes of Seamus Milne, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott really are a quiet and dignified credit to the man who has appointed them so quietly and in such a dignified way to positions of responsibility within the Labour party. After all, who disagrees with the idea that in killing tens of millions of Chinese Mao did more good than harm? Who did not want the IRA to bomb their way to a united Ireland? Who does not share the notion that those responsible for the 7/7 attacks selflessly gave their lives in protest at the invasion of Iraq? I'll tell you who - only those who are not quiet and dignified. No wonder voters are flocking to embrace this new politics.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
You do not rinse after brushing with toothpaste. If you rinse then you are just getting rid of all the fluoride you have carefully scrubbed onto your teeth. It isn't magic, it needs time to work and to protect.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I particularly admire the quiet and dignified way in which Jezza has surrounded himself with apologists for murder and terrorism. The likes of Seamus Milne, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott really are a quiet and dignified credit to the man who has appointed them so quietly and in such a dignified way to positions of responsibility within the Labour party. After all, who disagrees with the idea that in killing tens of millions of Chinese Mao did more good than harm? Who did not want the IRA to bomb their way to a united Ireland? Who does not share the notion that those responsible for the 7/7 attacks selflessly gave their lives in protest at the invasion of Iraq? I'll tell you who - only those who are not quiet and dignified. No wonder voters are flocking to embrace this new politics.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
He is not responsible for the sad death of Meacher, or the timing of the election. He is not responsible for the timing of internal labour debates either. The timing of the vote depended on the clarity of the Labour position. A labour win in Oldham by 1 vote is the beat result for the tories but irrespective of that it's surely right that the timing of the debate takes care of itself.
In Oldham a shockingly low turnout would do for labour I would think. However unless lots of Tories vote for UKIP I would think that UKIP have already milked labour's anti immigrant pool of voters and it would take something seismic to get significantly more to vote for Farage. When I think about it an alliance between Corbyn Abbott and Livingstone in charge of Labour could just be that shock.
Going back to students, I fear the system thus far has encouraged the "students" at the University of makeitup redbrick in central London to stay whereas I know personally quite a few Chinese and Malaysian students who would be an asset to the country being put off by the system.
We shouldn't bomb ISIS because its what they want:
It's probably not exactly what the dead ones want
Really, who gives a toss what IS want? Of all the arguments against bombing, this is one of the weakest. Those who put it forward are not, usually, sensible military strategists sensibly warning us not to walk into a trap but people who will grab at any excuse, however feeble, to justify doing nothing, which is what they want to do anyway.
IS want to defeat the West. Let's make sure they don't succeed, are defeated instead and that we work out what we want and how to achieve it.
I think it's important to understand the mindset of the enemy. Surely any general would agree with that? I'm certainly not saying its a reason to do nothing.
I don't think CCHQ are particulary bothered about whether UKIP wins in Oldham or not. From a purely party-political point of view, there are pros and cons for the Tories.
Advantages of a UKIP win:
- It would leave UKIP with two MPs who disagree on almost everything, making UKIP party unity even more strained than it currently is - It would encourage UKIP to shift their focus on to taking votes off Labour, which potentially would be a very good thing from the Tory point of view - It would intensify the civil war in Labour (if that's possible!) - It would cement the idea that Labour are divided, extreme and unelectable
Disadvantages of a UKIP win:
- It would revive the flagging morale of UKIP and give them some momentum at a time when they are not doing particularly well, which in turn could lead to a longer-term revival - It might push Labour into such a frenzy of civil war that Corbyn might actually be displaced in the chaos, although that's probably only a small risk
On balance, I think they'd probably slightly prefer a narrow Labour win, a result bad enough to keep the civil war bubbling along nicely but not so bad as to lead to something actually being done about Corbyn and the entryists.
I can't recommend the review of Dabiq - ISIS' house magazine review if you want insight into them. This is an easy to digest and often witty summary of all 700 pages.
We shouldn't bomb ISIS because its what they want:
It's probably not exactly what the dead ones want
Really, who gives a toss what IS want? Of all the arguments against bombing, this is one of the weakest. Those who put it forward are not, usually, sensible military strategists sensibly warning us not to walk into a trap but people who will grab at any excuse, however feeble, to justify doing nothing, which is what they want to do anyway.
IS want to defeat the West. Let's make sure they don't succeed, are defeated instead and that we work out what we want and how to achieve it.
I think it's important to understand the mindset of the enemy. Surely any general would agree with that? I'm certainly not saying its a reason to do nothing.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Will the good burgers of Oldham pay any attention to the Syria vote ?
I would suggest that an anti war stance might've galvanise support amongst Muslims, though the argument is, that these are already in labour's back pocket anyway (or labour is in theirs)...
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I particularly admire the quiet and dignified way in which Jezza has surrounded himself with apologists for murder and terrorism. The likes of Seamus Milne, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott really are a quiet and dignified credit to the man who has appointed them so quietly and in such a dignified way to positions of responsibility within the Labour party. After all, who disagrees with the idea that in killing tens of millions of Chinese Mao did more good than harm? Who did not want the IRA to bomb their way to a united Ireland? Who does not share the notion that those responsible for the 7/7 attacks selflessly gave their lives in protest at the invasion of Iraq? I'll tell you who - only those who are not quiet and dignified. No wonder voters are flocking to embrace this new politics.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
I see it's not just me that finds Corbynite Labour actively repulsive.
It is all rather different in the SNP, where there is only one view. Remarkably they all think the same thing about Syria, which is what the leadership tells them to think, which this time means opposing action. Remember, this is how the SNP works. Voicing opposition to the leadership line, or even criticising an SNP minister (which counts as asking them any tricky questions) is banned. Free votes are a virtually alien concept.
Rather than being sanctimonious and mocking the other parties, the brighter SNP MPs should be asking themselves ahead of the Syria debate in the Commons how it is that they have ended up in this position, of not being allowed to use their brains on the great questions of the moment.
SNP all vote same way - SNP branwashed cult/Fear of leader/etc SNP MP voices difference of opinion - SNP riven by internal disputes/who's the real leader of the SNP/etc
It is all rather different in the SNP, where there is only one view. Remarkably they all think the same thing about Syria, which is what the leadership tells them to think, which this time means opposing action. Remember, this is how the SNP works. Voicing opposition to the leadership line, or even criticising an SNP minister (which counts as asking them any tricky questions) is banned. Free votes are a virtually alien concept.
Rather than being sanctimonious and mocking the other parties, the brighter SNP MPs should be asking themselves ahead of the Syria debate in the Commons how it is that they have ended up in this position, of not being allowed to use their brains on the great questions of the moment.
SNP all vote same way - SNP branwashed cult/Fear of leader/etc SNP MP voices difference of opinion - SNP riven by internal disputes/who's the real leader of the SNP/etc
On the immigration issue, I read today the UK has a soaring skills gap with more than one million vacancies going unfilled (source: City AM).
We surely have to ask why other countries are churning out people better suited to employment, often at a fraction of the cost of our education system.
Has anyone commented that David Cameron insisting that the Syria vote be held on Wednesday indicates a lack of concern about damaging Labour's chances in Oldham West? The Conservatives don't seem to be thinking about keeping Jeremy Corbyn in situ or about keeping UKIP down. Quite the reverse.
Interesting point. They might reason that there's no need to go softly because there's no effective mechanism to remove Corbyn unless he resigns?
You could argue that the muslim community is a great user of postal votes, and that these are already cast. The WWC class vote probably has majority support for air strikes, so seeing Labour carry the government over the line may help the red vote.
All in all though, I think there are too many moving parts for me to be sure its a plus or a minus for Labour in Oldham.
EDIT: I see TC got there first on postal votes. Dammit.
I don't think CCHQ are particulary bothered about whether UKIP wins in Oldham or not. From a purely party-political point of view, there are pros and cons for the Tories.
Advantages of a UKIP win:
- It would leave UKIP with two MPs who disagree on almost everything, making UKIP party unity even more strained than it currently is - It would encourage UKIP to shift their focus on to taking votes off Labour, which potentially would be a very good thing from the Tory point of view - It would intensify the civil war in Labour (if that's possible!) - It would cement the idea that Labour are divided, extreme and unelectable
Disadvantages of a UKIP win:
- It would revive the flagging morale of UKIP and give them some momentum at a time when they are not doing particularly well, which in turn could lead to a longer-term revival - It might push Labour into such a frenzy of civil war that Corbyn might actually be displaced in the chaos, although that's probably only a small risk
On balance, I think they'd probably slightly prefer a narrow Labour win, a result bad enough to keep the civil war bubbling along nicely but not so bad as to lead to something actually being done about Corbyn and the entryists.
Surely anything that encourages UKIP to tack left to hoover up old Labour votes in old Labour constituencies is great news for the Tories.
On the immigration issue, I read today the UK has a soaring skills gap with more than one million vacancies going unfilled (source: City AM).
We surely have to ask why other countries are churning out people better suited to employment, often at a fraction of the cost of our education system.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I particularly admire the quiet and dignified way in which Jezza has surrounded himself with apologists for murder and terrorism. The likes of Seamus Milne, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott really are a quiet and dignified credit to the man who has appointed them so quietly and in such a dignified way to positions of responsibility within the Labour party. After all, who disagrees with the idea that in killing tens of millions of Chinese Mao did more good than harm? Who did not want the IRA to bomb their way to a united Ireland? Who does not share the notion that those responsible for the 7/7 attacks selflessly gave their lives in protest at the invasion of Iraq? I'll tell you who - only those who are not quiet and dignified. No wonder voters are flocking to embrace this new politics.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
I see it's not just me that finds Corbynite Labour actively repulsive.
Repulsive, contemptible and thick, I'd say. But ever so quiet and dignified. With a gentle and sad resignation Mao ordered the killing of millions of Chinese. It was good for them, after all.
Surely anything that encourages UKIP to tack left to hoover up old Labour votes in old Labour constituencies is great news for the Tories.
Yes, but that's likely to happen anyway if it's a very good result for UKIP but still short of an actual victory.
Possibly - but I'd imagine the UKIP leadership will be pretty resistant given where they have come from. It may take one or two UKIP MPs in old Labour seats to change things.
I thought @Cyclefree made an interesting post on FPT about whether Labour were building up a problem for themselves by aligning rather too closely with the Muslim voting bloc.
Labour are experts at getting postal votes organised, I suspect their nerves are built around the response they've had. Kippers will be very motivated in Oldham but I have concerns about resources and infrastructure in terms of getting people to the booths.
From a distance it almost seems as though this election is being fought along race/ethnicity/cultural lines: Asians vote labour, WWC vote ukip, that's a very worrying development. If labour win as I expect it will paper over a lot of cracks.
It is a worrying development.
Different religious groups voting as religious groups rather than individual citizens of a country in pre partition India was one of the main motivations behind Enoch Powell's 1968 speech on immigration
Now we see it panning out exactly as he predicted
To be specific, my concern is that Labour is aligning itself with a particular section of the Muslim vote i.e. the extremist shouty section and thereby implying - to their discredit - that all Muslims are like this (which they are not and, which, were I Muslim I'd be furious about the way Labour seem to categorise me) and also giving the shouty extremists more kudos by being seen as the intermediaries with whom Labour will interact.
To do this is wrong anyway but particularly dangerous, it seems to me, at a time when there are concerns about (a) immigration from the Middle East; (b) integration of Muslim communities and the impact on social cohesion; and (c) terrorism from people who claim to be inspired to it by Islam (even if this is only in their own minds).
Labour - and indeed all parties - should be speaking with those moderate voices within Islam and within the Muslim community here not the loudmouth extremists with an agenda. Why they don't see this, why they don't do this is a mystery to me. It's damaging for them and damaging for our society as a whole.
Ken's going nowhere. Ian Murray on the other hand, has just marked his cards.
I wonder if that is Jezza's next fight with the shad-cab. If Murray says "He's an apologist for terrorists, it's him or me" would Jez back down, again?
The dentist said it was now standard at his practice and implied it was across the NHS. The thing is my oral hygiene wasnt bad, room for improvement, as there always is, but in the higher range for all their assessment numbers.
He told me i needed to clean my teeth minimum three times a day, not rinse my mouth after brushing and that i need to buy an electric toothbrush. Unless i did that he doesnt expect to see an improvement. No improvement, no treatment.
Wow, what your dentist is telling you is bullsh-t and dangerous at that. Not to rinse your mouth?
You do not rinse after brushing with toothpaste. If you rinse then you are just getting rid of all the fluoride you have carefully scrubbed onto your teeth. It isn't magic, it needs time to work and to protect.
Ken's going nowhere. Ian Murray on the other hand, has just marked his cards.
I wonder if that is Jezza's next fight with the shad-cab. If Murray says "He's an apologist for terrorists, it's him or me" would Jez back down, again?
5 things you need to know about the Syria air strike vote tomorrow night
There will be no Prime Minister's Questions to allow the debate to begin at 11.30am.
Labour's leader Jeremy Corbyn will speak against air strikes while Hilary Benn, his own Shadow Foreign Secretary, will speak from the same frontbench in favour of them.
Calls for a two-day debate on the air strikes have been rejected by David Cameron but he said he would make sure there would be "the equivalent number of questions we would often have across a two-day debate in one day".
The vote is expected to take place by around 10pm on Wednesday night.
It is expected that around 10 to 15 Tories will vote against, but they will be outweighed by at least 60 Labour MPs who could vote with the Government. The Lib Dems have not yet come to an official position. The SNP are expected to oppose air strikes.
On the immigration issue, I read today the UK has a soaring skills gap with more than one million vacancies going unfilled (source: City AM).
We surely have to ask why other countries are churning out people better suited to employment, often at a fraction of the cost of our education system.
That has to be one of the weaker arguments in favour of mass immigration. Making a curry is hardly rocket science.
Anyone who thinks a UKIP victory in Oldham will be good for Labour-even the Labour of your dreams-is completely nuts. We'd end up having a new two party system-the Tories on the right and the 'Powellites' on the ultra right
5 things you need to know about the Syria air strike vote tomorrow night
There will be no Prime Minister's Questions to allow the debate to begin at 11.30am.
Labour's leader Jeremy Corbyn will speak against air strikes while Hilary Benn, his own Shadow Foreign Secretary, will speak from the same frontbench in favour of them.
Calls for a two-day debate on the air strikes have been rejected by David Cameron but he said he would make sure there would be "the equivalent number of questions we would often have across a two-day debate in one day".
The vote is expected to take place by around 10pm on Wednesday night.
It is expected that around 10 to 15 Tories will vote against, but they will be outweighed by at least 60 Labour MPs who could vote with the Government. The Lib Dems have not yet come to an official position. The SNP are expected to oppose air strikes.
You had me at Jezza will speak for...Benn will speak against.
It's damaging for them and damaging for our society as a whole.
If you think about it, the muslim community is the perfect voter base for labour. Thousands of votes delivered no questions asked with a minimum of effort.
Jeff Price Ryan Barrell has explained clearly why it is obvious that we should bomb targets in Syria for the following reasons: All previous interventions in Libya and Iraq etc have totally stabilised those countries, rendering them peaceful and reduced radicalisation around the world. No innocent civilians will be killed as we now have bombs that ask for people's ID before they explode. We have 70000 moderate allies on the ground including fighters from Narnia, Sylvania, Gondor and the Republic of Gullibilty. The way to stop the refugee crisis of people fleeing from bombs is to drop more bombs. Bombing so far by Russia, the US, France, etc has not stopped ISIL but our bombs definitely will. In order to avoid unnecessary delays, Chilcott has already been appointed to investigate why the bombing of Syria went so badly wrong.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I particularly admire the quiet and dignified way in which Jezza has surrounded himself with apologists for murder and terrorism. The likes of Seamus Milne, Ken Livingstone, John McDonnell and Dianne Abbott really are a quiet and dignified credit to the man who has appointed them so quietly and in such a dignified way to positions of responsibility within the Labour party. After all, who disagrees with the idea that in killing tens of millions of Chinese Mao did more good than harm? Who did not want the IRA to bomb their way to a united Ireland? Who does not share the notion that those responsible for the 7/7 attacks selflessly gave their lives in protest at the invasion of Iraq? I'll tell you who - only those who are not quiet and dignified. No wonder voters are flocking to embrace this new politics.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
Excellent post SO - glad there are those on the left who have some self awareness left and haven't completely lost their sense of reality in the name of sheep like loyalty.
One thing I find confusing is why such a high percentage of Labour hawks seem to be on its front bench. Jeremy Corbyn seems to have proportionately more Labour MPs willing to follow him on Syria on his backbenches than around the shadow cabinet table.
Even if someone likes Corbyn, how could they believe that given the shambles this week?
He's said what he thinks, reflecting the views of most members, encouraged members to get involved but condemned any harassment by social media etc, and accepted the right of MPs to disagree. Sure, he didn't win over a majority of the Shadow Cabinet, because he'd chosen it to be inclusive and that meant reflecting the centrist majority in the PLP. But he's done exactly what I voted for, with a quiet dignity that contrasts with some of his semi-anonymous critics. He has objective problems with persuading both the PLP and the wider public, but I don't expect him to do more than try, using polite, persistent argument. I'd vote for him again in a heartbeat.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.
I was focusing on the quote about leadership, not criticising Benn for not resigning (I see no reason he should - if recent events would justify it, they were foreseen and he shouldn't have joined the shadow cabinet in the first place)
I have no problem in someone thinking Corbyn is a good man making his case as best he can (though others would disagree) and that he is worth voting for (members seem very happy with him - I may disagree but he isn't here to please me either, so that's fair enough) - but even if the problems he is facing in the PLP are pretty immense, his interventions and tactics appear to have contributed to the messy situation, not reduced it. Even if he was the greatest guy on earth, that would suggest his leadership on this has been lacking.
In short, Corbyn may be a good man, and his opponents may not be, for the sake of argument. But that is pretty irrelevant as to whether, on this issue, he has led well. The back and forths, the going behind each others' backs, the confused messaging. He is not solely responsible for the mess on this issue, but he did seem to make it worse, or at least no better. That doesn't make him a bad man, or even, in general, a bad leader (though that may also be the case depending on the view), but his leadership on this issue cannot I believe reasonably be called good or effective, even if one believes he himself generally is both of those things.
And yet another live on air pile up. Corbyn is not just useless, he has surrounded himself with a team of people like Red Ken that will only make things even worse. No wonder he only managed 2 E's at A-Levels, despite attending one of the countries best state schools.
One thing I find confusing is why such a high percentage of Labour hawks seem to be on its front bench. Jeremy Corbyn seems to have proportionately more Labour MPs willing to follow him on Syria on his backbenches than around the shadow cabinet table.
Because the party has been moving leftwards with the 2010 and 2015 intakes, who are less likely to have made it to Shadow Cabinet level.
norman smith @BBCNormanS 17m17 minutes ago Ken Livingstone repeateldy refuses to apologise on @VictoriaLIVE for remaks about 7/7 bombers
norman smith @BBCNormanS 18m18 minutes ago Ken Livingstone told on @VictoriaLIVE to resign from front line Labour politics by shad cabinet member Ian Murray
Comments
Little joy in much division?
"New Order's Peter Hook is suing his ex-bandmates for "many millions of pounds" in the High Court, accusing them of secretly "pillaging" the group's name and starving him of cash.
The legendary bassist says he is already £2.3 million out of pocket due to the underhand tactics of his "former friends" - Bernard Sumner and Stephen and Gillian Morris.
He claims they have asset stripped the New Order name, keeping him in the dark about what they were up to until the move became a "fait accompli".
A new company the trio set up without telling him has generated an income of £7.8 million in four years - but Mr Hook is getting just a tiny fraction of that, the court heard.
And his barrister, Mark Wyeth QC, said: "It was as though George Harrison and Ringo Starr had got together at George's house one Friday night and had acted together to divest Paul McCartney of his shareholding in the Beatles, and didn't tell Yoko about it either."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/12025791/Blue-Monday-for-New-Order-as-Peter-Hook-sues-them-for-many-millions-of-pounds.html
- Economic/foreign policy is directed towards splitting Labour - likely net gain = 20-25 seats
- Scottish policy is directed towards splitting the SNP between fervent Out-Nats and Nats who can accept being part of the UK - likely net gain = 1 or 2 Scottish seats
Labour are tainted by the extreme left whether Corbyn is ousted or not.
The potential if WWC desert Labour, the sort of thing that might happen if UKIP win in Oldham is two fold:
- stronger right-wing presence in Parliament if UKIP take pooer seats in the North
- chance of gaining another 20 or 30 seats where UKIP split the Lab vote in slightly more affulent seats
- MC southern UKIP voters return to Tory fold, ensuring Essex seats stay Tory
Thus kicking Labour where Tories can't, and diffusing the southern UKIP problem. Probably get Carswell back, too.
Political implications aside, I wish Cameron had just used his prerogative powers to extend the air strikes to Syria as soon as Hollande asked. We look like a weak ally now, and have done for weeks.
Which is all good for the Conservatives, but bad for the country.
As a matter of interest, how soon after the vote will the bombing be allowed to start? I assume in such matters of war the Lords don't get involved?
http://www.theguardian.com/music/2011/jul/14/new-order-split-peter-hook
The Oldham Vote - I did wonder why Cameron was so keen to have a vote on approval for bombing on Wednesday, Thursday's headlines might not help Labour to get a vote out in Oldham.
Have to agree If I were in Oldham and 50+ Lab MPs vote for bombing on Wednesday I wouldnt vote Lab on Thursday
"As Anthony Seldon recorded in his book, Cameron at 10, the Prime Minister is often heard to complain that “I am the only person in this government who supports the Home Secretary on immigration”, and he is right. Instead of supporting the manifesto drive to reduce immigration, within a few months of the election the Foreign Office, Business Department and Treasury combined to try to try to take foreign students out of the migration statistics altogether."
http://www.conservativehome.com/thecolumnists/2015/12/nick-timothy-the-government-as-a-whole-isnt-aiming-to-cut-immigration-at-all-and-the-autumn-statement-proved-it.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3340059/World-s-biggest-tower-gets-ahead-Saudi-developer-secures-funds-complete-Jeddah-City-3-280ft-skyscraper.html?ito=social-twitter_mailonline
I expect CCHQ would be willing to gamble that this would offset any wwc boost for UKIP in those seats.
"VI Any Passenger being in a state of intoxication or committing any nuisance or wilfully interfering with the comfort of other Passengers or obstructing any of the Company's Officers in the discharge of their duty or not attending to the directions of the Guard in cases where the personal safety of himself or any of the Passengers is concerned will be immediately removed from the Company's Premises or in case he shall at the time be travelling then at the next Station or as soon after the offence as conveniently may be and forfeit his fare "
http://bit.ly/1IlF0gh
Edit: and below are the modern versions. I was wrong - they have changed - see section 6 "unacceptable behaviour. But the cards would probably come under clauses 1,2,8, and possibly even 7.
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/4202/railway-byelaws.pdf
I see that Mandelson was at the meeting so its not just for MPs.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34973637
Right to the end, Corbyn trying to play silly buggers over this.
@AlbertoNardelli · 1h1 hour ago
Without this year's upward revisions to net migration there would be no budget surplus in 2019/2020 http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/01/osborne-reliant-on-rising-immigration-levels-to-achieve-budget-surplus …
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/staggers/2015/12/bomb-isil-thats-exactly-what-they-want
Of all the arguments against extending bombing this is the one I have had to personally wrestle with the most. It does seem the case that ISIS want us to bomb them as they believe the second coming or nirvana or whatever will only happen once there has been a huge, apocalyptic battle with crusaders of the West. Do we give them a bit of what they crave?
Also, no one seems to mention the non fundamentalist Syrians living under IS rule.. many of them will die from our bombing
Only if we as a civilisation bought into the stupid apocalyptic death cult idea they have would 'but its what they want us to do' be a worthwhile argument. As it is, it is only liberal whining.
To be fair I think Benn has handled it well too, putting the other side without any personal acrimony either in public or, so far as has been reported, in private. MikeK and others are disappointed that he's not stormed out, but I'm afraid we're not here to please MikeK.'
Pure comedy gold from the man for all seasons.
IS want to defeat the West. Let's make sure they don't succeed, are defeated instead and that we work out what we want and how to achieve it.
Blimey. Bit of a wait. So we'll have to wait till next year for reliable emigration statistics.
Bombing not enough, but needs boots on ground.
Sole SLAB MP laying into him now.
Ah well, another time perhaps.
If they threaten us, we should not fail to fight them, just because that is what they want.
Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?
http://www.nhs.uk/Livewell/dentalhealth/Pages/Teethcleaningguide.aspx
In Oldham a shockingly low turnout would do for labour I would think. However unless lots of Tories vote for UKIP I would think that UKIP have already milked labour's anti immigrant pool of voters and it would take something seismic to get significantly more to vote for Farage. When I think about it an alliance between Corbyn Abbott and Livingstone in charge of Labour could just be that shock.
Advantages of a UKIP win:
- It would leave UKIP with two MPs who disagree on almost everything, making UKIP party unity even more strained than it currently is
- It would encourage UKIP to shift their focus on to taking votes off Labour, which potentially would be a very good thing from the Tory point of view
- It would intensify the civil war in Labour (if that's possible!)
- It would cement the idea that Labour are divided, extreme and unelectable
Disadvantages of a UKIP win:
- It would revive the flagging morale of UKIP and give them some momentum at a time when they are not doing particularly well, which in turn could lead to a longer-term revival
- It might push Labour into such a frenzy of civil war that Corbyn might actually be displaced in the chaos, although that's probably only a small risk
On balance, I think they'd probably slightly prefer a narrow Labour win, a result bad enough to keep the civil war bubbling along nicely but not so bad as to lead to something actually being done about Corbyn and the entryists.
http://www.cracked.com/blog/isis-wants-us-to-invade-7-facts-revealed-by-their-magazine/
I would suggest that an anti war stance might've galvanise support amongst Muslims, though the argument is, that these are already in labour's back pocket anyway (or labour is in theirs)...
CapX is funny.
SNP all vote same way - SNP branwashed cult/Fear of leader/etc
SNP MP voices difference of opinion - SNP riven by internal disputes/who's the real leader of the SNP/etc
'Nick Palmer was an MP once and stood for Parliament in May. Mind boggling, isn't it?'
He goes from a fully paid up member of the Blair fan club to Brown will be even better to Corbyn is just what he always wanted.
Could anyone make this up ?
SNP all vote same way - SNP branwashed cult/Fear of leader/etc
SNP MP voices difference of opinion - SNP riven by internal disputes/who's the real leader of the SNP/etc
We surely have to ask why other countries are churning out people better suited to employment, often at a fraction of the cost of our education system.
All in all though, I think there are too many moving parts for me to be sure its a plus or a minus for Labour in Oldham.
EDIT: I see TC got there first on postal votes. Dammit.
It's not beyond the wit of man to train up people who aren't Indian to make curries.
IF the vote is very close, I wonder if a UKIP legal challenge is entirely out of the question.
Unfortunately he was a commie back then.
To do this is wrong anyway but particularly dangerous, it seems to me, at a time when there are concerns about (a) immigration from the Middle East; (b) integration of Muslim communities and the impact on social cohesion; and (c) terrorism from people who claim to be inspired to it by Islam (even if this is only in their own minds).
Labour - and indeed all parties - should be speaking with those moderate voices within Islam and within the Muslim community here not the loudmouth extremists with an agenda. Why they don't see this, why they don't do this is a mystery to me. It's damaging for them and damaging for our society as a whole.
@Maomentum_: Yes, in fact @jeremycorbyn also marching against @jeremycorbyn for allowing a free vote. https://t.co/Tv1Uc71eSF
70,000 Makes the 45 minute claim look believable in comparison
http://order-order.com/2015/12/01/ken-confronted-with-victims-families-views-on-77-comments/
If you think about it, the muslim community is the perfect voter base for labour. Thousands of votes delivered no questions asked with a minimum of effort.
A fair compromise from the PM.
Ryan Barrell has explained clearly why it is obvious that we should bomb targets in Syria for the following reasons:
All previous interventions in Libya and Iraq etc have totally stabilised those countries, rendering them peaceful and reduced radicalisation around the world.
No innocent civilians will be killed as we now have bombs that ask for people's ID before they explode.
We have 70000 moderate allies on the ground including fighters from Narnia, Sylvania, Gondor and the Republic of Gullibilty.
The way to stop the refugee crisis of people fleeing from bombs is to drop more bombs.
Bombing so far by Russia, the US, France, etc has not stopped ISIL but our bombs definitely will.
In order to avoid unnecessary delays, Chilcott has already been appointed to investigate why the bombing of Syria went so badly wrong.
I have no problem in someone thinking Corbyn is a good man making his case as best he can (though others would disagree) and that he is worth voting for (members seem very happy with him - I may disagree but he isn't here to please me either, so that's fair enough) - but even if the problems he is facing in the PLP are pretty immense, his interventions and tactics appear to have contributed to the messy situation, not reduced it. Even if he was the greatest guy on earth, that would suggest his leadership on this has been lacking.
In short, Corbyn may be a good man, and his opponents may not be, for the sake of argument. But that is pretty irrelevant as to whether, on this issue, he has led well. The back and forths, the going behind each others' backs, the confused messaging. He is not solely responsible for the mess on this issue, but he did seem to make it worse, or at least no better. That doesn't make him a bad man, or even, in general, a bad leader (though that may also be the case depending on the view), but his leadership on this issue cannot I believe reasonably be called good or effective, even if one believes he himself generally is both of those things.
Ken Livingstone repeateldy refuses to apologise on @VictoriaLIVE for remaks about 7/7 bombers
norman smith @BBCNormanS 18m18 minutes ago
Ken Livingstone told on @VictoriaLIVE to resign from front line Labour politics by shad cabinet member Ian Murray