@PolhomeEditor: Labour frontbencher on "intimidation" of pro-war MPs: "The leadership's deliberately stoking it up. It's appalling." https://t.co/7Spk9C0vYN
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
I think I would substitute "tell" for "ask". Given that change, what could be more reasonable?
Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
If people side with Corbyn I do condemn them as well. I find it astonishing that there is any hesitation to deal ruthlessly with the likes of the terrorists in Paris. Labour could do with a leader who shows the resolution of President Hollande.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
Actually there's a big trend in many countries toward Muslims converting to Christianity.
Really, I had not heard that. I would be interested in any stories on such a trend if you have any to hand, it goes against the narrative we often seem to expect.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
I winced at it as well. But it was the first proper strike of the election campaign, the tories knew that him stabbing his brother in the back was one of the few things that people knew about Ed, and didn't like him for it.
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
Ah you're being overly sensitive man. Corbyn will likely wear the badge proudly. He believes in Irish Republicanism; he supported Hezbollah and Hamas. He'd be happy to admit that.
As Nick Cohen alluded too. He's no pacifist either, he's quite happy when the aggression is aimed at the West.
I said Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game!!
It's the equivalent of saying to social workers in Rotherham circa 2008 who report signs of trouble with Pakistani men and paedophilia
Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
If people side with Corbyn I do condemn them as well. I find it astonishing that there is any hesitation to deal ruthlessly with the likes of the terrorists in Paris.
Then bomb Molenbeek, the outskirts of Paris and the East End of London
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
The "one way door" is because of culture. If you recant islam your DNA does not finish you off, nor are you born with the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other holy book imprinted into your inner being and dictating your outlook and actions.
Having bigots kill you because they disagree with you does not make it right. You can safely recant Islam as long as a lunatic with a kalashnikov is not standing beside you.
@DPJHodges: Know it's inconvenient for Labour, but if you elect a man who's expressed sympathy with terrorists as a leader, people will point that out.
McConnell has been all over the media these past few days explaining away his reported comments about the "ballot box" to anyone who would listen by saying how he was hosting a Sinn Fein delegation at the time (ie at the height of the troubles) in his "search for peace".
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
There are plenty of reasons that someone might call Corbyn a "terrorist sympathiser" aside from this latest situation.
I'm not sure it's helpful though.
Yeah I think he is a bit of a terrorist sympathiser!
But by saying that, Cameron is inferring that anyone that decides they cant bring themselves to vote to bomb is a terrorist sympathiser also, the way I read it anyway.
No doubt its emotional blackmail.
Perhaps he should go the Labour route and get people to intimidate them into voting his way.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
I winced at it as well. But it was the first proper strike of the election campaign, the tories knew that him stabbing his brother in the back was one of the few things that people knew about Ed, and didn't like him for it.
Utter genius in a machiavellian way.
Lucky for Labour they haven't replaced Ed with someone who can be considered a national security risk.
2020 will be utterly horrific and all the Tories will have to do is quote what Labour MPs have said about Jez
He cited Iraq because he knew that it would trigger exactly the reaction we have seen from Pavlov's dogs. The Islamists understand that the Western world can be put under pressure if our "guilt" buttons are pressed.
So we get the:- - "it's your fault because of your colonial interference after WW1" button;
That one particularly pisses me off (though that is not to discount the import of the other excuses you list). I don't even disagree we and others caused or contributed to messes, but it's been a 100 godsdamned years. (and yes, I know we and others have still had interference, it doesn't excuse pinning all the blame on it, much like those still blaming colonialism, sorry, neo-colonialism, for all troubles decades after independence). It makes me go over all right wing, which upsets my socially lefty heart.
Besides which, the Sunni-Shia issue has been going on a lot longer than that and still causes problems.
From my perspective the Sunni/ Shia thing in Iraq is at the core of the Daesh problem
That's the new tory line - voting against airstrikes makes you a terrorist sympathiser.
No, being a terrorist sympathiser makes you a terrorist sympathiser. Cameron is merely asking his MPs not to associate themselves with people who have already been revealed to be terrorist sympathisers
That's utterly illogical. Are people not supposed to like watercolour and walks in the country because Hitler liked them? The vote is either right or it isn't, and MPs need to vote with their brains and consciences, not based on who they'll be walking through the lobby with.
If Hitler were suggesting we shouldn't fight fascists it would be relevant.
That the terrorist sympathiser is saying we shouldn't fight terrorists is relevant.
If Corbyn doesn't want to be called a terrorist sympathiser maybe he should stop sympathising with terrorists?
You have missed the point by as far as it is to miss it
Calling Corbyn a terrorist sympathiser is probably accurate... saying "don't allay yourself with a bunch of terrorist sympathisers" to MP's that aren't sympathetic to terrorists in the least may be seen as trying to smear by association or make people vote your way by fear of smear
And?
Sounds like a persuasive argument made plausible by the Opposition to this being led by a bunch of terrorist sympathisers. What's your objection exactly? That he's trying to win support or that he called a spade a spade?
Not sure smear is right. Smears are normally false. He's trying to win support by association yes. As leaders generally do.
I have already said that I think Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, I just don't think it is appropriate for a PM to use such juvenile and puerile tactics to try and force people who are troubled at the thought of sanctioning killing innocent people to do so
Ah you're being overly sensitive man. Corbyn will likely wear the badge proudly. He believes in Irish Republicanism; he supported Hezbollah and Hamas. He'd be happy to admit that.
As Nick Cohen alluded too. He's no pacifist either, he's quite happy when the aggression is aimed at the West.
I said Corbyn and McDonnell are fair game!!
It's the equivalent of saying to social workers in Rotherham circa 2008 who report signs of trouble with Pakistani men and paedophilia
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
That article continues: Obama also hinted at US frustration over [Turkey's] inability to seal a border used by Isis to smuggle reinforcements and supplies into Syria.
“There are about 98 kilometres that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters [and] Isil shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities,” said Obama.
Have any other world leaders made the same allegation recently?
From this and his commitment to more boots on the ground, it does look like Obama might have found some balls. I wonder why?
Seems like Turkey is being hung out to dry? No way the US wouldn't have known these things up to now.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
I winced at it as well. But it was the first proper strike of the election campaign, the tories knew that him stabbing his brother in the back was one of the few things that people knew about Ed, and didn't like him for it.
It's weird, being willing to stand for the leadership even though his brother was an obvious candidate was one of the things I liked about Ed M. Maybe it's because I too am a younger brother.
Including on PB. Several posters gave early warnings of this and were disappeared. Mr Jones, to be fair, *did* actually side with Nick Griffin - but that didn't stop him being prescient.
Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
If people side with Corbyn I do condemn them as well. I find it astonishing that there is any hesitation to deal ruthlessly with the likes of the terrorists in Paris.
Then bomb Molenbeek, the outskirts of Paris and the East End of London
The French and Belgian security forces are going after the terrorists "at home", as should we as well (and we arrested 300 or so last year), and we should go after them in Iraq, Syria, and any other place that they have sanctuary. It's not one of the other that is needed but both, using policing where we can, and military force when we can't.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Mr Llama, present yourself for re-education at once!
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
That article continues: Obama also hinted at US frustration over [Turkey's] inability to seal a border used by Isis to smuggle reinforcements and supplies into Syria.
“There are about 98 kilometres that are still used as a transit point for foreign fighters [and] Isil shipping out fuel for sale that helps finance their terrorist activities,” said Obama.
Have any other world leaders made the same allegation recently?
From this and his commitment to more boots on the ground, it does look like Obama might have found some balls. I wonder why?
Intelligence about possible attacks on the US would be my guess.
It's not as if Labour members weren't warned, repeatedly, about Corbyn and his associations and the harm this would do. Lots of people warned them. They ignored the warnings or poo-poohed them. Now what a lot of people predicted would happen has happened. And they're shouting that it's not fair. Well, diddums.
The moment Corbyn ummed and ahhed about the police shooting rifle and bomb toting terrorist set on a killing spree is the point at which any reasonably person would conclude that Corbyn really doesn't give a f*ck about our safety. So f*ck him and everyone who supports him.
The problem with taking such a strong view against Corbyn based on those comments is that apparently millions of people will still intend to vote for a party he leads, so you will need to condemn millions of voters as not being reasonable as well. Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
Edit: 10,000 posts, yeesh. And that not including pre Vanilla days.
A very substantial minority of people in this country are opposed to the bombing, not just the usual suspects. If they are all terrorist sympathisers then thee is a lot of it about.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
The "one way door" is because of culture. If you recant islam your DNA does not finish you off, nor are you born with the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other holy book imprinted into your inner being and dictating your outlook and actions.
Having bigots kill you because they disagree with you does not make it right. You can safely recant Islam as long as a lunatic with a kalashnikov is not standing beside you.
Wasn't there a CofE Bishop who was an ex-Muslim not long ago?
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
I thought the Tories didn't want Labour to lose the by-election?
Besides, what it is is counter productive to getting even those who dislike Corbyn to vote with him on Syria, as they may well see it as going too far, and do not want to be seen to be saying the same by siding with Cameron on the vote.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
We had a script to talk about other things but the voters kept on mentioning it to us unprompted.
Reading the Goodwin book on UKIP and the General Election, and UKIP weren't in contention for that many seats even before Salmond's interventions.
It's not as if Labour members weren't warned, repeatedly, about Corbyn and his associations and the harm this would do. Lots of people warned them. They ignored the warnings or poo-poohed them. Now what a lot of people predicted would happen has happened. And they're shouting that it's not fair. Well, diddums.
The moment Corbyn ummed and ahhed about the police shooting rifle and bomb toting terrorist set on a killing spree is the point at which any reasonably person would conclude that Corbyn really doesn't give a f*ck about our safety. So f*ck him and everyone who supports him.
The problem with taking such a strong view against Corbyn based on those comments is that apparently millions of people will still intend to vote for a party he leads, so you will need to condemn millions of voters as not being reasonable as well. Which you can do, but is problematic for politicians to do (though it doesn't stop them saying voters are stupid, eg 'only voted in Cameron as they didn't understand what the Tories would do' sort of argument)
Edit: 10,000 posts, yeesh. And that not including pre Vanilla days.
A very substantial minority of people in this country are opposed to the bombing, not just the usual suspects. If they are all terrorist sympathisers then thee is a lot of it about.
Indeed. Even many of those who support the bombing are not without concerns.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
"Line by line"? You do know that putting inverted commas around a sentence is defining it as a quote? Or perhaps you don't.
Including on PB. Several posters gave early warnings of this and were disappeared. Mr Jones, to be fair, *did* actually side with Nick Griffin - but that didn't stop him being prescient.
And it still isn't resolved. When it is, and the perpetrators are breaking rocks in some far flung penal colony, we will be on the road to recovery as a country. It won't cause it, but it will correlate with it.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I'm surprised Dave didn't contract it out to Michael Fallon like he did during the General Election.
Even I winced at that attack on Ed Miliband.
I winced at it as well. But it was the first proper strike of the election campaign, the tories knew that him stabbing his brother in the back was one of the few things that people knew about Ed, and didn't like him for it.
It's weird, being willing to stand for the leadership even though his brother was an obvious candidate was one of the things I liked about Ed M. Maybe it's because I too am a younger brother.
I respected him gaming the rules which allowed him to get an endorsement from the unions along with the ballot papers, giving him the slight edge, which of course was all that he needed.
Incidentally, didn't STW oppose sanctions against Saddam because of all the innocent Iraqi babies who died as a result? Or am I misremembering? Would that have been when one J Corbyn was its chair? Were there any votes on sanctions in Parliament?
For all BJO's talk about Corbyn being in favour of financial sanctions it would be interesting to know his views and his votes on this when the West did impose sanctions on Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
Changing FROM Islam is a bit of a problem Bev.
A one way door that one.
The "one way door" is because of culture. If you recant islam your DNA does not finish you off, nor are you born with the Bible, Koran, Torah or any other holy book imprinted into your inner being and dictating your outlook and actions.
Having bigots kill you because they disagree with you does not make it right. You can safely recant Islam as long as a lunatic with a kalashnikov is not standing beside you.
Wasn't there a CofE Bishop who was an ex-Muslim not long ago?
Are you thinking of Bishop Nazir-Ali? His father was a Shia convert and he was born in Pakistan. He's the closest that I recall off the top of my head, sorry.
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
Actually that's a good point - the remark is much more potent for Labour waverers worried about de-selection or party loyalty than for Conservative MPs who genuinely think extending the air campaign is counter-productive.
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
Foolish. Corbyn looking stronger by the hour. Wouldn't be surprised by only a few dozen Lab supporters of the motion now. If all he wanted was the motion to pass, he can get it, but beyond that, what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
'Cost' ?
Which way ? I'd imagine it might cost HIM some Labour votes, not sure I'd like my leader being described that way even if I was in favour of bombing on the Labour side. Or has it cost Labour some votes as they don't want to be seen with Jezbollah ?
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
"Line by line"? You do know that putting inverted commas around a sentence is defining it as a quote? Or perhaps you don't.
I do, you're reading too much into my attempts to get used to an iPad Pro after using a standard sized iPad for nearly six years
Incidentally, didn't STW oppose sanctions against Saddam because of all the innocent Iraqi babies who died as a result? Or am I misremembering? Would that have been when one J Corbyn was its chair? Were there any votes on sanctions in Parliament?
For all BJO's talk about Corbyn being in favour of financial sanctions it would be interesting to know his views and his votes on this when the West did impose sanctions on Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran.
Yeah the people who talk about UN sanctions now are in many cases the same people who have protested UN sanctions in the past. Really they want us to do nothing at all.
I spent a few hours in Oldham West & Royton today taking the temperature. Everyone seems to be saying Labour will narrowly hold on but I'm not sure how much of that is expectation management.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Mr Llama, present yourself for re-education at once!
Nah, I am retired now and I can say what I damn well please. I did my full ration of "Diversity" and "Diversity for managers" and all the rest of the courses and I mouthed the garbage as required because a goodly chunk of my work was in the public sector.
@SamCoatesTimes: YouGov / Times also found Corbyn support dropping sharply. % think Lab leader doing well drops from 30 per cent to 24 per cent in a week.
So Isam let me get this straight. You agree with what Cameron said, you agree it's effective, you agree that it's his job to try and win support for what he is proposing.
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Umm, that's the point. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser by his own admission, and the PLP are solidly with him.
Election leaflets write themselves
Silly me, I had thought Cameron had hoped to combine politics with what he saw as the national need by building a big consensus on Syria while also wounding Corbyn. Instead we have Labour possibly wounded and no big consensus at all.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
So Cameron makes a comment at a Tory meeting, which is then leaked to the press, and gets the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" all over the news a day before the by-election
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
This isn't going to be the last vote about ISIS and at same point we are going to need national agreement on what may be a long term commitment and possibly substantial loss of life. Stupid throwaway comments like this make it less likely and let's the country down.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
No there isn't. Not while supporting air strikes against the exact same target across a non existing border. Not while maintaining alliances with the French. Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
So Isam let me get this straight. You agree with what Cameron said, you agree it's effective, you agree that it's his job to try and win support for what he is proposing.
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
I agree that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser, but you certainly haven't got anything else straight
The comparison that comes to mind is "Don't say anything about the paedos in Rotherham else you're on the same side as Nick Griffin"
He should make the case for the air strikes without resorting to guilt by association. It's not as if the Conservative MP's he was speaking to are children, so why use playground tactics?
We have no proof whatsoever that it has been effective in allowing us to bomb Syria
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
Foolish. Corbyn looking stronger by the hour. Wouldn't be surprised by only a few dozen Lab supporters of the motion now. If all he wanted was the motion to pass, he can get it, but beyond that, what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Well, it ties those Labour MPs to a toxic leader. I thought that was part of the Tory strategy: to tar Labour - all of Labour - with the toxicity of Corbyn and McDonnell et al so that even when they go the Labour brand is tarnished by their brand of extremism.
Whether it's the sensible thing to do re the vote is another matter. Honey is better than vinegar at catching wasps. But it may be at this point that Cameron feels that Labour MPs - even those who claim to be against Corbyn - are simply too unreliable or too scared to put their heads above the parapet. He can show allies that he has tried his best. And he can point to Labour as the stumbling block. I doubt that the French or the Americans or other countries will be particularly impressed by the way Labour are behaving.
I spent a few hours in Oldham West & Royton today taking the temperature. Everyone seems to be saying Labour will narrowly hold on but I'm not sure how much of that is expectation management.
As I said earlier. If I were in Oldham and 50 Lab MPs voted to bomb on Wednesday, I wouldnt vote Labour on Thursday
Cons have an 11% lead, was 6% at the end of September.
I had assumed Corbyn would get a lead at some point no matter how poor. It will have to be a late honeymoon for that to happen, during a Tory implosion.
I am not sure that equality is anything less of a cultural phenomenon than other ideas or indeed that religion is much of a choice for the greater part of the world.
People are born black, white, brown, yellow, male, female, able, disabled, gay, straight or whatever. They get no choice in this. No one is born muslim, buddhist, christian, jewish or aetheist and whatever religion or culture you are brought up in you can always change it. Plenty of people convert to other religions or "go native" in another culture.
Changeable attributes like religion and culture should never trump innate characteristics, not even for vote-grubbing politicians who spout the mantra of equality without actually caring what it means.
There I beg to differ, and I think it shows how we lack imagination in Western societies. We think that the rest of the world, outside Western Europe, North East and West Coast America, is just dying to be like us, or would be, if they were sufficiently well educated.
Outside these prosperous enclaves, peoples' religion and culture is absolutely what they love and value, and is as central to them as race, gender, sexuality is to us.
Indeed, try to tell a Pakistani apostate that he has a free choice to change religion.
Tell a slave in Mauritania that he was born equal. Tell a woman in Saudi Arabia that she was born equal. Tell a gay man in Uganda or Iran that he was born equal. Tell a leper in Yemen that she is equal.
I know what their responses would be.
Fair enough, and personally I am not that bothered about how other cultures treat their people in their own lands. However, when people from cultures with those sort of attitudes come to live here in the UK then I do not think it unreasonable to ask them to leave their medieval belief systems about the rule of law and rights of individuals at the immigration desk.
Mr Llama, present yourself for re-education at once!
Nah, I am retired now and I can say what I damn well please. I did my full ration of "Diversity" and "Diversity for managers" and all the rest of the courses and I mouthed the garbage as required because a goodly chunk of my work was in the public sector.
Mr Llama: I did one of my diversity talks today. True diversity not the bollocks diversity with a capital D you no doubt had to put up with. It is a shame that it was private and not open to the public. I think you would have enjoyed it. One day, one day......
It's a tricky one because pretty much everyone agrees that bona-fide students coming here and paying fat fees for the privilege is a good thing, the more the merrier. However, it accounts for a large chunk of the immigration figures according to the internationally-accepted definition, and you don't want to appear to be 'fiddling the figures' by excluding students. The difficulty as I see it is that students don't seem to be leaving at the end of their courses in the numbers you'd expect to see.
what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Umm, that's the point. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser by his own admission, and the PLP are solidly with him.
Election leaflets write themselves
Silly me, I had thought Cameron had hoped to combine politics with what he saw as the national need by building a big consensus on Syria while also wounding Corbyn. Instead we have Labour possibly wounded and no big consensus at all.
You expected him to reach consensus with the terrorist sympathiser? I think he tried but clearly that was impossible so next best option is to go for the jugular.
My favourite work 'training' was about leadership in the workplace, and all about identifying types of people, what type of person you were, and how to get the best out of everyone. Not a bad idea I guess, but with the presentation it felt like integration training for sociopaths, being taught what it means to be human and how to present themselves differently as a result so they can better manipulate people without people noticing.
Cons have an 11% lead, was 6% at the end of September.
I had assumed Corbyn would get a lead at some point no matter how poor. It will have to be a late honeymoon for that to happen, during a Tory implosion.
I had thought a Corbyn lead was inevitable at some point. Now I'm doubtful. The Tories will have a mid-term slump even if they don't implode. Labour may not benefit though (and they could well split, of course).
It's a tricky one because pretty much everyone agrees that bona-fide students coming here and paying fat fees for the privilege is a good thing, the more the merrier. However, it accounts for a large chunk of the immigration figures according to the internationally-accepted definition, and you don't want to appear to be 'fiddling the figures' by excluding students. The difficulty as I see it is that students don't seem to be leaving at the end of the course in the numbers you'd expect to see.
About 20% of Students are still in the country 5 years later. 50 000 per year. The numbers vary a great deal by country of origin. 99% of Chinese return but the numbers are much lower from the sub-continent and middle east. The latter are also much more likely to bring partners or family with them.
Personally I would ban accompanying family or working more than 16 hours per week and also require annual renewal contingent on an academic referee with attendance discussed. I think it would quickly weed out those exploiting the system.
what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Umm, that's the point. Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser by his own admission, and the PLP are solidly with him.
Election leaflets write themselves
Silly me, I had thought Cameron had hoped to combine politics with what he saw as the national need by building a big consensus on Syria while also wounding Corbyn. Instead we have Labour possibly wounded and no big consensus at all.
You expected him to reach consensus with the terrorist sympathiser? I think he tried but clearly that was impossible so next best option is to go for the jugular.
Or maybe he could have given him flowers?
I assumed he wanted as many MPs as possible to support him on this, and apparently his blunt comments on Corbyn may have cost him some support, to no more gain than he would have had from not saying it (Corbyn is still leader and most Lab MPs will probably back him or abstain, so Cameron could still paint them all as being like him). No he couldn't get Corbyn on board, the man would not have agreed if Karl Marx rose from the dead to give it the ok, he is resolute, but others were amenable.
@elliotttimes: Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" comment has cost 20 Labour MPs already suggests a well-placed source. Touch of the Flashman.
Foolish. Corbyn looking stronger by the hour. Wouldn't be surprised by only a few dozen Lab supporters of the motion now. If all he wanted was the motion to pass, he can get it, but beyond that, what was the point of all this hassle if at the end of the day, Labour are solidly behind Corbyn (or at least not opposed to him)?
Well, it ties those Labour MPs to a toxic leader. I thought that was part of the Tory strategy: to tar Labour - all of Labour - with the toxicity of Corbyn and McDonnell et al so that even when they go the Labour brand is tarnished by their brand of extremism.
Whether it's the sensible thing to do re the vote is another matter. Honey is better than vinegar at catching wasps. But it may be at this point that Cameron feels that Labour MPs - even those who claim to be against Corbyn - are simply too unreliable or too scared to put their heads above the parapet. He can show allies that he has tried his best. And he can point to Labour as the stumbling block. I doubt that the French or the Americans or other countries will be particularly impressed by the way Labour are behaving.
It may be that at this point Mr Cameron is knackered and is losing his diplomatic instinct.
It's incredibly low of David Cameron to use the phrase "terrorist sympathisers" and it will be brutally effective. That's what the public believes and all discussion of it will only help the Conservatives. The yelps of outrage are what he wants.
I thought the Salmond posters portraying him as a thief at the GE went a bit far, but the public loved it.
The tipping point in the campaign for us Tory canvassers was when Salmond said "I'm going to write Labour's budget line by line"
Turned the Tories from the largest party in a hung parliament into a Tory majority.
Yup and it cost UKIP several, probably six, seats. "Sorry, Nige, but I couldn't take the chance [of Labour governing with the SNP]" . That poster with Miliband in Salmond's pocket was the most effective bit of political advertising since the genius "Labour isn't working" poster in 1979.
Correct Mr llama, pb Tories think Cameron is the messiah, the reality is an unbelievably clever poster won him the election, he's done nothing to to deserve the veneration he gets from the sycophants.
About 20% of Students are still in the country 5 years later. 50 000 per year. The numbers vary a great deal by country of origin. 99% of Chinese return but the numbers are much lower from the sub-continent and middle east. The latter are also much more likely to bring partners or family with them.
Thanks - where are the figures? I couldn't find any clear summary when I wrote a short briefing paper on this recently.
Also, presumably those who stay (legally) are subject to the visa conditions and quotas of the points-based system. But the numbers didn't seem to add up.
It's a tricky one because pretty much everyone agrees that bona-fide students coming here and paying fat fees for the privilege is a good thing, the more the merrier. However, it accounts for a large chunk of the immigration figures according to the internationally-accepted definition, and you don't want to appear to be 'fiddling the figures' by excluding students. The difficulty as I see it is that students don't seem to be leaving at the end of their courses in the numbers you'd expect to see.
Though if we had the points system people talk about they - well, maybe depending on what they had studied - would score pretty highly?
Cameron's "terrorist sympathiser" remark... it implies anyone who doesn't follow his lead is one in my eyes... whether to bomb Syria, which will result in innocent, non ISIS Syrians dying, is a sensitive subject that doesn't need bullying from the PM
It really is vile. I can't watch it. It's the same as his attitude to the 'fruitcakes, loonies and closet racists' of UKIP, or his vow before the UN to combat 'non-violent extremists' (people who don't disagree with his world view essentially) as well as violent ones - Cameron (on the advice of his American managers) has deliberately polarised the political debate and made it ok to hate those who disagree with his agenda. It's chilling, incredibly un-British, and those 'Cameron-sympathisers' who support him should beware of the day when something they believe or hold dear puts them on the wrong side of it.
Dave has been eating too much fruitcake. It causes the chilons in his brain minerals to expand thus creating an explosion of haggisy vileness in the food-reverence sacred-ness. Am I getting the hang of this?
Comments
http://www.churchcentral.com/blogs/iranian-church-sees-rapid-growth/
Though by the very nature of underground Churches always a bit difficult to know how real the numbers are.
It is much easier to Evangelise the Islamic world now that the Internet and social media are so prevalent.
Utter genius in a machiavellian way.
Having bigots kill you because they disagree with you does not make it right. You can safely recant Islam as long as a lunatic with a kalashnikov is not standing beside you.
Perhaps he should go the Labour route and get people to intimidate them into voting his way.
2020 will be utterly horrific and all the Tories will have to do is quote what Labour MPs have said about Jez
Lucky for Labour he's not very good at politics...
Besides, what it is is counter productive to getting even those who dislike Corbyn to vote with him on Syria, as they may well see it as going too far, and do not want to be seen to be saying the same by siding with Cameron on the vote.
Reading the Goodwin book on UKIP and the General Election, and UKIP weren't in contention for that many seats even before Salmond's interventions.
You do know that putting inverted commas around a sentence is defining it as a quote? Or perhaps you don't.
Goodnight.
For all BJO's talk about Corbyn being in favour of financial sanctions it would be interesting to know his views and his votes on this when the West did impose sanctions on Middle Eastern countries such as Iraq and Iran.
Edit: wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Nazir-Ali
Which way ? I'd imagine it might cost HIM some Labour votes, not sure I'd like my leader being described that way even if I was in favour of bombing on the Labour side. Or has it cost Labour some votes as they don't want to be seen with Jezbollah ?
Election leaflets write themselves
Edit: Thanks to a 'prediction' of a LD win on 55% of the vote from one 'David Cameron'. Seems legit.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-34978249
What a decent chap.
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVLALIAWsAAeGng.jpg
But you disagree as attacking opponents is a bad thing?
We are about as likely to see flying pigs as we are to see political opponents not be attacked in honest and effective ways when it is appropriate.
Corbyn's mendacity and amoral politics peak for themselves. But there is, as supporters of all parties on here accept, a reasonable position in voting no in air strikes in Syria.
That's a 35.4 Billion $ charity donation by my reckoning.
Not while maintaining alliances with the French.
Not if you believe in the UNSC which unanimously backed action.
What reason is there for UK pilots to fly past targets in Syria to attack targets in the same region of the same group in Iraq?
Cons have an 11% lead, was 6% at the end of September.
The comparison that comes to mind is "Don't say anything about the paedos in Rotherham else you're on the same side as Nick Griffin"
He should make the case for the air strikes without resorting to guilt by association. It's not as if the Conservative MP's he was speaking to are children, so why use playground tactics?
We have no proof whatsoever that it has been effective in allowing us to bomb Syria
Whether it's the sensible thing to do re the vote is another matter. Honey is better than vinegar at catching wasps. But it may be at this point that Cameron feels that Labour MPs - even those who claim to be against Corbyn - are simply too unreliable or too scared to put their heads above the parapet. He can show allies that he has tried his best. And he can point to Labour as the stumbling block. I doubt that the French or the Americans or other countries will be particularly impressed by the way Labour are behaving.
It's a tricky one because pretty much everyone agrees that bona-fide students coming here and paying fat fees for the privilege is a good thing, the more the merrier. However, it accounts for a large chunk of the immigration figures according to the internationally-accepted definition, and you don't want to appear to be 'fiddling the figures' by excluding students. The difficulty as I see it is that students don't seem to be leaving at the end of their courses in the numbers you'd expect to see.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2641022
Or maybe he could have given him flowers?
· Those who voted Labour in May have switched from backing military action by 52-26 per cent a week ago, to opposing it, by 42-35 per cent today
Personally I would ban accompanying family or working more than 16 hours per week and also require annual renewal contingent on an academic referee with attendance discussed. I think it would quickly weed out those exploiting the system.
(edited to remove duplicated word)
Also, presumably those who stay (legally) are subject to the visa conditions and quotas of the points-based system. But the numbers didn't seem to add up.
Con 41% (+4) Lab 30% (-1) UKIP 16 (-1) LD 6 (-1)
Changes since late September