Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. Sign in or register to get started.

Options

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On by-election day there’s a new favourite in the race for

SystemSystem Posts: 11,692
edited December 2015 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » On by-election day there’s a new favourite in the race for next Labour leader – Hilary Benn

Of all the speeches in the long commons debate yesterday one stands out – the winding up in a packed chamber by “Wedgie-Benn’s son”, Hilary, who is now Labour’s shadow foreign secretary.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    Was yesterday Jeremy Corbyn's Norway debate?
    Will he escape from the roof of the People's Palace by helicopter, pursued by a mob of frenzied counter-revolutionaries? Will he be summarily executed by an ad-hoc military tribunal? Is Hilary Benn the new Pinochet? Is Two Twelve (2015) the new Nine Eleven (1973)?
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    So what if it's raining?
    Why would that stop people voting anyway?
  • Options
    What’s striking is that throughout his leader, Mr, Corbyn, was sitting alongside

    IIRC Corbyn wasnt there for the start but slipped in part way through - then gave Benn a death stare throughout......
  • Options
    RobDRobD Posts: 58,983
    Hope everyone had a nice by-election eve with their family. Now on to the main (and festive) event.
  • Options
    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:
  • Options

    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:

    that'll be the BBC eh? boom tish!

    The odd thing about the explosion of mass communication and availability of information around the world is that it has resulted in a general increase in ignorance rather than a spread of enlightenment.

    this applies to all political shades
  • Options
    Those two Tornados left RAF Akrotiri with three 500lb Paveway bombs each and returned to base just over three hours later without those weapons, BBC defence correspondent Jonathan Beale said.

    The Ministry of Defence is expected to give details of what they targeted later today, he added.


    Somebody got a late night wake up call...
  • Options
    IndigoIndigo Posts: 9,966

    What’s striking is that throughout his leader, Mr, Corbyn, was sitting alongside

    IIRC Corbyn wasnt there for the start but slipped in part way through - then gave Benn a death stare throughout......

    I thought Corbyn was doing a fine interpretation of a "bulldog chewing a wasp" throughout the speech.
  • Options
    JohnLoonyJohnLoony Posts: 1,790
    The standing ovation which MPs gave for the degenerate revisionist reactionary warmonger Hilary Benn was an ominous portent of things to come. It inevitably reminds one of the 67 standing ovations which were given, during a single speech, to the arch-fascist despot Nicolae Ceausescu in Romania in November 1989, just weeks before he was overthrown by a peace-loving mob of fraternal proletarian revolutionaries and summarily executed by a People's Tribunal. The inevitable completion of the Corbynist-McDonnellist-Maoist revolution is surely only just round the corner, when the final liquidation of the degenerate Bennite-Beckettite-Johnsonite-Cooperite revisionists and warmongers will be achieved as a result of the righteous fury and frenziedly refreshing whirlwind of the people.
  • Options
    Should Hilary Benn indeed become the next Labour leader, he would then be only one step away from landing my 999/1 bet (949/1 net) with Betfair on him becoming the next British Prime Minister.
    Lifetime achievement awards and legendary status for yous truly surely await!
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,782
    edited December 2015
    “People are saying that nobody who votes in favor of bombing will ever lead the Labour Party,” said the lawmaker, “and no one who votes against will lead the country.”

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/03/world/europe/britain-parliament-syria-airstrikes-vote.html
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    BBC has switched over to the war edition.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r3BO6GP9NMY

    Edit. Sorry, I meant;

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news
  • Options
    MTimTMTimT Posts: 7,034
    edited December 2015

    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:

    that'll be the BBC eh? boom tish!

    The odd thing about the explosion of mass communication and availability of information around the world is that it has resulted in a general increase in ignorance rather than a spread of enlightenment.

    this applies to all political shades
    I would argue that it has led to a democratization of ignorance, rather than any increase in it. Before, we were dependent upon two or three ignorant sources posing as informed and impartial fonts of knowledge, and we were isolated in our information processing but for a small coterie of family, friends and co-workers,. Now we have a plethora of sources running the whole gamut of ignorance, some overtly partial, others still pretending impartiality - and we have the whole internet world and twitterati to interact with to process the ignorance - or more accurately with whom to reinforce our pre-existing biases.

    PS I would say for most things political, this is not a joke. However, for those who truly want to seek out facts, information and ideas, now is indeed an age of enlightenment. The ease of access to sources is stunning compared to just 20 years ago.
  • Options
    dugarbandierdugarbandier Posts: 2,596
    edited December 2015
    MTimT said:


    I would argue that it has led to a democratization of ignorance, rather than any increase in it. Before, we were dependent upon two or three ignorant sources posing as informed and impartial fonts of knowledge, and we were isolated in our information processing but for a small coterie of family, friends and co-workers,. Now we have a plethora of sources running the whole gamut of ignorance, some overtly partial, others still pretending impartiality - and we have the whole internet world and twitterati to interact with to process the ignorance - or more accurately with whom to reinforce our pre-existing biases.

    PS I would say for most things political, this is not a joke. However, for those who truly want to seek out facts, information and ideas, now is indeed an age of enlightenment. The ease of access to sources is stunning compared to just 20 years ago.

    I'm not sure. I'd think that in the past there would have been a certain percentage who didn't know e.g. what the pyramids are or where they came from. Now those same people KNOW that they were put there by Joseph for the purpose of grain storage.

    But of course the internet is fantastic for the reasons you mention, long may it continue and hopefully the sources won't be obscured too much by the misinformation and alternative realities
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    MTimT said:

    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:

    that'll be the BBC eh? boom tish!

    The odd thing about the explosion of mass communication and availability of information around the world is that it has resulted in a general increase in ignorance rather than a spread of enlightenment.

    this applies to all political shades
    I would argue that it has led to a democratization of ignorance, rather than any increase in it. Before, we were dependent upon two or three ignorant sources posing as informed and impartial fonts of knowledge, and we were isolated in our information processing but for a small coterie of family, friends and co-workers,. Now we have a plethora of sources running the whole gamut of ignorance, some overtly partial, others still pretending impartiality - and we have the whole internet world and twitterati to interact with to process the ignorance - or more accurately with whom to reinforce our pre-existing biases.

    PS I would say for most things political, this is not a joke. However, for those who truly want to seek out facts, information and ideas, now is indeed an age of enlightenment. The ease of access to sources is stunning compared to just 20 years ago.
    I've read arguments that the Internet has helped to polarise opinions. That, faced with such a mass of information, people gravitate towards people who agree with them.

    That said, there's some really good data, easily accessible for those who want it. I love the ease with which I can get good quality polling data, along with really good political information from people like Lewis Baston, or on this site, people like Alistair Meeks and David Herdson.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    MTimT said:

    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:

    that'll be the BBC eh? boom tish!

    The odd thing about the explosion of mass communication and availability of information around the world is that it has resulted in a general increase in ignorance rather than a spread of enlightenment.

    this applies to all political shades
    I would argue that it has led to a democratization of ignorance, rather than any increase in it. Before, we were dependent upon two or three ignorant sources posing as informed and impartial fonts of knowledge, and we were isolated in our information processing but for a small coterie of family, friends and co-workers,. Now we have a plethora of sources running the whole gamut of ignorance, some overtly partial, others still pretending impartiality - and we have the whole internet world and twitterati to interact with to process the ignorance - or more accurately with whom to reinforce our pre-existing biases.

    PS I would say for most things political, this is not a joke. However, for those who truly want to seek out facts, information and ideas, now is indeed an age of enlightenment. The ease of access to sources is stunning compared to just 20 years ago.
    I've read arguments that the Internet has helped to polarise opinions. That, faced with such a mass of information, people gravitate towards people who agree with them.

    That said, there's some really good data, easily accessible for those who want it. I love the ease with which I can get good quality polling data, along with really good political information from people like Lewis Baston, or on this site, people like Alistair Meeks and David Herdson.
    Now I used the example of pyramids/grain, I wonder if that has anything to do with internet or not; or just that some of the presidential candidates are odd and their views widely reported on tv etc
  • Options

    Should Hilary Benn indeed become the next Labour leader, he would then be only one step away from landing my 999/1 bet (949/1 net) with Betfair on him becoming the next British Prime Minister.
    Lifetime achievement awards and legendary status for yours truly surely await!

    On topic, from Dan Hodges in today's Daily Telegraph:

    "Syria airstrikes vote: Hilary Benn didn't just look like the leader of the opposition. He looked like the Prime Minister"
  • Options

    He looked like the Prime Minister"

    he is an aristocrat, after all. Probably makes the appearance thing easier.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    Morning all. A great speech from Hilary Benn - when watched a second time this morning rather than when a little squiffy well after midnight!
    Whole 14 minute speech here.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GTNK4VsXs

  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    edited December 2015
    The lefty backlash started almost immediately. Not a good time to be a moderate Labour MP. Could be an interesting by-election day, there is the feeling of an upset in the air this morning.

    https://twitter.com/LeftUnityUK/status/672198233431654400
  • Options
    foxinsoxukfoxinsoxuk Posts: 23,548

    He looked like the Prime Minister"

    he is an aristocrat, after all. Probably makes the appearance thing easier.
    Not much blue blood really. It was Hilary Benn's great grandfather who was made a baronet in 1914 for sevices to the Liberal party, upgraded to Viscount in 1942 for his son. It is hardy Norman nobility, not that any of that bollocks makes a difference anyway.

  • Options
    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.
  • Options
  • Options

    He looked like the Prime Minister"

    he is an aristocrat, after all. Probably makes the appearance thing easier.
    Not much blue blood really. It was Hilary Benn's great grandfather who was made a baronet in 1914 for sevices to the Liberal party, upgraded to Viscount in 1942 for his son. It is hardy Norman nobility, not that any of that bollocks makes a difference anyway.

    I stand corrected. It was the (possibly subconscious) emphasis on appearance that needled me a little. The speech was professionally done with the added blairite touch of some "jumpers for goalposts" misty eyed stuff at the end. International brigades... the blitz, nice cups of tea
  • Options
    Luckyguy1983Luckyguy1983 Posts: 25,482
    Here we are again. Thanks Parliament.
  • Options
    In order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a member of the Hard Right.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    Meanwhile, a staggering statistic:

    @yoyoha: licensed gun owners haven't stopped a mass shooting once in 355 tries in 2015. now that's what i call a slump
  • Options
    I didn't see the full speech but I did catch the highlights on BBC Parliament and it was very impressive - and crucially, was so in front of the whole PLP. They've seen what they're missing.+-+



    On the other hand, the Labour activists won't forgive him from precisely that reason. My Facebook feed this last day has been overly active from lefty acquaintances going nuts over the Syria vote. There is no way they will forgive Benn for this and my impression is that the market has over-reacted and failed to learn the lessons of this last year.
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    Lots of nervous nelly handwringing on here..just try to retain those images of defenceless hostages having their heads being slowly sliced off..
  • Options

    Social Media or Socialist Media? :lol:

    that'll be the BBC eh? boom tish!

    The odd thing about the explosion of mass communication and availability of information around the world is that it has resulted in a general increase in ignorance rather than a spread of enlightenment.

    this applies to all political shades
    Funnily, I just posted this on Facebook:

    "A quick note on defriending. I have defriended people in the past for posting extreme right-wing views which I find unacceptable and beyond the realm of rational political discourse, who are incapable because of their twisted view of the world of interacting rationally in discussion and who do it not just once (anyone can make a mistake or an ill-judged remark at the wrong time), but repeatedly.

    The same goes for people doing the same from the far left, who like to think of themselves as better than the far right but in fact are just the other side of the same coin. I am not interested in ludicrous conspiracy theories; I am not interested in those advocating violent solutions against a democratic decision you don't like.

    I am more than happy to discuss issues with people with a different view providing that we can do it honestly and with goodwill and respect for each other. I have friends who between them support Con, Lab, LD, Green, UKIP, as well as those of no obvious persuasion. The interaction of ideas and viewpoints should be educational. The risk for those on the extremes is that they both actively and passively create an echo chamber for their own opinions - by blocking those they disagree with and by being defriended by those fed up with their nonsense polluting their newsfeed - and so feel themselves validated by the seemingly universal support for their opinion, when in fact it is shared by only a small minority and the majority in the mainstream despise their intransigence, their dogmatic approach and their lack of contact with the world the rest of us live in. But that then will be their problem, not mine."
  • Options
    Way off topic (sorry)

    " Pistorius believed Steenkamp was in bed, Nel argued: there was a criminal intent to bring about the demise of whoever was inside the toilet cubicle. "

    I hope Pistorius is convicted for this reason
  • Options

    Here we are again. Thanks Parliament.

    https://twitter.com/johnrentoul/status/649490275161763840
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    The lefty backlash started almost immediately. Not a good time to be a moderate Labour MP. Could be an interesting by-election day, there is the feeling of an upset in the air this morning.

    https://twitter.com/LeftUnityUK/status/672198233431654400

    That list contains just about every possible sane (or even semi-sane) replacement for Corbyn. Labour are spectacularly troubled.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Sandpit said:

    Morning all. A great speech from Hilary Benn - when watched a second time this morning rather than when a little squiffy well after midnight!
    Whole 14 minute speech here.
    www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GTNK4VsXs

    Thanks for posting this - I didn't see it last night.

    After all of the breathless hype I was vaguely disappointed.
    It's quite good, but not the Nuremberg Rally quality of speech that is being sold on here.
  • Options
    GeoffMGeoffM Posts: 6,071
    Scott_P said:

    Meanwhile, a staggering statistic:

    @yoyoha: licensed gun owners haven't stopped a mass shooting once in 355 tries in 2015. now that's what i call a slump
    You wouldn't know if you've stopped a mass anything - because you'd have stopped it.
  • Options

    Sandpit said:

    The lefty backlash started almost immediately. Not a good time to be a moderate Labour MP. Could be an interesting by-election day, there is the feeling of an upset in the air this morning.

    https://twitter.com/LeftUnityUK/status/672198233431654400

    That list contains just about every possible sane (or even semi-sane) replacement for Corbyn. Labour are spectacularly troubled.
    Left Unity. Splitters!
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    I haven't seen the whole speech just the clip above but I have a question: I thought applause in the Commons was banned?

    Regardless of the speech, and it seems unanimous that it was excellent, I really don't want this to set a precedent and we have clapping every 30 seconds like QT.
  • Options
    CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 59,782
    edited December 2015

    In order to be a patriot, it is first necessary to be a member of the Hard Right.

    Pretty Trenchant Front page:

    https://twitter.com/nydailynews/status/672234341800521728
  • Options
    richardDoddrichardDodd Posts: 5,472
    DH A lot of front benchers on that list..Corbyn could get very lonely..
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
  • Options

    I haven't seen the whole speech just the clip above but I have a question: I thought applause in the Commons was banned?

    Its frowned upon. Last time of note was Tony Blair's final speech as PM....
  • Options
    watford30watford30 Posts: 3,474
    edited December 2015

    Here we are again. Thanks Parliament.

    Russia bombs anyone = Special kisses for Vladimir from Lovelyboy1983.

    UK bombs DAESH = Bad
  • Options

    DH A lot of front benchers on that list..Corbyn could get very lonely..

    And ex-front benchers. And talked-of future front benchers (Jarvis, for one).
  • Options

    The risk for those on the extremes is that they both actively and passively create an echo chamber for their own opinions - by blocking those they disagree with and by being defriended by those fed up with their nonsense polluting their newsfeed - and so feel themselves validated by the seemingly universal support for their opinion, when in fact it is shared by only a small minority and the majority in the mainstream despise their intransigence, their dogmatic approach and their lack of contact with the world the rest of us live in. But that then will be their problem, not mine."

    True enough, until they become violent, then it's our problem again.

    On the other hand, I guess mainstream opinions could also be self-reinforcing, even if wrong.

    (Global warming would be an example, if it were proved to be false. Personally I think it is real)
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    I haven't seen the whole speech just the clip above but I have a question: I thought applause in the Commons was banned?

    Its frowned upon. Last time of note was Tony Blair's final speech as PM....
    Thank you, let's hope it doesn't happen too often

  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,052

    Here we are again. Thanks Parliament.

    So you're in favour of Russia bombing Syria pretty much indiscriminately and concentrating on non-IS targets, yet when we join in to hit ISIS you complain?
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    Spain GE - latest 2 polls:


    PP – Tory PSOE – Labour Ciu – Centre right Pod – corbynistas!

    R & A PP 28.1 PSOE 21.5 Ciu 20.2 Pod 15.3 Dec 1st
    TNS PP 27.1 PSOE 20.0 Ciu 21.6 Pod 15.5 Nov 29th
  • Options
    JohnLoony said:

    Was yesterday Jeremy Corbyn's Norway debate?
    [snip for extraneous analogies]

    No. Chamberlain didn't offer a free vote. In fact, it was the way he appealed to his Conservative colleagues to support him on grounds of party unity that greatly undermined his position (and indeed, the idea of a one party/pact government).

    I'll be putting forward an alternative analogy on Saturday, if Oldham goes as I think it will.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,936
    edited December 2015
    It was a magnificent speech, but Benn's price is far too short for next Labour leader now.

    It's nice to be in clover on him covering my various Corbyn exits, mind. Of course they could both yet come in :)
  • Options
    PongPong Posts: 4,693
    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

  • Options
    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    No one looks at UKIP. If they did, I'd agree.
  • Options

    The risk for those on the extremes is that they both actively and passively create an echo chamber for their own opinions - by blocking those they disagree with and by being defriended by those fed up with their nonsense polluting their newsfeed - and so feel themselves validated by the seemingly universal support for their opinion, when in fact it is shared by only a small minority and the majority in the mainstream despise their intransigence, their dogmatic approach and their lack of contact with the world the rest of us live in. But that then will be their problem, not mine."

    True enough, until they become violent, then it's our problem again.

    On the other hand, I guess mainstream opinions could also be self-reinforcing, even if wrong.

    (Global warming would be an example, if it were proved to be false. Personally I think it is real)
    That is also true but I think there's something different about the mindset of those on the extremes that makes them more prone to acting in that way. Apart from anything else, they care about politics a lot more than most people, and their division between black and white is much starker.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    And yet by well over 2 to 1the PLP backed Jeremy Corbyn and Labour remains deep in the doo doo.
  • Options

    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    No one looks at UKIP. If they did, I'd agree.
    the parliamentary UKIP is about as divorced from its members as labour is
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,336
    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.
  • Options

    I didn't see the full speech but I did catch the highlights on BBC Parliament and it was very impressive - and crucially, was so in front of the whole PLP. They've seen what they're missing.+-+



    On the other hand, the Labour activists won't forgive him from precisely that reason. My Facebook feed this last day has been overly active from lefty acquaintances going nuts over the Syria vote. There is no way they will forgive Benn for this and my impression is that the market has over-reacted and failed to learn the lessons of this last year.

    You are far more successful in having sensible conversations on Facebook than I am.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.
    Yes - that was the strongest part of the speech.

    When Labour finally confronts 'what it is for' rather than 'which clique is it led by' that speech will be a good place to start.
  • Options
    Sandpit said:

    The lefty backlash started almost immediately. Not a good time to be a moderate Labour MP. Could be an interesting by-election day, there is the feeling of an upset in the air this morning.

    https://twitter.com/LeftUnityUK/status/672198233431654400

    I'd regard being on that list as a roll of honour.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124

    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    No one looks at UKIP. If they did, I'd agree.
    Indeed and while the LDs mostly voted the right way it has not gone down at all well with the grass roots. The SNP also look ridiculous with their monotone block vote. All in all from the political perspective Cameron will be quite pleased.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:


    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    You make a pretty good speech yourself!

    A pity none of the actual mainstream candidates for Labour leadership managed it
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    Thank you. It will probably be overlooked but I also think the criticism that Lord Rooker made in the Lords yesterday of Corbyn is very damning. Less obvious than Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" phrase but more lethal and just as accurate. Whether anyone will listen is another matter, of course.
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492
    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    Isn't that what parliament is all about, making decisions based on debate? Good for Douglas, he's a free thinker who believes in democracy, another 600 of him and we'd be fine.

  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @faisalislam: French President Hollande welcomes overnight UK airstrikes against Da'esh in Syria: https://t.co/daRfVjJOIN

    Pity the Auld Alliance
  • Options
    blackburn63blackburn63 Posts: 4,492

    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    No one looks at UKIP. If they did, I'd agree.
    the parliamentary UKIP is about as divorced from its members as labour is
    What absolute tosh
  • Options
    The really interesting question is this: if Hilary Benn had been Labour leader, and Corbyn merely a shadow cabinet member, with both making precisely the same arguments, would 150 MPs still have voted against the government on a "free vote"?

    It's remarkable how some MPs can always convince themselves that their consciences and careers coincidentally happen to be in perfect alignment.
  • Options
    felixfelix Posts: 15,124
    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.


    Yes - last night confirmed my view that true Labour is pretty much onboard with the Corbyn programme in line with the Nick Palmer revelation of a hard left interior following his double rogering at the hands of la Soubry. Put simply a party that could not be trusted at home or abroad.
  • Options
    JosiasJessopJosiasJessop Posts: 39,052

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    But who will be listening? Sadly it's probably the wrong occasion for such a speech: the people who needed to listen to him will automatically reject it because of the occasion and the rest of his message.

    Next time he gives a similar message it'll be rejected as he's a pro-war traitor who wants Syrian children to die, for terrorists to strike our cities and who supports the secret Bildenberg Group of men (and only men) who run the industrial-military complex in their attempts to take over of the world. (*)

    He should have tried it a month ago, and not tied it so strongly to this vote.

    (*) Essentially the reaction to the vote I've seen on Facebook this morning.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,336
    felix said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.


    Yes - last night confirmed my view that true Labour is pretty much onboard with the Corbyn programme in line with the Nick Palmer revelation of a hard left interior following his double rogering at the hands of la Soubry. Put simply a party that could not be trusted at home or abroad.
    Conservatives for Palmer has been a very distant and slightly confusing memory in recent months.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    Pulpstar said:

    It was a magnificent speech, but Benn's price is far too short for next Labour leader now.

    It's nice to be in clover on him covering my various Corbyn exits, mind. Of course they could both yet come in :)

    Agreed. All the 'next party leader/PM' markets on this page look like lay-the-favourite.
    Next PM has Osborne, Johnson and Corbyn as the top three, can't see it being any of them myself.
    http://www.oddschecker.com/politics/british-politics/next-labour-leader
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453

    It's remarkable how some MPs can always convince themselves that their consciences and careers coincidentally happen to be in perfect alignment.

    It's easier when party rules forbid dissent, like the 56 55 54
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    It was a powerful speech, but look at the first 3 minutes of it. Where was Jeremy Corbyn? He shambled in like a pupil late for a GSCE lesson in a subject he hates. Why did he do that. I could imagine he claimed that Liz Kendall tied his shoes together, or that he was having a chat with the boys and girls from Stop the War outside the gates.

    Look at Corbyn's face whilst he sat behind Benn, is it contempt for the man's words or just an expression of fraternity?

    A leader arrving late during his side's summing up speech, how and why did it happen?
  • Options
    JenSJenS Posts: 91
    Notice how Corbyn had neither the grace nor the guile to congratulate his Foreign Secretary on an outstanding speech. Instead he looked like a sulky schoolboy.
  • Options
    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    Nope. UKIP have always maintained a policy that they don't whip their elected members at whatever level of Government. I know the fanatics from the other parties find this hard to understand but they have a policy of free votes on all issues. It is one of the reasons I like them in spite of not being a Farage fan.

    If you have voting policy dictated by someone outside Parliament (or by whips inside Parliament) then speeches like Benn's last night become utterly pointless as does the whole debate.
  • Options
    PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 75,936
    edited December 2015


    It's remarkable how some MPs can always convince themselves that their consciences and careers coincidentally happen to be in perfect alignment.


    He's going to vote,
    Maybe he'll vote twice;
    Gonna find out which way he'll bend.
    Andy Burnham is going through the Lobbies
    Andy Burnham is going through the Lobbies
    Andy Burnham is going through the Lobbies ♩
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216
    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.

    True enough. Genuine question: didn't the majority of Tory MPs in 1940 support Chamberlain after the Norway debate?

    Authority can drain away even if you have the votes and win a by-election.

    Benn set out an alternative view of what Labour can and should be. He challenged Labour to be the best it could be. If they don't take it up, their funeral. But it may be like a pebble thrown into a pond. Who knows where the ripples will end up?
  • Options
    I got very emotional last night listening to Benn's speech. He spoke for a Labour party many of us would be proud to support. But the cold, hard fact is that Labour is now led by an apologist for terrorism and murder whose key advisers are also apologists for terrorism and murder, and most Labour members have no problem with that. Until this changes, Labour's chances of recovery look bleak. It's not a party I could vote for currently.

    One more thing - last night was not an opportunity for the PLP to go after Corbyn. You can't do that on a matter like this. You have to vote as your conscious dictates. I suspect many Labour MPs who want JC to go voted with him last night. That is admirable, even if I disagree with them.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919

    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    Isn't that what parliament is all about, making decisions based on debate? Good for Douglas, he's a free thinker who believes in democracy, another 600 of him and we'd be fine.
    Agree completely with that sentiment. Carswell is a good man who probably now regrets his decision to defect.

    He even managed to do defection with honour, set a good precedent of resigning his seat to cross the floor.

    The dynamic would be very different if he had Farage sitting alongside him in the House, and we would be discussing it a lot more here.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    But who will be listening? Sadly it's probably the wrong occasion for such a speech: the people who needed to listen to him will automatically reject it because of the occasion and the rest of his message.

    Next time he gives a similar message it'll be rejected as he's a pro-war traitor who wants Syrian children to die, for terrorists to strike our cities and who supports the secret Bildenberg Group of men (and only men) who run the industrial-military complex in their attempts to take over of the world. (*)

    He should have tried it a month ago, and not tied it so strongly to this vote.

    (*) Essentially the reaction to the vote I've seen on Facebook this morning.
    It was the perfect speech for the House of Commons at the time he made it. But, as you rightly say, it will have a chilling effect on his leadership prospects. Never was the gap between the Benn and the Bennites so clear.
  • Options
    Cyclefree said:

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    Thank you. It will probably be overlooked but I also think the criticism that Lord Rooker made in the Lords yesterday of Corbyn is very damning. Less obvious than Cameron's "terrorist sympathisers" phrase but more lethal and just as accurate. Whether anyone will listen is another matter, of course.
    Looked it up:

    Some say that my party is in a difficult position; I do not think that it is, really. My party leader cannot be accused, like the Prime Minister, of misleading anyone. To my knowledge, he has never agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life or western liberal democracies—and he will not. I am in the terrible position, having been in Westminster since February 1974, of believing that there are Members of the Cabinet who I would trust more to be Prime Minister than my own party leader. We need to get rid of him before we face the electorate and have a leader fit and proper to offer themselves as our Prime Minister. If I was still in the Commons, where I was for 27 years, I would be voting with the Government tonight.

    http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201516/ldhansrd/text/151202-0002.htm#15120266000124
  • Options
    philiphphiliph Posts: 4,704

    I didn't see the full speech but I did catch the highlights on BBC Parliament and it was very impressive - and crucially, was so in front of the whole PLP. They've seen what they're missing.+-+



    On the other hand, the Labour activists won't forgive him from precisely that reason. My Facebook feed this last day has been overly active from lefty acquaintances going nuts over the Syria vote. There is no way they will forgive Benn for this and my impression is that the market has over-reacted and failed to learn the lessons of this last year.

    You are far more successful in having sensible conversations on Facebook than I am.
    A good example of shy Tories, and why they could still exist.
  • Options

    Cyclefree said:

    It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get
    deselections may get less traction.

    As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.

    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
    That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
    I'd never vote Labour but that's the Labour I respect and exactly the sort I wish was HM's loyal opposition.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216

    Cyclefree said:


    It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.

    You make a pretty good speech yourself!

    A pity none of the actual mainstream candidates for Labour leadership managed it
    There's quite a lot of us here who could make a better case for Labour than any of the mainstream candidates! That's Labour's problem.

  • Options

    I didn't see the full speech but I did catch the highlights on BBC Parliament and it was very impressive - and crucially, was so in front of the whole PLP. They've seen what they're missing.+-+

    On the other hand, the Labour activists won't forgive him from precisely that reason. My Facebook feed this last day has been overly active from lefty acquaintances going nuts over the Syria vote. There is no way they will forgive Benn for this and my impression is that the market has over-reacted and failed to learn the lessons of this last year.

    You are far more successful in having sensible conversations on Facebook than I am.
    The one I posted yesterday was an exception.
  • Options
    dr_spyndr_spyn Posts: 11,288
    @David_Herdson

    Link to debate.

    http://parliamentlive.tv/Event/Index/4e6d04ee-df49-4789-a54a-42f2c7be53b2

    Hilary Benn starts about 21.30 IRC.

    Spot the Corbyn, 3 minutes later.
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851
    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    Listening to the arguments for and against, before then taking your own decision, seems perfectly sensible to me.
  • Options
    CD13CD13 Posts: 6,351
    I've predicted a 2K win for Labour today because it's a bye-election and not a GE - they are electing an MP and not a PM.

    Were this a GE, those tribal Labour voters would be focussing on electing a PM much more and Oldham would be a loss.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.


    Yes - last night confirmed my view that true Labour is pretty much onboard with the Corbyn programme in line with the Nick Palmer revelation of a hard left interior following his double rogering at the hands of la Soubry. Put simply a party that could not be trusted at home or abroad.
    Conservatives for Palmer has been a very distant and slightly confusing memory in recent months.
    Meaningless. It was just a vote for a good constituency MP whilst Labour were still in power: 'I'm quite 'meh' apolitical, despite being a Conservative voter by background and/or habit, but I've met Nick and he's polite, responds to my letters and I like him."

    He wasn't converting any Tories to Trots by virtue of his rhetoric. If you want to see what a real marginal seat Labour MP can do to hold onto Tory votes, look no further than Gisela Stuart.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,336
    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.

    True enough. Genuine question: didn't the majority of Tory MPs in 1940 support Chamberlain after the Norway debate?

    Authority can drain away even if you have the votes and win a by-election.

    Benn set out an alternative view of what Labour can and should be. He challenged Labour to be the best it could be. If they don't take it up, their funeral. But it may be like a pebble thrown into a pond. Who knows where the ripples will end up?
    Re Norway I think you're right but the circumstances were very different because they were in government with a healthy majority. Failure to back the PM would have instantly brought the government down which would have been chaotic in those terrible circumstances.

    On Labour I share Southam's pessimism and unlike many on here I take no pleasure from it at all. Last night reminded us how effective and important an intelligent, reasoned and rational opposition can be. The comparison with McDonnell throwing his little red book around is just painful. Our country and this government are both weaker for the lack of such an opposition. It may make the likes of Osborne's life easier in the short run but it will lead to mistakes, arguably already has.
  • Options
    Scott_PScott_P Posts: 51,453
    @DPJHodges: John McDonnell compares Hilary Benn to Tony Blair. Deliberately.
  • Options
    CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 25,216
    JenS said:

    Notice how Corbyn had neither the grace nor the guile to congratulate his Foreign Secretary on an outstanding speech. Instead he looked like a sulky schoolboy.


    And yet people still say he is a decent man. He seems the opposite to me. He behaves like a badly-mannered adolescent.

  • Options
    Good morning, peace-loving brothers and sisters (war-mongering capitalists - your days are numbered!).

    Saw Abbott on TV, with a hilarious attempt at spin. Apparently it was a great achievement for the Labour leader to persuade most of his own party to vote his way despite the evil media campaign against him.

    Surprised quite how much it dominated the BBC news at ten, but there we are.

    If Corbyn wins the by-election then this may be a reasonably good week (the by-election should be a dead cert, but with things as they are, it's conceivable it could be lost. And if it were, that would cause ructions).
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.

    That's true as well. There were times over the last week where we were talking of there being over a 100 Labour rebels, or even Corbyn's supporters being in a minority of the PLP.

    Who'd have thought they'd be so frit.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919

    I got very emotional last night listening to Benn's speech. He spoke for a Labour party many of us would be proud to support. But the cold, hard fact is that Labour is now led by an apologist for terrorism and murder whose key advisers are also apologists for terrorism and murder, and most Labour members have no problem with that. Until this changes, Labour's chances of recovery look bleak. It's not a party I could vote for currently.

    One more thing - last night was not an opportunity for the PLP to go after Corbyn. You can't do that on a matter like this. You have to vote as your conscious dictates. I suspect many Labour MPs who want JC to go voted with him last night. That is admirable, even if I disagree with them.

    Well said Sir. It's increasingly looking like the sensible members of the party are being hounded out, a real shame for democracy.

    There must be a reasonable chance now of resignations of the Labour whip, if not defections to another party. Doubly so if the by-election goes against Labour tonight.
  • Options
    DavidL said:

    Cyclefree said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.

    True enough. Genuine question: didn't the majority of Tory MPs in 1940 support Chamberlain after the Norway debate?

    Authority can drain away even if you have the votes and win a by-election.

    Benn set out an alternative view of what Labour can and should be. He challenged Labour to be the best it could be. If they don't take it up, their funeral. But it may be like a pebble thrown into a pond. Who knows where the ripples will end up?
    Re Norway I think you're right but the circumstances were very different because they were in government with a healthy majority. Failure to back the PM would have instantly brought the government down which would have been chaotic in those terrible circumstances.
    Hang on, it *did* bring the government down?! Indeed, that was the precise and explicit objective of some of the critics, such as Leo Amery.
  • Options
    Pulpstar said:

    It was a magnificent speech, but Benn's price is far too short for next Labour leader now.

    It's nice to be in clover on him covering my various Corbyn exits, mind. Of course they could both yet come in :)

    Indeed it is. I'm not backing him at 2/1 or 3/1.

    I suspect his price will now be stuck round about there for a while, so there will be value elsewhere.
  • Options
    DavidLDavidL Posts: 51,336

    DavidL said:

    felix said:

    DavidL said:

    I thought it was a very fine speech and made the case for intervention better than the government itself. It had a clearer vision of why this action was necessary and why there is a moral imperative to confront and destroy this evil.

    But I also agree with @AlastairMeeks that a speech does not change the Parliamentary arithmetic. Nearly 2/3 of the PLP backed Corbyn's position last night (whether they agreed with what might very loosely be called his "analysis" or not) as did (just) the majority of the Labour shadow cabinet. I fear the outcome of this vote is that his position will become stronger, not weaker. He is not quite as far out of line with the PLP as some of us would like to believe.

    The PLP had a chance last night to make Corbyn's position untenable. They did not take it. Such chances will not come around too often and the risk is that the sane wing of Labour will be weaker each time that they do. The long march to the cliff edge of oblivion continues.


    Yes - last night confirmed my view that true Labour is pretty much onboard with the Corbyn programme in line with the Nick Palmer revelation of a hard left interior following his double rogering at the hands of la Soubry. Put simply a party that could not be trusted at home or abroad.
    Conservatives for Palmer has been a very distant and slightly confusing memory in recent months.
    Meaningless. It was just a vote for a good constituency MP whilst Labour were still in power: 'I'm quite 'meh' apolitical, despite being a Conservative voter by background and/or habit, but I've met Nick and he's polite, responds to my letters and I like him."

    He wasn't converting any Tories to Trots by virtue of his rhetoric. If you want to see what a real marginal seat Labour MP can do to hold onto Tory votes, look no further than Gisela Stuart.
    I've had the pleasure of meeting Nick too and found him very pleasant company. But he did keep these Corbynite views rather well hidden, both at that PB meet and to his constituents.
  • Options
    SandpitSandpit Posts: 49,919
    Scott_P said:

    @DPJHodges: John McDonnell compares Hilary Benn to Tony Blair. Deliberately.

    LOL. Tony Blair won three elections, and had people like me vote for him as recently as 2001. Have the party forgotten about winning elections, or have they stopped caring?
  • Options
    Sean_FSean_F Posts: 35,851

    Good morning, peace-loving brothers and sisters (war-mongering capitalists - your days are numbered!).

    Saw Abbott on TV, with a hilarious attempt at spin. Apparently it was a great achievement for the Labour leader to persuade most of his own party to vote his way despite the evil media campaign against him.

    Surprised quite how much it dominated the BBC news at ten, but there we are.

    If Corbyn wins the by-election then this may be a reasonably good week (the by-election should be a dead cert, but with things as they are, it's conceivable it could be lost. And if it were, that would cause ructions).

    I think Labour will win the by-election, narrowly, but a narrow win is still an awful result.
  • Options
    Sean_F said:

    Pong said:

    btw - doesn't UKIP look a bit ridiculous?

    From what I understand the party were against bombing ISIS, yet Carswell voted for - on the basis that Hillary Benn had convinced him.

    Listening to the arguments for and against, before then taking your own decision, seems perfectly sensible to me.
    Yes - Carswell commented on Twitter throughout the debate - it wasn't just Benn he found persuasive, but Beckett and Johnson among others too.

    Quite a few MPs set out their reasons for voting the way they did - on both sides - and most of them come across as thoughtful & sincere. Corbyn - and his subsequent comments - do not.
This discussion has been closed.