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.
Not on the night it didn't. Cyclefree is right that authority drained away in the hours after.
PoliticsHome @politicshome 5m5 minutes ago John McDonnell on abuse of MPs: “This is not acceptable on either side. I had a death threat the other day for not voting for the war."
Has McDonnell been discussing this with the police?
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.
FPTP makes any breakaway futile. MPs would be mad to leave Labour currently. Right now they are better off fighting their corner in the hope something changes and the Nick Palmers of this world come to realise the damage their self-indulgent tolerance of Corbyn's lifelong apologism for terrorism and murder is doing to Labour. A few deselections might change that, though.
@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?
The latter. Shouting abuse at your opponents is MUCH more important.
A gang of sixty-six has the potential to be a more potent electoral force than the gang of four ever were.
The fruitcakes, loonies and 'anti-racists' may have the upper hand at the moment, but the electorate will move away from the old Labour brand much more sharply if they are presented with a credible alternative - perhaps even one that co-opts Labour into part of their name.
The real question is, after last night, could the membership ever vote for Benn in a contest?
If the corbyn faction can organise enough MPs to get one of their own on the ticket in a contest, then that faction, with the member as it is effectively controls Labour.
At the moment they need 35 MPs to do it. Do they have that number, or can generate that number?
@sammacrory: John McDonnell praises then compares Benn's speech to Blair's on Iraq, which should in no way fuel any Benn backlash. Not at all. #r4today
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.
The Labour Party is an idea whose time has gone. Have I said that before?
Mr. F, I agree, but the portrayal by the hard left will be of Corbyn achieving victory despite the evil efforts of rightwing media.
The risk for Labour is that they've going to shear off the WWC and give UKIP an opportunity I can scarcely believe they'll get [I thought 2015 was the perfect electoral set-up for UKIP, with a coalition government and Labour led by Ed Miliband, but 2020 *might* be even better, if Corbyn's still there].
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.
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 ♩
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 ♩
Lol!
I'm struggling to think of a Labour MP I respect less than Andy Burnham. I mean, I detest McDonnell and Corbyn, but at least I don't just laugh at them.
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.
How can good people like Lord Rooker and Hilary Benn in all consciousness remain in a party led by the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell?
My Lords, the case is clear: Daesh is coming for us. It tries to use our innate tolerance to undermine us, in exactly the same way as the anti-British Trots in the Labour Party are using our tolerance to try to get control.
The Twitter feed on '66 Labour MPs' is a great demonstration of the 'new politics'.....
The new 'kind and gentle' politics that was sending photos of dead children to MPs yesterday, and is now calling them child murderers. Nice, kind and gentle politics.
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.
An narrow defeat could in some ways be a worse result for Labour; "all is well; nothing to see; seat defended; move along", which they will. At least a defeat gives much more meaningful substance to critics - though they have to be prepared to use it.
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
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.
The Labour Party is an idea whose time has gone. Have I said that before?
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.
How can good people like Lord Rooker and Hilary Benn in all consciousness remain in a party led by the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell?
If they don't, who will? They care about their party (as they should). What option do they have but to stand and fight? (After all, Corbyn refused to leave during the Blair years and look what it did for his strain of thinking).
The Twitter feed on '66 Labour MPs' is a great demonstration of the 'new politics'.....
The new 'kind and gentle' politics that was sending photos of dead children to MPs yesterday, and is now calling them child murderers. Nice, kind and gentle politics.
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.
How can good people like Lord Rooker and Hilary Benn in all consciousness remain in a party led by the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell?
The alternative would be to leave politics. Plus, Labour is in their blood. They must truly believe it can be rescued. They're probably wrong, but good luck to them.
The real question is, after last night, could the membership ever vote for Benn in a contest?
If the corbyn faction can organise enough MPs to get one of their own on the ticket in a contest, then that faction, with the member as it is effectively controls Labour.
At the moment they need 35 MPs to do it. Do they have that number, or can generate that number?
The Corbynites have actually suffered a reverse with Oldham no matter who wins. Meacher would have been a nominee for the far left; his replacement won't be whether it's UKIP or McMahon.
@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?
Labour likes to oppose. It enjoys being the schoolkid at the back of the class who disagrees. It loves to rally against the world as it is. To take the 'principled' stand even though this doesn't chime with the necessary voters that would put it in power. It likes losing.
In the 90s and 00s, Labour decided for a while that it liked being in government for a change. This is looking more and more like an aberration. Blair is the new MacDonald: a traitor to his party and the cause. It is hard to see where Labour goes from here. That Benn gave a fine speech to the House won't register with them, he's still on the deselection list!
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
I like his online diaries, but poor show from John Redwood
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
Rather disappointed with Redwood (and the other abstainees). We elect MPs to make decisions as they see best for our best interests. I really don't see how simply refusing to make a decision one way or another helps anyone.
Labour says it expects to hold Oldham West today thanks to the support of the Muslim vote which backs the position of Corbyn and local candidate Jim McMahon in opposing strikes and makes up 24% if the seat. However it also says it has seen the white working class vote surge to UKIP
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.
How can good people like Lord Rooker and Hilary Benn in all consciousness remain in a party led by the likes of Corbyn and McDonnell?
The alternative would be to leave politics. Plus, Labour is in their blood. They must truly believe it can be rescued. They're probably wrong, but good luck to them.
Once the deselections start they have nothing to lose. Better surely to get out now and leave the lunatics to run their own asylum?
Maybe if they go now they have a chance of bringing some union support (=cash) with them.
Sad indeed to see the demise of a once great party.
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.
The final bit on the need to fight fascism was good. It is rare for any of our politicians to call out Islamists as Fascists.
A lot of the rest was well presented emotionalism with fairly poor logic underlying it. A lot like Corbyn's speech in that way, but better executed. Appeals to emotion over cold analysis is the mark of a charismatic leader, but also a mark of a demagogue.
On another issue: Not since the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has a name been so misused as Left Unity!
@sammacrory: John McDonnell praises then compares Benn's speech to Blair's on Iraq, which should in no way fuel any Benn backlash. Not at all. #r4today
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
Surprised about Ken Clarke, I wonder if he was unwell.
My concern about those who voted against is not that they are dishonest or don't genuinely hold their views. It is that they set the bar for action by us impossibly high.
The British PM is and will remain a bit player in the Coalition against Da'esh. It is therefore ridiculous to demand comprehensive solutions from him to very difficult problems as a pre-condition of action.
It is also true that our armed forces are now relatively modest and are unlikely to make a critical difference. So what? We are a part of a Coalition and because we can't do everything does not mean we do nothing.
Our reduced status in the world means we need to act through coalitions. To be able to rely on Coalitions we need to be a team player when asked to help as we were by both the French and the UN (in the resolution).
The argument for not taking this relatively minor step beyond what we were already doing is an argument for defeatism, pacifism and disengagement from the world and its problems. I don't question their integrity but I do question their judgement and their view of our role in the world.
"It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour"
Very good post. It was an inspired decision by Benn to approach this from a position his own party could understand-you could say left field-and as you suggest it was about much more than whether or not we get involved in Syria. It got to the heart of Labour values and reminded me a lot of Kinnock's conference speech all those years ago.
Though on cool reflection i'm still ambivalent on the bombing it shifted my thinking in other ways which is unusual even possibly unique from a single speech.
F1: America's listed as provisional. The immense rainfall this year damaged attendance and profits significantly, and I believe state aid is being reduced as well.
Bringing in the far left, such as the likes of Left Unity, will be Corbyn's downfall - him and John are discovering outside factions cannot be controlled. The bullying of MP's, especially high profile female labourites, will not sit well with the public.
As I said last night, Labour rebels now have a potential candidate and an idea to rally behind. IF the party moves to expel one, all of them could jump ship and create a new party (third largest in the commons if over 54+ leave)
That new party would be do more damage than the SDP ever could.
@dhothersall: Virtually everything here wrong. Bombing Daesh in Iraq IS working. Vote does NOT rule out other diplomatic activity. https://t.co/HkF0TcosLf
Hilary Benn must now be favourite to be Labour's Michael Howard provided Labour MPs can crown him unopposed without consulting members as Tory MPs did with Howard. Also don't forget Michael Howard also differed with his former leader IDS on foreign policy for while IDS received praise from Dick Cheney for his staunch backing for the Iraq War Karl Rove banned Howard from the White House because of his criticism of Blair over the issue and his accusation he lied over WMD
@BolsoverBeast: Those of us who admired and respected Tony Benn were listening for a cock crow after his son denied him 3 times.
Peter denied Jesus in Gethsemane, but went on to be (as Jesus foretold) the rock on which the church was founded. @BolsoverBeast needs to study his Scripture a little better!
F1: America's listed as provisional. The immense rainfall this year damaged attendance and profits significantly, and I believe state aid is being reduced as well.
Losing America and gaining Azerbaijan is not necessarily a step forward.
F1 is in big trouble until the octogenarian dwarf and his money men disappear.
Everyone seems to want more F1 in the USA, but first world economies will not have governments subsidise sporting events in times of tightened spending.
Mr. Sandpit, quite. But whilst Ecclestone et al. are led purely by money and are happy to lose major markets and European heartlands (no France, no Germany this year, question marks over Monza, Spa and Silverstone) it'll continue to slide.
Hate is the glue that keeps the Labour Party bound together. The Tories will do in a pinch, but they seem to much prefer a fellow Leftie to really get their bile ducts working overtime.
I said previously that, objectively, rationally, Corbyn might see it as good result of his time at the head the Party if he left with an old Leftie Benn at the helm. A result that could have united the party and given it a distinctive socialist offering but without scaring the horses. But then you look at Corbyn's face whilst Benn was making the case for the Start The War coalition - and you see nothing but hatred oozing from his eyes.
Labour says it expects to hold Oldham West today thanks to the support of the Muslim vote which backs the position of Corbyn and local candidate Jim McMahon in opposing strikes and makes up 24% if the seat. However it also says it has seen the white working class vote surge to UKIP
It should be safe for Labour - which means a very nice return, tax free, in one day.
With the 'Community Leaders' harvesting thousands of votes for them, Labour would need a total collapse among its public sector, welfare and "Our family's always voted Labour, they're the party of the working class" heritage votes.
The Conservative vote in the constituency would be middle class from the better parts of Chadderton and Royton and probably harder for UKIP to pick up than Labour's wwc vote.
But being believed to have won because of Muslim votes is not going to do Labour any good.
If somehow Labour loses then the civil war breaks out.
Many congratulations to Hilary Benn on a fine speech. It soared and contained all the light and shade that great speeches have. True Labour, British Labour, Planet Earth Labour should be very proud of him.As for JC I thought that this was meant to be his specialised subject. His dire speech barely got off the ground and then fell back with the dull clang of a North London manhole cover. Now to Oldham to hear the verdict of the good people there on the Corbyn surge.
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 ♩
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 ♩
Lol!
I'm struggling to think of a Labour MP I respect less than Andy Burnham. I mean, I detest McDonnell and Corbyn, but at least I don't just laugh at them.
I forget which poster nicknamed Burnham " Reek" but it seems very apt.
I won't delve into details as spoilers (especially given the prolonged delay to DVDs) are tricky with people watching things at different times, but Burnham's choosing to be Reek.
Labour says it expects to hold Oldham West today thanks to the support of the Muslim vote which backs the position of Corbyn and local candidate Jim McMahon in opposing strikes and makes up 24% if the seat. However it also says it has seen the white working class vote surge to UKIP
It should be safe for Labour - which means a very nice return, tax free, in one day.
With the 'Community Leaders' harvesting thousands of votes for them, Labour would need a total collapse among its public sector, welfare and "Our family's always voted Labour, they're the party of the working class" heritage votes.
The Conservative vote in the constituency would be middle class from the better parts of Chadderton and Royton and probably harder for UKIP to pick up than Labour's wwc vote.
But being believed to have won because of Muslim votes is not going to do Labour any good.
If somehow Labour loses then the civil war breaks out.
"A lot of the rest was well presented emotionalism with fairly poor logic underlying it. A lot like Corbyn's speech in that way, but better executed. Appeals to emotion over cold analysis is the mark of a charismatic leader, but also a mark of a demagogue."
I think that was the whole point and why he approached it that way. There's no logic for or against the UK adding 4% to the bombing capacity of the forces facing ISIS. The task he set himself was to galvanize the opposition particularly on his own side to what he correctly described as solidarity aganst fascism. Remember the question of who are the real fascists is something the Labour party has been struggling with since Corbyn became leader.
The look of poison on Corbyn's face was very encouraging. He looked like a volcano which was about to explode. Its going to happen one day, the media and others just need to keep prodding and one day he will completely lose it.
The look of poison on Corbyn's face was very encouraging. He looked like a volcano which was about to explode. Its going to happen one day, the media and others just need to keep prodding and one day he will completely lose it.
Bet Corbyn was invoking the spirit of Jamie Vardy "Chat shit, get banged"
How much grief is Benn going to get from arch lefties using his father as a stick to beat him with?
"A lot of the rest was well presented emotionalism with fairly poor logic underlying it. A lot like Corbyn's speech in that way, but better executed. Appeals to emotion over cold analysis is the mark of a charismatic leader, but also a mark of a demagogue."
I think that was the whole point and why he approached it that way. There's no logic for or against the UK adding 4% to the bombing capacity of the forces facing ISIS. The task he set himself was to galvanize the opposition particularly on his own side to what he correctly described as solidarity aganst fascism. Remember the question of who are the real fascists is something the Labour party has been struggling with since Corbyn became leader.
I am suspicious of charismatic leaders who preach emotionalism. Charisma slides into demogogary and can slip into facism itself. Indeed that is how Wahabism developed!
Labour says it expects to hold Oldham West today thanks to the support of the Muslim vote which backs the position of Corbyn and local candidate Jim McMahon in opposing strikes and makes up 24% if the seat. However it also says it has seen the white working class vote surge to UKIP
It should be safe for Labour - which means a very nice return, tax free, in one day.
With the 'Community Leaders' harvesting thousands of votes for them, Labour would need a total collapse among its public sector, welfare and "Our family's always voted Labour, they're the party of the working class" heritage votes.
The Conservative vote in the constituency would be middle class from the better parts of Chadderton and Royton and probably harder for UKIP to pick up than Labour's wwc vote.
But being believed to have won because of Muslim votes is not going to do Labour any good.
If somehow Labour loses then the civil war breaks out.
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
Surprised about Ken Clarke, I wonder if he was unwell.
My concern about those who voted against is not that they are dishonest or don't genuinely hold their views. It is that they set the bar for action by us impossibly high.
The British PM is and will remain a bit player in the Coalition against Da'esh. It is therefore ridiculous to demand comprehensive solutions from him to very difficult problems as a pre-condition of action.
It is also true that our armed forces are now relatively modest and are unlikely to make a critical difference. So what? We are a part of a Coalition and because we can't do everything does not mean we do nothing.
Our reduced status in the world means we need to act through coalitions. To be able to rely on Coalitions we need to be a team player when asked to help as we were by both the French and the UN (in the resolution).
The argument for not taking this relatively minor step beyond what we were already doing is an argument for defeatism, pacifism and disengagement from the world and its problems. I don't question their integrity but I do question their judgement and their view of our role in the world.
No, it was an argument for reality, for the maturity to face facts. For refusing to be emotionally manipulated once again into supporting an open-ended conflict we can ill afford. When we in Britain have a healthy democracy, a healthy economy, a strong society, and a well equipped military, then perhaps it will be time to intervene militarily abroad. Then perhaps we will be worth listening to.
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
The other point of course is that Corbyn's fury at Benn's speech and voting against Corbyn's party line was lost on a man who voted against his own party countless times and will use whatever means he can to get his way. Very dangerous, he needs politically castrating.
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
So much for Aryan supremacists
Apparently ISIS were congratulating them on twitter last night using the hashtag #america_burning.. I didn't like to mention it until the names were released
The mind boggles as to why the left are so bloody nasty.
They believe they have right on their side and are engaged in a moral crusade. Hence it is entirely legitimate to attack anyone who stands in their way. That's how they justify it to themselves anyway.
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
Looks like the guy "went postal" at a gathering with his colleagues, came back with his wife tooled up to the hilt and determined to take out as many as he could.
Thankfully seems that religion wasn't a factor (depending on what comments sparked him in the first place). But the fact remain that every 3 months, Americans inflict the death toll of 9/11 on each other. One event defined American attitudes for the twenty-first century. But we have now had the equivalent death toll of fifty 9/11s since that fateful day - but America refuses to confront gun control. Extraordinary.
MrsB, it's the non-religious equivalent of believing a god is on your side, so whatever action you take is acceptable.
Mr. Mark, America's odd. I really like the First Amendment and wish we had something similar, but the Second Amendment is crackers [at least, the way it's applied]. Americans have the right to say anything they like, and then get shot for it.
Question - if Cameron wanted to put boots on the ground would he have to go back to Parliament to ask for permission? (I know technically he could just do it, but he could have just authorized the bombings but he did ask Parliament).
Question - if Cameron wanted to put boots on the ground would he have to go back to Parliament to ask for permission? (I know technically he could just do it, but he could have just authorized the bombings but he did ask Parliament).
I'd be surprised if there's not more than a few of the Hereford Branch of the Diplomatic Service there already!
Police named the two suspects as Syed Rizwan Farook, 28, and Tashfeen Malik and said the pair appeared to be "in a relationship", although they did not confirm the couple were married. However, Farook's colleagues at the Inland Regional Centre - where 14 people were shot dead and another 17 were wounded - told the LA Times that he had gone to Saudi Arabia and returned with a new wife, whom he had met online. An unnamed family member identified the wife as Malik.
The pair were later killed by police in a shoot-out several hours after the attack on the centre.
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
Surprised about Ken Clarke, I wonder if he was unwell.
My concern about those who voted against is not that they are dishonest or don't genuinely hold their views. It is that they set the bar for action by us impossibly high.
The British PM is and will remain a bit player in the Coalition against Da'esh. It is therefore ridiculous to demand comprehensive solutions from him to very difficult problems as a pre-condition of action.
It is also true that our armed forces are now relatively modest and are unlikely to make a critical difference. So what? We are a part of a Coalition and because we can't do everything does not mean we do nothing.
Our reduced status in the world means we need to act through coalitions. To be able to rely on Coalitions we need to be a team player when asked to help as we were by both the French and the UN (in the resolution).
The argument for not taking this relatively minor step beyond what we were already doing is an argument for defeatism, pacifism and disengagement from the world and its problems. I don't question their integrity but I do question their judgement and their view of our role in the world.
No, it was an argument for reality, for the maturity to face facts. For refusing to be emotionally manipulated once again into supporting an open-ended conflict we can ill afford. When we in Britain have a healthy democracy, a healthy economy, a strong society, and a well equipped military, then perhaps it will be time to intervene militarily abroad. Then perhaps we will be worth listening to.
Hold on, surely you meant 'Russia' instead of 'Britain' in that?
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Unbelievable as it seems, looks like Hilary Benn might be spending the next few days with a policeman or two for company. For making a speech in Parliament.
Someone needs to very publicly call off the mob, and quickly, before some idiot does something stupid.
@patrickwintour: Stop the War Coalition. "If an MP is not robust enough to withstand emails and tweets, they should not be voting for bombing other people"
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
Looks like the guy "went postal" at a gathering with his colleagues, came back with his wife tooled up to the hilt and determined to take out as many as he could.
Thankfully seems that religion wasn't a factor (depending on what comments sparked him in the first place). But the fact remain that every 3 months, Americans inflict the death toll of 9/11 on each other. One event defined American attitudes for the twenty-first century. But we have now had the equivalent death toll of fifty 9/11s since that fateful day - but America refuses to confront gun control. Extraordinary.
I feel like a stuck record saying this every time this happens, but there are countries with more guns than the States and less gun crime, and countries with less guns than the States and more gun crime. It's a profound sickness at the heart of that country that creates these dreadful events - something far harder to deal with than restricting the sale of weapons.
Just watched the full Benn speech. A masterclass in oratory and use of tone and voice. It's been a very long time since someone in the Labour party has been capable of delivering that kind of speech (I'm talking here about the sheer ability rather than the content). It will be remembered for a very long time.
What a woeful load of wiffle Corbyn's speech looks and sounds in comparison. Pathetic.
Glad I'm on Benn at 18/1. Time for Labour to wake up out of its daydream and get back to being a real opposition that takes its responsibilities seriously.
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
The other point of course is that Corbyn's fury at Benn's speech and voting against Corbyn's party line was lost on a man who voted against his own party countless times and will use whatever means he can to get his way. Very dangerous, he needs politically castrating.
Corbyn may be furious with Benn. If he is, I agree that it is inconsistent with his own political career of opposing the Labour leadership.
I read Corbyn's body language differently. I thought he looked extremely stressed. Fidgeting about, grimacing, almost belching at times. I'm not sure how much more of this he can or wants to take.
The other point of course is that Corbyn's fury at Benn's speech and voting against Corbyn's party line was lost on a man who voted against his own party countless times and will use whatever means he can to get his way. Very dangerous, he needs politically castrating.
Corbyn may be furious with Benn. If he is, I agree that it is inconsistent with his own political career of opposing the Labour leadership.
I read Corbyn's body language differently. I thought he looked extremely stressed. Fidgeting about, grimacing, almost belching at times. I'm not sure how much more of this he can or wants to take.
Excellent speech by Benn.
I read somewhere that Corbyn pretends in interviews that he is enjoying the responsibility, but actually he is utterly miserable. I doubt he'll make 2020 myself, but he will stick it long enough to change party structures and so on. The moderates need to move faster.
Unbelievable as it seems, looks like Hilary Benn might be spending the next few days with a policeman or two for company. For making a speech in Parliament.
Someone needs to very publicly call off the mob, and quickly, before some idiot does something stupid.
Hopefully people making death threats will be getting a visit from the plod and will be prosecuted accordingly.
The point about Benn's speech was not that it was a good speech or not - the logic of the motion was self evident - but that it was a brave speech. He was making it in the face of significant intimidation from a gang of entryists in his own party. This was not a speech aimed at the motion either, like a number of others it was just one more shot in Labour's civil war.
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
So much for Aryan supremacists
Apparently ISIS were congratulating them on twitter last night using the hashtag #america_burning.. I didn't like to mention it until the names were released
When I mentioned yesterday that this act might be Islamist related @whatshisnumber1000 said in no uncertain terms that it wasn't.
And now the Californian authorities are suggesting that it was a personal revenge attack. To me thats all a crock of shit. They were uniformed, armoured, had explosives (bombs) ready, as well as machine guns - all elements of a suddenly unplanned revenge attack. I think not. https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/672262043752226816
Unbelievable as it seems, looks like Hilary Benn might be spending the next few days with a policeman or two for company. For making a speech in Parliament.
Someone needs to very publicly call off the mob, and quickly, before some idiot does something stupid.
Hopefully people making death threats will be getting a visit from the plod and will be prosecuted accordingly.
Comments
John McDonnell on abuse of MPs: “This is not acceptable on either side. I had a death threat the other day for not voting for the war."
Has McDonnell been discussing this with the police?
The fruitcakes, loonies and 'anti-racists' may have the upper hand at the moment, but the electorate will move away from the old Labour brand much more sharply if they are presented with a credible alternative - perhaps even one that co-opts Labour into part of their name.
If the corbyn faction can organise enough MPs to get one of their own on the ticket in a contest, then that faction, with the member as it is effectively controls Labour.
At the moment they need 35 MPs to do it. Do they have that number, or can generate that number?
The risk for Labour is that they've going to shear off the WWC and give UKIP an opportunity I can scarcely believe they'll get [I thought 2015 was the perfect electoral set-up for UKIP, with a coalition government and Labour led by Ed Miliband, but 2020 *might* be even better, if Corbyn's still there].
I'm struggling to think of a Labour MP I respect less than Andy Burnham. I mean, I detest McDonnell and Corbyn, but at least I don't just laugh at them.
And the Zoomers are going nuts
A great many of those who voted for or against did so on the basis of having thought long and hard about it, and deserve respect for that, even from people who don't agree with them.
Meanwhile, John Redwood, my local MP, abstained. Along with Christopher Chope and Edward Leigh. And Kenneth Clarke, of all people. I would have thought he would have had the guts to come down on one side of the argument or the other.
In the 90s and 00s, Labour decided for a while that it liked being in government for a change. This is looking more and more like an aberration. Blair is the new MacDonald: a traitor to his party and the cause. It is hard to see where Labour goes from here. That Benn gave a fine speech to the House won't register with them, he's still on the deselection list!
Maybe if they go now they have a chance of bringing some union support (=cash) with them.
Sad indeed to see the demise of a once great party.
A lot of the rest was well presented emotionalism with fairly poor logic underlying it. A lot like Corbyn's speech in that way, but better executed. Appeals to emotion over cold analysis is the mark of a charismatic leader, but also a mark of a demagogue.
On another issue: Not since the Democratic Peoples Republic of Korea has a name been so misused as Left Unity!
My concern about those who voted against is not that they are dishonest or don't genuinely hold their views. It is that they set the bar for action by us impossibly high.
The British PM is and will remain a bit player in the Coalition against Da'esh. It is therefore ridiculous to demand comprehensive solutions from him to very difficult problems as a pre-condition of action.
It is also true that our armed forces are now relatively modest and are unlikely to make a critical difference. So what? We are a part of a Coalition and because we can't do everything does not mean we do nothing.
Our reduced status in the world means we need to act through coalitions. To be able to rely on Coalitions we need to be a team player when asked to help as we were by both the French and the UN (in the resolution).
The argument for not taking this relatively minor step beyond what we were already doing is an argument for defeatism, pacifism and disengagement from the world and its problems. I don't question their integrity but I do question their judgement and their view of our role in the world.
"It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour"
Very good post. It was an inspired decision by Benn to approach this from a position his own party could understand-you could say left field-and as you suggest it was about much more than whether or not we get involved in Syria. It got to the heart of Labour values and reminded me a lot of Kinnock's conference speech all those years ago.
Though on cool reflection i'm still ambivalent on the bombing it shifted my thinking in other ways which is unusual even possibly unique from a single speech.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/formula1/34990290
Losing America and gaining Azerbaijan is not necessarily a step forward.
Reference: http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/pairing/
As I said last night, Labour rebels now have a potential candidate and an idea to rally behind. IF the party moves to expel one, all of them could jump ship and create a new party (third largest in the commons if over 54+ leave)
That new party would be do more damage than the SDP ever could.
Everyone seems to want more F1 in the USA, but first world economies will not have governments subsidise sporting events in times of tightened spending.
I said previously that, objectively, rationally, Corbyn might see it as good result of his time at the head the Party if he left with an old Leftie Benn at the helm. A result that could have united the party and given it a distinctive socialist offering but without scaring the horses. But then you look at Corbyn's face whilst Benn was making the case for the Start The War coalition - and you see nothing but hatred oozing from his eyes.
Why would they want to 'control' them? They agree with them.
With the 'Community Leaders' harvesting thousands of votes for them, Labour would need a total collapse among its public sector, welfare and "Our family's always voted Labour, they're the party of the working class" heritage votes.
The Conservative vote in the constituency would be middle class from the better parts of Chadderton and Royton and probably harder for UKIP to pick up than Labour's wwc vote.
But being believed to have won because of Muslim votes is not going to do Labour any good.
If somehow Labour loses then the civil war breaks out.
I won't delve into details as spoilers (especially given the prolonged delay to DVDs) are tricky with people watching things at different times, but Burnham's choosing to be Reek.
Edited extra bit: unfair on Reek, to clarify.
A little research suggests that the deluge will come this evening.
http://www.metcheck.com/UK/today.asp?zipcode=Oldham&locationID=57065&lat=53.5&lon=-2.1&findtype=
"A lot of the rest was well presented emotionalism with fairly poor logic underlying it. A lot like Corbyn's speech in that way, but better executed. Appeals to emotion over cold analysis is the mark of a charismatic leader, but also a mark of a demagogue."
I think that was the whole point and why he approached it that way. There's no logic for or against the UK adding 4% to the bombing capacity of the forces facing ISIS. The task he set himself was to galvanize the opposition particularly on his own side to what he correctly described as solidarity aganst fascism. Remember the question of who are the real fascists is something the Labour party has been struggling with since Corbyn became leader.
Quite right too.
How much grief is Benn going to get from arch lefties using his father as a stick to beat him with?
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
Apparently ISIS were congratulating them on twitter last night using the hashtag #america_burning.. I didn't like to mention it until the names were released
Thankfully seems that religion wasn't a factor (depending on what comments sparked him in the first place). But the fact remain that every 3 months, Americans inflict the death toll of 9/11 on each other. One event defined American attitudes for the twenty-first century. But we have now had the equivalent death toll of fifty 9/11s since that fateful day - but America refuses to confront gun control. Extraordinary.
Mr. Mark, America's odd. I really like the First Amendment and wish we had something similar, but the Second Amendment is crackers [at least, the way it's applied]. Americans have the right to say anything they like, and then get shot for it.
Or have they locked him in a broom cupboard.
Re the US shoting - they don't look like white supremacists to me http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12030160/California-shooting-Multiple-victims-reported-in-San-Bernardino-live.html
(a) Benn has already received death threats!
(b) Activist who abused Creasy is "Corbyn crony"
This is supposed to be a new kinder politics?
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Someone needs to very publicly call off the mob, and quickly, before some idiot does something stupid.
Just watched the full Benn speech. A masterclass in oratory and use of tone and voice. It's been a very long time since someone in the Labour party has been capable of delivering that kind of speech (I'm talking here about the sheer ability rather than the content). It will be remembered for a very long time.
What a woeful load of wiffle Corbyn's speech looks and sounds in comparison. Pathetic.
Glad I'm on Benn at 18/1. Time for Labour to wake up out of its daydream and get back to being a real opposition that takes its responsibilities seriously.
Channel 4 have it here in case you missed it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_dRCzd19Uc
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
http://www.ellwoodatfieldgallery.com/?utm_source=Political+Cartoon+Awards+2015
http://stopwar.org.uk/index.php/resources/stop-the-war-statements/stop-the-war-statement-on-uk-parliament-s-decision-to-bomb-syria
Does STW have elections to its policy making bodies?
I read Corbyn's body language differently. I thought he looked extremely stressed. Fidgeting about, grimacing, almost belching at times. I'm not sure how much more of this he can or wants to take.
Excellent speech by Benn.
This was not a speech aimed at the motion either, like a number of others it was just one more shot in Labour's civil war.
And now the Californian authorities are suggesting that it was a personal revenge attack. To me thats all a crock of shit. They were uniformed, armoured, had explosives (bombs) ready, as well as machine guns - all elements of a suddenly unplanned revenge attack. I think not.
https://twitter.com/RaheemKassam/status/672262043752226816
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz Dec 1
We need a final solution to purge Blairite scum like @leicesterliz from the Labour party.
#ticktock
He is a BBC cameraman according to Twitter.
What do his employers think of his evening 'activities'?