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.
Iraq now has a democratic government. It is being attacked by this ISIS or whatever you want to call it . We are helping defend Iraq, we are not invading Syria. Is this so difficult for people to understand? We have foreign policy aims in Syria which is riven by civil war, but it that is secondary to defeating ISIS and preserving the fragile democracy in Iraq.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
Listening to Hilary Benn's outstanding speech, which I agree with in its entirety, reminds me of the spellbinding oratory of Michael Foot in the HoC Saturday debate on the Falklands war.
Both speeches, whilst critical of aspects of the governments approach, set out the case for military action with passion, accuracy and clarity that is required when the Commons is required to ask our military to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice in the wider interest of the nation.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
Just had a 'friend' on facebook 'like' the following post.
'We really do have the biggest t*** you could ever imagine for a Prime Minister. I'm not a violent man at all, but I would love to punch him in the face today'.
Didn't the denials happen after Gethsemane? I thought that was when/where Jesus asked for the cup of suffering to be taken from him, and God told him to do one [or words to that effect].
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
Listening to Hilary Benn's outstanding speech, which I agree with in its entirety, reminds me of the spellbinding oratory of Michael Foot in the HoC Saturday debate on the Falklands war.
Both speeches, whilst critical of aspects of the governments approach, set out the case for military action with passion, accuracy and clarity that is required when the Commons is required to ask our military to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice in the wider interest of the nation.
I thought the speech was good, but only outstanding by the fact that the vast majority of Labour speeches and interjections were shit by comparison.
However if Hilary was a mench he would have resigned his front bench post days ago. How he can stay in the same room as Jezzabel, let alone sit side by side with him in the commons, is one for the story tellers. (edit)
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
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.
Are there many countries with higher gun ownership than the US?
In any case, much like keeping sharp objects away from people with certain mental illnesses, isn't the US's 'profound sickness' a pretty good reason for lowering/restricting gun ownership there?
Does STW have elections to its policy making bodies?
Is Corbyn still going to the STW Xmas do? I foresee that if he does go and if there is then bad or illegal behaviour by STW, this could have serious blowback for him
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
I still think Labour will win narrowly but will be forced into a rethink, whatever that entails
I'd be surprised if anything changes. It's full steam ahead for the Corbyn project - Momentum and Stop the War won't accept anything less.
And any Labour MP who has a part in forcing Jezzer out, will be on the receiving end of a whole heap of misery, judging by the antics of his hardcore supporters so far.
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.
Are there many countries with higher gun ownership than the US?
In any case, much like keeping sharp objects away from people with certain mental illnesses, isn't the US's 'profound sickness' a pretty good reason for lowering/restricting gun ownership there?
I read an article recently that every time there's a similar shooting in US gun sales go up.
However if Hilary was a mench he would have resigned his front bench post days ago. How he can stay in the same room as Jezzabel, let alone sit side by side with him in the commons, is one for the story tellers. (edit)
I suspect his view is something along the lines of, "If one of has to resign, it should be that ****er"
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
I still think Labour will win narrowly but will be forced into a rethink, whatever that entails
I'd be surprised if anything changes. It's full steam ahead for the Corbyn project - Momentum and Stop the War won't accept anything less.
Yes you're probably right and I have mixed feelings. It seems in the North now Labour's target market is ethnic communities whilst the WWC are leaving in thousands, do Labour address or accept that? I honestly don't know.
"Half of one of the batches of framed emails I received speaking of "our party" are not just not members of our party, but they are not members of the electorate either. Own goal."
Ah, the mythical non-voters who will be coming romping home to help a massive surge towards a proper Labour government in 2020.
Fifty-six years ago, after a third successive election defeat, Denis Healey told the party conference that Labour would “never get power unless we close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country”. That gap is now wider than it has been in many years. Polling commissioned by the freelance data guru Ian Warren, who worked for Labour in the 2015 election, shows that Corbyn’s Labour Party is at variance with every demographic in every region across the country on every major issue, from security to taxation.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
You'll also notice one is wearing jeans and no tie, the other slacks with a tie, irreversible divisions.
However if Hilary was a mench he would have resigned his front bench post days ago. How he can stay in the same room as Jezzabel, let alone sit side by side with him in the commons, is one for the story tellers. (edit)
I suspect his view is something along the lines of, "If one of has to resign, it should be that ****er"
What's more, he's proven how effective he,and others like him, can be inside the shadow cabinet. It was only opposition from Benn and co that resulted in even a nominally free vote.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
You'll also notice one is wearing jeans and no tie, the other slacks with a tie, irreversible divisions.
Carswell has long been an extremely vocal critic of Berghaus apparel
What's more, he's proven how effective he,and others like him, can be inside the shadow cabinet. It was only opposition from Benn and co that resulted in even a nominally free vote.
Fifty-six years ago, after a third successive election defeat, Denis Healey told the party conference that Labour would “never get power unless we close the gap between our active workers and the average voter in the country”. That gap is now wider than it has been in many years. Polling commissioned by the freelance data guru Ian Warren, who worked for Labour in the 2015 election, shows that Corbyn’s Labour Party is at variance with every demographic in every region across the country on every major issue, from security to taxation.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
Why ask me? Why not ask the people who made the posts?
I'm responding to iSam's comment that people said Carswell and Bickley hated each other. I cannot remember anyone saying that, and stated what I think they did say.
My main interest in Oldham is whether the Lib Dems will keep their deposit.
With turnout hopefully a winner, and UKIP looking like a good value loser - the Lib Dem deposit could be the main betting question for a few of us today.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
I still think Labour will win narrowly but will be forced into a rethink, whatever that entails
I'd be surprised if anything changes. It's full steam ahead for the Corbyn project - Momentum and Stop the War won't accept anything less.
And any Labour MP who has a part in forcing Jezzer out, will be on the receiving end of a whole heap of misery, judging by the antics of his hardcore supporters so far.
Good morning all. A rethink? At this point I'm convinced that the Labour party has been parasitised by a variety of far-left factions. It's still shambling along based on historical momentum, despite having its brain devoured. Eventually it will keel over.
Benn's speech was merely workmanlike. That it's being so lauded simply shows how desperate things have become.
Listening to Hilary Benn's outstanding speech, which I agree with in its entirety, reminds me of the spellbinding oratory of Michael Foot in the HoC Saturday debate on the Falklands war.
Both speeches, whilst critical of aspects of the governments approach, set out the case for military action with passion, accuracy and clarity that is required when the Commons is required to ask our military to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice in the wider interest of the nation.
I remember that Foot speech well. It was, indeed, magnificent. But it was all downhill from there for him. Will Benn enjoy the same fate?
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
You'll also notice one is wearing jeans and no tie, the other slacks with a tie, irreversible divisions.
Carswell has long been an extremely vocal critic of Berghaus apparel
On a serious note Douglas conducted himself as a proper Parliamentarian yesterday, went along to the debate, listened to both sides and voted accordingly. The standard of MPs would increase enormously if there were no whips and members voted with their conscience.
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'?
I hope he is a parody, though some believe he is just a bloody fool.
I saw him as well, and had a look down his Timeline. At first I was convinced he must be a parody, but if he is, the parody is incredibly elaborate and thorough - there are entire days of quite sensible tweets, then total madness, then moderation again.
Who would bother to fake all that? I suspect he is real.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
Why ask me? Why not ask the people who made the posts?
I'm responding to iSam's comment that people said Carswell and Bickley hated each other. I cannot remember anyone saying that, and stated what I think they did say.
Well I wasn't directly asking you, just rhetorically replying to your post. The point is people make things up to suit their warped agendas, this site is a perfect example of that.
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.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
Which is the most divided party between its members and its representatives? Its the Lib Dems! The Conservatives have just a minority of its MPs against the action, similar to the views in its members. Labour has a majority of its MPs against, similar to the views of its members. The SNP has all its MPs against which is probably a greater share than its members views but still very close. The LDs have 6 of its 8 MPs for this and 2 out of 3 of its members against.... (LDVoice survey) Over looked is the big gap between LD MPs and their members views.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
Which is the most divided party between its members and its representatives? Its the Lib Dems! The Conservatives have just a minority of its MPs against the action, similar to the views in its members. Labour has a majority of its MPs against, similar to the views of its members. The SNP has all its MPs against which is probably a greater share than its members views but still very close. The LDs have 6 of its 8 MPs for this and 2 out of 3 of its members against.... (LDVoice survey) Over looked is the big gap between LD MPs and their members views.
Which LDs voted against? I heard just Norman Lamb.
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'?
I hope he is a parody, though some believe he is just a bloody fool.
I saw him as well, and had a look down his Timeline. At first I was convinced he must be a parody, but if he is, the parody is incredibly elaborate and thorough - there are entire days of quite sensible tweets, then total madness, then moderation again.
Who would bother to fake all that? I suspect he is real.
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.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
A ranting emotional laden speech was the last thing you want from a prime minister.
Listening to Hilary Benn's outstanding speech, which I agree with in its entirety, reminds me of the spellbinding oratory of Michael Foot in the HoC Saturday debate on the Falklands war.
Both speeches, whilst critical of aspects of the governments approach, set out the case for military action with passion, accuracy and clarity that is required when the Commons is required to ask our military to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice in the wider interest of the nation.
I thought the speech was good, but only outstanding by the fact that the vast majority of Labour speeches and interjections were shit by comparison.
However if Hilary was a mench he would have resigned his front bench post days ago. How he can stay in the same room as Jezzabel, let alone sit side by side with him in the commons, is one for the story tellers. (edit)
You are as incorrect as your prediction of 102 UKIP MP's after the general election.
Benn's was an outstanding speech given the context of opposing his party leader, the majority of Labour MP's, the nature of the Commons occasion and the widespread acclaim from members on all sides of the HoC, except the SNP and other odds and sods.
Benn's sits next to Jezza for the same reason Carswell would sit beside Farage, had he managed to win in May - in our liberal democracy you are allowed to hold different views from colleagues without resort to beheading them or castigating them for having the temerity to hold an opposing and principled view, the latter point the Prime Minister should reflect upon too.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
Why ask me? Why not ask the people who made the posts?
I'm responding to iSam's comment that people said Carswell and Bickley hated each other. I cannot remember anyone saying that, and stated what I think they did say.
Well I wasn't directly asking you, just rhetorically replying to your post. The point is people make things up to suit their warped agendas, this site is a perfect example of that.
Earlier this morning I read on here about how the latest mass shootings in America were solely due to the gun laws. Seemed a sensible conclusion, job done let us move on...
Seems more likely to be a correlation between easier access to machine guns (like Schengen France) and the problem of Muslim terrorists (like France and Belgium).
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.
I am frankly sick of this. What about photos of a pilot burnt alive in a cage? What about photos of young girls raped to death, of children tortured because their parents wouldn't abandon Christianity? What about photos of mass graves of murdered women? What about photos of what a gay man looks like after he's been thrown off a building and then stoned?
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
"EU ministers will on Friday discuss suspending the Schengen passport-free travel zone for two years, on the basis that the migrant crisis has exposed “serious deficiencies” at the Greek border that endanger the overall area...
In effect, this would see the temporary border checks introduced this summer between countries such as Austria and Germany become a long-term fixture, fracturing the passport-free zone...
Steve Peers, a law professor at the University of Essex, said: “It’s possible that the general threat to suspend Schengen is intended as a threat to suspend Greece only, but is simply badly drafted. Or perhaps the idea is to threaten to suspend the whole of Schengen and pin the blame on Greece. Either way, in my view, this threat is seriously mistaken, for both legal and political reasons.” "
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.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
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.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
A ranting emotional laden speech was the last thing you want from a prime minister.
Maybe - but it is reasonable to expect a clear and compelling one when the PM is making the case for military action. Dave failed on that front yesterday.
Miss Cyclefree, seen a few people quoting Doctor Who (a recent two-parter with the Zygons ended with a pro-peace speech). Except that it calls for negotiation, which is impossible when the view of Daesh is to spread their dominion by brutality. You can't negotiate with an adversary whose starting point is the end of democracy and the death of non-believers.
"EU ministers will on Friday discuss suspending the Schengen passport-free travel zone for two years, on the basis that the migrant crisis has exposed “serious deficiencies” at the Greek border that endanger the overall area...
In effect, this would see the temporary border checks introduced this summer between countries such as Austria and Germany become a long-term fixture, fracturing the passport-free zone...
Steve Peers, a law professor at the University of Essex, said: “It’s possible that the general threat to suspend Schengen is intended as a threat to suspend Greece only, but is simply badly drafted. Or perhaps the idea is to threaten to suspend the whole of Schengen and pin the blame on Greece. Either way, in my view, this threat is seriously mistaken, for both legal and political reasons.” "
Some countries will surely never have border control, Belgium and the Netherlands spring to mind. For others like Spain/France I think it makes sense.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
Why ask me? Why not ask the people who made the posts?
I'm responding to iSam's comment that people said Carswell and Bickley hated each other. I cannot remember anyone saying that, and stated what I think they did say.
Well I wasn't directly asking you, just rhetorically replying to your post. The point is people make things up to suit their warped agendas, this site is a perfect example of 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
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.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
Nick. Had you been in the HoC how would you have voted?
Miss Cyclefree, seen a few people quoting Doctor Who (a recent two-parter with the Zygons ended with a pro-peace speech). Except that it calls for negotiation, which is impossible when the view of Daesh is to spread their dominion by brutality. You can't negotiate with an adversary whose starting point is the end of democracy and the death of non-believers.
@georgeeaton: Reliable Lib Dem source tells me Labour victory in Oldham will be far more comfortable than expected.
UKIP are generally useless at by-elections (and elections) so this wouldn't be surprising. Labour folk will vote for the party even if they dislike the leader.
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.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
If Corbyn was serious in condemning intimidation, he would be suspending members on an hourly basis for their hate-filled actions - but he isn't.
By failing to act against his supporters who use threats and intimidation, he is giving them the green light to continue.
How long before someone gets hurt by a Momentum member?
Mr. Pulpstar, they're less reasonable than daleks. In Death to the Daleks, the Doctor formed a truce with them whilst on a planet where electronic equipment failed to work. Can't see that happening with a Daeshbag.
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.
I am frankly sick of this. What about photos of a pilot burnt alive in a cage? What about photos of young girls raped to death, of children tortured because their parents wouldn't abandon Christianity? What about photos of mass graves of murdered women? What about photos of what a gay man looks like after he's been thrown off a building and then stoned?
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
Apologies I'm not sure if you're Mr, Mrs, Ms or whatever but that is a superb piece.
"Home Office borders security scheme is '£1bn waste of money'
National Audit Office finds that system due to be replaced and used to identify potential terrorists regularly collapses with 16 million people going unchecked"
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.
Are there many countries with higher gun ownership than the US?
In any case, much like keeping sharp objects away from people with certain mental illnesses, isn't the US's 'profound sickness' a pretty good reason for lowering/restricting gun ownership there?
I read an article recently that every time there's a similar shooting in US gun sales go up.
Gun law in the US is a classic case of Wouldn't Start From Here. Outside the coastal cities it's a very big and sparely populated place with a need for guns, if not the military grade weapons that are available in a lot of states.
It's also one of those debates where moderate and nuanced voices are drowned out by extreme views on both sides, making reasoned discussion of the issues almost impossible.
Huge attitudinal changes are required, a good starting point might be to strengthen rules about gun cabinets and medical fitness for gun permits.
Which is the most divided party between its members and its representatives? Its the Lib Dems! The Conservatives have just a minority of its MPs against the action, similar to the views in its members. Labour has a majority of its MPs against, similar to the views of its members. The SNP has all its MPs against which is probably a greater share than its members views but still very close. The LDs have 6 of its 8 MPs for this and 2 out of 3 of its members against.... (LDVoice survey) Over looked is the big gap between LD MPs and their members views.
Which LDs voted against? I heard just Norman Lamb.
Just Norman afaik. He voted in line with 2 out of 3 LD members, the 6 LD MPs who voted "for" are way out of line with their membership.
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.
I am frankly sick of this. What about photos of a pilot burnt alive in a cage? What about photos of young girls raped to death, of children tortured because their parents wouldn't abandon Christianity? What about photos of mass graves of murdered women? What about photos of what a gay man looks like after he's been thrown off a building and then stoned?
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
There are good and good faith arguments against bombing, some of which were made yesterday. But the moral high ground is not exclusively owned by one side and the way the protesters seem to think that it only belongs to them and that this justifies them in behaving in ways and saying things which are really appalling really gets my goat. (As is probably clear.)
Labour have found their antidote to the Corbyn poison ; the fever has broken and they are now on the slow road to recovery ...they will hold Oldham today with a slim majority but it will be a pyhrric victory of sorts
I bet heavily on HILARY BENN to be next leader over the weekend @ 10-1after recieving a tip from John McTeran over at the Telegraph ...it's not over yet ; Corbyn could last until the London mayor's race in May but when Zac Goldsmith wins it will be time for him to resign
@georgeeaton: Reliable Lib Dem source tells me Labour victory in Oldham will be far more comfortable than expected.
UKIP are generally useless at by-elections (and elections) so this wouldn't be surprising. Labour folk will vote for the party even if they dislike the leader.
Not all of them will.
So much of the focus has been on Labour, but what would a bad result for UKIP be? A failure to get a head of steam among white working class voters would surely be a significant setback. It does need to come a close second at least, doesn't it?
5000+ Nothing to worry about 4000 Worry 2000 Panic
No way they'll take a 2000+ majority. Retaining their majority to within an order of magnitude will be a big ask.
Depends a lot on the turnout how big a majority they'd need to stop worrying. We're getting lots of conflicting predictions on here and Farage's piece in the Times is almost a victory speech. I'm content to leave it til tomorrow morning and see the actual result.
@BBCNormanS: Andy Burnham tells @VictoriaLIVE he didn't back bombing in Syria because of "The Iraq Test" and a lack of planning for aftermath
When he was on Question Time a couple of weeks ago he robotically repeated a demand for a UN mandate, like a poor attempt to copy Charles Kennedy's position on the Iraq War.
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.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
A ranting emotional laden speech was the last thing you want from a prime minister.
Maybe - but it is reasonable to expect a clear and compelling one when the PM is making the case for military action. Dave failed on that front yesterday.
Agreed, Cameron could have had a major political triumph in the HoC yesterday, but for the stupid comment the day before. When even moderates such as Gisela attacked you.
Comments
@nicolablackwood: Your genuine opinion is my hobby is killing innocent people? https://t.co/J8HcDolslp
https://twitter.com/douglascarswell/status/672343217275277312
Edited extra bit: Dr. Spyn, could say much the same about Corbyn.
Both speeches, whilst critical of aspects of the governments approach, set out the case for military action with passion, accuracy and clarity that is required when the Commons is required to ask our military to potentially make the ultimate sacrifice in the wider interest of the nation.
They already were.
'We really do have the biggest t*** you could ever imagine for a Prime Minister. I'm not a violent man at all, but I would love to punch him in the face today'.
Ladies and Gentlemen, the New Politics.
I still think Labour will win narrowly but will be forced into a rethink, whatever that entails
However if Hilary was a mench he would have resigned his front bench post days ago. How he can stay in the same room as Jezzabel, let alone sit side by side with him in the commons, is one for the story tellers.
(edit)
In any case, much like keeping sharp objects away from people with certain mental illnesses, isn't the US's 'profound sickness' a pretty good reason for lowering/restricting gun ownership there?
And any Labour MP who has a part in forcing Jezzer out, will be on the receiving end of a whole heap of misery, judging by the antics of his hardcore supporters so far.
https://twitter.com/DanJukes17/status/672354281136197632
Problems for UKIP
"Half of one of the batches of framed emails I received speaking of "our party" are not just not members of our party, but they are not members of the electorate either. Own goal."
Ah, the mythical non-voters who will be coming romping home to help a massive surge towards a proper Labour government in 2020.
http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/12/jeremy-corbyn-believes-respectful-dissent-why-don-t-his-supporters
Awkward
http://labourlist.org/2015/12/what-will-the-oldham-by-election-result-mean-for-labour/
5000+ Nothing to worry about
4000 Worry
2000 Panic
I'm responding to iSam's comment that people said Carswell and Bickley hated each other. I cannot remember anyone saying that, and stated what I think they did say.
Benn's speech was merely workmanlike. That it's being so lauded simply shows how desperate things have become.
http://bbcwatch.org/tag/darren-grintz/
They need supporting.
The Conservatives have just a minority of its MPs against the action, similar to the views in its members.
Labour has a majority of its MPs against, similar to the views of its members.
The SNP has all its MPs against which is probably a greater share than its members views but still very close.
The LDs have 6 of its 8 MPs for this and 2 out of 3 of its members against.... (LDVoice survey)
Over looked is the big gap between LD MPs and their members views.
Will Corbyn have him kicked out for these comments, or are they considered to be acceptable on his watch?
Benn's was an outstanding speech given the context of opposing his party leader, the majority of Labour MP's, the nature of the Commons occasion and the widespread acclaim from members on all sides of the HoC, except the SNP and other odds and sods.
Benn's sits next to Jezza for the same reason Carswell would sit beside Farage, had he managed to win in May - in our liberal democracy you are allowed to hold different views from colleagues without resort to beheading them or castigating them for having the temerity to hold an opposing and principled view, the latter point the Prime Minister should reflect upon too.
Whisper it, the two shooters were muslims, one described as very religous.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/12030481/Syed-Farook-what-we-know-about-the-San-Bernardino-gunman.html
Seems more likely to be a correlation between easier access to machine guns (like Schengen France) and the problem of Muslim terrorists (like France and Belgium).
Burnham would have been a worse party leader than Corbyn.
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/137322ca-999d-11e5-9228-87e603d47bdc.html?ftcamp=published_links/rss/brussels/feed//product#axzz3tFhYaCb0
"EU ministers will on Friday discuss suspending the Schengen passport-free travel zone for two years, on the basis that the migrant crisis has exposed “serious deficiencies” at the Greek border that endanger the overall area...
In effect, this would see the temporary border checks introduced this summer between countries such as Austria and Germany become a long-term fixture, fracturing the passport-free zone...
Steve Peers, a law professor at the University of Essex, said: “It’s possible that the general threat to suspend Schengen is intended as a threat to suspend Greece only, but is simply badly drafted. Or perhaps the idea is to threaten to suspend the whole of Schengen and pin the blame on Greece. Either way, in my view, this threat is seriously mistaken, for both legal and political reasons.” "
https://twitter.com/georgeeaton/status/672359887821754368
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
Miss Cyclefree, seen a few people quoting Doctor Who (a recent two-parter with the Zygons ended with a pro-peace speech). Except that it calls for negotiation, which is impossible when the view of Daesh is to spread their dominion by brutality. You can't negotiate with an adversary whose starting point is the end of democracy and the death of non-believers.
Going for 32% turnout in #OldhamWest .
I like the sound of that number.
By failing to act against his supporters who use threats and intimidation, he is giving them the green light to continue.
How long before someone gets hurt by a Momentum member?
AND THERE WAS MUCH REJOICING !!
Why doesn't this surprise me?
"Home Office borders security scheme is '£1bn waste of money'
National Audit Office finds that system due to be replaced and used to identify potential terrorists regularly collapses with 16 million people going unchecked"
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/03/flaws-in-home-office-security-forcing-staff-to-rely-on-incomplete-intelligence
It's also one of those debates where moderate and nuanced voices are drowned out by extreme views on both sides, making reasoned discussion of the issues almost impossible.
Huge attitudinal changes are required, a good starting point might be to strengthen rules about gun cabinets and medical fitness for gun permits.
I bet heavily on HILARY BENN to be next leader over the weekend @ 10-1after recieving a tip from John McTeran over at the Telegraph ...it's not over yet ; Corbyn could last until the London mayor's race in May but when Zac Goldsmith wins it will be time for him to resign
So much of the focus has been on Labour, but what would a bad result for UKIP be? A failure to get a head of steam among white working class voters would surely be a significant setback. It does need to come a close second at least, doesn't it?
We're getting lots of conflicting predictions on here and Farage's piece in the Times is almost a victory speech.
I'm content to leave it til tomorrow morning and see the actual result.