"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
Nato bases ? They want ours ? What's the story here ?
Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) don't have permanent NATO bases currently and NATO made an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't build permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe.
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
Not sure how he could manage that to be honest, even if he wanted to - I know the Liberals used to be big in the seat, but that ain't happening any time soon.
Migration has gone on for 150,000 years. You do know that you are a descendant of Africans, don't you ?
I know it maybe difficult for you to accept that.
Yeah, but there wasn't a nice welfare state waiting for migrants until relatively recently.
Migrants come here to work as we all know. The work which Britons somehow don't want to do bizarrely.
They earn far more money working than claiming benefits.
Do you support Cameroon's attempt to stop migrants claiming in work benefits for four years? I think most people from all of the political parties recognize that immigrants do come here to work - but that doesn't mean unlimited immigration is desirable.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
That's at the very least debatable. It wasn't Dave & the Yoons who wanted the 2014 referendum.
As may be. The Scottish Parliament (through its executive) has agreed that it doesn't have the power to call a referendum
Do you have a link for that?
A 'legal' referendum. It could call a referendum (an illegal one) I suppose and as such its opponents should and probably would allow it to run unopposed. Any conclusion would be meaningless as well as illegal. However the SNP have no intentions of calling or calling for a referendum any time soon. It can barely govern 'independently' as it is.
@JournoStephen: I feel sorry for Sturgeon. The very day she insists her supporters aren't a brainwashed cult they launch a boycott of unpatriotic teacakes.
Loser posting crap from loser, those darned SNP, very popular and doing it deliberately , will the Tory and Labour donkeys ever get it
55 > 45.
Yes that was a real victory for the unionists
Indeed it was. Settled for a generation, and as the Nats have no power to call a second referendum they just have to find other ways to show that they are bad losers.
Which, to be fair, they're doing very well.
Strange how those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum keeps insisting that there won't be one.
Actually, it's not strange at all.
Those who will have no power, influence or say on whether there will be another referendum: the Scottish Parliament.
That's at the very least debatable. It wasn't Dave & the Yoons who wanted the 2014 referendum.
As may be. The Scottish Parliament (through its executive) has agreed that it doesn't have the power to call a referendum
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
Foisted on him? Ha! Ha!
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course. Weak. Just weak.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
So she must be telling the truth right? Coz it was in the Mail right?
Really. Surely no-one believes that the limited things Dave asked for have not already been agreed by everyone. Every minor disagreement is just show...
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
Foisted on him? Ha! Ha!
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course. Weak. Just weak.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
Which girlfriend is this ?
He's having a few women troubles ^^;
The one who split with him this week because she just realized after 2 months "he was a self publicist".
Nato bases ? They want ours ? What's the story here ?
Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) don't have permanent NATO bases currently and NATO made an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't build permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe.
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
I'm broadly in favour of this (I know the Balts are concerned about Russian expansionism so it comes as no surprise that the Poles are too) but there are some quirks, namely: 1) We can't deliver NATO bases. We can station UK armed forces in Poland easy-peasy but for them to be flagged as NATO troops requires the consent of the others. Would it be given? 2) Was the agreement with Russia done prior to Poland joining NATO or afterwards? 3) Have Russia abrogated any agreements with us recently?
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
Which girlfriend is this ?
He's having a few women troubles ^^;
The one who split with him this week because she just realized after 2 months "he was a self publicist".
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
Foisted on him? Ha! Ha!
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course. Weak. Just weak.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Houdini was not a contortionist ... he was an escapologist. Ummm... do I need to refine your analogy any further?
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
I see "Principled MP" Simon Danczuck has "said he wanted to make sure Labour lost the seat he won for them.” according to the latest girlfriend.
So she must be telling the truth right? Coz it was in the Mail right?
The alleged 'hold' the Mail has on its readers is a bit overrated. My sister for instance thinks its rubbish, but she buys it ... for the puzzle pages.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
Foisted on him? Ha! Ha!
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course. Weak. Just weak.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
"If the PLP don’t respond to this latest provocation by Jeremy Corbyn, then it will be further proof that Corbyn will remain Leader until the general election as the PLP are as impotent as a eunuch. Additionally the logic behind Corbyn wanting his top team to speak with one voice on foreign and defence issues is impeccable, and actually shows real political nous by Corbyn. Corbyn’s opponents inside and outwith the Labour Party should take note and not underestimate him"
I find the closing paragraph of TSE's summary quite unbelievable. Jeremy Corbyn is the elected leader of the Labour Party. If he sacks Benn and others, he will not be provoking anyone. The provocation has already happened. 11 Shadow Cabinet members voted against the majority wishes of the Shadow Cabinet, the PLP and the members of the Labour Party.
No point muddying the waters with "free vote" etc. That "free vote" was hoisted upon the Leader. It is now his turn to make the shadow cabinet in the Leader's image. A Leader who received 59% of the votes in the party.
Principled MPs can always squack from the back benches as much as they like. In fact, emulate someone called Jeremy Corbyn, a serial rebel.
Foisted on him? Ha! Ha!
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course. Weak. Just weak.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Houdini was not a contortionist ... he was an escapologist. Ummm... do I need to refine your analogy any further?
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
I agree. 4 years is a very long time and current concerns may well be greater or non existent by that time. But Corbyn will still not be fit to lead this country. Not ever.
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
Yes, there is a tendency to expect the future to be a continuation of the present. The trouble is, 80% of it is (number pulled out of my arse, naturally). The trick is to figure out which bit is the 20% and ... God knows mostly.
Interesting comments earlier in the thread about Philip Hammond. Imo he is the clear value at present.
Well, I wrote some rambling stuff about this but have just deleted it. All I have to say is:
Hammond is way too long Osborne is way too short
'I commend to you the curious incident of the cabinet revolt when Osborne was appointed First Secretary of State' 'There was no cabinet revolt' 'That is what is so curious'
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking.
That's because we try to think like politicians and pundits - and they don't know anything either, though they act like they do no matter how often they are wrong, so we do the same.
Interesting comments earlier in the thread about Philip Hammond. Imo he is the clear value at present.
Well, I wrote some rambling stuff about this but have just deleted it. All I have to say is:
Hammond is way too long Osborne is way too short
'I commend to you the curious incident of the cabinet revolt when Osborne was appointed First Secretary of State' 'There was no cabinet revolt' 'That is what is so curious'
secundus inter pares. Or res ipsa loquitur as us lawyers say.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
I agree. 4 years is a very long time and current concerns may well be greater or non existent by that time. But Corbyn will still not be fit to lead this country. Not ever.
I'm struggling to think of anything JJ is fit to lead beyond a chorus of the Red Flag.
The header (like David Herdson's yesterday) is typical PB Comments thinking. The assumption is always that whatever is currently the case will continue to be the case. Nobody in 2005 knew the most important thing in 2010 would be the deficit. Nobody in 2010 knew the most important thing in 2015 would be Scotland. But security's important now so it's nailed on for 2020? Just like a hung parliament was nailed on this time last year and a Tory majority was nailed on the time before.
An original thought! Tim used to have a saying about PB Tories always being wrong and never learning but now we're all Tories it's nice to be reminded of the good old days when we weren't
Nato bases ? They want ours ? What's the story here ?
Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) don't have permanent NATO bases currently and NATO made an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't build permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe.
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
I'm broadly in favour of this (I know the Balts are concerned about Russian expansionism so it comes as no surprise that the Poles are too) but there are some quirks, namely: 1) We can't deliver NATO bases. We can station UK armed forces in Poland easy-peasy but for them to be flagged as NATO troops requires the consent of the others. Would it be given? 2) Was the agreement with Russia done prior to Poland joining NATO or afterwards? 3) Have Russia abrogated any agreements with us recently?
3) - they have invaded Ukraine. But you are correct - we cannot deliver NATO bases. We can offer support for any Polish request for permanent bases. Should any Russian threat emerge I do not think there would be any problem in stationing troops in Poland. The issue of currently placing permanent bases in Poland is not vital strategic one. Last June there were NATO exercises in Poland.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else.
Surely not - all sensible people share my concerns, and everyone else just pretends they don't for their own twisted reasons, likely to infuriate me personally.
Nato bases ? They want ours ? What's the story here ?
Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) don't have permanent NATO bases currently and NATO made an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't build permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe.
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
I'm broadly in favour of this (I know the Balts are concerned about Russian expansionism so it comes as no surprise that the Poles are too) but there are some quirks, namely: 1) We can't deliver NATO bases. We can station UK armed forces in Poland easy-peasy but for them to be flagged as NATO troops requires the consent of the others. Would it be given? 2) Was the agreement with Russia done prior to Poland joining NATO or afterwards? 3) Have Russia abrogated any agreements with us recently?
1) We unilaterally can't any more than Poland unilaterally can't. But if we want Poland's agreement on the EU and the deal made is that we push had on Poland's behalf then it is possible.
This is smart politics by Poland as by entangling these issues together if we make this deal then who in NATO will be left to object?
The rest of Eastern European NATO members are anxious for these new bases. The rest of Western European nations want us to stay in the EU (and wouldn't mind these welfare reforms themselves) so they won't want to object. The USA also want us to stay in the EU for their own reasons and would listen to us and Poland combined more than just Poland.
Nato bases ? They want ours ? What's the story here ?
Poland (and the rest of Eastern Europe) don't have permanent NATO bases currently and NATO made an agreement with Russia that we wouldn't build permanent NATO bases in Eastern Europe.
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
I'm broadly in favour of this (I know the Balts are concerned about Russian expansionism so it comes as no surprise that the Poles are too) but there are some quirks, namely: 1) We can't deliver NATO bases. We can station UK armed forces in Poland easy-peasy but for them to be flagged as NATO troops requires the consent of the others. Would it be given? 2) Was the agreement with Russia done prior to Poland joining NATO or afterwards? 3) Have Russia abrogated any agreements with us recently?
1) We unilaterally can't any more than Poland unilaterally can't. But if we want Poland's agreement on the EU and the deal made is that we push had on Poland's behalf then it is possible.
This is smart politics by Poland as by entangling these issues together if we make this deal then who in NATO will be left to object?
The rest of Eastern European NATO members are anxious for these new bases. The rest of Western European nations want us to stay in the EU (and wouldn't mind these welfare reforms themselves) so they won't want to object. The USA also want us to stay in the EU for their own reasons and would listen to us and Poland combined more than just Poland.
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
The Labour Party look like a Scout Group, I'll wash the dishes while you light the fire them tomorrow we'll change over. What a bunch of phucking idiots.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Sure, why not? Opponents will cry 'demotion' but Benn keeps a senior-ish position, the appearance of which is apparently important if they are not to be flouncing out of the shadow cabinet or launching a coup (which clearly no one is), and Burnham strikes me as a yes man, willing to play nice no matter who is in charge or what they do. Not sure why I thought him the best candidate in 2010 to be honest.
Sure, why not? Opponents will cry 'demotion' but Benn keeps a senior-ish position, the appearance of which is apparently important if they are not to be flouncing out of the shadow cabinet or launching a coup (which clearly no one is), and Burnham strikes me as a yes man, willing to play nice no matter who is in charge or what they do. Not sure why I thought him the best candidate in 2010 to be honest.
He was up against the two Milibands, Ed Balls and Diane Abbott, of course he was going to look like the best candidate compared to that lot.
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
And a bid that should be rejected with a very loud raspberry. Letting Poland into NATO was a silly decision, basing NATO troops in Poland permanently is just a non-starter.
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
Isn't it all getting a bit London-centric? That's the way to help out Scottish Labour. It's a much wider base than Westminster and shows new old Labour's commitment to the whole of the UK.
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
And a bid that should be rejected with a very loud raspberry. Letting Poland into NATO was a silly decision, basing NATO troops in Poland permanently is just a non-starter.
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
What do you mean by Britain will not go to war to defend Poland ? Are you saying Britain's commitment to the NATO charter is insincere ?
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
And a bid that should be rejected with a very loud raspberry. Letting Poland into NATO was a silly decision, basing NATO troops in Poland permanently is just a non-starter.
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
I don't think we ever thought that we were defending Poland in 1939 but, bad as the situation was, I think it may well have been a lot worse had we not declared war on Germany when we did. It was the right thing to do on any level that I can think of.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Charlie Brooker gave a good account of that in his 2015 round-up. Corbyn is just himself.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Charlie Brooker gave a good account of that in his 2015 round-up. Corbyn is just himself.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Charlie Brooker gave a good account of that in his 2015 round-up. Corbyn is just himself.
I think people look for more in a leader than merely that they are themselves, or that they are principled. I appreciate that Corbyn appears to be very earnest, comparatively straightforward (I do not believe his hagiographers claims that he is entirely without the sorts of political behaviours - spin etc - that one develops through a career even on the backbenches), offers a distinct alternative from what other parties and even his own party have offered before, and he is obviously very committed to his principles. However I don't like him because I don't agree with many of those principles. So someone looking at him as a prospective leader will surely like the things I appreciate about him, but also agrees with him and his views either entirely or at least on a majority basis - that is, they don't regard any of his negatives as so bad as to outweigh his positives, and they support his stated aims and policies, not just support him as a good guy.
In a way, it would be easier for non-corbynite labour supporters if people did just like Corbyn even if they weren't signed up to his agenda. But the signs are they are signed up it, and in a big way as well.
Migration has gone on for 150,000 years. You do know that you are a descendant of Africans, don't you ?
I know it maybe difficult for you to accept that.
Yeah, but there wasn't a nice welfare state waiting for migrants until relatively recently.
Migrants come here to work as we all know. The work which Britons somehow don't want to do bizarrely.
They earn far more money working than claiming benefits.
Do you support Cameroon's attempt to stop migrants claiming in work benefits for four years? I think most people from all of the political parties recognize that immigrants do come here to work - but that doesn't mean unlimited immigration is desirable.
In a free market, there should be unregulated movement of people. That is how we can remain competitive. If you have free market for capital, why not for Labour.
I have never understood these claims that banning EU migrants from claiming from the British welfare system would be "discriminatory". As far as I'm concerned, Poland would have equal right to block British migrants from claiming from their welfare system if they wished.
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Thanks for the interest - I'll try to give an honest reply.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option (2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree (3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant (4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
Indeed - the contortions by surbiton since his party elected this idiot rival Houdini.
Or even Nick Palmer
Once Corbyn launched his campaign, I supported him - before it looked likely that he'd win. I've supported him unwaveringly ever since, because he's pretty exactly what I want in a leader. Where's the contortion? Too many people on PB project their own preoccupations onto everyone else. Sometimes people disagree - live with it, even enjoy it!
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Charlie Brooker gave a good account of that in his 2015 round-up. Corbyn is just himself.
I don't know that account but does it really suggest that to be a Corbyn is a "quality"? I was actually interested in NP's view rather than some anodyne amorphism.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
I don't think anything you say causes offence. People make allowances.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Thanks for the interest - I'll try to give an honest reply.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option (2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree (3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant (4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
And a bid that should be rejected with a very loud raspberry. Letting Poland into NATO was a silly decision, basing NATO troops in Poland permanently is just a non-starter.
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
What do you mean by Britain will not go to war to defend Poland ? Are you saying Britain's commitment to the NATO charter is insincere ?
I am saying what I said. The UK and France will not go to war to defend Poland and nor would any other West European member of NATO.
I am sure that we would, in the event of an armed attack on Poland, comply with our obligations under the NATO treaty and would render every assistance short of actual help (a sharp diplomatic note delivered to the aggressor, calling for an urgent meeting of the UN security Council, that sort of thing).
I am fairly sure that the reason we went to war with Germany in 1939 was because they had invaded Poland and refused to withdraw their troops when we asked. The Prime Minister at the time certainly thought that was the reason and he ought to have known.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Thanks for the interest - I'll try to give an honest reply.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option (2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree (3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant (4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
Surely a key criteria for a Party Leader is someone who stands a good chance of leading your party to victory at a General Election.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Thanks for the interest - I'll try to give an honest reply.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option (2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree (3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant (4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
What I find interesting about this list is that there is no requirement for either intellectual and/or moral honesty. And, fundamentally, I think Corbyn to be both intellectually dim and morally dishonest. (I have set out my reasons in previous posts so won't repeat here.)
Even worse, none of those requirements are the ones a leader needs - in any walk of life, frankly.
I would be genuinely interested to know what qualities you look for in a leader.
Thanks for the interest - I'll try to give an honest reply.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option (2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree (3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant (4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
Not trying to be aggressive here but i'm incredulous on points 2 and 3.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
Surely a key criteria for a Party Leader is someone who stands a good chance of leading your party to victory at a General Election.
What qualities do you look for in a Centre Forward Mr. Palmer? Nice bloke, passes to his team mates, never dives, runs about a lot. Scoring goals would be a nice added extra but not a necessity.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
It is because of the conspiracy to oust Corbyn come hell or high water even before he was elected. They all need to be rounded up and thrown out for their unacceptable behaviour, Danzcuk as an appetizer, Benn as the main course, and Kendall for dessert.
Of course the Poles (and other Eastern European countries) can be bought off over the benefits reforms. Whoever thought anything else? It's not a major matter of principle, national security, or economics. The only question is the price. If the Telegraph report is accurate (admittedly a very big 'If'), we've just seen their opening bid.
And a bid that should be rejected with a very loud raspberry. Letting Poland into NATO was a silly decision, basing NATO troops in Poland permanently is just a non-starter.
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
What do you mean by Britain will not go to war to defend Poland ? Are you saying Britain's commitment to the NATO charter is insincere ?
I am saying what I said. The UK and France will not go to war to defend Poland and nor would any other West European member of NATO.
I am sure that we would, in the event of an armed attack on Poland, comply with our obligations under the NATO treaty and would render every assistance short of actual help (a sharp diplomatic note delivered to the aggressor, calling for an urgent meeting of the UN security Council, that sort of thing).
I am fairly sure that the reason we went to war with Germany in 1939 was because they had invaded Poland and refused to withdraw their troops when we asked. The Prime Minister at the time certainly thought that was the reason and he ought to have known.
So basically you are saying that Britain voted to let the East Europeans into NATO was nothing short of a insincere stunt. Britain has no intention to act on article 5 or whatever according to you.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Aren't front benchers also allowed a free vote (genuine question)?
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Treachery? How is that possible on a free vote?
Screw the free vote ! He is a front bench spokesperson. He has to follow what the Party wants.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Well the party has voted at conference in favour of Trident but Corbyn apparently wants to get rid of his front bench spokesman because she - rather than he - is following what the party wants.
If Burnham gets shuffled out I may laugh hard enough to cause an injury
It would give him room to bring in both emily and diane. I think it's important in terms of balance that we have at least one hackney mp shadowing the great offices of state, to go with two islington ones.
I don't care what Corbyn does with the rest of the reshuffle but that Benn has to be fired - minimum.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
Because he had a different opinion on a free vote?
What Benn did was treachery. He had his 15 minutes of fame. Now - OUT !
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
"Bombers like him"
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
Of course, I do. Anyone who voted for this was simply showing off his willy. As if our 6 Typhoon's are going to make any difference.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
If the aircraft aren't going to make any difference what's the big deal? Why do say that people who supported the action have no place in your party?
Because they are warmongers ! And, he is bloody ORDINARY.
Comments
Poland feel threatened by the recent actions of Russia and want us to tear up the agreement with Russia and put permanent bases there (like there are for example in Germany).
He's having a few women troubles ^^;
It could call a referendum (an illegal one) I suppose and as such its opponents should and probably would allow it to run unopposed. Any conclusion would be meaningless as well as illegal.
However the SNP have no intentions of calling or calling for a referendum any time soon. It can barely govern 'independently' as it is.
He could have called a 3 line whip but he chickened out. Mind you in fairness to him he would have had to sack the chief whip first of course.
Weak. Just weak.
1) We can't deliver NATO bases. We can station UK armed forces in Poland easy-peasy but for them to be flagged as NATO troops requires the consent of the others. Would it be given?
2) Was the agreement with Russia done prior to Poland joining NATO or afterwards?
3) Have Russia abrogated any agreements with us recently?
Well, I wrote some rambling stuff about this but have just deleted it. All I have to say is:
Hammond is way too long
Osborne is way too short
'There was no cabinet revolt'
'That is what is so curious'
https://twitter.com/britainelects/status/682574790687875072
But you are correct - we cannot deliver NATO bases. We can offer support for any Polish request for permanent bases. Should any Russian threat emerge I do not think there would be any problem in stationing troops in Poland. The issue of currently placing permanent bases in Poland is not vital strategic one. Last June there were NATO exercises in Poland.
This is smart politics by Poland as by entangling these issues together if we make this deal then who in NATO will be left to object?
The rest of Eastern European NATO members are anxious for these new bases.
The rest of Western European nations want us to stay in the EU (and wouldn't mind these welfare reforms themselves) so they won't want to object.
The USA also want us to stay in the EU for their own reasons and would listen to us and Poland combined more than just Poland.
3) They invaded Ukraine.
The Russians started it... they invaded Ukraine.
Why does that sound familiar?
Simon Danczuk tells Labour to remove Ken Livingstone from official spanking texts probe
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/labour/12079285/Simon-Danczuk-tells-Labour-to-remove-Ken-Livingstone-from-official-spanking-texts-probe.html
Britain and France are not going to go to war to defend Poland, we did it once and it did not turn out well. Not that we have enough troops to send more than a token force anyway and most of Western Europe has, in effect, disarmed. I doubt if all the European members of NATO clubbed together they could actually field much more than a single armoured division and that would have so many different types of arms and armaments in it the logistics system would never cope.
Mind you, the Russians are in equally bad shape and in a couple probably won't be capable of invading anywhere.
In a way, it would be easier for non-corbynite labour supporters if people did just like Corbyn even if they weren't signed up to his agenda. But the signs are they are signed up it, and in a big way as well.
Good night.
I thought you Tories followed Adam Smith.
(1) A genuine interest in improving the country and the world around us and a reluctance to accept whatever we have at present as the only possible option
(2) A willingness to allow reasonable diversity of opinion in the party without organising deselection of people who disagree
(3) A commitment to conduct debate in a civilised manner, with a minimum of personal attacks, even on those members of other parties and groups who seem obviously unpleasant
(4) A lack of interest in personal aggrandisement and wealth, and an ability to resist the seductive attractions of powerful individuals and media
It would be nice if they had (5) Such a persuasive style that floating voters are converted in large numbers. But that's not in my top tier of requirements.
None of these are restricted to the Labour Party, and none of them guarantee that I'd support them - as I've said before, Oliver Letwin and Norman Lamb are examples of people who I think fit these criteria, while, say, Arthur Scargill failed on (2) and (3), and I'm not sure about (1).
As I'm by general inclination left-wing, I'd obviously like the leader to be similar, but I'm pragmatic enough to support reasonable reform programmes to be getting on with, as I did with Tony (who was a bit too keen on appeasing Murdoch et al for my taste, but one can't have everything). My problem with the ABC candidates and indeed, privately, with Ed and Gordon is that I saw less and less sign of any such thing - by 2015 I felt we were mainly trying to win by not being the Tories, and I'm bored with that.
The Eagle sisters - I wanted to say something but it might cause offence.
He is a Labour Front Bench spokes person. The party is overwhelmingly against bombing in Syria. Nobody is interested in "his" opinion. He is not that important. He will not even be a candidate in 2020. Bombers like him has no place in the Labour Party.
Do you actually think that the recent press briefings on the re-shuffle and Danczuk have nothing to do with the leader, or Ken's deeply unpleasant interventions aren't officially sanctioned? Or that Lansman isn't operating from the Leaders' Office?
He has surrounded himself with people who have made their careers from exactly the traits you deplore, why do you think that is?
I'd suggest your list of qualities might be more appropriate to the Chief Executive of the Fabian Society than leader of a national political party but heigh-ho.
Do you honestly and seriously think of Benn as some kind of wild-eyed warmonger?
I am sure that we would, in the event of an armed attack on Poland, comply with our obligations under the NATO treaty and would render every assistance short of actual help (a sharp diplomatic note delivered to the aggressor, calling for an urgent meeting of the UN security Council, that sort of thing).
@ReggieCide
I am fairly sure that the reason we went to war with Germany in 1939 was because they had invaded Poland and refused to withdraw their troops when we asked. The Prime Minister at the time certainly thought that was the reason and he ought to have known.
Benn has always been very ordinary. Intellectually and politically. He is only there because of his father.
Anyway, as a backbencher he will be free to do whatever he wants - until 2020. Then we will see the back of this insipid, ordinary man.
Even worse, none of those requirements are the ones a leader needs - in any walk of life, frankly.
They all need to be rounded up and thrown out for their unacceptable behaviour, Danzcuk as an appetizer, Benn as the main course, and Kendall for dessert.
What was that about contortions again?