It might be worth reminding ourselves of what the ex-MP, Jeff Rooker, now a Labour Lord, said about the current Labour leadership following the Paris atrocities.
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't."
The reshuffle changes show that, more clearly than before. I can have no confidence that a Corbyn-led Labour party would seek to protect me and mine from homicidal terrorists or those who seek to attack this country.
That's clear.
And to those who will huff and puff and say how unfair this is, too bad. This is the man Labour party members chose as their leader. This is Corbyn's default instinct - to side with or excuse or justify those who seek to attack us, those who hate us. A man who cannot accept what McFadden said, who cannot accept what Benn said when he described the contempt IS have for Parliamentary democracy is a man who is not fit to be the leader of a political party in Britain.
Of course Emily is a true lefty colossus, not an inconsequential fellow traveller like Nye Bevan:
"I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications and do not run away from it you will send a Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber."
But "remainers" cant tell us what services and rates the bank we are in will be demanding in 3 years time and if we stay we are locked in for another 30 years.
That's certainly an argument which the Leave side can and should use, but I think it's politically quite a weak one. Most voters have known nothing other than membership of the EU for their entire adult lives, and the sky hasn't fallen in. The status quo will still be seen as the status quo, and it will be extremely hard, bordering on impossible IMO, to persuade people that leaving is not a much greater uncertainty than staying.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not commenting on the validlity or otherwise of these arguments, but their likely political potency].
I take your point Richard. My great worry is that a UK 'remain' vote will be seen as assent for whatever the hell the Federalists want to do.
Yes, absolutely, and that was a point I made repeatedly well before the 2010 election, when the Kipperish tendency were laying into Cameron for not promising an immediate referendum.
We'll have to wait and see exactly what the renegotiation brings, but if there is some sort of formal recognition of the structural divide between the Eurozone and non-Eurozone countries, I can see a possible way forward whereby our EU friends get into the habit of concentrating their ever-closer union on the core Eurozone with the UK seen as on the periphery.
Whilst I fear we will have a Remain Vote, I view this process as one where a line is dran in the sand on what our involvement in the EC is going to be limited to. Then when the EC wants another treaty or movement of a power to them we have an automatic referendum. The EC in its current form is going to fall apart because it lacks the mechanism to reform itself.
@paulwaugh: I'm told there will be at least four front bench Labour resignations today
Surely one will be Andy Burnham. That fine, upstanding man of principle whose campaign manager was sacked yesterday. Incredible he has not gone already really.
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
It can hardly be a confidence matter if the Cabinet has a free vote. And he's going whatever happens.
Mr Dancer I think you underestimate the ego of politicians, most especially PMs. Dave will see an Out vote as complete humiliation, hounded out of office because of a referendum he never wanted.
I maintain he should be ok, but I'm far less certain than I was 6 months ago, who knows what may happen between now and the vote itself, the date of which Dave is dithering over.
Dithering = Forever putting off the reporting of supposed voting irregularities, and 'loosened' wheel nuts to the police.
I clearly hit the spot there for you to deflect it to a non story about Farage.
It seems the Dithering Dave meme has legs judging by the defensive response.
The supposed 'Autoroute Assassination' is a non story? Glad to hear it was all nonsense.
As for Dithering Dave, can you come up with a nick name for Osborne too, as I loathe him more?
Following on from discussion yesterday about lost sense of perspective in the media and on twitter...Classic example on Guardian homepage at the moment....I kid you not...
Fairly big bit with picture about sexist star wars monopoly game (Day 2 or 3 of that story they are pushing). Directly underneath small bit on events in Germany.
Which is more important. Stupid board game or women being attacked by gangs of up to a 1000 men in middle of one of German's most famous cities. Board game every time.
@paulwaugh: I'm told there will be at least four front bench Labour resignations today
Surely one will be Andy Burnham. That fine, upstanding man of principle whose campaign manager was sacked yesterday. Incredible he has not gone already really.
O/T: Huge apparent Cruz surge in California, though the (small) sample period was several weeks over the holidays, so should be taken with considerable caution:
@paulwaugh: I'm told there will be at least four front bench Labour resignations today
Surely one will be Andy Burnham. That fine, upstanding man of principle whose campaign manager was sacked yesterday. Incredible he has not gone already really.
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
Makes perfect sense.
So how come the impression universally is that this has been, indeed continues to be the most cack-handed reshuffle in history?
It's not the substance (although McDonnell's explanation of just what a free vote means on R4 this morning will be a set question in logic papers for generations to come), it's the incompetence at execution.
He goes on to say there may not be another bank to go to and we should make arrangements now. You were quite selective in your quote, may I say.
I need to go to an optician, I can't see anywhere in that article where he says that "there may not be another bank to go to ", but even if he did, what on earth has that got to do with my point?
As for being selective in my quotation, I picked out what I thought was the key difficulty which the Leave side have to address. I recommend reading the whole article, of course.
But you'd move your account pretty sharpish if you thought the bank might fail.
That's what Dan said, admittedly I paraphrased but I'm comfortable with what I wrote.
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
Mr. L, it's staggering. Livingstone saying Blair's Iraq invasion absolved the 7/7 bombers of responsibility was bad enough.
I do hope Labour gets a bloody grip. It's not good for the country to have an electoral choice between the Conservatives and a Labour party that's a unilateralist apologist for terrorism.
Of course Emily is a true lefty colossus, not an inconsequential fellow traveller like Nye Bevan:
"I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications and do not run away from it you will send a Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber."
Tory.
Or Ernest.... That won't do at all .. we've got to have this .. I don't mind for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked to or at by a Secretary of State in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing [the Atom Bomb] over here whatever it costs .. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
Late to this but has Pat McFadden really been sacked for saying that terror attacks are the fault of terrorists alone?
Does Corbyn think WE are to blame?!
o:0
Yep. Not only did he express such an outrageous opinion, he apparently challenged the well known views of his leader in doing so.
Chances of this coming up at PMQs today? 100% I would say.
And we all know how those on the Corbynite Hard Left love to have their views challenged. They don't live in a bubble of self-delusion at all. No. Not one bit.
It can hardly be a confidence matter if the Cabinet has a free vote. And he's going whatever happens.
Mr Dancer I think you underestimate the ego of politicians, most especially PMs. Dave will see an Out vote as complete humiliation, hounded out of office because of a referendum he never wanted.
I maintain he should be ok, but I'm far less certain than I was 6 months ago, who knows what may happen between now and the vote itself, the date of which Dave is dithering over.
Dithering = Forever putting off the reporting of supposed voting irregularities, and 'loosened' wheel nuts to the police.
I clearly hit the spot there for you to deflect it to a non story about Farage.
It seems the Dithering Dave meme has legs judging by the defensive response.
The supposed 'Autoroute Assassination' is a non story? Glad to hear it was all nonsense.
As for Dithering Dave, can you come up with a nick name for Osborne too, as I loathe him more?
It can hardly be a confidence matter if the Cabinet has a free vote. And he's going whatever happens.
Mr Dancer I think you underestimate the ego of politicians, most especially PMs. Dave will see an Out vote as complete humiliation, hounded out of office because of a referendum he never wanted.
I maintain he should be ok, but I'm far less certain than I was 6 months ago, who knows what may happen between now and the vote itself, the date of which Dave is dithering over.
Dithering = Forever putting off the reporting of supposed voting irregularities, and 'loosened' wheel nuts to the police.
I clearly hit the spot there for you to deflect it to a non story about Farage.
It seems the Dithering Dave meme has legs judging by the defensive response.
The supposed 'Autoroute Assassination' is a non story? Glad to hear it was all nonsense.
As for Dithering Dave, can you come up with a nick name for Osborne too, as I loathe him more?
You see this is what I find strange why waste time loathing Osborne? I happen to think Cameron is vacuous and displays poor judgement but I'm sure he's a nice man. If you loathe Osborne I dread to measure your festering hatred for Nigel.
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
Seems mostly reasonable. I think things have been taken more bitter than necessary or reasonable, but both sides are to blame for that, but if there are not mass resignations then clearly it wasn't seen as an all out offensive by the leadership even if some people moan.
"she accepted thousands of pounds in donations from a law firm which was condemned over false legal claims made against British soldiers. In December 2014, Thornberry took £14,500 from Leigh Day & Co. The firm was blasted by the inquiry into allegations of torture against UK troops, which found the claims were “wholly and entirely without merit” and based on “deliberate and calculated lies”."
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
Seems mostly reasonable. I think things have been taken more bitter than necessary or reasonable, but both sides are to blame for that, but if there are not mass resignations then clearly it wasn't seen as an all out offensive by the leadership even if some people moan.
But McFadden didn't feed a direct attack on Corbyn. He made a perfectly valid point - and was sacked for it.
@paulwaugh: I'm told there will be at least four front bench Labour resignations today
Surely one will be Andy Burnham. That fine, upstanding man of principle whose campaign manager was sacked yesterday. Incredible he has not gone already really.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. JC is a class-A hypocrite:
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky 33m33 minutes ago Pat McFadden - accused of disloyalty - tells me he has never voted against the Labour whip. (Corbyn has voted against whip over 500 times.)
McFadden was not sacked for disloyalty. He was sacked because he clearly pointed out the moral repulsiveness and dishonesty of Corbyn's views on terrorists and terrorism.
Good morning all. I woke up late today to be greeted with a lopsided and wonky Labour reshuffle, that to some observers say is still shuffling along.
For those that didn't realise it, or refused to believe it until now. Hilary Benn is the type to sell his grandmother, mother, wife and daughter to keep his job and seat as foreign policy spokesman on the Labour front bench: he will even serve a leader that he supposedly hatesas long as he thinks he is advancing up the slippery slope.
What a worm! And the Eagle has transformed herself to a mouse in an effort to stay in the shadow government. I guarantee though that if Jezza gets more supporters from Momentum into the upper echelons of the party their numbers will be up.
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
Sigh...
The reason that the Leave side is going to fail, and fail badly, is well encapsulated in what you have said. You have completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't arguing on either side, I was explaining the difficulty which the Leave side has in persuading those who are not already true believers. Of course you agree with Dan Hannan that we'd be better off Out. You are talking to yourselves, as the Leave side almost always does. To have any hope of persuading the Don't Knows and the persuadable to shift your way, you need to understand that they are -by definition - not obsessed with the EU and certainly don't think it is the root of all evil. You have to find and express arguments which will convince them that it's worth taking what they will see as a leap in the dark and a big risk. You also need to stop personalising the subject, this is not about Cameron or the Conservatives, but about jobs.
@rustinpeace00: Labour spokesman claims Dugher was sacked for 'incompetence' on media management, then cites an article published after he was sacked. Gold.
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
To quote Roger yesterday, you are living in Narnia. McFadden said that terrorists are responsible for their actions. Corbyn sacked him for saying this. This isn't a matter of policy. It's a matter of knowing the difference between good and evil. And your man is on the wrong side of that divide.
Following on from discussion yesterday about lost sense of perspective in the media and on twitter...Classic example on Guardian homepage at the moment....I kid you not...
Fairly big bit with picture about sexist star wars monopoly game (Day 2 or 3 of that story they are pushing). Directly underneath small bit on events in Germany.
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
Seems mostly reasonable. I think things have been taken more bitter than necessary or reasonable, but both sides are to blame for that, but if there are not mass resignations then clearly it wasn't seen as an all out offensive by the leadership even if some people moan.
But McFadden didn't feed a direct attack on Corbyn. He made a perfectly valid point - and was sacked for it.
And yet NP is happy with that.
Good point. Mostly but not entirely reasonable. Although I suppose technically it was a direct attack on Corbyn, but on a point personally I think was reasonable to make and attach him on and Corbyn should not hold such a position which, though he would deny it, the instinctual nature of his interpretations means he does, implicitly.
Mr. W, lots are grumpy about Rey not being included. Which, to be fair, is bloody ridiculous (although not quite in the same league as the horrendous incident[s] in Germany).
"she accepted thousands of pounds in donations from a law firm which was condemned over false legal claims made against British soldiers. In December 2014, Thornberry took £14,500 from Leigh Day & Co. The firm was blasted by the inquiry into allegations of torture against UK troops, which found the claims were “wholly and entirely without merit” and based on “deliberate and calculated lies”."
Yes, she was an actual Trotskyite before entering the Labour Party…
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
I was explaining the difficulty which the Leave side has in persuading those who are not already true believers.
This is SINDYREF Revisited.
A complete failure of its proponents to countenance an alternative point of view and to leap swiftly to impugning the intelligence, motives and morality of those who don't 'get it'.
It didn't work then, its not going to work now.....
It can hardly be a confidence matter if the Cabinet has a free vote. And he's going whatever happens.
Mr Dancer I think you underestimate the ego of politicians, most especially PMs. Dave will see an Out vote as complete humiliation, hounded out of office because of a referendum he never wanted.
I maintain he should be ok, but I'm far less certain than I was 6 months ago, who knows what may happen between now and the vote itself, the date of which Dave is dithering over.
Dithering = Forever putting off the reporting of supposed voting irregularities, and 'loosened' wheel nuts to the police.
I clearly hit the spot there for you to deflect it to a non story about Farage.
It seems the Dithering Dave meme has legs judging by the defensive response.
The supposed 'Autoroute Assassination' is a non story? Glad to hear it was all nonsense. As for Dithering Dave, can you come up with a nick name for Osborne too, as I loathe him more?
ozymandias's step-child? Son of ozymandias ozymandias minor? Ozzy the Octopus?
What McFadden said and what Benn said about IS, about terrorism generally, are going to be on every Conservative poster and ad and social media feed from now until the next election. Coupled with the fact that the Labour leader does not agree.
Mr. W, lots are grumpy about Rey not being included. Which, to be fair, is bloody ridiculous (although not quite in the same league as the horrendous incident[s] in Germany).
Mr D
They may be upset, but it - like flaps about manspreading and all the other stuff - does not deserve even 2 lines on page 26 of the Little Pidding Denouncer.
The company can now sell everyone another Monopoly on the back of the publicity, or extra characters in blister packs at 2.99 each.
Mr. 63, on that, I agree. Some people saying they'll vote Remain because they don't want to satisfy Farage baffle me.
"Don't want to satisfy Farage" is not the way I'd put it. What I would say is that many of the most prominent Leavers are among the people I'd least want to have more influence in the country. Grayling, for example, no more appeals to me as Prime Minister than Corbyn.
Also, the idea that the EU issue is of transcendent importance is not self-evident to everyone. If Leavers want us to view it that way, that's part of the case they need to make. (This can also be a problem for Remain, of course, if people choose to use the referendum to kick the Government.)
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
Sigh...
The reason that the Leave side is going to fail, and fail badly, is well encapsulated in what you have said. You have completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't arguing on either side, I was explaining the difficulty which the Leave side has in persuading those who are not already true believers. Of course you agree with Dan Hannan that we'd be better off Out. You are talking to yourselves, as the Leave side almost always does. To have any hope of persuading the Don't Knows and the persuadable to shift your way, you need to understand that they are -by definition - not obsessed with the EU and certainly don't think it is the root of all evil. You have to find and express arguments which will convince them that it's worth taking what they will see as a leap in the dark and a big risk. You also need to stop personalising the subject, this is not about Cameron or the Conservatives, but about jobs.
No this is all about you, Mr Nabavi. You want Britain to stay in the EU because you, and many like you, have lost faith in Great Britain as a stand alone nation and want this once great and advanced nation to become a cog in a European Federation.
A European Federation that is not democratic and imposes it's will from offices in Brussels from officials that have never been elected by the people. Not only that but it is entering a crisis internally and externally.
Mr. Wanderer, it's a problem for Leave if Grayling is the leader for that campaign.
However, the choice is between whether we get the right to choose for ourselves, or whether we remain shackled to a corpse. The eurozone is deranged, and, joyously, has a QMV majority. The EU is also committed to ever deeper integration.
We can integrate more, or break free. That's the choice. Grayling, Farage and others like them will not be around for as long as the consequences of this decision.
Fascinating comment from McDonnell on DP "Jeremy put a condition to Hilary that Pat McFadden had to go" So Pat's sacking was part of Hilary Benn's negotiation?
Hilary loses his backbone. He had no salary to lose by resigning. Spineless.
No this is all about you, Mr Nabavi. You want Britain to stay in the EU because you, and many like you, have lost faith in Great Britain as a stand alone nation and want this once great and advanced nation to become a cog in a European Federation.
LOL! I'm flattered to hear that it's all about me, even if I'm bemused to hear that I want Britain to become a cog in a European Federation.
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
Sigh... The reason that the Leave side is going to fail, and fail badly, is well encapsulated in what you have said. You have completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't arguing on either side, I was explaining the difficulty which the Leave side has in persuading those who are not already true believers. ......
Mr Nabavi. Let us assume that we vote to Remain. What do you expect to happen in those issues that affect the UK between now and 2026? Are you with Clegg in forecasting not much change?
"Jeremy put a condition to Hilary that Pat McFadden had to go"
So Pat's sacking was part of Hilary Benn's negotiation?
"Look, Hilary, I need a sacrificial donkey......"
That rather depends on whether you believe McDonnell is telling the truth. Saying something like this is a good way of getting your opponents to fight amongst themselves rather than you. So it seems somewhat convenient. I don't - based on what I have seen - have a high regard for the essential honesty of people like McDonnell, Livingstone, Corbyn et al.
Here is the problem in a nutshell. JC is a class-A hypocrite:
Sophy Ridge @SophyRidgeSky 33m33 minutes ago Pat McFadden - accused of disloyalty - tells me he has never voted against the Labour whip. (Corbyn has voted against whip over 500 times.)
McFadden was not sacked for disloyalty. He was sacked because he clearly pointed out the moral repulsiveness and dishonesty of Corbyn's views on terrorists and terrorism.
There is only one true crime in Labour today. Making Jeremy look bad.
The irony being, no-one makes Jeremy look bad more than Jeremy himself.
England look like they are going to lose this, I cannot believe it - this is the same South Africa who got thrashed a week or so ago? They only one one test last year, at the beginning of January, I guess it's the time they like.
"Jeremy put a condition to Hilary that Pat McFadden had to go"
So Pat's sacking was part of Hilary Benn's negotiation?
"Look, Hilary, I need a sacrificial donkey......"
That rather depends on whether you believe McDonnell is telling the truth. Saying something like this is a good way of getting your opponents to fight amongst themselves rather than you. So it seems somewhat convenient. I don't - based on what I have seen - have a high regard for the essential honesty of people like McDonnell, Livingstone, Corbyn et al.
@paulwaugh: How politics works 2016. Stephen Doughty just quit as Shad Foreign minister live on BBCDaily Politics. Was kinda obvs given tweet in wee hrs
No this is all about you, Mr Nabavi. You want Britain to stay in the EU because you, and many like you, have lost faith in Great Britain as a stand alone nation and want this once great and advanced nation to become a cog in a European Federation.
LOL! I'm flattered to hear that it's all about me, even if I'm bemused to hear that I want Britain to become a cog in a European Federation.
You may not want it Mr Nabavi. But the status quo is not really an option, is it? Ever closer union is. And something like a European Federation is what that will lead to.
The choice is not really between Leave - with all the very many uncertainties and difficulties that will entail - and what we have now but between Leave and further integration.
None of what we have been told Cameron has asked for will put a stop to further integration. So if we Remain that is what we will get.
Mr Nabavi. Let us assume that we vote to Remain. What do you expect to happen in those issues that affect the UK between now and 2026? Are you with Clegg in forecasting not much change?
I think that the biggest dynamic is that the Eurozone is still not institutionally stable. I don't see any appetite whatsoever amongst our EU friends (even in Greece, Italy, Portugal and Spain) for dismantling the Euro, so logically it follows that there must be long-term pressure for closer integration of the Eurozone.
However, that doesn't mean that we have to be directly involved, although if we are EU members then it is likely that institutional reform of the Eurozone will require our consent (this is a strong argument for staying in, BTW). So, as I said upthread, I can see a way through whereby de facto closer integration is concentrated on the Eurozone countries, and in that sense I think Clegg probably is right.
Comments
It might be worth reminding ourselves of what the ex-MP, Jeff Rooker, now a Labour Lord, said about the current Labour leadership following the Paris atrocities.
"My party leader cannot be accused, like the prime minister, of misleading anyone. He has never, to my knowledge, agreed to protect the realm, the British way of life, or western liberal democracies – and he won't."
The reshuffle changes show that, more clearly than before. I can have no confidence that a Corbyn-led Labour party would seek to protect me and mine from homicidal terrorists or those who seek to attack this country.
That's clear.
And to those who will huff and puff and say how unfair this is, too bad. This is the man Labour party members chose as their leader. This is Corbyn's default instinct - to side with or excuse or justify those who seek to attack us, those who hate us. A man who cannot accept what McFadden said, who cannot accept what Benn said when he described the contempt IS have for Parliamentary democracy is a man who is not fit to be the leader of a political party in Britain.
Righto. Back to work now.
"I am deeply convinced that you are wrong. It is therefore not a question of who is in favour of the hydrogen bomb, but a question of what is the most effective way of getting the damn thing destroyed. It is the most difficult of all problems facing mankind. But if you carry this resolution and follow out all its implications and do not run away from it you will send a Foreign Secretary, whoever he may be, naked into the conference chamber."
Tory.
[For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not commenting on the validlity or otherwise of these arguments, but their likely political potency].
One woman described how a firecracker put in her hood has left her scarred for life.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35239347
Lovely bit of BBC spin in there, see if you can spot it...
http://link.huffingtonpost.com/view/524aa3dc3227b874ccf803013hl46.8v/503a29d1
The basic issue is where to draw the line in dissent, given the objective fact that most PLP members are to the right of both the leader and most ordinary members. It's not human and certainly not "new politics" to expect everyone to be permanently muzzled, but equally it's not a viable strategy to have Shadows openly echoing attacks on the leadership. This is an issue for all parties in our fissiparous times - for instance, how far can a Minister campaigning for Leave cast doubt on the value of Cameron's negotiations, without undermining both Cameron and the party?
The underlying message that Corbyn seems to be trying to draw is that it's OK to have a different view from him but feeding a direct attack on him is sacking material. Benn's approach exemplifies it - he's been perfectly clear where he disagrees, but without a hint of personal attack. I suspect that reflects the view of the majority of even non-Corbyn members, though there's no doubt that the reshuffle and its aftermath is more bad publicity in the short term. Mike is correct that it will somewhat strengthen Corbyn's position, because he's separated the hardline critics from the people who simply have a different view on specific issues - the danger for him would be if people like Dugher and the resignees got together with people like Benn.
As for Dithering Dave, can you come up with a nick name for Osborne too, as I loathe him more?
@alisonmrowat: Alex Salmond as the new Alan Partridge? See The Midge: https://t.co/HANqRMTxzo
Also an opportunity for the Member for Zoomer North and Runrig (AKA the stupidest MP at Westminster) to put his foot in it again...
@kevverage: First phone in topic: is @PeteWishart correct when he says no SNP MPs have second (or third or fourth) jobs? https://t.co/JJJOTkB97C
Fairly big bit with picture about sexist star wars monopoly game (Day 2 or 3 of that story they are pushing). Directly underneath small bit on events in Germany.
Which is more important. Stupid board game or women being attacked by gangs of up to a 1000 men in middle of one of German's most famous cities. Board game every time.
Does Corbyn think WE are to blame?!
o:0
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/ca/california_republican_presidential_primary-5322.html
It's been a highly enjoyable wheeze, and I've had full value for my £3 stake, but it would be a shame to see it all end so quickly.
So how come the impression universally is that this has been, indeed continues to be the most cack-handed reshuffle in history?
It's not the substance (although McDonnell's explanation of just what a free vote means on R4 this morning will be a set question in logic papers for generations to come), it's the incompetence at execution.
Anyway, it seems Labour, a once proud party, is now being reduced to a Jezlamic state.
Chances of this coming up at PMQs today? 100% I would say.
That's what Dan said, admittedly I paraphrased but I'm comfortable with what I wrote.
You see your point is a double edged sword, I'm far more concerned with what happens if we stay than if we leave. I have complete confidence in us trading freely with the rest of the world as we did for decades, I'm surprised you don't share that confidence in our govt.
I do hope Labour gets a bloody grip. It's not good for the country to have an electoral choice between the Conservatives and a Labour party that's a unilateralist apologist for terrorism.
That won't do at all .. we've got to have this .. I don't mind for myself, but I don't want any other Foreign Secretary of this country to be talked to or at by a Secretary of State in the United States as I have just had in my discussions with Mr Byrnes. We've got to have this thing [the Atom Bomb] over here whatever it costs .. We've got to have the bloody Union Jack on top of it.
Another Tory.....
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/684696776650190848
http://order-order.com/2016/01/06/shadow-defence-secretary-took-cash-from-law-firm/
"she accepted thousands of pounds in donations from a law firm which was condemned over false legal claims made against British soldiers. In December 2014, Thornberry took £14,500 from Leigh Day & Co. The firm was blasted by the inquiry into allegations of torture against UK troops, which found the claims were “wholly and entirely without merit” and based on “deliberate and calculated lies”."
And yet NP is happy with that.
For those that didn't realise it, or refused to believe it until now. Hilary Benn is the type to sell his grandmother, mother, wife and daughter to keep his job and seat as foreign policy spokesman on the Labour front bench: he will even serve a leader that he supposedly hatesas long as he thinks he is advancing up the slippery slope.
What a worm! And the Eagle has transformed herself to a mouse in an effort to stay in the shadow government. I guarantee though that if Jezza gets more supporters from Momentum into the upper echelons of the party their numbers will be up.
The reason that the Leave side is going to fail, and fail badly, is well encapsulated in what you have said. You have completely misunderstood my point. I wasn't arguing on either side, I was explaining the difficulty which the Leave side has in persuading those who are not already true believers. Of course you agree with Dan Hannan that we'd be better off Out. You are talking to yourselves, as the Leave side almost always does. To have any hope of persuading the Don't Knows and the persuadable to shift your way, you need to understand that they are -by definition - not obsessed with the EU and certainly don't think it is the root of all evil. You have to find and express arguments which will convince them that it's worth taking what they will see as a leap in the dark and a big risk. You also need to stop personalising the subject, this is not about Cameron or the Conservatives, but about jobs.
"Jeremy put a condition to Hilary that Pat McFadden had to go"
So Pat's sacking was part of Hilary Benn's negotiation?
It all makes sense now.
A complete failure of its proponents to countenance an alternative point of view and to leap swiftly to impugning the intelligence, motives and morality of those who don't 'get it'.
It didn't work then, its not going to work now.....
Son of ozymandias
ozymandias minor?
Ozzy the Octopus?
They may be upset, but it - like flaps about manspreading and all the other stuff - does not deserve even 2 lines on page 26 of the Little Pidding Denouncer.
The company can now sell everyone another Monopoly on the back of the publicity, or extra characters in blister packs at 2.99 each.
Also, the idea that the EU issue is of transcendent importance is not self-evident to everyone. If Leavers want us to view it that way, that's part of the case they need to make. (This can also be a problem for Remain, of course, if people choose to use the referendum to kick the Government.)
A European Federation that is not democratic and imposes it's will from offices in Brussels from officials that have never been elected by the people. Not only that but it is entering a crisis internally and externally.
However, the choice is between whether we get the right to choose for ourselves, or whether we remain shackled to a corpse. The eurozone is deranged, and, joyously, has a QMV majority. The EU is also committed to ever deeper integration.
We can integrate more, or break free. That's the choice. Grayling, Farage and others like them will not be around for as long as the consequences of this decision.
Spineless.
The irony being, no-one makes Jeremy look bad more than Jeremy himself.
This can only end horribly.....
Fun
Harry Cole @MrHarryCole
Holy shit... junior minister Stephen Doughty just resigned live on TV.
The choice is not really between Leave - with all the very many uncertainties and difficulties that will entail - and what we have now but between Leave and further integration.
None of what we have been told Cameron has asked for will put a stop to further integration. So if we Remain that is what we will get.
However, that doesn't mean that we have to be directly involved, although if we are EU members then it is likely that institutional reform of the Eurozone will require our consent (this is a strong argument for staying in, BTW). So, as I said upthread, I can see a way through whereby de facto closer integration is concentrated on the Eurozone countries, and in that sense I think Clegg probably is right.