"Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened"
Assassination is defined as killing for political, religious or monetary reasons. The US would presumably argue that killing this man was none of those, and that the term assassination is incorrect. The US stood to gain precious little or nothing in any of these terms by killing Solemeini
The US would argue that killing this man was akin to killing a man driving a car at speed towards a group of innocent civilians. The fact he has been sponsored to do this by a certain state is immaterial.
The term assassination has been used by certain parts of the media who want to portray the killing in a certain way.
"WHAT is LLAP-GOCH again?
It is an ANCIENT Welsh ART based on a BRILLIANTLY simple I-D-E-A, which is a SECRET. The best form of DEFENCE is ATTACK (Clausewitz) and the most VITAL element of ATTACK is SURPRISE (Oscar HAMMERstein). Therefore, the BEST way to protect yourself AGAINST any ASSAILANT is to ATTACK him before he attacks YOU... Or BETTER... BEFORE the THOUGHT of doing so has EVEN OCCURRED TO HIM!!! SO YOU MAY BE ABLE TO RENDER YOUR ASSAILANT UNCONSCIOUS BEFORE he is EVEN aware of your very existence!"
I am using the term "assassination" because it is the handiest and most accurate way to refer to an assassination.
"Assassin: someone belonging to the medieval Syrian–Persian Ismaili order of Assassins"
It's an irregular verb. They assassinate. We ... err ... don't.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Did you listen to PMQs? AFAIK all the MPs down to ask questions did. The difference was Hoyle kept the process moving swiftly, dealt with excessive noise promptly and didn't take up time liking the sound of his own voice.
I did. My concern remains. Thoroughness is more important than speed.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
Oh good. I am glad I am not the only one who feels uneasy about what has happened.
I am going to be - possibly - a bit controversial.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination?
And in addition to this is the wider question: is it strategically sensible to do this? And what is the plan for what happens next? What does this mean for wider Western interests in the region? These are all legitimate questions to ask of our government and of the US government.
Going on about Corbyn getting money from Press TV may be a good-ish debating point but it is no answer to what are, to my mind anyway, serious political questions.
It is after all quite possible that innocent civilians will suffer in any retaliation. Their families deserve more than clever debating points as to why this has happened.
The problem with Corbyn is that is horribly compromised over his support for Hamas and Iran and has no credibility on the question. Most previous labour leaders would not be so compromised and the question itself would not therefore be compromised, if that makes sense
OK. But I am asking the questions. And, so far, answers come there none .......
The world is a place where Britain is increasingly irrelevant
Oh how I wish we were in terms of geo-politics. If WW3 (Or more realistically more small scale gulf conflict) breaks out, no one is going to be caring what Norway or Slovakia does.
I don’t.
I might be in a minority here but I’ve always been proud of the contribution Britain has made to the advancement of the human story.
I hope it continues. I think we’re the good guys far more often than we give ourselves credit for.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Did you listen to PMQs? AFAIK all the MPs down to ask questions did. The difference was Hoyle kept the process moving swiftly, dealt with excessive noise promptly and didn't take up time liking the sound of his own voice.
I did. My concern remains. Thoroughness is more important than speed.
Second, it is grimly amusing to see so many people who a few days ago didn’t even know of General Solemein’s existence opining so apparently knowledgeably on all his activities. Let’s take it as read that he was a very bad man. Let’s also take it as read that Corbyn is morally compromised in questioning what has happened.
But the question still remains: is it lawful to assassinate someone just for that reason and in the absence of any evidence that he was a threat to the US or its allies at the time of the assassination? I am not an international lawyer so I don’t know the answer to this question. But it is worth asking and getting a clear answer on it. Because if it isn’t then it is troubling for a country which claims to act in accordance to the rule of law to take such action. It may not have legitimised Iran to use assassination as a weapon - they have already been doing this - but it does place the US and its allies on much less firm moral high ground than might be wise.
SNIPPED WITH APOLOGIES DUE TO LENGTH.
It is interesting to see how attitudes to this have changed over the years. Of course back until the 60s State sanctioned assassination of enemies was accepted as legal if morally dubious. I believe the main reason it was ended was because someone pointed out to a president (Nixon?) that it made them more of a target as well is the world accepted that assassinating political and military leaders was a normal part of diplomacy/war.
But that did change after 911 and even more so under Obama. He is famous for having changed CIA/Military policy to loosen the targeting requirements for 'targeted killings'. Previously it had been necessary to be on a list approved by the Government and to be a named individual. Obama changed this to allow the assassination of unknown individuals based on a pattern of their habits, movements and associations.
Personally I am far more comfortable with the targeted killing of a known, named individual who is well know to be responsible for planning and ordering the killing of Coalition troops than random attacks on unknown individuals who 'acted a bit funny'.
Whether it is politically wise is entirely a different question but I have always found it strange that we accept the killing of tens of thousands of soldiers who may not even want to be out there whilst recoiling from targeting some of the individuals who are actually responsible for sending troops (either regular or irregular) out to kill British or American troops.
Thank you for your thoughtful answer. This is not an easy topic I agree. I’d like to understand the basis on which Obama gave his orders and how Trump has justified this action. It may well be utterly justified. But I would like to understand the reasoning and thinking behind it.
I can't for the life of me see why less scrutiny of the government is better than more scrutiny of the government.
It isn't. I suppose the question is if more or the same scrutiny can be packed into circa 30 minutes, which was the previously allotted time. Was the drift to a longer session resulting in more scrutiny or was it simply longer?
Has international law ever really existed in reality in terms of wars? Without powerful international courts, the big global powers having vetos and just as importantly no realistic enforcement mechanism international law in practice is just a mix of might is right and winners writing history and justice.
I wish it were different but fail to see how it has really ever existed. All the main powers break it without any concerns and have done since it started after the second world war.
Has international law ever really existed in reality in terms of wars? Without powerful international courts, the big global powers having vetos and just as importantly no realistic enforcement mechanism international law in practice is just a mix of might is right and winners writing history and justice.
I wish it were different but fail to see how it has really ever existed. All the main powers break it without any concerns and have done since it started after the second world war.
That's not true. International legal standards were widely obeyed on the Western Front in WW2.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
Unison Britians biggest trade union come out to back Starmer
I think that effectively means he's already passed the first two stages of qualification before any other candidate has passed the first (MP nominations) stage.
Yep - he's creating the impression of momentum around his cause too. Notably he's passed both stages of qualification before Long-Bailey has reached 22 odd MPs. When will CLPs start declaring for various candidates ?
Has international law ever really existed in reality in terms of wars? Without powerful international courts, the big global powers having vetos and just as importantly no realistic enforcement mechanism international law in practice is just a mix of might is right and winners writing history and justice.
I wish it were different but fail to see how it has really ever existed. All the main powers break it without any concerns and have done since it started after the second world war.
That's not true. International legal standards were widely obeyed on the Western Front in WW2.
Didnt seem to stop millions of civilians getting killed.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
My understanding is that it is not a big surprise that they backed Starmer over RLB. But it may be significant that they chose Starmer over Nandy?
Twitter spilling into the real world, ending up with some vigilantes allegedly turning up at his house and haranguing his wife and kids is totally out of order though, if true as reported.
It's 99.99% probable that he knew. But, yes, on your main point, I totally agree. And so does Jones. Apology below and I would not be surprised if this incident was part of his motive for announcing that he is pulling back a little from Twitter.
On topic, Nandy appears able to combine Phillips’s down-to-earth challenge to the left’s preconceptions with some intelligence and at least the beginnings of an alternative strategy. I’d suggest that at current odds backing Nandy and laying Starmer, Thornberry and Phillips is the best approach?
I tend to agree, though Nandy`s odds have come down from the last few days and I`m also a tad concerned that she is picking up so few backers according to Order Order spreadsheet. The bet I`m pondering over is a lay of RLB.
RLB has, as expected, been distinctly unimpressive so far, and the question is who might be able to challenge her from left (non political) field. That appears to come down to a choice between Nandy and Phillips. If we were casting for some Coronation Street/Crossroads combo, the gig might go to Phillips, but if we are looking for a politician with some intelligence and insight to add to her nous, Nandy appears the better choice.
Much of the actual enthusiasm for Phillips seems to come from either the labour right, which is large in terms of the PLP but less large in terms of the membership and also from people like Mike who are not labour supporters, but Lib Dems or left leaning Tories who are very enthusiastic for her.
I don't doubt the Progress wing is trying to get people signed up to vote for her which is perfectly fair and reasonable as that is what happened before with Jezza.
I also don't doubt she'd be as disastrous for the Party, in her own way, as Corbyn has been for labour. She alienates as many as she appeals to.
Phillips would never be as disastrous for Labour as Corbyn, for the reason you hint at - she's liked by people outside the party. Plus, for all that she's outspoken she's not a creature of ideology and is actually probably a bit to the left of Progress and the New Labour old guard like Cooper. One reason Corbyn was such a disaster is that he was utterly incapable of admitting he was wrong or that some of his fundamental beliefs were wrong, electorally toxic or both. Whatever her other faults, that's not true of Phillips.
She probably, however, can't win as you're right, she does alienate too much of the membership, and her leadership would be a bit like political shock therapy. A far more likely scenario is Nandy surging as she is prepared to challenge the toxicity that's dragged Labour down in a stronger way than Starmer, but does so in a way that puts activists more at ease, She talks Labourese, Phillips talks like an ordinary person - something a good few activists are suspicious of.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Has international law ever really existed in reality in terms of wars? Without powerful international courts, the big global powers having vetos and just as importantly no realistic enforcement mechanism international law in practice is just a mix of might is right and winners writing history and justice.
I wish it were different but fail to see how it has really ever existed. All the main powers break it without any concerns and have done since it started after the second world war.
I am not an expert, but I believe the Germans and the allies largely followed the Geneva conventions during WW2 with respect to each others captives though the SS regularly infringed them and the Japanese completely ignored them. The Nuremburg trials have sometimes focussed minds since then though there have been regular bending of rules and "interpretations". The somewhat bizarre system at the UN with the permanent security council members have caused some strange interpretations that have caused people to argue "legality" or "illegality" based upon the political machinations of that supranational body. All is somewhat arbitrary. War involves extrajudicial murder. Some would argue that should all be illegal, others would argue that would be naïve.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
My understanding is that it is not a big surprise that they backed Starmer over RLB. But it may be significant that they chose Starmer over Nandy?
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
Although I am not a Labour member or supporter, that sounds like good news. It is time we had a credible intelligent LoTO.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
I've said before that Dave Prentis is actually reasonable and sane. UNISON largely went along with endorsing Corbyn before because they knew he was going to win in both leadership contests.
Labour need to realize they need to close the gap in the over 50s otherwise they can forget winning another election .
I know some moan about Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma but I do think he’s the best qualified candidate , I like Jess Phillips but I think KS as leader and JP as deputy would be a strong ticket .
The Corbynites had their chance and blew it . RLB I’m afraid simply isn’t upto it and looks a lightweight .
Starmer getting Unison's backing means he is likely to hit the final ballot threshold without needing CLP nominations. This may make it easier for both Lisa Nandy and Jess Phillips to secure the numbers they would need.
I think Labour will go for "Sir" Kier Starmer and he'll be another Kinnock figure in that he will do the job of starting to get Labour sane again but will be unelectable in 2024.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Not really. I posted on here before the GE that I thought it might. Leamington (though not Warwick) is very, very Remain. The majority went down, but Matt Western clung on. I think he may be on the shadow front bench once the leadership contest is done.
I think Labour will go for "Sir" Kier Starmer and he'll be another Kinnock figure in that he will do the job of starting to get Labour sane again but will be unelectable in 2024.
Psephologically that is a non sequitur. Starmer has far more gravitas than Kinnock - he looks the part.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
I might be in a minority here but I’ve always been proud of the contribution Britain has made to the advancement of the human story.
I hope it continues. I think we’re the good guys far more often than we give ourselves credit for.
Your post has a MASSIVE 5 likes in no time at all therefore I conclude that the opinion offered in your final sentence is not well founded. In fact the reverse is more likely. Without saying how often we are or were the Good Guys, it is probable that this particular number is rather LESS than "we" - being us Brits as a whole - give ourselves credit for.
Sorry, that was not pithily expressed, but I hope you get the drift.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
I've said before that Dave Prentis is actually reasonable and sane. UNISON largely went along with endorsing Corbyn before because they knew he was going to win in both leadership contests.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Not really. I posted on here before the GE that I thought it might. Leamington (though not Warwick) is very, very Remain. The majority went down, but Matt Western clung on. I think he may be on the shadow front bench once the leadership contest is done.
Ok. I was out of action for the first 3 weeks of December and unable to tune in. I believe that a few months back you were not optimistic re- his prospects of survival. It still seems incredible that in a poor Labour year , it can win Anthony Eden's old seat - Labour was not competitive there until 1997. I was also surprised to see Labour hold Bedford - which in the past had only been won in very good years. It would appear that Corbyn's toxicity was overidden by other factors - first term incumbency plus being Remainer areas.
Wonderful speech by EU President Ursula von der Leyen .
I really hope relations between the UK and EU can move forward in a positive way and a new but of course different partnership can be formed .
In a different context it's the kind of speech Theresa May should have given in July 2016. An EU attempt to set the narrative ahead of the split, and, to put it bluntly, that charlatanism doesn't have a monopoly on optimism.
The Iranian crisis is a perfect example of why we need to renew our strategic nuclear deterrent.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
Not stalking you - just that the 2 posts I want to pick up are both yours.
So my question to you is - are you confident that WE are crazy enough to use nukes? Because otherwise, it's pointless having them.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
I believe drone strikes started under GWB but they certainly increased greatly under Obama (I'm not comfortable with either). However isn't the massive step change here that Trump has taken out a senior figure in the government of a legally recognised state with which the USA is not at war? Was there a comparable action under Obama?
I think Labour will go for "Sir" Kier Starmer and he'll be another Kinnock figure in that he will do the job of starting to get Labour sane again but will be unelectable in 2024.
It all depends on how successful Boris is as PM. So far he looks imperious but it could all change. We could have Labour in opposition for another 15 years or just five.
Just out of interest why have you put Sir in inverted commas?
The Iranian crisis is a perfect example of why we need to renew our strategic nuclear deterrent.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
Not stalking you - just that the 2 posts I want to pick up are both yours.
So my question to you is - are you confident that WE are crazy enough to use nukes? Because otherwise, it's pointless having them.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Not really. I posted on here before the GE that I thought it might. Leamington (though not Warwick) is very, very Remain. The majority went down, but Matt Western clung on. I think he may be on the shadow front bench once the leadership contest is done.
Ok. I was out of action for the first 3 weeks of December and unable to tune in. I believe that a few months back you were not optimistic re- his prospects of survival. It still seems incredible that in a poor Labour year , it can win Anthony Eden's old seat - Labour was not competitive there until 1997. I was also surprised to see Labour hold Bedford - which in the past had only been won in very good years. It would appear that Corbyn's toxicity was overidden by other factors - first term incumbency plus being Remainer areas.
The Warwick seat is very different to Eden's time as it then included Kenilworth and some rural wards. Essentially as the population of Warwick and Leamington towns has increased the seat has been drawn tighter and tighter around them. The rural parts of Warwick borough are in the Kenilworth and Southam seat.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Not really. I posted on here before the GE that I thought it might. Leamington (though not Warwick) is very, very Remain. The majority went down, but Matt Western clung on. I think he may be on the shadow front bench once the leadership contest is done.
They are absolutely convinced their policies were dead popular (or just weren't given enough airtime by the biased media), just one more heave comrades....
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
Not exactly true. At the end of his first term when Obama considered the possibility he might lose the forthcoming election, he put in place a set of rules governing the conduct of targeted killings. This includes Congressional oversight but only retrospectively. Once a month members of Congress are briefed on the previous month's killings and are shown the evidence supporting the case for their assassination.
Very big news in the Labour leadershi election - Unison is backing Keir Starmer. Unison is the UK's biggest trade union. Starmer is now guaranteed to make the final ballot.
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
On another topic, may I ask whether you are surprised that Warwick & Leamington stayed Labour on 12th December?
Not really. I posted on here before the GE that I thought it might. Leamington (though not Warwick) is very, very Remain. The majority went down, but Matt Western clung on. I think he may be on the shadow front bench once the leadership contest is done.
Ok. I was out of action for the first 3 weeks of December and unable to tune in. I believe that a few months back you were not optimistic re- his prospects of survival. It still seems incredible that in a poor Labour year , it can win Anthony Eden's old seat - Labour was not competitive there until 1997. I was also surprised to see Labour hold Bedford - which in the past had only been won in very good years. It would appear that Corbyn's toxicity was overidden by other factors - first term incumbency plus being Remainer areas.
The Warwick seat is very different to Eden's time as it then included Kenilworth and some rural wards. Essentially as the population of Warwick and Leamington towns has increased the seat has been drawn tighter and tighter around them. The rural parts of Warwick borough are in the Kenilworth and Southam seat.
Thanks for that - it explains why Labour was not in serious contention there in 1945 and 1966.
The Iranian crisis is a perfect example of why we need to renew our strategic nuclear deterrent.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
Not stalking you - just that the 2 posts I want to pick up are both yours.
So my question to you is - are you confident that WE are crazy enough to use nukes? Because otherwise, it's pointless having them.
The accepted wisdom is that people have to believe that you're willing to fire them, hence the tedious asking of the 'would you press the button' q of every likely candidate for pm and their pet budgie (JoSwin is not the pet budgie for the avoidance of doubt).
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
First, why all the cheering at PMQs being only 30 minutes? This is the only opportunity MPs have to question the PM, a PM who has not shown a marked inclination to subject himself to scrutiny, and at a time when there is serious international tension and a host of other matters coming up which will affect Britain. We should be demanding more scrutiny not less, not celebrating the fact that only 30 minutes was allowed for the PM to answer questions.
Did you listen to PMQs? AFAIK all the MPs down to ask questions did. The difference was Hoyle kept the process moving swiftly, dealt with excessive noise promptly and didn't take up time liking the sound of his own voice.
I did. My concern remains. Thoroughness is more important than speed.
In what way was it less "thorough"?
The only thing "missing" was Bercow's homilies....hardly a loss, or a measure of "thoroughness"!
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
I believe drone strikes started under GWB but they certainly increased greatly under Obama (I'm not comfortable with either). However isn't the massive step change here that Trump has taken out a senior figure in the government of a legally recognised state with which the USA is not at war? Was there a comparable action under Obama?
Oh yes it was an incredibly stupid act but the Americans killing anyone walking through the Hindu Kusch who was over a certain height on the off chance that he might be Bin Laden wasn't great either. The sad truth is that our alliance with the US makes for difficult compromises and moral evasions. The current incumbent is worse than average but few American Presidents since WW2 have felt themselves restricted by international law.
The Iranian crisis is a perfect example of why we need to renew our strategic nuclear deterrent.
It’s a sizeable state that is pursuing the development of nuclear weapons as a matter of national policy and is both crazy and ideological enough to consider using them.
Without it we’d be vulnerable to nuclear blackmail, or worse.
Not stalking you - just that the 2 posts I want to pick up are both yours.
So my question to you is - are you confident that WE are crazy enough to use nukes? Because otherwise, it's pointless having them.
This problem is obliquely touched on in Death's End, the third volume of the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin.
Quick book review: the ideas in the trilogy are much more thought-provoking than the quality of the writing (though I get the impression that the translation doesn't help). The best by some way is the third book. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense as a freestanding book, so you have to read the first and the second. Worth persevering with.
I think Labour will go for "Sir" Kier Starmer and he'll be another Kinnock figure in that he will do the job of starting to get Labour sane again but will be unelectable in 2024.
That depends on whether you believe in the symmetrical notion of history. Kinnock had to survive a substantial schism within his Party while Gaitskell also had to fight substantial internal divisions.
Both of course achieved popularity boosts when taking on their opponents and if Starmer publicly takes on and denounces the Corbyn platform it won't do him any harm.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
Not exactly true. At the end of his first term when Obama considered the possibility he might lose the forthcoming election, he put in place a set of rules governing the conduct of targeted killings. This includes Congressional oversight but only retrospectively. Once a month members of Congress are briefed on the previous month's killings and are shown the evidence supporting the case for their assassination.
I am struggling to see how that makes it any more legal. My understanding is that the seniority level at which such killings can be authorised has been reduced under Trump but otherwise the previous structures remain in place.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Not close to any candidate but impression is that Starmer would do a better job of holding Johnson to account (which as charlatan he wants to avoid) but Nandy would score better on emotional intelligence, also against Johnson.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Yes, because boring and pompous as he can sound he looks vaguely credible as the holder of the office of PM. The others...don't, at least not yet. Some of them, Nandy in particular, could perhaps grow into it. The luxury of knowing there is no vaguely credible alternative will be gone.
MPs have sat through their shortest Prime Minister’s Questions session for more than three years. Sir Lindsay Hoyle’s first PMQs since replacing John Bercow as Speaker lasted 33 minutes, which earned praise and cheers from the Tory benches.
Mr Bercow’s final session, on October 30 2019, lasted 71 minutes. PMQs also got steadily longer under Mr Bercow, from an average of just over 30 minutes in 2009 to 35 minutes by 2015 and 49 minutes in 2019.
Raising a point of order, Conservative MP Michael Fabricant said: “I don’t think it’ll have escaped anybody’s attention but nevertheless I think it’s worth making the point that we went through all the names on the order paper for Prime Minister’s Questions – and a number of other colleagues on both sides got in – and we finished at about 12.31 and no-one had to suffer abuse from the chair.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Yes, because boring and pompous as he can sound he looks vaguely credible as the holder of the office of PM. The others...don't, at least not yet. Some of them, Nandy in particular, could perhaps grow into it. The luxury of knowing there is no vaguely credible alternative will be gone.
Indeed. Boring could also look attractive as people begin to realise their PM is a fecking ejit clown.
Well exactly. Apart from USA on Japan their "use" is to threaten and deter and at this they are thought to be supremely effective. And if this is true you would be crazy not to want or have them. Like we and USA and Russia and Israel and France etc seem to do - and also NK and Iran. The corollary of this being that if you do have or want them you are most likely not crazy. But you certainly have to be pretty crazy to fire them and kill millions of people. Ergo if you have them you can probably never fire them because you will not be sufficiently crazy. Which means - since this is obvious - that they cannot be as effective as first thought at deterrence and therefore you are crazy to want or have them.
Why do people ask this every time I post one of her tweets?! Of course I do. Just waiting for someone to tell me I’m not allowed to find it funny now...
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Not close to any candidate but impression is that Starmer would do a better job of holding Johnson to account (which as charlatan he wants to avoid) but Nandy would score better on emotional intelligence, also against Johnson.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
By 2023 or 2024 it is far from clear that Brexit will be at all salient re- voting behaviour. I do find it a bit odd that quite a few Tories on here appear convinced that the Red Wall which crumbled so badly over the two and a half years between the 2017 and 2019 elections cannot be largely rebuilt over the four year period or so to the next election.The loss of Corbyn's toxicity is likely to boost Labour significantly in white working class seats.
I think Labour will go for "Sir" Kier Starmer and he'll be another Kinnock figure in that he will do the job of starting to get Labour sane again but will be unelectable in 2024.
That depends on whether you believe in the symmetrical notion of history. Kinnock had to survive a substantial schism within his Party while Gaitskell also had to fight substantial internal divisions.
Both of course achieved popularity boosts when taking on their opponents and if Starmer publicly takes on and denounces the Corbyn platform it won't do him any harm.
Starmer is a far more credible figure than Kinnoch. Kinnoch never looked PM material. I watched him a few years ago on HIGNFY, long after I had passed the opportunity to vote for his party while he was LoTO. He was sooo cringingly embarrassing even though he had years on his side. better than Corbyn and Foot perhaps, but not much more so. Jess Phillips is more likeable than Kinnoch, but she is definitely the Kinnoch figure
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
I believe drone strikes started under GWB but they certainly increased greatly under Obama (I'm not comfortable with either). However isn't the massive step change here that Trump has taken out a senior figure in the government of a legally recognised state with which the USA is not at war? Was there a comparable action under Obama?
Oh yes it was an incredibly stupid act but the Americans killing anyone walking through the Hindu Kusch who was over a certain height on the off chance that he might be Bin Laden wasn't great either. The sad truth is that our alliance with the US makes for difficult compromises and moral evasions. The current incumbent is worse than average but few American Presidents since WW2 have felt themselves restricted by international law.
Neither have Russian or Chinese leaders. Nor leaders of most other smaller countries when they become engaged in wars that could lead to their destruction. International law as we talk about it in the UK is an illusion in our minds.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Not close to any candidate but impression is that Starmer would do a better job of holding Johnson to account (which as charlatan he wants to avoid) but Nandy would score better on emotional intelligence, also against Johnson.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
By 2023 or 2024 it is far from clear that Brexit will be at all salient re- voting behaviour. I do find it a bit odd that quite a few Tories on here appear convinced that the Red Wall which crumbled so badly over the two and a half years between the 2017 and 2019 elections cannot be largely rebuilt over the four year period or so to the next election.The loss of Corbyn's toxicity is likely to boost Labour significantly in white working class seats.
The red wall crumbled over a period 2005-2019. It wasn't just Corbyn - though he accelerated it.
Labour could reorient themselves to red wall seats and rebuild it Or it could completely disappear into Metropolitan identity politics. It's up to them, really.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Yes, because boring and pompous as he can sound he looks vaguely credible as the holder of the office of PM. The others...don't, at least not yet. Some of them, Nandy in particular, could perhaps grow into it. The luxury of knowing there is no vaguely credible alternative will be gone.
Don't really agree there. Even today half the country views Johnson as a shyster and compulsive liar. He is not really taken seriously by the public at large , and debases the office of PM in a similar way to what Trump has achieved re- the US Presidency.
This problem is obliquely touched on in Death's End, the third volume of the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin.
Quick book review: the ideas in the trilogy are much more thought-provoking than the quality of the writing (though I get the impression that the translation doesn't help). The best by some way is the third book. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense as a freestanding book, so you have to read the first and the second. Worth persevering with.
Thank you. I have made a note. Trying to get the reading habit back. My only serious NY resolution in fact - other than not to be perpetually angry about having Boris Johnson as PM, plus my Standing Order one of trying not to be a dick more than a couple of times a week. I used to get through lots of books but have rather dropped off in favour of screen and podcast recently. Not good.
Anyone too harsh on Corbyn - and attacks on his team are clearly a proxy for that - surely has little chance? Hence it looking like an RLB and Starmer fight.
As a stopped clock is right twice a day, Jeremy Corbyn, for all the fact that he is being ignored over Iran (he is indeed hopelessly morally compromised on the subject), has a really important point about the use of assassination as a tool of foreign policy. Donald Trump has legitimised this. This development is unlikely to be in Britain's interests in the short, medium or long term.
It was a decision made without any consultation of Britain. Good to see that international influence being brought to bear by this Brexity government.
I agree with this but would point out that Trump didn't start this. This execution by American fiat went on throughout the Obama (of blessed memory) years as well. Its an exercise of power with no legal basis whatsoever other than I can.
I believe drone strikes started under GWB but they certainly increased greatly under Obama (I'm not comfortable with either). However isn't the massive step change here that Trump has taken out a senior figure in the government of a legally recognised state with which the USA is not at war? Was there a comparable action under Obama?
Oh yes it was an incredibly stupid act but the Americans killing anyone walking through the Hindu Kusch who was over a certain height on the off chance that he might be Bin Laden wasn't great either. The sad truth is that our alliance with the US makes for difficult compromises and moral evasions. The current incumbent is worse than average but few American Presidents since WW2 have felt themselves restricted by international law.
Neither have Russian or Chinese leaders. Nor leaders of most other smaller countries when they become engaged in wars that could lead to their destruction. International law as we talk about it in the UK is an illusion in our minds.
Indeed, at times over the last 60 years the French state has almost been synonymous with extra judicial killings, both of foreigners and their own people.
Why do people ask this every time I post one of her tweets?! Of course I do. Just waiting for someone to tell me I’m not allowed to find it funny now...
I would vastly prefer it if you didn't find it funny but of course it is not for me or anybody else to be prescriptive on the matter. Humour simply has to be a Broad Church.
This problem is obliquely touched on in Death's End, the third volume of the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin.
Quick book review: the ideas in the trilogy are much more thought-provoking than the quality of the writing (though I get the impression that the translation doesn't help). The best by some way is the third book. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense as a freestanding book, so you have to read the first and the second. Worth persevering with.
Thank you. I have made a note. Trying to get the reading habit back. My only serious NY resolution in fact - other than not to be perpetually angry about having Boris Johnson as PM, plus my Standing Order one of trying not to be a dick more than a couple of times a week. I used to get through lots of books but have rather dropped off in favour of screen and podcast recently. Not good.
Same here (though my standing order is not to be a dick more than a few times per day). I've started the year with some light, easy fare so I'm at a book a day and can feel all smug, but mainly to build momentum.
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Not close to any candidate but impression is that Starmer would do a better job of holding Johnson to account (which as charlatan he wants to avoid) but Nandy would score better on emotional intelligence, also against Johnson.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
By 2023 or 2024 it is far from clear that Brexit will be at all salient re- voting behaviour. I do find it a bit odd that quite a few Tories on here appear convinced that the Red Wall which crumbled so badly over the two and a half years between the 2017 and 2019 elections cannot be largely rebuilt over the four year period or so to the next election.The loss of Corbyn's toxicity is likely to boost Labour significantly in white working class seats.
Johnson's popularity will wane pretty quickly. I believe that the recent GE was an anti-Corbyn election above all else. That could easily reverse with a more credible Labour leader who espouses Blairite policies (without the war stuff) and a still yet to be certain Brexit impact
Would it be fair to say Starmer is the candidate Boris would least like to face? reckon so.
Yes, because boring and pompous as he can sound he looks vaguely credible as the holder of the office of PM. The others...don't, at least not yet. Some of them, Nandy in particular, could perhaps grow into it. The luxury of knowing there is no vaguely credible alternative will be gone.
Don't really agree there. Even today half the country views Johnson as a shyster and compulsive liar. He is not really taken seriously by the public at large , and debases the office of PM in a similar way to what Trump has achieved re- the US Presidency.
This problem is obliquely touched on in Death's End, the third volume of the Three Body Problem Trilogy by Liu Cixin.
Quick book review: the ideas in the trilogy are much more thought-provoking than the quality of the writing (though I get the impression that the translation doesn't help). The best by some way is the third book. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense as a freestanding book, so you have to read the first and the second. Worth persevering with.
Thank you. I have made a note. Trying to get the reading habit back. My only serious NY resolution in fact - other than not to be perpetually angry about having Boris Johnson as PM, plus my Standing Order one of trying not to be a dick more than a couple of times a week. I used to get through lots of books but have rather dropped off in favour of screen and podcast recently. Not good.
Can I recommend Seventy Two Virgins and The Churchill Factor?
Comments
It's an irregular verb. They assassinate. We ... err ... don't.
But it would be better if the time was increased from 30 minutes to 45 minutes as Question Time has recently taken so that more questions were asked.
I wish it were different but fail to see how it has really ever existed. All the main powers break it without any concerns and have done since it started after the second world war.
https://twitter.com/JonathanEley/status/1214906465116405760
However, NB:
https://twitter.com/JonathanEley/status/1214933188440739841
In 2016, Unison backed Jeremy Corbyn over Owen Smith.
It is a grandstanding opportunity and thus of very limited value
I really hope relations between the UK and EU can move forward in a positive way and a new but of course different partnership can be formed .
https://twitter.com/OwenJones84/status/1214876862901637121
She probably, however, can't win as you're right, she does alienate too much of the membership, and her leadership would be a bit like political shock therapy. A far more likely scenario is Nandy surging as she is prepared to challenge the toxicity that's dragged Labour down in a stronger way than Starmer, but does so in a way that puts activists more at ease, She talks Labourese, Phillips talks like an ordinary person - something a good few activists are suspicious of.
I know some moan about Keir Starmers apparent lack of charisma but I do think he’s the best qualified candidate , I like Jess Phillips but I think KS as leader and JP as deputy would be a strong ticket .
The Corbynites had their chance and blew it . RLB I’m afraid simply isn’t upto it and looks a lightweight .
Sorry, that was not pithily expressed, but I hope you get the drift.
So my question to you is - are you confident that WE are crazy enough to use nukes? Because otherwise, it's pointless having them.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catch-22_(logic)
Just out of interest why have you put Sir in inverted commas?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aoHa0cwvxA
The only thing "missing" was Bercow's homilies....hardly a loss, or a measure of "thoroughness"!
Quick book review: the ideas in the trilogy are much more thought-provoking than the quality of the writing (though I get the impression that the translation doesn't help). The best by some way is the third book. Unfortunately, it doesn't make sense as a freestanding book, so you have to read the first and the second. Worth persevering with.
Both of course achieved popularity boosts when taking on their opponents and if Starmer publicly takes on and denounces the Corbyn platform it won't do him any harm.
Both candidates world make far better prime ministers than Johnson, but it may not matter. Johnson's advantage is structural. He has united erstwhile leavers while remainers are split between several parties. Plurality, not majority, of voters, is what counts in the UK political system.
‘Human Rights Campaign Foundation’ doesn’t really scream ‘LGBTQ dedicated charity’ does it?
https://twitter.com/titaniamcgrath/status/1214945214688829441?s=21
Mr Bercow’s final session, on October 30 2019, lasted 71 minutes. PMQs also got steadily longer under Mr Bercow, from an average of just over 30 minutes in 2009 to 35 minutes by 2015 and 49 minutes in 2019.
Raising a point of order, Conservative MP Michael Fabricant said: “I don’t think it’ll have escaped anybody’s attention but nevertheless I think it’s worth making the point that we went through all the names on the order paper for Prime Minister’s Questions – and a number of other colleagues on both sides got in – and we finished at about 12.31 and no-one had to suffer abuse from the chair.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-7865073/PMQs-Hoyle-era-begins-shortest-session-three-years.html
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1214948879038402561?s=20
https://twitter.com/benrileysmith/status/1214949430396366851?s=20
As noted a while back by YT:
https://www7.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2018/05/13/going-nuclear/
Starmer best price now 4/6, Long-Bailey 7/2. A couple of hours back it was 5/6 and 11/4.
Labour could reorient themselves to red wall seats and rebuild it Or it could completely disappear into Metropolitan identity politics. It's up to them, really.
https://twitter.com/PolhomeEditor/status/1214950486723506177?s=20
New Thread