Benn's was an outstanding speech given the context of opposing his party leader, the majority of Labour MP's, the nature of the Commons occasion and the widespread acclaim from members on all sides of the HoC, except the SNP and other odds and sods.
Indeed. It is the context that makes speeches great (oratorical competence is necessary but not sufficient).
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
You'll also notice one is wearing jeans and no tie, the other slacks with a tie, irreversible divisions.
Carswell has long been an extremely vocal critic of Berghaus apparel
On a serious note Douglas conducted himself as a proper Parliamentarian yesterday, went along to the debate, listened to both sides and voted accordingly. The standard of MPs would increase enormously if there were no whips and members voted with their conscience.
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
You'll also notice one is wearing jeans and no tie, the other slacks with a tie, irreversible divisions.
Carswell has long been an extremely vocal critic of Berghaus apparel
On a serious note Douglas conducted himself as a proper Parliamentarian yesterday, went along to the debate, listened to both sides and voted accordingly. The standard of MPs would increase enormously if there were no whips and members voted with their conscience.
Apols if already posted. I'm off to see if PB has ever had a poster called Bickmeister
John Bickley, UKIP's candidate in Thursday's Oldham West and Royton by-election, believes Labour "deliberately encouraged" mass immigration to drive down working class wages, while climate change is a "non problem" invented to achieve "socialist objectives", according to his postings in the comments sections of news stories.
In addition to being UKIP's candidate in the party's make-or-break by-election, Bickley had a sideline as an anti-immigration and climate change sceptic in the comments section of the Guardian and other websites, where he made dozens of posts under the name "bickmeister" over a five-year period.
In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages" and another he said that global warming sits alongside other government and media "scares", such as AIDS, which have "proved to be global damp squids" [sic].
What's more, he's proven how effective he,and others like him, can be inside the shadow cabinet. It was only opposition from Benn and co that resulted in even a nominally free vote.
Surely Labour MPs know they have to act now and act fast.
Get rid of Corbyn and then declare that membership of Momentum is incompatible with membership of Labour and carry out a purge of those who use threats and violence as a political tool.
The Twitter feed on '66 Labour MPs' is a great demonstration of the 'new politics'.....
The new 'kind and gentle' politics that was sending photos of dead children to MPs yesterday, and is now calling them child murderers. Nice, kind and gentle politics.
I am frankly sick of this. What about photos of a pilot burnt alive in a cage? What about photos of young girls raped to death, of children tortured because their parents wouldn't abandon Christianity? What about photos of mass graves of murdered women? What about photos of what a gay man looks like after he's been thrown off a building and then stoned?
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
I don't believe the Lib Dems will have done enough canvassing this time nor have enough historical data to have any knowledge at all. No more informed than any other vaguely interested local opinion.
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
The question is not so much what Corbyn says in relation to internal discipline as what he does (or doesn't do).
The Twitter feed on '66 Labour MPs' is a great demonstration of the 'new politics'.....
The new 'kind and gentle' politics that was sending photos of dead children to MPs yesterday, and is now calling them child murderers. Nice, kind and gentle politics.
I am frankly sick of this. What about photos of a pilot burnt alive in a cage? What about photos of young girls raped to death, of children tortured because their parents wouldn't abandon Christianity? What about photos of mass graves of murdered women? What about photos of what a gay man looks like after he's been thrown off a building and then stoned?
Those banners saying: "Don't bomb Syria" should read "Don't bomb IS".
Because that's what those protestors are FOR. They may think they're for rainbows and peace and holding hands and teaching the world to sing in harmony. But they're not. Here and now in this world as it is, they are for doing nothing about terrorists, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter people as they eat and talk to their lovers and friends, they are for doing nothing against people who burn women alive for not doing extreme sex acts, they are for doing nothing against those who slaughter children for being Christian, and all the ghastly rest of it. They may like to think they are not but that is what, objectively, they are for when they say "let's not bomb IS".
They have blood on their hands. Inaction has consequences just as much as action.
I am sick of these people claiming the moral high ground. So self-centred are they, so concerned with keeping their precious hands clean are they that they turn away from the fact that they are complicit in the crimes they ignore.
It is time this was rammed down by their throats.
"For evil to triumph it is enough that good men do nothing"
I'm not even sure that all of them are good men but, even assuming that they are, they certainly want to do nothing.
Benn's reference in his speech to the Good Samaritan, to not walking by on the other side, was well said. I am not going to be told that only those who refuse to act are moral. I am not prepared to give such people a free pass on this.
Bravo. I fucking loathe these preening Stop the War wankers. I've got a couple of close friends who are posting this crap on FB and I'm finding it hard to stay silent.
Daesh would not hesitate for one second to throw Stop the War supporters to their deaths from office blocks. They're fools.
Morning all. A great speech from Hilary Benn - when watched a second time this morning rather than when a little squiffy well after midnight! Whole 14 minute speech here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GTNK4VsXs
Thanks for posting this - I didn't see it last night.
After all of the breathless hype I was vaguely disappointed. It's quite good, but not the Nuremberg Rally quality of speech that is being sold on here.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
A ranting emotional laden speech was the last thing you want from a prime minister.
Maybe - but it is reasonable to expect a clear and compelling one when the PM is making the case for military action. Dave failed on that front yesterday.
Agreed, Cameron could have had a major political triumph in the HoC yesterday, but for the stupid comment the day before. When even moderates such as Gisela attacked you.
I think that's true. On the other hand, politically, having a news cycle dominated by "terrorist sympathisers" is probably a lot more valuable than the effect of a good speech in the House.
Apols if already posted. I'm off to see if PB has ever had a poster called Bickmeister
John Bickley, UKIP's candidate in Thursday's Oldham West and Royton by-election, believes Labour "deliberately encouraged" mass immigration to drive down working class wages, while climate change is a "non problem" invented to achieve "socialist objectives", according to his postings in the comments sections of news stories.
In addition to being UKIP's candidate in the party's make-or-break by-election, Bickley had a sideline as an anti-immigration and climate change sceptic in the comments section of the Guardian and other websites, where he made dozens of posts under the name "bickmeister" over a five-year period.
In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages" and another he said that global warming sits alongside other government and media "scares", such as AIDS, which have "proved to be global damp squids" [sic].
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
The moment he spoke uninvited to journalists in the BBC asking them questions about the Kids Company investigations, is the moment he should have been sacked without compensation. But one of his friends is the DG and the Chairman of the Trustees is a chocolate tea pot.
Managed to listen to Hilary Benn's speech this morning. Perhaps not quite the tour de force as some on here have proclaimed but what it did (and superbly) was to encapsulate the arguments for intervention in a 12 or 13 minute speech. Cameron sounded waffly, awkward and unconvincing in comparison and looked far from comfortable at Benn's performance.
Many other backbenchers spoke well to particular aspects for and against intervention but the forensic nature of Benn's closing argument was extremely strong. I particularly liked his reference to Labour's past internationalism and he damned Corbyn with faint phrase -"honest and principled".
There's no question PMQs with Cameron vs Benn would be entertaining and the toughest for the Conservative leader since he faced up to Blair. Benn, though, isn't a Mark 2 Blair for all his words last night and Labour still has to come up with coherent policies across the range of issues. Where I do disagree with some is Benn would not simply be Michael Howard, shoring up the core vote. He "could" reach out and regain those former Labour voters lost to UKIP and the Conservatives and that would be the nightmare for the Tories.
So, of course, the media is all over the military action and it would be nice to see the diplomatic and humanitarian efforts promised by the Prime Minister given the same attention and focus as the aerial campaign.
The political and other divides in Syria needs concerted international effort - the problem is we have to recognise Russia's strategic interests in the area. I doubt Putin is much bothered with Assad but he's much more concerned about the bases at Latakia and Tartus. As soon as all sides recognise the continuing Russian presence (whether they like it or not), the sooner the grand coalition can be built and the real issue of the ground war can be addressed.
Unless something dramatic happens, the concern I have is that in six months, we will be back debating sending in ground troops - Benn and others alluded to that yesterday. I suspect we're a long way from a majority on that for all yesterday's fine speeches.
Apols if already posted. I'm off to see if PB has ever had a poster called Bickmeister
John Bickley, UKIP's candidate in Thursday's Oldham West and Royton by-election, believes Labour "deliberately encouraged" mass immigration to drive down working class wages, while climate change is a "non problem" invented to achieve "socialist objectives", according to his postings in the comments sections of news stories.
In addition to being UKIP's candidate in the party's make-or-break by-election, Bickley had a sideline as an anti-immigration and climate change sceptic in the comments section of the Guardian and other websites, where he made dozens of posts under the name "bickmeister" over a five-year period.
In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages" and another he said that global warming sits alongside other government and media "scares", such as AIDS, which have "proved to be global damp squids" [sic].
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
(snip)
Yet we get told by some on the left that this government's misguided domestic policies will kill thousands. Matters of war and peace are vitally important, but so are the bread and butter policies which can help or hinder their constituents. The policies that can help this family out of poverty or lose these breadwinners their jobs. The policies that says this woman gets the cancer treatment she needs, or the ones that say this gay couple can get married.
Then there's the fact that comparing last night's vote with the Iraq vote in 2003 is silly. The scale and nature of the proposed actions are totally different, and especially as they are just an extension of what is already happening over Iraq.
If only MPs put as much independent thinking and fine words into everyday domestic votes as they do matters of war and peace.
Apols if already posted. I'm off to see if PB has ever had a poster called Bickmeister
John Bickley, UKIP's candidate in Thursday's Oldham West and Royton by-election, believes Labour "deliberately encouraged" mass immigration to drive down working class wages, while climate change is a "non problem" invented to achieve "socialist objectives", according to his postings in the comments sections of news stories.
In addition to being UKIP's candidate in the party's make-or-break by-election, Bickley had a sideline as an anti-immigration and climate change sceptic in the comments section of the Guardian and other websites, where he made dozens of posts under the name "bickmeister" over a five-year period.
In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages" and another he said that global warming sits alongside other government and media "scares", such as AIDS, which have "proved to be global damp squids" [sic].
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
The moment he spoke uninvited to journalists in the BBC asking them questions about the Kids Company investigations, is the moment he should have been sacked without compensation. But one of his friends is the DG and the Chairman of the Trustees is a chocolate tea pot.
He hasn't fully "resigned". He has just quit from his creative director role (at the end of the year), he is going to focus his efforts on programme making and TV production.
@MrHarryCole: Labour's by-election candidate called Ukip "disgruntled political obsessives and rejects". AKA former Labour voters: https://t.co/nKvPYlsFhf
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
Morning all. A great speech from Hilary Benn - when watched a second time this morning rather than when a little squiffy well after midnight! Whole 14 minute speech here. www.youtube.com/watch?v=n2GTNK4VsXs
Thanks for posting this - I didn't see it last night.
After all of the breathless hype I was vaguely disappointed. It's quite good, but not the Nuremberg Rally quality of speech that is being sold on here.
I agree, it was the walking dog of speeches. It wasn't so much that it was done well, it was that it was done at all - a Shadow Cabinet minister giving a reasonable and coherent analysis of why his party should support a "war".
Nonetheless Benn is now very clearly the front runner in the After Corbyn Candidates.
It was certainly a lot better than either Dave's or Jezza's. Clipped, fluent fury is what he gave us. It was a controlled release of pent-up emotion: "What the fuck are we doing with this fool behind me as leader? This is what Labour really should be about." I suspect it worked more magic for those of us who had despaired of ever again hearing our principles spoken out loud by a frontbench Labour politician. It gave us hope, which maybe in the cold light of day we should not have allowed ourselves. But it felt very good at the time.
A ranting emotional laden speech was the last thing you want from a prime minister.
Maybe - but it is reasonable to expect a clear and compelling one when the PM is making the case for military action. Dave failed on that front yesterday.
Agreed, Cameron could have had a major political triumph in the HoC yesterday, but for the stupid comment the day before. When even moderates such as Gisela attacked you.
I think that's true. On the other hand, politically, having a news cycle dominated by "terrorist sympathisers" is probably a lot more valuable than the effect of a good speech in the House.
And there is no denying that Corbyn and McDonnell are more than sympathisers. Their words and actions over the past 30 years prove that beyond a shadow of a doubt.
And now they are contaminating the Labour Party for years to come.
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
If Corbyn was serious in condemning intimidation, he would be suspending members on an hourly basis for their hate-filled actions - but he isn't.
By failing to act against his supporters who use threats and intimidation, he is giving them the green light to continue.
How long before someone gets hurt by a Momentum member?
Yep, someone - preferably Corbyn himself - needs to vociferously call off the mob before one of the knuckleheaded idiots does something stupid.
Yentob is not gone from the BBC and will continue to be funded by the licence fee. he will "focus on programme making and TV production – including of course the Imagine Series. I will also continue supporting Christine Langan and her team as Chairman of BBC Films."
It was a fantastic speech. I would still probably have voted against the government but I can respect the obviously genuine passion of Hilary Benn while disagreeing with his cause. I think that many Labour supporters will feel similarly, meaning that moves by the misnamed Left Unity to get deselections may get less traction.
As for future leadership prospects, I'm much more doubtful. If there's a coronation, he now looks plausible. But I can't see any likely route to a coronation.
It was a fantastic speech not so much because it made the case for bombing but because it made the moral case for Labour, for a decent Labour, for an outward looking Labour, for a Labour that understands that you fight fascists, you don't justify them or appease them or invite them to tea and call them friends, for Labour as a moral crusade, for a Labour that remembers its history, for a Labour on the side of liberal democracy not on the side of its enemies, for a Labour that is prepared to call out evil for what it is and to do so clearly and unequivocally without endless whataboutery.
The section where he describes the contempt which IS has for everyone in the chamber, for our values, freedoms and our democracy was very powerful and contrasts with the weaselly and contemptible justification by the likes of Livingstone of suicide bombers as some sort of martyrs.
That's a really good comment. As you say, he made a very positive case for a different Labour from the one Jeremy Corbyn offers. He's the first Labour MP to do that since the election.
I agree. Cyclefree makes a good comment very eloquently.
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
The moment he spoke uninvited to journalists in the BBC asking them questions about the Kids Company investigations, is the moment he should have been sacked without compensation. But one of his friends is the DG and the Chairman of the Trustees is a chocolate tea pot.
He hasn't fully "resigned". He has just quit from his creative director role (at the end of the year), he is going to focus his efforts on programme making and TV production.
@BethRigby: Alan Yentob has resigned from #BBC as creative director, am told he WILL stay on as presenter of Imagine
To be fair, 'Creative director' sounds like it was the perfect role for him. Kids Company were certainly 'creative' in most of the things they did, not least the use of public money.
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
If Corbyn was serious in condemning intimidation, he would be suspending members on an hourly basis for their hate-filled actions - but he isn't.
By failing to act against his supporters who use threats and intimidation, he is giving them the green light to continue.
How long before someone gets hurt by a Momentum member?
Yep, someone - preferably Corbyn himself - needs to vociferously call off the mob before one of the knuckleheaded idiots does something stupid.
The stupid has already started. Just look at that 'final solution' tweet that has been circulating this morning. And Livingstone supporting de-selection.
I am not for one minute predicting that the Syrian bombing will turn out to be the new Iraq, but I think it is worth reflecting that the MP's that voted for Iraq in 2003 probably felt just as those who voted for Syria yesterday do, ie they weren't bloodthirsty warmongers, they were torn over what to do
Now they are viewed slightly suspiciously, and admitting to having voted for Iraq is the equivalent of owning up to dropping one in a lift, while those who didn't make it a bulletpoint on their CV... will be interesting to see how this develops and who plays which role ten years hence
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
(snip)
Yet we get told by some on the left that this government's misguided domestic policies will kill thousands. Matters of war and peace are vitally important, but so are the bread and butter policies which can help or hinder their constituents. The policies that can help this family out of poverty or lose these breadwinners their jobs. The policies that says this woman gets the cancer treatment she needs, or the ones that say this gay couple can get married.
Then there's the fact that comparing last night's vote with the Iraq vote in 2003 is silly. The scale and nature of the proposed actions are totally different, and especially as they are just an extension of what is already happening over Iraq.
If only MPs put as much independent thinking and fine words into everyday domestic votes as they do matters of war and peace.
The Tory dissenters were just the usual trouble makers looking to oppose and embarrass Cameron at every opportunity. A small number. Labour's dissenters are totemic of a far wider split within the party. At the moment I see it as irreconcilable since the basic thrust of labour membership is pacifist and far left. That has been bottled up for years but now they have a leader in their image.
I assume she's referring to the response to Benn's speech.
Chris Bryant MP @RhonddaBryant 12m12 minutes ago Chris Bryant MP Retweeted Mhairi Black MP You know that is untrue. The vote was greeted in somber silence. Chris Bryant MP added, Mhairi Black MP @MhairiBlack Very dark night in parliament.Will never forget the noise of some Labour and Tory cheering together at the idea of bombs falling #SyriaVote
This is not socialism, it is surrender. French concert-goers are not being AK-47ed because the Americans ousted Saddam or because Jews can now climb beyond the seventh step to Me’arat ha-Machpela. The Islamic State seeks a global caliphate in which infidels must convert to their pseudo-Quranic ideology or die. The US Air Force could bomb Tel Aviv and Western leaders withdraw every last soldier from the Middle East. It would neither deter nor provoke ISIS. They don’t care what we do. They want us dead.
...
This was an opportunity for the Nats to prove they are more than the party of grievance. Nicola Sturgeon is fond of saying that Scotland should be independent because we’re just as good as every other country. Syrians are just as good as us, their entitlement to freedom from theocratic fascists no lesser than our right to vary our income tax rates.
The SNP is adept at putting a kilt on conservatism and calling it social democracy. However sincerely MPs might oppose war, their party’s stance will appeal to every hard-hearted Little Scotlander crowing “not in my name”. Not in my name: Never has a statement of insular reaction so audaciously posed as the voice of progressive conscience.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
Ha!
Seriously though, I cannot back a man who uses skimmed milk, or white water as I call it. I knew ukip were awful extremists
@MrHarryCole: Labour's by-election candidate called Ukip "disgruntled political obsessives and rejects". AKA former Labour voters: https://t.co/nKvPYlsFhf
Except he was talking about party activists, not voters.
@georgeeaton: Reliable Lib Dem source tells me Labour victory in Oldham will be far more comfortable than expected.
Never thought otherwise myself. Much like Corbyn carrying his party more comfortably than some prediction. He's still the leader the members want and the plp appear to agree with, despite a sizable minority against him.
Agree to a certain extent, although I think yesterday's debate was better than the one before Iraq (although to be fair I'd have to listen to the latter again).
However I find it slightly odd that MPs should think that way about matters of foreign affairs, when decisions they make on domestic issues have more more effect on the lives and wellbeing of their constituents.
isam's right about how a lot of MPs in 2003 felt. I think JJ's view is odd - wars are about killing people and potentially sending people to die, most MPs' work is about whether tax credits go up or down and whether HS2 should go through the constituuency, not to mention more trivial matters. Of course war/peace is more important and more of an issue to worry about.
I seem to be unusual but I think Corbyn, Benn and McDonnell are all behaving well. Benn's speech attacks Cameron for his "terrorist" stuff and then properly addresses the main issue. Corbyn has a long piece on his FB page denouncing people from any side who intimidate MPs and he's stressing the right of all MPs to take their own view - consistently with his own record. McDonnell praises Benn's speech but notes that Blair's speech in similar circumstances was brilliant too and sometimes the outcome isn't what one wants. The outriders on both sides who tell each other to fuck off or claim that colleagues are Trots or Tories are the people getting in the way of an adult dialogue.
Whether the decision last night was sensible is a different matter. I doubt it, but will be glad to be proved wrong.
If Corbyn was serious in condemning intimidation, he would be suspending members on an hourly basis for their hate-filled actions - but he isn't.
By failing to act against his supporters who use threats and intimidation, he is giving them the green light to continue.
How long before someone gets hurt by a Momentum member?
Yep, someone - preferably Corbyn himself - needs to vociferously call off the mob before one of the knuckleheaded idiots does something stupid.
The stupid has already started. Just look at that 'final solution' tweet that has been circulating this morning. And Livingstone supporting de-selection.
There is no shortage of stupid in the Corbyn camp
To be honest the 'final solution' comment is deeply unpleasant but IMHO on the right side of the line of free speech.
Clear death threats against named individuals and the publication of personal details are over the line and the police need to step in quickly. I fear that Hillary Benn will have a couple of the thin blue line keeping him company for a few days, until this all dies down a little.
@election_data · 2m2 minutes ago Going for 32% turnout in #OldhamWest .
I like the sound of that number.
The higher the turnout the better it will be for Labour.
My guess is that a turnout of 20% is a 3-way fight, 30% a two way fight and 40% a clear Lab win.
33% might make for a close contest, now can UKIP get out the WWC vote on a cold and wet December day?
It's the other way round. UKIP need people to come out to overturn Labour's postal vote lead. If they come out, it'll be to protest.
And it won't be a three-way contest no matter what.
Yeah but I've got a 1000/3 bet on the Tories!
My thinking was that if there was an exceptionally low turnout then the middle class oldies would be those few that did, although you might be right about the Labour postal vote. Perhaps they were all collected last Friday after prayers.
To be honest the 'final solution' comment is deeply unpleasant but IMHO on the right side of the line of free speech.
Clear death threats against named individuals and the publication of personal details are over the line and the police need to step in quickly. I fear that Hillary Benn will have a couple of the thin blue line keeping him company for a few days, until this all dies down a little.
Calling for the mass execution of those who voted for the extension of bombing to Syria-based terrorists is over that line, to my mind. But either way, it is utterly stupid and should bring him to the attention of his employers...
Benn should be offered whatever protection he needs for as long as is necessary.
And it is dreadful that we are even having to think in those terms. All because a Labour leader and his cohorts believe that intimidation and threats are appropriate political weapon.
Yentob "quitting" is just like all those who in positions of power at the BBC who were sacked over SavilleGate and McApline etc etc etc.
Indeed. The Perps are always shuffled around to other departments or promoted, even the worst offenders are allowed to retire on full pension - but never sacked.
@georgeeaton: Reliable Lib Dem source tells me Labour victory in Oldham will be far more comfortable than expected.
UKIP are generally useless at by-elections (and elections) so this wouldn't be surprising. Labour folk will vote for the party even if they dislike the leader.
Not all of them will.
So much of the focus has been on Labour, but what would a bad result for UKIP be? A failure to get a head of steam among white working class voters would surely be a significant setback. It does need to come a close second at least, doesn't it?
A very good question, Mr. Observer, and one I hope someone in UKIP has been asking those in charge of the Party. I said before the GE that is UKIP won less than 4 four seats it would be very disappointing result and should trigger some serious heart searching as to why. I don't know of any evidence that that analysis ever took place.
To be sure the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and meme cost UKIP a lot of votes and probably a few seats, but was that the only reason? Who knows, but UKIP don't seem to have even asked the question.
Then we have Farage's piece in the Telegraph yesterday. One can admire and maybe even agree with the ambition but no gentleman would have written that article - vulgar, in bad taste and creating a hostage for the future. Sometimes Farage seems like an old man in a hurry.
So what does UKIP need to achieve today. Well, I am not expecting them to win (I said on here weeks ago that I think Labour will hold on comfortably) but anything less than, say, a 30% vote share would have to be classed as a major disappointment regardless of turnout. Anything below 20% (i.e. approaching their polling figures nationally) would be a disaster. If UKIP can get to within a few percentage points of the Labour share then I think they will have done well and are on track to make some gains in 2020 - but only if they do a lot of that other work.
I'm coming to the conclusion Labour is now unleadable
Even if they depose Corbyn, the Corbynites haven't gone away you know
@Maomentum_: Only Blairites and media talk about ideological purity vs winning elections. We on the left are not talking about winning elections at all.
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz 25m25 minutes ago We need to organise more #ANTIFA protests outside the offices of warmongering murderers like @stellacreasy. #OccupyStellaCreasy
Perhaps BBC should be looking at this guy rather than Yentob.
The two attackers were named as Syed Rizwan Farook, a 28-year-old man, and Tashfeen Malik, a 27-year-old woman. Police said they were in a relationship and possibly married.
Looks like the guy "went postal" at a gathering with his colleagues, came back with his wife tooled up to the hilt and determined to take out as many as he could.
Thankfully seems that religion wasn't a factor (depending on what comments sparked him in the first place). But the fact remain that every 3 months, Americans inflict the death toll of 9/11 on each other. One event defined American attitudes for the twenty-first century. But we have now had the equivalent death toll of fifty 9/11s since that fateful day - but America refuses to confront gun control. Extraordinary.
I feel like a stuck record saying this every time this happens, but there are countries with more guns than the States and less gun crime, and countries with less guns than the States and more gun crime. It's a profound sickness at the heart of that country that creates these dreadful events - something far harder to deal with than restricting the sale of weapons.
Are there many countries with higher gun ownership than the US?
In any case, much like keeping sharp objects away from people with certain mental illnesses, isn't the US's 'profound sickness' a pretty good reason for lowering/restricting gun ownership there?
I read an article recently that every time there's a similar shooting in US gun sales go up.
Has Benn really done any favours for himself with the Labour leadership electorate? Unless he can orchestrate a coronation, but that would have its own problems.
Mr. Eagles, do you think it's worse than the Conservatives 1997-2003?
Even dire periods can be recovered from, provided there isn't a strategic loss. After Basil II, Byzantium had numerous dire emperors, but under Alexius and John Comnenus was again very powerful. It was only after the loss of Anatolian land [which also meant a permanent loss of military manpower] and the Fourth Crusade that the Eastern Empire entered an inescapable spiral of decline.
Surely Labour MPs know they have to act now and act fast.
Get rid of Corbyn and then declare that membership of Momentum is incompatible with membership of Labour and carry out a purge of those who use threats and violence as a political tool.
Anyone know what the actual practical timetables look like here?
Is there a position you can deselect people from before the actual pre-general-election candidate selection happens? If not, when would the candidate selection be?
Also what other procedural things might entrench the left's position if they can hang on to the leadership for a year or two?
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz 25m25 minutes ago We need to organise more #ANTIFA protests outside the offices of warmongering murderers like @stellacreasy. #OccupyStellaCreasy
Perhaps BBC should be looking at this guy rather than Yentob.
So much for the "advice" by the BBC paper pushers that BBC employees should be careful what they write on twitter and consider their duty to impartiality...
It's unfortunate for sane Labour MPs that the first big fight with the entryists has been on this particular issue, for two reasons. Firstly, as Alastair Meeks has pointed out, it's an issue on which party members tend to side with Corbyn. Secondly, it's an issue on which sensible people can have different views*, so it's not the case that the 66 are necessarily the same MPs who would potentially form an alternative non-Corbyn group. Still, the 66 are now likely to form the core of the anti-Corbynistas, with Hilary Benn as de facto leader of that group.
As others have pointed out, though, that doesn't make him favourite to be next leader of the party. Rather the reverse, I think; if the next leader is not another hard-left extremist, he or she will have to be a unifying figure, and what we will see now is hardly going to be an edifying or unifying exchange of fraternal greetings between the 66 and the membership. It is, instead, going to be an increasingly vicious civil war which will harden views on both sides and engender increasing bitterness. It's very hard to see Benn emerging now as a unifying figure from that maelstrom.
Gradually the bitterness and reprisals against moderate MPs will extend to more and more MPs, including some who at the moment see themselves as Corbyn supporters. That is always how the hard left operates, with lots of small groups fighting each other, with passionate hatred, over arcane ideological or personal differences. It is hard to see a road to recovery for Labour any time soon.
Of course none of this is a surprise. It was predicted here and elsewhere back in July, when it first started to look as though Corbyn could win the leadership contest.
* Having said that, I don't see how one could simultaneously oppose the government last night, yet at the same time back action in Iraq, back the UN resolution, and not criticise France and the US for their work in trying to disrupt ISIS in Syria. Corbyn's position is at least consistent, whereas those simply opposing the UK's new role in Syria, without also taking the other three positions, are not being consistent.
@georgeeaton: Reliable Lib Dem source tells me Labour victory in Oldham will be far more comfortable than expected.
UKIP are generally useless at by-elections (and elections) so this wouldn't be surprising. Labour folk will vote for the party even if they dislike the leader.
Not all of them will.
So much of the focus has been on Labour, but what would a bad result for UKIP be?
A very good question, Mr. Observer, and one I hope someone in UKIP has been asking those in charge of the Party. I said before the GE that is UKIP won less than 4 four seats it would be very disappointing result and should trigger some serious heart searching as to why. I don't know of any evidence that that analysis ever took place.
To be sure the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and meme cost UKIP a lot of votes and probably a few seats, but was that the only reason? Who knows, but UKIP don't seem to have even asked the question.
Then we have Farage's piece in the Telegraph yesterday. One can admire and maybe even agree with the ambition but no gentleman would have written that article - vulgar, in bad taste and creating a hostage for the future. Sometimes Farage seems like an old man in a hurry.
So what does UKIP need to achieve today. Well, I am not expecting them to win (I said on here weeks ago that I think Labour will hold on comfortably) but anything less than, say, a 30% vote share would have to be classed as a major disappointment regardless of turnout. Anything below 20% (i.e. approaching their polling figures nationally) would be a disaster. If UKIP can get to within a few percentage points of the Labour share then I think they will have done well and are on track to make some gains in 2020 - but only if they do a lot of that other work.
When the by election was announced, no one on here, including Antifrank, Richard Nabavi, Tissue Price, Pong, Pulpstar, ie the well regarded betting thinkers, as well as myself, thought it would be anything other than an easy Labour win
As it stands the opinion poll (Westminster VI) ratings for Labour and UKIP are around the same level as they were when Labour won by 33% in May. There should be no real reason to ecpect anything other than a comfy Labour win
The problem is, in a fragile betting market the outsider has been backed and the favourite was unsteady, and people will use the fact that UKIP went 8/1>3/1 as an excuse to brand it a big failure if they don't almost win
Farage's schtick always seems to be to ramp up expectations rather than play them down.. maybe it is ill judged
Mr. Eagles, do you think it's worse than the Conservatives 1997-2003?
Even dire periods can be recovered from, provided there isn't a strategic loss. After Basil II, Byzantium had numerous dire emperors, but under Alexius and John Comnenus was again very powerful. It was only after the loss of Anatolian land [which also meant a permanent loss of military manpower] and the Fourth Crusade that the Eastern Empire entered an inescapable spiral of decline.
Yes. Whilst I despaired a lot in 2001-2003, the party still had some sanity to it.
IDS didn't generate the zeal and fervour that Corbyn does
Corbyn could not have been met with more messianic fervour than if he’d rode into Parliament on a donkey and people had laid out palm trees in front of him.
Which is the most divided party between its members and its representatives? Its the Lib Dems! The Conservatives have just a minority of its MPs against the action, similar to the views in its members. Labour has a majority of its MPs against, similar to the views of its members. The SNP has all its MPs against which is probably a greater share than its members views but still very close. The LDs have 6 of its 8 MPs for this and 2 out of 3 of its members against.... (LDVoice survey) Over looked is the big gap between LD MPs and their members views.
Which LDs voted against? I heard just Norman Lamb.
Just Norman afaik. He voted in line with 2 out of 3 LD members, the 6 LD MPs who voted "for" are way out of line with their membership.
Mark Williams (Ceredigion) also voted against. 6 LDs for; 2 against.
I was against, though Benn's speech had a big impact on me and could have swayed me if I was in the HoC on the night.
I thought Corbyn was very poor. He didn't even develop the line about throttling ISIL's supply lines of men, money and guns coming through Turkey and elsewhere.
I'm pleased that the British bombs this morning seem to be directed at oil installations rather than cities.
Mr. Eagles, do you think it's worse than the Conservatives 1997-2003?
Even dire periods can be recovered from, provided there isn't a strategic loss. After Basil II, Byzantium had numerous dire emperors, but under Alexius and John Comnenus was again very powerful. It was only after the loss of Anatolian land [which also meant a permanent loss of military manpower] and the Fourth Crusade that the Eastern Empire entered an inescapable spiral of decline.
Yes. Whilst I despaired a lot in 2001-2003, the party still had some sanity to it.
IDS didn't generate the zeal and fervour that Corbyn does
Corbyn could not have been met with more messianic fervour than if he’d rode into Parliament on a donkey and people had laid out palm trees in front of him.
In a way, UKIP has been very good for the tories, as they've syphoned off the more right wing of the party.
Just in case Ukip do win, and 7/2 shots do win sometimes I suppose, remember we have already been warned on here about the hatred between Bickley and Carswell
(snip)
Did people use the word 'hatred' ? ISTR posters were commenting on the fact that the two might well have different views on some important issues, which might be problematic in a party with only two MPs.
What are these different views?
I saw Bickley making a cup of tea in the UKIP base in Oldham and he used skimmed milk. Carswell is a strict semi skimmed man; he feels very strongly about this.
Problems for UKIP
Ha!
Seriously though, I cannot back a man who uses skimmed milk, or white water as I call it. I knew ukip were awful extremists
Hear, hear. I speak as a long standing crusader for the whole milk popular front.
When the by election was announced, no one on here, including Antifrank, Richard Nabavi, Tissue Price, Pong, Pulpstar, ie the well regarded betting thinkers, as well as myself, thought it would be anything other than an easy Labour win
As it stands the opinion poll (Westminster VI) ratings for Labour and UKIP are around the same level as they were when Labour won by 33% in May. There should be no real reason to ecpect anything other than a comfy Labour win
The problem is, in a fragile betting market the outsider has been backed and the favourite was unsteady, and people will use the fact that UKIP went 8/1>3/1 as an excuse to brand it a big failure if they don't almost win
Farage's schtick always seems to be to ramp up expectations rather than play them down.. maybe it is ill judged
Quite so, Mr. Isam. It is a constant source of amazement to me that even here, on a site populated by supposed sophisticated gamblers, people still regard bookies' odds as an indicator of likely outcome.
Comments
http://news.sky.com/story/1598994/livingstone-push-out-labour-airstrikes-mps
I'll put my claws away now.
[No, really, I did raise the idea of a diarchy in Labour some days ago, perhaps a week or two].
Shame he wasn't fired with loss of pension though, can we hope that the police investigating Kids Company might now take an interest in what he was doing there as chair of the Trustees?
John Bickley, UKIP's candidate in Thursday's Oldham West and Royton by-election, believes Labour "deliberately encouraged" mass immigration to drive down working class wages, while climate change is a "non problem" invented to achieve "socialist objectives", according to his postings in the comments sections of news stories.
In addition to being UKIP's candidate in the party's make-or-break by-election, Bickley had a sideline as an anti-immigration and climate change sceptic in the comments section of the Guardian and other websites, where he made dozens of posts under the name "bickmeister" over a five-year period.
In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration, destroying working class jobs & wages" and another he said that global warming sits alongside other government and media "scares", such as AIDS, which have "proved to be global damp squids" [sic].
http://bzfd.it/1XBkvmQ
Get rid of Corbyn and then declare that membership of Momentum is incompatible with membership of Labour and carry out a purge of those who use threats and violence as a political tool.
Managed to listen to Hilary Benn's speech this morning. Perhaps not quite the tour de force as some on here have proclaimed but what it did (and superbly) was to encapsulate the arguments for intervention in a 12 or 13 minute speech. Cameron sounded waffly, awkward and unconvincing in comparison and looked far from comfortable at Benn's performance.
Many other backbenchers spoke well to particular aspects for and against intervention but the forensic nature of Benn's closing argument was extremely strong. I particularly liked his reference to Labour's past internationalism and he damned Corbyn with faint phrase -"honest and principled".
There's no question PMQs with Cameron vs Benn would be entertaining and the toughest for the Conservative leader since he faced up to Blair. Benn, though, isn't a Mark 2 Blair for all his words last night and Labour still has to come up with coherent policies across the range of issues. Where I do disagree with some is Benn would not simply be Michael Howard, shoring up the core vote. He "could" reach out and regain those former Labour voters lost to UKIP and the Conservatives and that would be the nightmare for the Tories.
So, of course, the media is all over the military action and it would be nice to see the diplomatic and humanitarian efforts promised by the Prime Minister given the same attention and focus as the aerial campaign.
The political and other divides in Syria needs concerted international effort - the problem is we have to recognise Russia's strategic interests in the area. I doubt Putin is much bothered with Assad but he's much more concerned about the bases at Latakia and Tartus. As soon as all sides recognise the continuing Russian presence (whether they like it or not), the sooner the grand coalition can be built and the real issue of the ground war can be addressed.
Unless something dramatic happens, the concern I have is that in six months, we will be back debating sending in ground troops - Benn and others alluded to that yesterday. I suspect we're a long way from a majority on that for all yesterday's fine speeches.
Then there's the fact that comparing last night's vote with the Iraq vote in 2003 is silly. The scale and nature of the proposed actions are totally different, and especially as they are just an extension of what is already happening over Iraq.
If only MPs put as much independent thinking and fine words into everyday domestic votes as they do matters of war and peace.
My guess is that a turnout of 20% is a 3-way fight, 30% a two way fight and 40% a clear Lab win.
33% might make for a close contest, now can UKIP get out the WWC vote on a cold and wet December day?
http://order-order.com/2015/12/03/alan-yentob-quits/
"In one comment "bickmeister" claimed "Labour deliberately encouraged mass immigration,"
That is self evidently true.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-34993979
And now they are contaminating the Labour Party for years to come.
he will "focus on programme making and TV production – including of course the Imagine Series. I will also continue supporting Christine Langan and her team as Chairman of BBC Films."
Let them take their message to Syria.
There is no shortage of stupid in the Corbyn camp
Labour's dissenters are totemic of a far wider split within the party. At the moment I see it as irreconcilable since the basic thrust of labour membership is pacifist and far left. That has been bottled up for years but now they have a leader in their image.
a) Voted in by the members
b) Still in the shadow cabinet
c) Voted against Corbyn
d) Remained very quiet yesterday otherwise...
Chris Bryant MP @RhonddaBryant 12m12 minutes ago
Chris Bryant MP Retweeted Mhairi Black MP
You know that is untrue. The vote was greeted in somber silence. Chris Bryant MP added,
Mhairi Black MP @MhairiBlack
Very dark night in parliament.Will never forget the noise of some Labour and Tory cheering together at the idea of bombs falling #SyriaVote
@georgeeaton: Dennis Skinner called Hilary Benn "Ramsay McBenn" in the Commons. Rebuked by Chris Bryant.
Seriously though, I cannot back a man who uses skimmed milk, or white water as I call it. I knew ukip were awful extremists
2015 54.8 Miliband
2010 45.5 Brown
2005 49.1 Blair
2001 51.2 Blair
1997 58.8 Blair
1992 52.8 Kinnock (ex Royton)
1987 49.4 Kinnock
1983 44.1 Foot
1979 52.4 Callaghan
1974 53.2 Wilson
1974 48.4 Wilson
1970 48.1 Wilson
Vote ceiling and floor highlighted
Clear death threats against named individuals and the publication of personal details are over the line and the police need to step in quickly. I fear that Hillary Benn will have a couple of the thin blue line keeping him company for a few days, until this all dies down a little.
And it won't be a three-way contest no matter what.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/radio/what-to-listen-to/alan-yentobs-continuing-employment-does-the-bbc-no-credit-at-all/
http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/football/34991874
My thinking was that if there was an exceptionally low turnout then the middle class oldies would be those few that did, although you might be right about the Labour postal vote. Perhaps they were all collected last Friday after prayers.
Benn should be offered whatever protection he needs for as long as is necessary.
And it is dreadful that we are even having to think in those terms. All because a Labour leader and his cohorts believe that intimidation and threats are appropriate political weapon.
I'm coming to the conclusion Labour is now unleadable
Even if they depose Corbyn, the Corbynites haven't gone away you know
To be sure the Miliband in Salmond's pocket poster and meme cost UKIP a lot of votes and probably a few seats, but was that the only reason? Who knows, but UKIP don't seem to have even asked the question.
Then we have Farage's piece in the Telegraph yesterday. One can admire and maybe even agree with the ambition but no gentleman would have written that article - vulgar, in bad taste and creating a hostage for the future. Sometimes Farage seems like an old man in a hurry.
So what does UKIP need to achieve today. Well, I am not expecting them to win (I said on here weeks ago that I think Labour will hold on comfortably) but anything less than, say, a 30% vote share would have to be classed as a major disappointment regardless of turnout. Anything below 20% (i.e. approaching their polling figures nationally) would be a disaster. If UKIP can get to within a few percentage points of the Labour share then I think they will have done well and are on track to make some gains in 2020 - but only if they do a lot of that other work.
Comrade Grintz ☭ @DarrenGrintz 25m25 minutes ago
We need to organise more #ANTIFA protests outside the offices of warmongering
murderers like @stellacreasy.
#OccupyStellaCreasy
Perhaps BBC should be looking at this guy rather than Yentob.
Even dire periods can be recovered from, provided there isn't a strategic loss. After Basil II, Byzantium had numerous dire emperors, but under Alexius and John Comnenus was again very powerful. It was only after the loss of Anatolian land [which also meant a permanent loss of military manpower] and the Fourth Crusade that the Eastern Empire entered an inescapable spiral of decline.
Is there a position you can deselect people from before the actual pre-general-election candidate selection happens? If not, when would the candidate selection be?
Also what other procedural things might entrench the left's position if they can hang on to the leadership for a year or two?
A female murderer is properly called a murderess. Honestly.
Edited extra bit: on a serious note, that is a rancid and despicable comment. The tweeter is certainly a C word, but 'comrade' it is not.
As others have pointed out, though, that doesn't make him favourite to be next leader of the party. Rather the reverse, I think; if the next leader is not another hard-left extremist, he or she will have to be a unifying figure, and what we will see now is hardly going to be an edifying or unifying exchange of fraternal greetings between the 66 and the membership. It is, instead, going to be an increasingly vicious civil war which will harden views on both sides and engender increasing bitterness. It's very hard to see Benn emerging now as a unifying figure from that maelstrom.
Gradually the bitterness and reprisals against moderate MPs will extend to more and more MPs, including some who at the moment see themselves as Corbyn supporters. That is always how the hard left operates, with lots of small groups fighting each other, with passionate hatred, over arcane ideological or personal differences. It is hard to see a road to recovery for Labour any time soon.
Of course none of this is a surprise. It was predicted here and elsewhere back in July, when it first started to look as though Corbyn could win the leadership contest.
* Having said that, I don't see how one could simultaneously oppose the government last night, yet at the same time back action in Iraq, back the UN resolution, and not criticise France and the US for their work in trying to disrupt ISIS in Syria. Corbyn's position is at least consistent, whereas those simply opposing the UK's new role in Syria, without also taking the other three positions, are not being consistent.
Twice as many deaths, with half the population. Staggering.
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/russia-legalises-guns-self-defence-murder-rates-among-highest-world-1475681
As it stands the opinion poll (Westminster VI) ratings for Labour and UKIP are around the same level as they were when Labour won by 33% in May. There should be no real reason to ecpect anything other than a comfy Labour win
The problem is, in a fragile betting market the outsider has been backed and the favourite was unsteady, and people will use the fact that UKIP went 8/1>3/1 as an excuse to brand it a big failure if they don't almost win
Farage's schtick always seems to be to ramp up expectations rather than play them down.. maybe it is ill judged
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-africa-34993002
Murdering scumbag......
IDS didn't generate the zeal and fervour that Corbyn does
Corbyn could not have been met with more messianic fervour than if he’d rode into Parliament on a donkey and people had laid out palm trees in front of him.
http://leftfootforward.org/2015/12/comment-hilary-benn-showed-us-what-labour-is-missing/
Poor Reeva. Hope her parents find some small consolation at this verdict
I was against, though Benn's speech had a big impact on me and could have swayed me if I was in the HoC on the night.
I thought Corbyn was very poor. He didn't even develop the line about throttling ISIL's supply lines of men, money and guns coming through Turkey and elsewhere.
I'm pleased that the British bombs this morning seem to be directed at oil installations rather than cities.
New Thread New Thread
I believe Mexico also has lower gun ownership/stricter controls but a higher death rate, and Switzerland had more and a lower one.