Miliband wasn't Tory-lite; he was probably fairly centre-left, but his problem was that he never seemed to hold his views with enough conviction. Felt like he was eternally on the verge of apologising. Someone in his mold with similar views could probably win an election if they were a lot stronger in personality and came across with a lot more conviction.
Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)
- Thread starter unchanged_lineup
- Start date
-
In the latest episode of the United Hour Podcast, Nik (@Rood) is joined by CEO Duncan Drasdo and Financial Director Andy Green from the Manchester United Supporters Trust for a special episode on all things behind the scenes at Old Trafford including a brief history of MUST and their aims today, views on INEOS and Sir Jim Ratcliffe so far, and the Old Trafford regeneration.
WUM
people either vote for something they believe in or against something they dislike. Miliband offered less pain...or so he said. imo the previous labour leadership sold out the working class.
its similar over here. Hillary...she is still a corporate pick. But the difference is on the other side they are batshit crazy.
cause he never believed in true labour policies. Suppose the entire party had moved away.
You don't win unless you believe in what you are saying. So I guess you nailed it.
If Osborne is defeated in the leadership race, which could be as early as 2018, the new Tory leader will have plenty of time to soften some of the harsher edges of the previous regime.
And Boris already seems to be doing the groundwork for that.
I actually think it could even be by 2017 assuming we have the eu referendum in 2016...
If Cameron looses that he goes very quick and even if he wins I suspect one big budget from Osborne in April 2017 with some feel good policies and a leadership election over the summer as once the eu referendum is won that in its self would probably be Cameron's natural exit point
Unfortunately not the case, but keep convincing yourself otherwise.
Sadly, all of the polling suggests that the people who didn't vote are fairly centrist as a whole, with very little alignment to Corbyn's policies.
on the plus side though even labour seem to be having little alignment to Corbyn's policies with the trident vote being scuppered by the unions and now his women only train carriages will not even be going out to consultation
https://www.politicshome.com/transp...byns-women-only-train-carriages-idea-scrapped
More brilliance from Stewart Lee...
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/sun-slams-corbyn-nod-gets-rise-out-of-me
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/sun-slams-corbyn-nod-gets-rise-out-of-me
Corbyn says he dos not agree with the shoot to kill policy. Cue the not fit for leader or prime minister diatribe. .
thats a fair enough stance - as always he tells us what he is against - hopefully he can tell us if he would
a/ask them nicely to stop shooting people
b/wait until they have used up all their ammo then send the police to arrest them and hope they dont have a bomb vest on
c/just tell police officers to rush them as they will only be able to kill a few before they get tackled.
or is there any other viable options?... shoot to wound when people have guns and are firing on civilians and may well have a bomb vest on does not exactly sound convincing?
Though he probably just wants to save all the bullets for lining up anybody who has ever voted for blair or the conservatives against the wall
Last edited:
Is he suggesting that police officers arrest people armed with AK-47s and suicide vests?
No, next question?
What a ridiculously framed question by the way, from the BBC nonetheless
Corbyn interview with the BBC:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34830749
This new politics is great, plain speaking and honest answer to every question.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34830749
This new politics is great, plain speaking and honest answer to every question.
Yeah it was a bit of a gotcha question but still it's a shite answer from Corbyn.
Pretty awful stuff that(can image the bigger the issue ISIS get's the more the public will turn on him).
During the leadership race the biggest struggle I had with Corbyn was he's ideas on foreign policy, he's a borderline pacifist who seems to suggest the West is at fault for all of the mess in the middle east. Basically as someone who voted for him(And would most likely vote for to be PM) I think his foreign policy is a load of arse.
Last edited:
so he is suggesting we let them go or we shoot to wound as you have ruled out shoot to kill or arrest.
wish she had pushed him a bit more though...
so mr corbyn I ask for the sixth time what would you actually order them to do
But if someone is daft enough to suggest risking highly trained, patriotic fathers, brothers, husbands and sons in an endeavour to bring a murderous, bloodthirsty enemy of the state to trial what can you expect really? That was as naive as one could go and I'm sure in a more cut throat environment like the US that statement would have been political suicide on both sides of the great divide.
Course it would .Shoot to kill is a way of life out there.
"Order is such a strong word..."
Whenever Corbyb is asked abut Syria he emphasises the need for a political solution and little else, yet i can't recall if he has ever detailed what form this would take. What role does he see Assad playing, if any? Would the UN be expected to take on some of the responsibilities of government in the interim? What of the thousands of insurgent fighters presently in the country?
If he were so inclined he could be putting forward an alternative worthy at least of some respect, however all we seems to hear from him are these woolly objections to the plans of others. Policy aside, the interview with Laura Kuensberg was equally damaging for the insight it gave into his potential as a leader.
If he were so inclined he could be putting forward an alternative worthy at least of some respect, however all we seems to hear from him are these woolly objections to the plans of others. Policy aside, the interview with Laura Kuensberg was equally damaging for the insight it gave into his potential as a leader.
Cameron as not come out with any plan apart from we need to be part of this air assault .That is not a good enough strategy to carry most of parliament and the people with you.
Last edited:
He has said a lot on the subject more than what you seem to think - although I doubt the Telegraph would have covered any of that. Recently he has said the recent talks in Vienna were a positive step and that the solution lies in creating an acceptable government in Syria that would then deal with ISIS itself. He's also said that we need to look at where they are getting their arms and supplies from, and who they are selling their oil to.
It is not right that when we can't think of a good solution to something the default answer is always bombing. "But we must been seen to be doing something!" they think.
Negotiate.
Yup. His approach to this has basically been to shout, cry and namecall because we don't want him playing with the other boys.
It's also worth noting that the last time - as far as I'm aware - that the policy of shoot-to-kill was actually implemented in the UK, it failed miserably.
I have said as much myself over the months and years of this debate, although Cameron's intentions and recent British involvement in drone strikes will find greater accord with the public than the views expressed by Corbyn.
If your post is an accurate summary of his proposals i don't think we've moved greatly beyond woolly as a description. This might explain why nobody from the BBC to Amnesty International alluded to any such detailed plan from Corbyn.
What sort of impression do you think much of the electorate will have of Corbyn following his remarks on the topic? For all intents and purposes he opposes the sue of precision drones strikes against IS terrorists in Syria, whilst his responses to Kuensberg were awfully reminiscent of Cameron when challenged about tax credits.
In this climate where the threat from extremist is all too clear and present he won't be winning any election displaying such political naivety. The fact, however unfortunate, is that people are scared and will not vote for anyone who displays such hesitancy on an issue as critical as national security. Add that to dodgy math on welfare, the promise to reverse privatisation and his pro Russia stance I think labour have confined themselves to a lengthy period in opposition.
No one has a more concrete solution than that apart from bombing, which isn't a solution as we (should have) learned in the past 15 years.
What's wrong with saying that we should arrange more negotiations and see what we can sort out between the western powers and surrounding countries in order to create a government in Syria that everyone can work with to sort out ISIS?
The seeming blood thirst of the general public (at least this is the impression you get from the biggest newspapers) is that in the absence of any other concrete solution, that we should just bomb stuff.
PS I love the concept of "precision" drone strikes. I could whack you on the side of the head with a hammer and call it brain surgery by those standards.
The Kurds that are the actual ones fighting Da'esh on the ground don't seem to agree that air strikes are pointless. They'd like more. The towns spared of being overrun thanks to the containment, and thus haven't been slaughtered or taken as sex slaves, are probably okay with them as well.
By all means let's hold a summit in London next week, but i doubt whether Corbyn is in a position to advance some semblance of a framework.
Do you know of evidence to suggest that such a term cold not be associated with the two attacks for which we know of RAF participation, most recently that of Emwazi (which i think we can agree Corbyn would not have ordered)?
Well of course he isn't right now, that can't really be a criticism of his position though can it? If you genuinely think a bombing campaign would only make things better and have no long-term adverse affects then I guess that's fair enough but for me it seems like we are just trying to repeat history.
This feels a bit like a "gotcha question".
First of all I feel that I should point out that the RAF has itself flown over 500 drone strikes itself in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't think it can be disputable that over the long-term, the drone strikes have resulted in a lot of civilian casualties.
Not only that but I think they have effectively been weapons of terror to their targets and the surrounding population and from that I would ask whether the adverse affects on our own countries outweighs the benefits.
Even if the basis of your question were correct, going specifically to it, all I can say is that in the case of Emwazi, only him and the 3 (are far as I can tell unidentified) people in his car were killed. Apparently they identified him by the baseball cap he always wore. Personally I don't trust the information we have been given through official statements or leaks and I don't think that anyone else should either but since it's all I have to go one I will ask if you can give me the identities of the 3 people who died with him?
Maybe the processes, intelligence and weaponry have gotten sufficiently more advanced that drone strikes now can be truly called precision strikes. Even if they have, they cannot be consistent because the intelligence sources are inconsistent - especially in countries where we don't have an official military presence. Even if it turns out that in these 2 cases, not a single innocent died, I would still argue that this is not the norm and that you asking specifically about those 2 cases is somewhat disengenuous as to the question of whether drone strikes should be considered a weapon of precision.
What really frustrates me is that the default position seems to be bomb even if we don't have a good understanding of what the short-term and long-term outcomes will be. This is getting a lot of public support. But why should it be? Why can't not bombing be the default position for fecks sake?
Last edited:
That is frankly a bit of a lazy response. It doesn't say anything about whether the drone strikes are the right thing to do in the long-term and doesn't differentiate between different types of strikes being used.
This report came out from Amnesty International last month. Take it with a pinch of salt if you will:
This is a very short term outlook though. I think Corbyn is right that a long term solution requires a government in Syria that has international support, and crucially Russian support.
Of course it does, Corbyn hardly came up with that idea. No-one advocating military action thinks that'd be the end of it, quite the opposite. My worry with Corbyn is that he would agree with the Green Party's bizarre statement today, which is essentially that the milk of unicorns will solve this.
The devil's jizz vs milk of unicorns eh?
If you think military action would do the opposite of ending it then that's a bit weird. Typo?
No, it means that destroying IS (or removing Assad) isn't the end but the beginning of a long period of rebuilding for a state that's been destroyed and lost about half its population.
Thought that might be the case.
The one where they say we should use the weapon terrorists fear most, peace talks?
Yeah that's sadly ridiculous. Assad needs to be removed and a government needs to be created that can be supported by a significant majority of Syrians, the Nato powers, and Russia. It's a hell of an undertaking to achieve that.
In the mean time air strikes and the commitment of troops to directly fight ISIS is the best we can do. And even that will do little to nothing to prevent terrors attacks.