Jeremy Corbyn - Not Not Labour Party(?), not a Communist (BBC)

[Jippy]

The Torries have full power. If the lives of ordinary people improves, they will keep them in power. If it does not Corbyn provides an alternative that offers very different solutions.

The 'Torries' have a very tiny majority that will doubtless have evaporated by the next parliament. Nothing certain about the next election and plenty in between now and then, eg the EU referendum and Cameron stepping down.

 

[sun_tzu]

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...tense-labour-debates-over-airstrikes-in-syria

If this is an accurate picture of what happened today it shows just how detached from reality Corbyn is (what he thought he would get from the shadow cabinet meeting compared to the actual outcome)

 

[Cheesy]

I think a day like today highlights that on certain issues, Corbyn just can't really win. If he'd changed his stance and supported airstrikes, he'd be seen as a hypocrite. If he'd whipped the vote, he'd be seen as a hypocritical tyrant, ignoring the views of most of his party. As it stands, he's perceived as someone who is enabling his MP's to go against his opinion, and highlighting divisions within the party. And that's probably the best of those three outcomes he could've hoped for.

 

[Ubik]

I think a day like today highlights that on certain issues, Corbyn just can't really win. If he'd changed his stance and supported airstrikes, he'd be seen as a hypocrite. If he'd whipped the vote, he'd be seen as a hypocritical tyrant, ignoring the views of most of his party. As it stands, he's perceived as someone who is enabling his MP's to go against his opinion, and highlighting divisions within the party. And that's probably the best of those three outcomes he could've hoped for.

It should be said that quite a few people on here said that precisely such a course of events would occur back during the leadership election. That his past and his positions would grant him very limited respect and authority within the PLP and it would get very messy very quickly.

 

[Marching]

Exactly. It proves just how out of touch he is!

 

[Kaos]

Exactly. It proves just how out of touch he is!

And Cameron is then I take it?

 

[sun_tzu]

I think a day like today highlights that on certain issues, Corbyn just can't really win. If he'd changed his stance and supported airstrikes, he'd be seen as a hypocrite. If he'd whipped the vote, he'd be seen as a hypocritical tyrant, ignoring the views of most of his party. As it stands, he's perceived as someone who is enabling his MP's to go against his opinion, and highlighting divisions within the party. And that's probably the best of those three outcomes he could've hoped for.

Actually I have been saying for a couple of weeks it will have to be a free vote
If it was that obvious to me then Corbyn being a politician who has aspirations to run the country should not have specifically ruled out a free vote a week ago... He certainly shouldn't have done the letter as it was obvious that would turn it into a fight not a negotiation with his shadow cabinet.

 

[Smores]

It should be said that quite a few people on here said that precisely such a course of events would occur back during the leadership election. That his past and his positions would grant him very limited respect and authority within the PLP and it would get very messy very quickly.

I agree with that but I think that's a wider issue with the PLP that someone like Corbyn can't be worked with.

Newsnight last night was very poor, Syria hardly came up but they spent a lot of time painting the free vote as something incompatible with politics.

I do wonder what the other candidates would have done over the strike.

 

[sun_tzu]

I agree with that but I think that's a wider issue with the PLP that someone like Corbyn can't be worked with.

Newsnight last night was very poor, Syria hardly came up but they spent a lot of time painting the free vote as something incompatible with politics.

I do wonder what the other candidates would have done over the strike.

Probably have gone with a free vote from the start rather than ruling it out and having to backtrack plus sending a letter out that basically starts a civil war with your own shadow cabinet and having a trade union boss basically make a speech threatening MP's...

All in all probably a lot better

 

[Marching]

And Cameron is then I take it?

I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed and has spent his whole time in the job scrambling around trying and failing to persuade his own hand picked shadow cabinet to support him. His out of date beliefs that most of the rest of the world have left far behind have only served to back himself into a corner, further distance himself from his fellow MP's and, thankfully, ensure he will never be PM.

 

[Ubik]

Labour MP Richard Burgon, often visibly confused by dogs and plumbing, is attending a Stop the War march on Labour HQ today.

 

[Kaos]

I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed and has spent his whole time in the job scrambling around trying and failing to persuade his own hand picked shadow cabinet to support him. His out of date beliefs that most of the rest of the world have left far behind have only served to back himself into a corner, further distance himself from his fellow MP's and, thankfully, ensure he will never be PM.

You're happy for Cameron to drag us into another neocon war, threatening the country's security, and getting into bed with Saudi Arabia and other extremist factions that include Al Qaeda?

 

[sun_tzu]

Labour MP Richard Burgon, often visibly confused by dogs and plumbing, is attending a Stop the War march on Labour HQ today.

Shadow economic secretary no less...

 

[Smores]

I'm far more likely to trust his judgement than I am someone who has declared he would not be prepared to take the ultimate decision and press the button if needed and has spent his whole time in the job scrambling around trying and failing to persuade his own hand picked shadow cabinet to support him. His out of date beliefs that most of the rest of the world have left far behind have only served to back himself into a corner, further distance himself from his fellow MP's and, thankfully, ensure he will never be PM.

If only half arsed middle east interventions were out of date.

What do you mean by press the button when "needed"? The only time it's going to be used is if London and the prime minister is no more. I'd wager any letter opened will only say "Join up with the US" anyway.

 

[Adebesi]

That Richard Burgon interview was absolutely cringeworthy, especially the bit towards the end. It shows Corbyn's problem is not merely that he is wrong (IMO) on his policy prescriptions, but he is so completely lacking in experienced, competent people on his side. When one of the best MPs you can call on is Diane Abbot you are not in a good place.

 

[Ubik]

Corbyn's also just called much of the shadow cabinets "die hards" when it comes to war. This is why I find any suggestion that he's really trying to be a unifying force risible.

 

[Marching]

You're happy for Cameron to drag us into another neocon war, threatening the country's security, and getting into bed with Saudi Arabia and other extremist factions that include Al Qaeda?

I am happy to agree with Cameron, the United Nations Security Council Resolution and for us to answer the call for support from our allies and join them in bombing and using all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist attacks by ISIL.

If only half arsed middle east interventions were out of date.

What do you mean by press the button when "needed"? The only time it's going to be used is if London and the prime minister is no more. I'd wager any letter opened will only say "Join up with the US" anyway.

Using it after London and the PM is no more will be a little difficult don't you think. The will to use the button is what counts....that is the deterrent we have and one that the woolly minded Corbyn won't allow us to have.

What would you do to try and end the threat of ISIL?

 

[Smores]

Using it after London and the PM is no more will be a little difficult don't you think. The will to use the button is what counts....that is the deterrent we have and one that the woolly minded Corbyn won't allow us to have.

What would you do to try and end the threat of ISIL?

What do you mean difficult? That's why we have the at sea deterrent. Corbyn doesn't have to give permission to fire as no one knows what's in the letter, traditionally 3 out of the 4 options have been non-retalitory. You can argue it's not a deterrent if the PM says they won't order it but the monarchy or second in command can still give the order and the decision can be made by the submarine without attainable orders.

As for ISIL I'd allow Russia and the US to continue the fight and if necessary at a later date put boots on the ground. There's plenty of more damaging political measures that can be taken before we commit rather than jumping to a token gesture.

 

[Marching]

What do you mean difficult? That's why we have the at sea deterrent. Corbyn doesn't have to give permission to fire as no one knows what's in the letter, traditionally 3 out of the 4 options have been non-retalitory. You can argue it's not a deterrent if the PM says they won't order it but the monarchy or second in command can still give the order and the decision can be made by the submarine without attainable orders.

As for ISIL I'd allow Russia and the US to continue the fight and if necessary at a later date put boots on the ground. There's plenty of more damaging political measures that can be taken before we commit rather than jumping to a token gesture.

Why is right for Russia/US and not for others?

 

[NinjaFletch]

I really fail to see how anyone thinks Western boots on the ground can possibly help.

 

[Kaos]

I am happy to agree with Cameron, the United Nations Security Council Resolution and for us to answer the call for support from our allies and join them in bombing and using all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist attacks by ISIL.

Since when have bombings prevented terrorist attacks? All the evidence suggests it has the opposite effect. How many times was the UK was the victim of Islamic terrorism before the Iraq war?

Also you might want to study the UN resolution a bit more carefully: http://www.globalresearch.ca/breaki...ria-us-natos-humanitarian-air-strikes/5492208 (Remember our old friend mission creep in Libya?)

This has nothing to do with humanitarian intervention or security, this is Cameron obliging his buddies who have an agenda in the region. Why would you trust a man who sells billions of dollars worth of weapons to the Saudis and to Al-Qaeda affiliated jihadists?

 

[Kaos]

I really fail to see how anyone thinks Western boots on the ground can possibly help.

Its as if the last 15 years never happened.

 

[Smores]

Why is right for Russia/US and not for others?

So how many countries do you want involved bombing ISIL citing it's the right thing to do? The need has already been met and our contribution would be largely symbolic and that's not a basis for involvement.

I really fail to see how anyone thinks Western boots on the ground can possibly help.

After exhausting all political options (including non-western intervention) then at some point it has to be a consideration despite the obvious issues it brings.

It's why I find the argument of bombing ISIL ridiculous. There's wide acceptance that bombing alone isn't enough and also wide opposition to boots on the ground. It's admittance that's it's a token gesture but it'll get passed through anyway.

I'll leave this discussion for the appropriate thread

 

[Marching]

So how many countries do you want involved bombing ISIL citing it's the right thing to do? The need has already been met and our contribution would be largely symbolic and that's not a basis for involvement.



After exhausting all political options (including non-western intervention) then at some point it has to be a consideration despite the obvious issues it brings.

It's why I find the argument of bombing ISIL ridiculous. There's wide acceptance that bombing alone isn't enough and also wide opposition to boots on the ground. It's admittance that's it's a token gesture but it'll get passed through anyway.

I'll leave this discussion for the appropriate thread

Not sure you answered my question unless you were serious about non western intervention and political options which presumably means talking to ISIL. Getting back to the real world, bombing ISIL is aimed at weakening them and, as is blatently clear, is just part the wider strategy against them. We are never going agree on this issue so we'll agree to disagree.

 

[NinjaFletch]

Not sure you answered my question unless you were serious about non western intervention and political options which presumably means talking to ISIL. Getting back to the real world, bombing ISIL is aimed at weakening them and, as is blatently clear, is just part the wider strategy against them. We are never going agree on this issue so we'll agree to disagree.

And aside from arming Al-Qaida that wider strategy is?

 

[Adebesi]

The five step strategy for combating terrorism.

1. Talk tough on terror.
2. Demonise immigrants.
3. Increase surveillance of domestic populations.
4. Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live.
5. Trident.

 

[Silva]

The five step strategy for combating terrorism.

1. Talk tough on terror.
2. Demonise immigrants.
3. Increase surveillance of domestic populations.
4. Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live.
5. Trident.

Don't forget to sell them weapons somewhere in the middle of that. Make it a fair fight.

 

[sun_tzu]

The five step strategy for combating terrorism.

1. Talk tough on terror.
2. Demonise immigrants.
3. Increase surveillance of domestic populations.
4. Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live.
5. Trident.

It still sounds slightly more effective than:

Don't use drones to kill them
Don't bomb them
And don't shoot them if they are rampaging through London

 

[Adebesi]

Don't forget to sell them weapons somewhere in the middle of that. Make it a fair fight.

Naturally. You have to build and sell weapons. That creates jobs, prosperity and a better future for everyone.

 

[NinjaFletch]

It still sounds slightly more effective than:

Don't use drones to kill them
Don't bomb them

Apart from history showing otherwise?

 

[Adebesi]

And don't shoot them if they are rampaging through London

Out of interest, who has argued this?

Or do you mean we shouldnt kill them if they are rampaging through London? i.e. dont shoot to kill?

 

[The Purley King]

Apart from history showing otherwise?

How do you know what would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had done nothing? Perhaps the eventual outcome was better than what would have happened.

 

[sun_tzu]

Out of interest, who has argued this?

in light of you summing up the government stance as
Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live
I thought I would provide the same sort of standards to Corbyns shoot to kill comments

 

[Adebesi]

in light of you summing up the government stance as
Bomb the shit out of anywhere where terrorists live
I thought I would provide the same sort of standards to Corbyns shoot to kill comments

Ah yes, got you.

 

[Shamwow]

How do you know what would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had done nothing? Perhaps the eventual outcome was better than what would have happened.

Hard to imagine how it could have been much worse to be honest.

 

[Ubik]

I'd go as far as saying that if there was a more consensual and open minded Labour leader at the moment, the government probably wouldn't be going ahead with a vote tomorrow. When you read the well-reasoned pieces against action on current terms from the likes of Keir Starmer and Chi Onwurah, that make clear that using military force is a clear option but that a better plan needs to formulate before committing to it, and that's something the party could clearly attack the government on and probably get nearly all MPs to agree to. Such an argument couldn't come from Corbyn, because he's a renowned pacifist. And this is why having strong and united opposition is a good thing, rather than the current free for all.

 

[Kaos]

How do you know what would have happened in Iraq and Afghanistan if we had done nothing? Perhaps the eventual outcome was better than what would have happened.

Because the status quo prior to the invasions were a lot less worse than they were post-invasion?

 

[sun_tzu]

I'd go as far as saying that if there was a more consensual and open minded Labour leader at the moment, the government probably wouldn't be going ahead with a vote tomorrow. When you read the well-reasoned pieces against action on current terms from the likes of Keir Starmer and Chi Onwurah, that make clear that using military force is a clear option but that a better plan needs to formulate before committing to it, and that's something the party could clearly attack the government on and probably get nearly all MPs to agree to. Such an argument couldn't come from Corbyn, because he's a renowned pacifist. And this is why having strong and united opposition is a good thing, rather than the current free for all.

Id kind of agree with that - though I may reword it as if there was a competent Labour leader - but I think your right.

 

[Adebesi]

Yeah I agree with that as well.

 

[Ubik]

Id kind of agree with that - though I may reword it as if there was a competent Labour leader - but I think your right.

True, though I do think his dogmatism and tribalism are key tenets of his incompetence.