Jeremy Corbyn

[...]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I just read this and wondered how that works?.

"It is understood Mr Corbyn will make clear that the party's official policy is to oppose military action, but he will not impose a whip ordering them to vote against".

How could he 'impose the whip' when he is totally against violence?

"FFS".

 

Uncle TFR

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Taxi for Rennie said:

How could he 'impose the whip' when he is totally against violence?

"FFS".

 

Uncle TFR

How can it be 'the party's official policy' when he can't get it past the shadow cabinet?.

 

[...]

2 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

How can it be 'the party's official policy' when he can't get it past the shadow cabinet?.

 

Because not every single member of the shadow cabinet is a total and utter moron.

Next question.

 

Uncle TFR

P.S. And another thing: the sooner they get rid of Corbyn and get Diane Abbott in as leader, the better off the country will be. We simply MUST have a functioning opposition.

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

How can it be 'the party's official policy' when he can't get it past the shadow cabinet?.

 

The shadow cabinet is not Labour's policy unit. 

It's a very complicated system, but basically the NEC determines "official policy".

This certainly isn't the first time official party policy hasn't been agreed with by all members of a Labour cabinet.

Those voting with the Conservatives will probably find their future battles will not be with Jeremy Corbyn,  but with their constituency parties' selection committes. 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

The shadow cabinet is not Labour's policy unit. 

It's a very complicated system, but basically the NEC determines "official policy".

This certainly isn't the first time official party policy hasn't been agreed with by all members of a Labour cabinet.

Those voting with the Conservatives will probably find their future battles will not be with Jeremy Corbyn,  but with their constituency parties' selection committes. 

 

I never expected anything different with either highlighted part.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 hour ago, Red-Robbo said:

The shadow cabinet is not Labour's policy unit. 

It's a very complicated system, but basically the NEC determines "official policy".

This certainly isn't the first time official party policy hasn't been agreed with by all members of a Labour cabinet.

Those voting with the Conservatives will probably find their future battles will not be with Jeremy Corbyn,  but with their constituency parties' selection committes. 

 

The problem is Robbo, that strategy will end up as yet another media own goal and when some of the left wing blaggards and cutthroats are named, the skeletons will become restless in the media cupboards.

[Red-Robbo]

3 hours ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

 

 

I think it's inevitable though, Es, if you have MPs at odds with 75% of their constituency party members.

ITV News reckoned 100 Labour might vote for air strikes, but my guess would be such considerations will keep the number rather lower. 

It does look like they are gonna go ahead however. 

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

I think it's inevitable though, Es, if you have MPs at odds with 75% of their constituency party members.

ITV News reckoned 100 Labour might vote for air strikes, but my guess would be such considerations will keep the number rather lower. 

It does look like they are gonna go ahead however. 

 

The 75% is being viewed as incredibly dodgy, close to 108,000 labour party members replied to the email shot but they only used a sample of 1,900 to reach that conclusion, there is no information on how that sample was selected or why, I suspect it has been exaggerated by about 15%, 60% was the pre email shot prediction and I would suspect that is much closer to the truth, I suppose the problem now might be if the figure is found to be false, it just adds more fuel.

Corbyn also has to convince the 58% of labour voters who are in favour of airstrikes.

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

The 75% is being viewed as incredibly dodgy, close to 108,000 labour party members replied to the email shot but they only used a sample of 1,900 to reach that conclusion, there is no information on how that sample was selected or why, I suspect it has been exaggerated by about 15%, 60% was the pre email shot prediction and I would suspect that is much closer to the truth, I suppose the problem now might be if the figure is found to be false, it just adds more fuel.

Corbyn also has to convince the 58% of labour voters who are in favour of airstrikes.

Isn't it 58% of all voters, Es? 

1900 is a very decent sample size. Probably larger than the poll you are quoting on airstrikes.

There's no doubt Corbyn received the lion's share of CLP votes in the leadership election, so I don't find it at all impossible that most active Labour Party members agree with him over Syria.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Red-Robbo said:

Isn't it 58% of all voters, Es? 

1900 is a very decent sample size. Probably larger than the poll you are quoting on airstrikes.

There's no doubt Corbyn received the lion's share of CLP votes in the leadership election, so I don't find it at all impossible that most active Labour Party members agree with him over Syria.

Sorry yes 52% of labour voters.

I think the point is that even some labour MP's are suggesting that the 1,900 were cherry picked from the 108,000.

 

[Red-Robbo]

6 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Sorry yes 52% of labour voters.

I think the point is that even some labour MP's are suggesting that the 1,900 were cherry picked from the 108,000.

 

Dunno mate, but the number doesn't surprise me.

In my entirely unscientific and unverifiable "poll" of people I know, I don't detect much enthusiasm for bombing. Even from the Tories in the village. 

[Portland Bill]

Everyone seems to be concentrating on how Labour MP's are going to vote re bombing Syria.

So, how many Tory mp's are going to vote against bombing Syria?

After all, they have a majority government, which should mean they could win this vote on their own?

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

13 hours ago, Portland Bill said:

Everyone seems to be concentrating on how Labour MP's are going to vote re bombing Syria.

So, how many Tory mp's are going to vote against bombing Syria?

After all, they have a majority government, which should mean they could win this vote on their own?

 

Predicted to be single figures.

i'm still confused though, Corbyn is saying that the labour party 'official position' is to vote against airstrikes but a member of his shadow cabinet last night said that labour had 'no official position', the word shambles comes to mind.

 

 

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Predicted to be single figures.

i'm still confused though, Corbyn is saying that the labour party 'official position' is to vote against airstrikes but a member of his shadow cabinet last night said that labour had 'no official position', the word shambles comes to mind.

 

 

Last time the issue of Syria came before the party's Congress it voted to oppose bombing. 

I guess it suits Labour MPs planning to vote with the Conservative majority to claim that there are different circumstances now,  just as it suits them to suggest that 75% figure may be bogus. 

I suppose they'll find out if they are right or wrong at re-selection time.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

14 minutes ago, Red-Robbo said:

Last time the issue of Syria came before the party's Congress it voted to oppose bombing. 

I guess it suits Labour MPs planning to vote with the Conservative majority to claim that there are different circumstances now,  just as it suits them to suggest that 75% figure may be bogus. 

I suppose they'll find out if they are right and wrong at re-selection time.

That might have been a good answer but this particular shadow cabinet minister is with Corbyn and voting against air strikes. it was a pretty uninspiring bloke may have been the pensions shadow.

PS:- i'm sure that the 75% number is as completely honest and impartial as any tory party investigation into Mark Clarke, whoever investigates it, I see already that MP Ben Howlett who said on newsnight that Marty Feldman was not telling the truth about been unaware of complaints appears to have already been lent on and won't answer any questions.

 

[Red-Robbo]

54 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

That might have been a good answer but this particular shadow cabinet minister is with Corbyn and voting against air strikes. it was a pretty uninspiring bloke may have been the pensions shadow.

PS:- i'm sure that the 75% number is as completely honest and impartial as any tory party investigation into Mark Clarke, whoever investigates it, I see already that MP Ben Howlett who said on newsnight that Marty Feldman was not telling the truth about been unaware of complaints appears to have already been lent on and won't answer any questions.

 

I see David Davis - one of the few Tories I have any time for - is questioning Cameron's policy, in the same way you queried Corbyn's ideas for Syria. 

What's the long-term plan? After the bombing,  what then?

Another issue that hasn't been discussed much is the sheer cost of all this, at a time when we are cutting services over here.

In 2011, when we were bombing Libya,  the cost of an hour of sortie time by a Typhoon was £70,000 and a Brimstone missile was £175,000 a pop. 

The total cost may have been as high as £1.75bn, to bomb a country nearer than Syria and at 2011 prices. 

 

Still, we always seem to find cash for stuff like this, as opposed to cash to alleviate A&E waiting times etc.

[wayne allisons tongues]

I find the cost of all this argument a bit off. You could say if we have a Paris style attack in our country, how much money do you place on each of those people's lives. I thought governments always had a fund of spare money in case of war etc.

I personally think we should be spending money on our nhs and pensioners etc. but how much is too much per life?

[chipdawg]

While I certainly don't have an objection to bombing ISIS, I really don't understand why some are so enthusiastic to do so. We don't add any specialist capability, between the US and France we have very similar hardware. We're not likely to defeat ISIS by dropping even more of the same bombs and its pulling us into an increasingly politically fractious situation. From Cameron's point of view I guess there is political capital to be gained with our allies by getting more involved, but is that really justification for the billions of pounds that are about to be spent on military action? There doesn't seem to be an exit strategy or a clear mission statement and we've been here before and it never ends particularly well

While I think that military action has a place and is needed to diminish them in Iraq and Syria, it's not going to stop a Paris style attack elsewhere in Europe. In fact i'd say it makes it more likely. The only thing that's going to stop that is an information war, which right now we are losing to a bunch of amateurs with Twitter accounts  

[chipdawg]

1 hour ago, wayne allisons tongues said:

I find the cost of all this argument a bit off. You could say if we have a Paris style attack in our country, how much money do you place on each of those people's lives. I thought governments always had a fund of spare money in case of war etc.

I personally think we should be spending money on our nhs and pensioners etc. but how much is too much per life?

I think the cost argument is relevant while there is no clear 'battle plan'. I don't see how what we're planning on doing is going to prevent a Paris-style attack in the UK. The only thing that will do that long term is to win the information battle, stop them spreading their doctrine and stop them organising fighters to travel to Syria and stop people being radicalised

Military action to diminish them in Syria and Iraq, fine. Military action to stop terrorist attacks in Europe? That makes no sense to me

[Esmond Million's Bung]

2 hours ago, Red-Robbo said:

I see David Davis - one of the few Tories I have any time for - is questioning Cameron's policy, in the same way you queried Corbyn's ideas for Syria. 

What's the long-term plan? After the bombing,  what then?

Another issue that hasn't been discussed much is the sheer cost of all this, at a time when we are cutting services over here.

In 2011, when we were bombing Libya,  the cost of an hour of sortie time by a Typhoon was £70,000 and a Brimstone missile was £175,000 a pop. 

The total cost may have been as high as £1.75bn, to bomb a country nearer than Syria and at 2011 prices. 

 

Still, we always seem to find cash for stuff like this, as opposed to cash to alleviate A&E waiting times etc.

What Corbyn ideas for Syria?, all I hear is no bombing and then what?, that has always been my question, nobody including David Davis have offered an alternative, other than no bombing.

I read a ridiculous article in the guardian giving 8 alternatives to bombing Syria, in the main they were ideas to run along side bombing and a ground offensive but as stand alone strategies to rid the world of Isis they are just plain ridiculous, it just gives Isis even more time to entrench themselves. So please a 'credible' alternative.

How can any long term plan for anything be agreed?, when there isn't even a fully agreed policy for any ground invasion, that needs to be next on the agenda and then a plan for the peace and that will be the biggest hurdle of all, if the west is going to keep true to it's word with no significant boots on the ground, the peace needs to be right for a change and that ain't going to be easy.

 

[Super]

"You actually bomb and there are civilian casualties as a result of it. Is that actually going to help the political process or shouldn't we be putting our efforts into a political settlement in Syria supporting the Vienna process? Surely that is a much more profitable way forward than this?"

Political settlement? Is this fool for real?

[Portland Bill]

43 minutes ago, Super said:

"You actually bomb and there are civilian casualties as a result of it. Is that actually going to help the political process or shouldn't we be putting our efforts into a political settlement in Syria supporting the Vienna process? Surely that is a much more profitable way forward than this?"

Political settlement? Is this fool for real?

He's real, the "fools" are the people who think that we can do what the airforces of the USA, France, Russia, Canada ( for a while) Bahrain, Jordan,Quater, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have failed to do.

But I'm guessing that people in favour of sending in our planes, actually believe we  can kill Individual Isis militants who are living in ordinary houses in ordinary areas alongside the civilian population. 

If footage from the area the Kurds took back last week is anything to go by, they will also be in tunnels underneath the towns.

A political solution will have to be found one day regarding Assad and his enemy's in Syria. Otherwise this will go on forever.

All the military 'experts' I've heard,read and watched on tv, say the ONLY way Isis will get beaten is by ground troops, and that air strikes alone will not beat them.

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

4 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

He's real ok, the fools are the people who think that we can do what the airforces of the USA, France, Russia, Canada ( for a while) Bahrain, Jordan,Quater, Saudi Arabia and the UAE have failed to do.

But I'm guessing that our airforce can kill Individual Isis militants who are living in ordinary houses in ordinary areas alongside the civilian population.

If footage from the area the Kurds took back last week is anything to go by, they will also be in tunnels underneath the towns.

A political solution will have to be found one day regarding Assad and his enemy's in Syria. Otherwise this will go on forever.

All the military 'experts' I've heard,read and watched on tv, say the ONLY way Isis will get beaten is by ground troops, and that air strikes alone will not beat them.

 

Ok Bill he is correct and everybody who disagrees with him is wrong.

Here's a question why are labour and Corbyn still attending gender segregated meetings?.

[Portland Bill]

3 minutes ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

Ok Bill he is correct and everybody who disagrees with him is wrong.

Here's a question why are labour and Corbyn still attending gender segregated meetings?.

Ok E's, your all for bombing this time then?

[Portland Bill]

As for question, I haven't a clue what your on about, but I bet it's something to do with the Express, Mail, Sun or Telegraph?

 

[Esmond Million's Bung]

1 minute ago, Portland Bill said:

Ok E's, your all for bombing this time then?

I am this time Bill, i'm sorry to say, in 2003 I wasn't and fully supported the Chirac view then, a view vilified by the west especially the USA and may on here.

i've answered your question you are still to answer mine.

[Portland Bill]

1 minute ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

I am this time Bill, i'm sorry to say, in 2003 I wasn't and fully supported the Chirac view then, a view vilified by the west especially the USA and may on here.

i've answered your question you are still to answer mine.

I've answered your bizarre question! You really do need to comeback to the UK, rather than believing right wing propaganda in right wing newspapers.

Re bombing, you think the British airforce can do what all the other worldwide air forces have failed to do then ?

[Red-Robbo]

1 hour ago, Esmond Million's Bung said:

What Corbyn ideas for Syria?, all I hear is no bombing and then what?, that has always been my question, nobody including David Davis have offered an alternative, other than no bombing.

I read a ridiculous article in the guardian giving 8 alternatives to bombing Syria, in the main they were ideas to run along side bombing and a ground offensive but as stand alone strategies to rid the world of Isis they are just plain ridiculous, it just gives Isis even more time to entrench themselves. So please a 'credible' alternative.

How can any long term plan for anything be agreed?, when there isn't even a fully agreed policy for any ground invasion, that needs to be next on the agenda and then a plan for the peace and that will be the biggest hurdle of all, if the west is going to keep true to it's word with no significant boots on the ground, the peace needs to be right for a change and that ain't going to be easy.

 

Well bombing and no one having any ideas is no better than no one having any ideas and not bombing . I think Libya proved that.

[Red-Robbo]

2 hours ago, chipdawg said:

I think the cost argument is relevant while there is no clear 'battle plan'. I don't see how what we're planning on doing is going to prevent a Paris-style attack in the UK. The only thing that will do that long term is to win the information battle, stop them spreading their doctrine and stop them organising fighters to travel to Syria and stop people being radicalised

Military action to diminish them in Syria and Iraq, fine. Military action to stop terrorist attacks in Europe? That makes no sense to me

Spot on Chip. 

Save the money that will be spunked away at million's of pounds every day on this "gesture" of solidarity, on beefing up homeland security, surveillance,  intelligence work, de-radicalisation programmes, cyber warfare measures and border controls.

[Esmond Million's Bung]

13 minutes ago, Portland Bill said:

I've answered your bizarre question! You really do need to comeback to the UK, rather than believing right wing propaganda in right wing newspapers.

Re bombing, you think the British airforce can do what all the other worldwide air forces have failed to do then ?

Firstly you haven't answered my bizarre question, you never answer any criticism of labour not once.

I just believe that we cannot just sit back and do nothing and so do the majority of the UK electorate and a majority of labour voters, that's called democracy Bill.