Jeremy Corbyn

[quote=Northwind opined]Is there a blocker for firefox?

NO but chrome is worth it just to avoid his incomprehensible long winded gibbering.

the willingness of a large number of labour MPs to wash their dirty linen in public and flagrantly undermine the party at every opportunity

There are reports of Labour MPs texting reporters, and briefing against Corbyn from the Labour Party meeting after the Foreign affairs select committee on Syria.

Tories must be pissing themselves.

EDIT: there are posters with whom I disagree, but chewkw is the only poster I block, mostly as his posts are just gibberish.

There are reports of Labour MPs texting reporters, and briefing against Corbyn from the Labour Party meeting after the Foreign affairs select committee on Syria.

I thought Corbyn wanted open debate?

"I want open debate, I will listen to everyone, I firmly believe leadership is listening." He said in his victory speech. "I am not imposing leadership lines. I don't believe anyone has a monopoly on wisdom - we all have ideas and a vision of how things can be better"

You can't call for that and then complain when people seek to deliver it!

Isn't it strange how, despite all the warnings through time, the left keeps repeating the same mistakes with, as Kruschchev described it, the cult of personality?

All the hatred of Blair - the former messiah - now castigated as an enemy of the people, purges of his supporters and replacement with the 'new order'. How crimes overlooked during his reign are now used to deny his place in history by the same people who brought him to power and kept him there. How Miliband, the next saviour of the people is now spoken of in hushed tones, the same people who loudly supported him as 'the most left wing leader since Foot' now say he was not left wing enough, before gushing over the new leader. How Mandelson is the new Voroshilov. Mark my words, this is no acceptance of the people as creators of history - Corbyns coronation as leader is no rejection of the cult of personality, but the exact sort of continuance that was warned against at the 20th party congress. The King is dead, long live the King

You can't call for that and then complain when people seek to deliver it!

this isn't open debate though is it. it's one side trying to have a debate, and the other side not having the bollocks to engage and running off to the press, and screaming "It's not fair, I want to bomb things, and I don't want to have to justify it"

You just can't stop can you?!!

It's actually becoming hilarious.. Admit you're terrified of Corbyn.. Go on, it's the first step to self acceptance

this isn't open debate though is it. it's one side trying to have a debate, and the other side not having the bollocks to engage and running off to the press, and screaming "It's not fair, I want to bomb things, and I don't want to have to justify it"

As opposed to the party deciding to keep nuclear weapons and the leader running off to the press screaming "it's not fair, I [b]dont[/b] want to bomb things, and if you try and make me do it then I'll scweam and scweam"?

Admit you're terrified of Corbyn.. Go on, it's the first step to self acceptance

Best three quid (or 'thirty pieces of silver') I ever spent 😀

Do you dream about him at night?
Does he appear as a kindly father figure in your dreams?

Does he persuade you to do things that you're embarrassed about?
Do you feel regret when you wake to discover it was just a dream?
Were you abused by Mark Clarke's contemporaries?

removed. can't be arsed with it

Is just reminding everyone who the blairites are

Yes, most of the voters.

I thought Corbyn wanted open debate?

There is a huge difference between mature adult debate about issues and policy, and tell-tale snitching and shit-stirring which is currently going on between many labour MPs and their media allies. The tories don't need to do anything as currently the right wing of the labour party are doing it for them. They are actively acting against the interests of the party which were overwhelmingly and democratically expressed in September. Like I said, if they don't want deselections, then they're going a funny way about it.

Yes, most of the voters.

"Voters? Where we're going, we don't need voters" 😀

You guys are REALLY going to have to stop blaming the press. Corbyn was always going to have a major weakness on security and his terrorist links, the events of the past few months and especially 2 weeks ago in Paris have exposed him brutally. The Depity Leader and Shadow defence have come out against him and now his buddy Livingstone has said the Biritsh armed forces are discredited. It's a shambles,

I'll post this again, I mean why not ?

[img] [/img]

If only the opposition had the balls to stand up to Blair in his war last time round

[img] [/img]

So in a year or two's time is it going to be a new leader in place, or a whole new bunch of labour MPs?

@Kimbers who do you think should have stood up ? The Tories where in favour, most of the opposition to the war came from the Labour side. Just because you are not in government does not mean you are to supposed to vote against everything.

I saw that cartoon too, it makes its point well

Mandelson is the new Voroshilov

In fact it's possible

Add to that the huge irony of a leader who himself voted against his own party 400+ times trying to de-select MPs

So in a year or two's time is it going to be a new leader in place, or a whole new bunch of labour MPs?

I don't think it's going to be as simple as that.

Tom Watson made the point that he can't easily resign over Syria because he also has a cast iron mandate.

Which set me thinking there's a total impasse here. The MPs have a cast iron mandate from the voters, Corbyn has a cast iron mandate from the membership. Neither can practically resign or be sacked. Both parties are forced to endure this embarrassing farce until they lose the next election and Corbyn can resign with a clear conscience. (Unless a health issue comes up to let him off.)

The 'funny' (FWOABW) thing is I don't think Milliband wanted the job either. Labour haven't been lead by someone who actually wanted the job since Brown.

To have "a cast iron mandate" you need to have been elected on the specific policy which the mandate refers to.

I'm fairly sure that Tom Watson wasn't elected on the policy promise of "vote for me and I will support bombing Syria".

I'm fairly sure that Tom Watson wasn't elected on the policy promise of "vote for me and I will support bombing Syria".

Tom's offering 1 vote to the pro-bombing side. By failing to whip his MPs Corbyn's giving 50 or so votes - more than enough to ensure the bombing will take place. Corbyn is effectively supporting the bombing of Syria with his actions, just not his words.

Yet another principle sacrificed to political expediency.

Corbyn is effectively supporting the bombing of Syria with his actions, just not his words.

Yet another principle sacrificed to political expediency.

An impressive twisting of the truth there. You should consider writing for a tory tabloid, if you don't already do so.

no no he is right

By not supporting the bombing and writing to the MPs saying he is not supporting the bombing its clear to any objective viewer that he is indeed effectively supporting it the slimy terrorists supporting beardy lefty vegetariana bastard...you just cannot trust him

An impressive twisting of the truth there.

More labour MP will vote against bombing if they are whipped. Corbyn can make this a 3 line whip if he so wishes.

The *only* reason not to is because it's politically better to have a free vote than to make it whipped and suffer a 'rebellion'.

He's making the bombing a near certainty purely because it suits him politically.

No twisting there it's just fact. His actions make bombing more likely, his words say he's against bombing.

You should consider writing for a tory tabloid, if you don't already do so.

The Gentic fallacy. Always worth a try when you know your argument is wrong.

Always worth a try when you know your argument is wrong.

You claim that Corbyn wants the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

I, and almost everyone else in the world, claims that Corbyn doesn't want the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

And you reckon that I know I'm wrong?

Brilliant!

😆

Corbyn cannot whip his MPs as that will lead to cabinet resignations (you cannot vote against the whip if you are in the cabinet) and many backbenchers ignoring the whip. All of which would be a devastating blow to Corbyns leadership on his key personal issue. As such the fudge of a free vote is his only option

Incredibly UKIP believe they have a real chance of taking Oldham West based on the latest polling.

@jambalaya - careful with the ungood duckspeak - as St Jezza himself spake unto the masses:

"You don't understand the new politics. Debate is not division.”

This is why all media statements must be cleared through his office and he announced that in future there must be stronger collective responsibility.

All of which would be a devastating blow to Corbyns leadership on his key personal issue.

How about the devastating blow to Cameron's leadership when rebel Tory MPs humiliated him and voted with Labour against air strikes in 2013?

BTW I like the idea that Tory politicians are apparently going to phone Labour MPs and urge them to vote in favour of bombing Syria.

Imagine the situation where a Labour MP is unsure of how to vote but after receiving a phone call from a senior Tory decides to back the Tories.

[i]"If only there was a Tory to tell me how to vote......"[/i] That is obviously what they are waiting for!

That's the funny bit. The sad bit is that there are indeed quite possibly a few completely pointless Labour MPs who will only vote in favour if asked to do so by senior Tories - the exercise might not actually be futile.

It really is about time that all Labour MPs before a general election present themselves before their constituency parties and explain why they should be given the privilege to represent the party for another 5 years. And stop treating the job as a god-given right.

@ernie Cameron was sufficiently humiliated to win the next election outright. Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today. Some reports this morning that the Shadow cabinet which is hugely in favour of airstrikes on IS (not the Stop the War language you are using) will try and force a Whip in favour of airstrikes. There will be a meeting on Mknday when Benn and others in the shadow cabinet will make the case for airstrikes. Labour MPs can worry about presenting themselves before their consituencies in 2019 and in any case I believe many Labour voters are in favour of airstrikes and many Stop the War types are Green voters.

Another peach 😀

[img] [/img]

You claim that Corbyn wants the vote to go in favour of bombing Syria.

Another Straw Man Fallacy. I was clearly saying for political expediency he's going to make it a free vote for his party thus making bombing *far* more likely. Nothing to do with what Corbyn "wants" which is irrelevant to my point. (And seemingly irrelevant in general.)

Corbyn cannot whip his MPs as that will lead to cabinet resignations (you cannot vote against the whip if you are in the cabinet) and many backbenchers ignoring the whip.

That's my view. And the view of all sane commentators I've read.

@ernie Cameron was sufficiently humiliated to win the next election outright.

You have now taken to negating your own views- it wont be devastating just as it was not for Dave 🙄

Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today

your posts continue to be an awesome source of mirth if not logic.

Parliament can see now that vote was the wrong thing to do hence the support today.

I don't see how you draw that conclusion since we've changed sides.

The vote against supporting the nutters by bombing Assad was the *right* thing to do.

This vote is about bombing the nutters to support Assad.

Bombing the nutters is (at the very least) less wrong than bombing Assad.

JY It's my view the coalition including the UK would have bombed both Assad and IS, you can see the shift over the last 2 years where the focus has moved increasingly to IS. As soon as the airstrikes began in Iraq IS where turned back. With the Russian intervention the most expedient solution is to have Assad remain in power. The black sheep here is Turjey who have been attacking the Kurds who have been the most successful in combating IS on the ground.

Cameron hasn't made the conflict his raison d'etre in the same as as Corbyn has made his chairmanship of Stop the War and his general posturing the whole centre piece of his political campaigning. A defeat on airstrikes so shortly after being elected leader with so many of his own party voting against his wishes is far more damaging than anything that has or might happen to Cameron. Cameron would survive a Leave vote in the EU referendum if he wished to stay on.

JY It's my view the coalition would have bombed both Assad and IS

What shame the facts dont support your view- What a surprise eh
Here is the motion in full for you to ignore

Deplores the use of chemical weapons in Syria on 21 August 2013 by the Assad regime, which caused hundreds of deaths and thousands of injuries of Syrian civilians;
"Recalls the importance of upholding the worldwide prohibition on the use of chemical weapons under international law;
"Agrees that a strong humanitarian response is required from the international community and that this may, if necessary, require military action that is legal, proportionate and focused on saving lives by preventing and deterring further use of Syria's chemical weapons;
"Notes the failure of the United Nations Security Council over the last two years to take united action in response to the Syrian crisis;
"Notes that the use of chemical weapons is a war crime under customary law and a crime against humanity - and that the principle of humanitarian intervention provides a sound legal basis for taking action;
"Notes the wide international support for such a response, including the statement from the Arab League on 27 August which calls on the international community, represented in the United Nations Security Council, to 'overcome internal disagreements and take action against those who committed this crime, for which the Syrian regime is responsible';
"Believes, in spite of the difficulties at the United Nations, that a United Nations process must be followed as far as possible to ensure the maximum legitimacy for any such action;
"Therefore welcomes the work of the United Nations investigating team currently in Damascus. Whilst noting that the team's mandate is to confirm whether chemical weapons were used and not to apportion blame, agrees that the United Nations Secretary General should ensure a briefing to the United Nations Security Council immediately upon the completion of the team's initial mission;
"Believes that the United Nations Security Council must have the opportunity immediately to consider that briefing and that every effort should be made to secure a Security Council Resolution backing military action before any such action is taken. Before any direct British involvement in such action a further vote of the House of Commons will take place.
"Notes that this motion relates solely to efforts to alleviate humanitarian suffering by deterring use of chemical weapons and does not sanction any action in Syria with wider objectives."

As for the second part it sems clear that Dave is as keen to bomb them as Corbyn is for them not to If dave is not so set on it why all the dancing to make sure he wins the vote rather than just respecting the will of parliament who have already spoken and just put it before them?

I realise its daft to expect you to be even handed, though you complain others cannot do this 😯 , but clearly they both really care about their respective positions on this issue and all but the most blindly partisan can accept this fact

Finally he is the opposition with a minority of MPs he cannot really be "defeated" for two reasons
1. He is not proposing anything he is the opposition.
2. he has a minority so cannot win even with a full three way whip followed by all his MPS

Only dave can win or lose though corbyn can be ignored by his MP's depending on what he says they should do - in reality it wont be a decision taken just by him anyway so its a mute point you make for tory fueled reasons.

Why am I having to explain this to you?
WHat am I bothering the actual facts dont enter jambylandfacts
.

It's my view the coalition including the UK would have bombed both Assad and IS

The MPs were voting for/against air strikes in retaliation for Assad's probable use of chemical weapons. Strikes on Assad. Can you can find a single source from the time that indicates anything else?

it seems clear that Dave is as keen to bomb them as Corbyn is for them not to

Dave doesn't need a vote to order bombing of the rest of ISIS controlled turf, so if he *really* wanted to do it he could have used Paris as an excuse and changed policy the the day after that saying there was no time to consult parliament.

Which raises the possibility he doesn't really want to do it. (Funny how last time both Cameron and Obama had votes that they lost - I thought at the time the votes were an excuse not to.)

I can't decide if he wants to bomb because showing the US we are a reliable ally is important (for reasons I don't understand) of if he'd rather have a vote because secretly he doesn't want to *or* because he knows a vote (or the prospect of a vote) throws Labour into turmoil.

What ever is going on there's no Military reason for Cameron to *want* to bomb Syria, it makes no odds whatsoever.

when parliament has already voted against it he would be on very very dodgy ground to bomb without asking parliament. It has said no and he cannot ignore its will even as PM

If he does not want to bomb Syria the easiest way to achieve this is to NOT ask for permission to do it - if he asks its because he wants to do it.

he would be on very very dodgy ground to bomb without asking parliament

He wouldn't - If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It's quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

Even if cost him some political capital, would he care? He's not standing for PM again.

If he does not want to bomb Syria the easiest way to achieve this is to NOT ask for permission to do it

Having a vote and losing allows him to say to the US "Sorry but I tried." and put all the media attention on Labour. If he wins that's fine too, the badges on the bombers makes no difference on the ground whatsoever.

He wouldn't - If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It's quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

You are free to disagree with him as well as me.

Indeed what you say is true , though its not what you originally said - and he can just say we tried before but they wont let me - but the point i made was that of he does not want to he need not ask and this is true,
Secondly if he wants to lose he should just hold the vote and not campaign for a yes as he will lose easily.
Clearly he wants to do this and he is trying to win the vote. Its not credible to argue otherwise.

As polite as i can be here but you are ignoring what is happening and your view is utterly at odds with the actual facts and reality

He wouldn't - If for some reason he feels we need to move some of our bombing to the other side of this imaginary line as PM he can just order it. It's quite within his rights, and Paris was a perfect excuse.

This is an interesting interpretation of recent history - people seem to have quickly forgotten that Blair / Brown went into war without a parliamentary mandate to do so - David Cameron said this was wrong and that if he became Prime Minister he would seek parliamentary approval first even though as Prime Minister he doesn't need to.

What happened 2 years ago is that a proposal was put to Parliament for military action in Iraq / Syria - it's quite possible that had action been taken then Isil would not have been emboldened or able to seize the heavy military hardware they now possess. Due to some pretty shameful party politics Ed Miliband initially supported the action but then at the vote Labour MPs scuppered the parliamentary motion.

What happened after this is that David Cameron did what he said he would do - respected the parliamentary vote - and two years down the line we are now dealing with a much bigger problem where ISIL now has more land than the whole of the UK and tens of thousands of people have been brutally tortured and murdered in the interim.

I thought the vote 2 years ago was to bomb Assad?

The PM doesn't have to ask parliament. He chose to do so in 2013 consistent with his views on democracy and it's the same logic that meant he granted an independent referendum to Scotland after the SNP's win at Holyrood. It's his principals that mean he will not launch airstrikes in Syria without asking parliament for approval. Hollande hasn't asked for approval to declare Framce is at war with IS thus invoking various support clauses in the EU treaty which REQUIRE other members to support France.

What happened 2 years ago is that a proposal was put to Parliament for military action in Iraq / Syria - it's quite possible that had action been taken then Isil would not have been emboldened or able to seize the heavy military hardware they now possess.

I cannot decide if this thread shows how little folk know or how quick they forget.

As for blaming the opposition the reality was, then as now, the govt could not command a majority of its own troops * and 30 tories and 9 lib Dems opposed it]]Ed was always against intervention

* which was also true of Blair on Iraq but they got through due to Tory support

jamby your post reads like a Tory party press release and, as always, you ignore all the points about you just being factually wrong even to the extent about who they were going to bomb

Somewhat pathetic approach to deabate

Will you ever have a debate or will you just state views at odds with reality] and ignore the facts Mr 100% correct- pbvs that is rhetorical as you wont reply but reay DD had a point how are you not embarrassed to be wrong on basic facts and to just keep posting without even addressing your glaring errors?

jambalaya - Member

The PM doesn't have to ask parliament. He chose to do so in 2013 consistent with his views on democracy ............It's his principals that mean he will not launch airstrikes in Syria without asking parliament for approval.

The Daily Telegraph doesn't seem to agree with you :

[url= http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/defence/11745689/British-pilots-in-air-strikes-against-Isil-in-Syria-live.html ]David Cameron 'knew British pilots were bombing Syria'[/url]

[i]MoD admits UK personnel carry out Syrian bombings, despite Parliament not authorising action[/i]

Which explains a lot Cameron's "views on democracy".

Haha not even that was true 😆