Politics

[Park Life 71]

And elections show it doesn't get you power.

That seems to be the media narrative.

[NJS 4386]

And elections show it doesn't get you power.

The last time anything vaguely left wing was mooted was by Foot and the major factor then was more the Falklands than any kind of mass rejection of ideas.

 

As I've said before the infamous manifesto was okay in hindsight though I accept unilateral disarmament was a big faux pas at the time.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

IDS man, he's always playing practical jokes.

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/dwp-scraps-mandatory-work-for-your-benefits-scheme-without-fanfare-a6750041.html

[Gemmill 44896]

http://www.theguardian.com/money/2015/nov/26/ministers-lose-80-million-revenue-after-scrapping-car-tax-discs

 

The public sector is hilarious.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

 

Shadow Cabinet Anger Over Shock

 

Jeremy Corbyn has held an extraordinary meeting with his shadow cabinet over airstrikes in Syria.

 

The Labour leader started by reading out a pre-prepared statement setting out his opposition to David Cameron’s call to bomb Islamic State targets.

 

He read it quickly, and some MPs struggled to hear him.

 

They quickly got the point, though.

 

Mr Corbyn was unconvinced by Mr Cameron’s case, felt there were unanswered questions and would not support them if a vote was called.

 

Cameron Outlines His Case

I’m told only four members of the shadow cabinet explicitly backed Mr Corbyn’s stance.

 

A total of 15 members of the shadow cabinet spoke out against his position, expressing their support for airstrikes in Syria.

 

Shadow international development secretary Diane Abbott, shadow communities secretary Jon Trickett and Parliamentary Labour Party chair Jon Cryer all spoke out to back their leader.

 

It’s understood that John McDonnell, the shadow chancellor, also supports Mr Corbyn’s position against airstrikes.

 

But many, many more spoke out in favour of airstrikes – and against their leader’s position.

 

Senior shadow cabinet members to do so include shadow foreign secretary Hilary Benn, shadow education secretary Lucy Powell, shadow defence secretary Maria Eagle, deputy leader Tom Watson, shadow Northern Ireland secretary Vernon Coaker and shadow culture secretary Michael Dugher.

 

At one point tensions boiled over after Ms Abbott appeared to mock Ms Powell’s argument, who sharply told her to stick to the point and not get personal.

 

After the meeting, Mr Corbyn sent a letter to all Labour MPs saying he was not persuaded by Mr Cameron’s argument and would not support his proposals.

 

The shadow cabinet were not given advance warning of the letter, and it came as a shock.

 

The last they had heard was that they would get the weekend to think about it, before reconvening on Monday to try and find a united response.

 

One person only found out about the letter when a journalist called him about it.

 

The anger felt among shadow cabinet members is palpable.

 

The people I have spoken to don’t want to go public with their concerns.

 

But they worry that people will look at the Labour Party, and think they are unfit for power.

 

They say that they are trying to unite together behind Mr Corbyn for the sake of their party but that is being thrown back in their face.

 

The Labour Party is in unknown territory.

 

The one thing that is certain, however, is that if Mr Corbyn whips a vote against military airstrikes in Syria, multiple resignations from his shadow cabinet will follow.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

The Sociopath of the year keeps up his good work, CT avoids IDS discussion completely on here. Doubt he will comment here either.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/society/2015/nov/26/iain-duncan-smith-unlawfully-dicriminated-against-the-disabled-rules-judge?CMP=fb_gu

[Christmas Tree 4725]

The Sociopath of the year keeps up his good work, CT avoids IDS discussion

By "discussion" I'm guessing you mean a link you posted with no accompanying discussion by yourself or anyone else.

[Meenzer 15531]

There are always minor sacrifices in the pursuit of tasty, tasty growth.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

By "discussion" I'm guessing you mean a link you posted with no accompanying discussion by yourself or anyone else.

Your thoughts on IDS then?

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Your thoughts on IDS then?

He seems a bit of an odious fellow at times but has without doubt done a lot of good work in reforming the benefit system. Labour even supports universal credit and openly says it should have undertaken the reforms when in power.

[Christmas Tree 4725]

Trump mocking the disabled tonight. Quite appalling. Unbelievable they could let him near the nukes

 

Edited November 26, 2015 by Christmas Tree

[Meenzer 15531]

Wasn't tonight btw, and posting that immediately after praising disabled-hater IDS is quite remarkable even by your standards.

[Anorthernsoul 1221]

Wasn't tonight btw, and posting that immediately after praising disabled-hater IDS is quite remarkable even by your standards.

You couldn't write it could you.

[PaddockLad 17280]

Wasn't tonight btw, and posting that immediately after praising disabled-hater IDS is quite remarkable even by your standards.

CT subconsciously thinking "this will actually make me appear less of a narrow minded uncaring fucktard"

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

McDonnell and Corbyn are virtually unelectable, that's the sad truth of the matter. Fact is, most on this board supported the selection of Corbyn, even if it meant another 10 years of Tory governance. Well done, you got your wish.

Who'd of thunk that Renton was anti Corbyn AND a Muslim hater?

Edited November 26, 2015 by StraightEdgeWizard

[ewerk 30619]

CT subconsciously thinking "this will actually make me appear less of a narrow minded uncaring fucktard"

Doing it for the attention tbh.

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Who'd of thunk that Gloom and Renton were anti Corbyn?

Where did I say I was anti Corbyn?

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

Amended, misread one of your posts. Apologies

[Dr Gloom 21924]

You can be a socialist without being an apologist for Islamist terrorists, you know.

[Park Life 71]

Cameron's case is absolute piffle. This man is an airhead of Goodyear proportions and a script reading conman of Olympic proportions. Had a look at his warbling and there is no clear or responsible case for airstrikes and I don't trust him or the Tories not to be tempted by 'mission creep'. Or the odd strike here and there against Syrian forces which it seems as things stand puts us up against Russia very quickly.

 

The airstrikes will make nobody safer at home as he reveled himself a number plots have already been foiled. I also think he is lying on a number of things as Blair did....There is a good case for Iraq as we have assets on the ground and good intelligence.

 

The target packages for Syria are very muddled and the Americans themselves often have planes returning having not fired their payloads. So nobody should be fooled by U.S. missions flown - a lot of them come to nothing. Simply put we're at the point where Isis isn't target rich, it is blended in and dug in and rarely wanders around in vehicles when it can help it...So there is a very slim case for effective strikes that will degrade Isis. My gut feeling is that this is a classic show everything and tell nothing moment...There is a lot of shadow behind this highly propagandized NATO effort to get into Syria and I don't believe it will stop at airstrikes.

 

The Russian system is working because they are calibrated with the Syrian army on the ground and others so they have spotters and real time information. Cameron didn't mention who ours are going to organised with...Because as we are fast becoming aware the FSA or what's left of it is made up (there are groups but not the major force that will beat Isis). NATO and the Gulf States have been backing Jihadi's of all varieties. These head choppers and heart eaters are Washington's 'moderates'.

 

Labour must rise to the occasion and I'm heartened to hear the news about Corbyn. There are plenty of doubters on the Tory side as well. This might be Corbyns' moment.

 

* He said 70,000. He's inc the Kurds in that the joker...They aren't interested in a wider war. I don't if the rest are farmer or what cause if there really is 70,000 FSA then Isis are in serious shit.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Park Life

[Dr Gloom 21924]

Cameron's case is absolute piffle. This man is an airhead of Goodyear proportions and a script reading conman of Olympic proportions. Had a look at his warbling and there is no clear or responsible case for airstrikes and I don't trust him or the Tories not to be tempted by 'mission creep'. Or the odd strike here and there against Syrian forces which it seems as things stand put us up against Russia very quickly.

 

The airstrikes will make nobody safer at home as he reveled himself a number plots have already been foiled. I also think he is lying on a number of things as Blair did....There is a good case for Iraq as we have assets on the ground and good intelligence.

 

The target packages for Syria are very muddled and the Americans themselves often have planes returning having not fired their payloads. So nobody should be fooled by U.S. missions flown - a lot of them come to nothing. Simply put we're at the point where Isis isn't target rich, it is blended in and dug in and rarely wanders around in vehicles when it can help it...So there is a very slim case for effective strikes that will degrade Isis. My gut feeling is that this is a classic show everything and tell nothing moment...There is a lot of shadow behind this highly propagandized NATO effort to get into Syria and feelings have probably been hurt by Russia kicking the shit out of various groups.

 

The Russian system is working because they are calibrated with the Syrian army on the ground and others so they have spotters and real time information. Cameron didn't mention who ours are going to organised with...Because as we are fast becoming aware the FSA or what's left of it is made up (there are groups but not the major force that will beat Isis). NATO and the Gulf States have been backing Jihadi's of all varieties. These head choppers and heart eaters are Washington's 'moderates'.

 

Labour must rise to the occasion and I'm heartened to hear the news about Corbyn. There are plenty of doubters on the Tory side as well.

So why the fuck are we getting involved, Parky? What have we got to gain. What can we actually add to this mess and why are so many cunts buying it?

 

I demand answers!

[Park Life 71]

I think you know the answers sweetie.

 

There are shadow aims playing in the background or perhaps the key people don't know the truth. I certainly believe that the White House don't know what the Pentagon are doing in some areas.

 

Isis would could be logistically hamstrung if we stopped Turkey buying or facilitating their oil trade (NATO member). But nobody even speaks of it although it is common knowledge as aerial imagery show lines of trucks on the Turkish border..Some hit recently by U.S. and Russia. The Americans were shamed into it by the Russians actually...NATO had been dropping leaflets 45min before strikes so many hightailed it outta there or hid the trucks or whatever...

 

Threaten Saudi, Qatar and Turkey with sanctions and frozen bank accounts...The NSA/CIA can do that kind of thing in a matter of hours now.

 

Stop all arms sales to the Gulf and put a 5 year moratorium on it.

 

Disrupt logistical transfers through Turkey to the Jihad...Isis would be out of ammo in a few weeks.

 

If the Gulf states take the piss use the U.S. bases as advance positions to topple the respective Govt...Go in nick all the oil and all the money and hang the fat bastards. This is really the easiest option.

Edited November 26, 2015 by Park Life

[Dr Gloom 21924]

I really don't!

[Kid Dynamite 7030]

You can be a socialist without being an apologist for Islamist terrorists, you know.

Who's done that?

[Renton 21627]

Who's done that?

You did when your first thoughts on the Paris atrocities, while it was happening, was to blame Cameron.

 

As for your previous comment, I don't hate individual Muslims, but yes, you could say I strongly dislike the Islamic faith for many reasons, but mainly because it is so regressive, conservative,and anti-liberterian. The irony of a liberal like you supporting such a mysogynistic religion isn't lost on me but is on you apparently.

 

As for Corbyn, I just don't support his policies or believe he is a remotely capable leader of the opposition. The vast majority of the labour parliamentary part would agree with me. This is from the context that I have probably been a labour supporter longer than you have been on the planet, and I've seen this all before. I wonder if its a coincidence that you like 1980 politics as well as films.