Discussion
davepoth said:
Luckily, the Tory majority is very small
Once they've corrected the constituency boundary imbalance (which the LibDems spitefully stopped them from doing because the country didn't agree with them on proportional representation), the last election's voting patterns would translate into a majority of a few dozen more.Conspiracy theorists with an unrealistic expectation of the intelligence of the average politician might think that this Corbyn interlude is nothing more a shortlived Trojan horse ploy designed to reset Labour and smooth the path for a real leader. That person would be able to position him/herself somewhere between Blair and Corbyn and be welcomed with a huge sigh of relief by the sweating doomsayers at Shadow Cabinet Minister level.
The reality of course is that nobody is bright enough to have engineered such a sensible process. Luckily for them it's happening anyway.
The reality of course is that nobody is bright enough to have engineered such a sensible process. Luckily for them it's happening anyway.
I doubt that there is ANY set of circumstances where Corbyn would ever agree with or authorise military intervention. People like him have a pathological hatred for ANY military involvement. If he was in power I don't think it would be long before the country had no means whatsoever to defend itself.
The main diatribe he utters is against Britain's nuclear deterrence. However, my feeling is that he and his ilk are against any form of national defence system. They don't want the country defended because essentially, their mindset is a hatred for the country and institutions in which they live. They would love to see the whole edifice brought down and replaced with a utopian nirvana where everybody loves each other and is only nice and nothing bad ever happens and all our potential enemies just melt away because we are so nice and inoffensive.
The main diatribe he utters is against Britain's nuclear deterrence. However, my feeling is that he and his ilk are against any form of national defence system. They don't want the country defended because essentially, their mindset is a hatred for the country and institutions in which they live. They would love to see the whole edifice brought down and replaced with a utopian nirvana where everybody loves each other and is only nice and nothing bad ever happens and all our potential enemies just melt away because we are so nice and inoffensive.
John Nochol, the RAF navigator who was shot down in the Gulf War and captured - wrote Tornado Down - was on Sky news this morning and came out with a degree of support for Corbyn's point of view. (Or stated point of view?)
He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
a_bread said:
Once they've corrected the constituency boundary imbalance (which the LibDems spitefully stopped them from doing because the country didn't agree with them on proportional representation), the last election's voting patterns would translate into a majority of a few dozen more.
It was because the Torys didn't share the same view on HoL reforms, not PR. Derek Smith said:
John Nochol, the RAF navigator who was shot down in the Gulf War and captured - wrote Tornado Down - was on Sky news this morning and came out with a degree of support for Corbyn's point of view. (Or stated point of view?)
He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
I can also see what Corbyn is getting at in so far as what will dropping bombs on them actually achieve when IS are so fragmented and use any action by the 'west' to whip up enthusiasm for their cause and recruit more 'converts'.He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
Plus more bombs will generate more refugees (if there is actually anyone left in the country that hasnt left yet).
However, what the alternative is, I dont know...
JC has spent the last 25 odd years as a campaigner AGAINST things.
He fundamentally has never had to carry the message of what he would DO or what it is that he is FOR.
It is all sunshine and rainbows when he tries, eg We are for full employment.
Well the UK voters gave up on that kind of politics years ago. We are all cynics now, we want the management details of policy, not the aspirations.
JC just can't communicate in a positive pro way, he is an anti at heart.
Derek Smith said:
John Nochol, the RAF navigator who was shot down in the Gulf War and captured - wrote Tornado Down - was on Sky news this morning and came out with a degree of support for Corbyn's point of view. (Or stated point of view?)
He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
There is a lot of merit in these points. The problem with Corbyn is that he would hold these views no matter what evidence was put in front of him.He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
It's not so much the view on bombing Syria that matters, it's more the risk of having someone like Corbyn being able to bring himself EVER to use force.
Eric Mc said:
Derek Smith said:
John Nochol, the RAF navigator who was shot down in the Gulf War and captured - wrote Tornado Down - was on Sky news this morning and came out with a degree of support for Corbyn's point of view. (Or stated point of view?)
He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
The problem with Corbyn is that he would hold these views no matter what evidence was put in front of him.He too suggested that there was little to gain from bombing Syria without it being part of a well planned strategy. I thought he talked a lot of sense and yet he's by no means a pacifist and when I've listened to him before he's been just the opposite.
It wasn't the normal right wing chap in the chair so those there listened to him and challenged his point of view politely. His defence showed that this wasn't an off-the-cuff comment.
It's not so much the view on bombing Syria that matters, it's more the risk of having someone like Corbyn being able to bring himself EVER to use force.
Being an RAF Pilot, an RAF Pilot on active service in a war zone, shot down then captured and held, means that Nichol demands the greatest of respect and admiration for his skill, courage and selfless service. It doesn't mean he has or gives the right answers.
Bombing Isis is containing them at least for now. If they hadn't have been bombed they would have been free to go where they want almost unaposed . There has to be some sort of land offensive but as soon as that happens just watch the ISIS "soldiers" put down their weapons and melt back into the towns and villages and watch those towns and villages help them. I still think Assad under some form of restraint is the best option in the short term.
Eric Mc said:
There is a lot of merit in these points. The problem with Corbyn is that he would hold these views no matter what evidence was put in front of him.
It's not so much the view on bombing Syria that matters, it's more the risk of having someone like Corbyn being able to bring himself EVER to use force.
Like the first guest on this;It's not so much the view on bombing Syria that matters, it's more the risk of having someone like Corbyn being able to bring himself EVER to use force.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b06pxm49
king hilarious. Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff