Discussion
Zod said:
XJ40 said:
In the interests of giving balance to this thread, I'd say that whilst I could never vote for Jezzer I do respect him as a principled politician who is a tricky position now as opposion leader and unsuited to the work.
He should have never had the chance at this, Labour have really messed up with letting three quid party member elect the leader, they're going to have to change that s
t to PLP only. As something of a centrist I could just about entertain the idea of voting for a David Millipede/Liz Kendall type blairite, but this hard left experiment is dead end, minority politics and going nowhere.
He is not principled, unless taking the attitude that the West is always wrong is a principle. He is an ignorant old man with no ability to think hard enough to adapt his ideas to fit a changed world.He should have never had the chance at this, Labour have really messed up with letting three quid party member elect the leader, they're going to have to change that s
t to PLP only. As something of a centrist I could just about entertain the idea of voting for a David Millipede/Liz Kendall type blairite, but this hard left experiment is dead end, minority politics and going nowhere. Corbyn is a terrible politician because he has no understanding of, or ability to conduct politics, or debate. It's the "I am right, and anyone who disagrees needs re-education to see that I'm right" attitude, any dissention or diagreement is a coup attempt, any contrary evidence undermining his viewpoint in sabotage or misinformation.
longblackcoat said:
Zod said:
He is an ignorant old man with no ability to think hard enough to adapt his ideas to fit a changed world.
At the same time, there's not much wrong with the statement below. I have almost no time for Corbyn (and I speak as a Labour voter who's now seriously out of step with his party), but I'm inclined to his view on this issue, at least in respect of whether the Government should be supported on the issue as it's been presented to the HoC.Where I'm out of step with him is that I don't think there's any circumstance in which he'd commit to a military campaign.
I simply don't believe that there's any circumstance in which this will be successful without Allied ground troops getting involved, and despite best efforts, some will die. So let's be really clear what it is we're committing to, what the dependencies are, and what we actually hope to achieve. Because people are going to die - not just the nasty IS types, unfortunately - and we have to be prepared for that.
Corbyn said:
I’m saying to every MP, you make up your own mind, there’s no hiding place behind a whipping arrangement or not, it’s your decision on behalf of your constituents on whether or not we should commit British troops into yet another war in the Middle East with no end game in sight, no proper plan in sight, a mythical 75,000-strong apparently unknown Free Syrian Army, the operation which is also infiltrated by a lot of Jihadist elements and I think we are going in to a very dangerous situation altogether.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
DavidJG said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
DavidJG said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
It all depends what your military goal is. It's perfectly possible to contain the local threat of ISIS in Syria using air power alone. There can be no "military victory" in the old fashioned sense, since we are fighting an ideology not a country. Air power is perfectly capable of harassing ISIS from now until kingdom come, sufficient to stop them functioning as a State, until such time they all give up and go and do something somewhere else.
Imagine knowing there are drones above you night and day 24/7, gradually degrading your support systems and killing off all your pals. Eventually you'll give up...
Digga said:
DavidJG said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
Now the Romans did things properly, they were here in the UK for 450 years, and that was barely enough time to sort us out.
Timmy40 said:
Digga said:
DavidJG said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
Now the Romans did things properly, they were here in the UK for 450 years, and that was barely enough time to sort us out.
mybrainhurts said:
Timmy40 said:
Digga said:
DavidJG said:
BoRED S2upid said:
Ground troops will be next Germany are already sending them.
There is only so much bombing you can do.
If "we" are serious about removing IS, then ground troops, and a very large number of them, are a major part of the answer. Tactical bombing will achieve a small result, but will not remove the heart of the problem.There is only so much bombing you can do.
Now the Romans did things properly, they were here in the UK for 450 years, and that was barely enough time to sort us out.
And I f
ked it up.Timmy40 said:
Zod said:
XJ40 said:
In the interests of giving balance to this thread, I'd say that whilst I could never vote for Jezzer I do respect him as a principled politician who is a tricky position now as opposion leader and unsuited to the work.
He should have never had the chance at this, Labour have really messed up with letting three quid party member elect the leader, they're going to have to change that st to PLP only. As something of a centrist I could just about entertain the idea of voting for a David Millipede/Liz Kendall type blairite, but this hard left experiment is dead end, minority politics and going nowhere.
He is not principled, unless taking the attitude that the West is always wrong is a principle. He is an ignorant old man with no ability to think hard enough to adapt his ideas to fit a changed world.He should have never had the chance at this, Labour have really messed up with letting three quid party member elect the leader, they're going to have to change that s
t to PLP only. As something of a centrist I could just about entertain the idea of voting for a David Millipede/Liz Kendall type blairite, but this hard left experiment is dead end, minority politics and going nowhere. Corbyn is a terrible politician because he has no understanding of, or ability to conduct politics, or debate. It's the "I am right, and anyone who disagrees needs re-education to see that I'm right" attitude, any dissention or diagreement is a coup attempt, any contrary evidence undermining his viewpoint in sabotage or misinformation.
Of course his problem, and that of left wing idealists generally, is they seem to have a complete lack of pragmatism and credible alternative solutions. I actually think it would be fascinating to see what he'd do if he was in charge of the country for a term, for the good of the country it's best that stays as a hypothetical senario though!
I agree that he doesn't seem very effective at actual politics and diplomacy which is why he'll never be a good leader, he's more at home standing on the soap box protesting/spouting off. But we do need the Corbyn's and the Abbots to exist, for the sake of a pural political system and as an opposing voice (even if it's just to rant in the wind) to represent and be inclusive of the full spectrum of valid opinion. It's not desireable to have a narrow debate and a relatively large disenfranchised minority who feel they have no-one to vote for.
Back on topic (a bit)
Because Stop The War and their buddies are spoiling for a major kick up outside both the Conservative and Labour Party HQs tonight, Labour have had to cancel an event scheduled for this evening because they can't guarantee the safety of its staff.
The event? A phone bank to remind voters in Oldham to go out and vote Labour on Thursday night...
So an event designed to help the Labour Party hold on to a seat has had to be cancelled due to a possibly violent protest by a group whose Executive Chairman is also the Leader of the Labour Party.
Because Stop The War and their buddies are spoiling for a major kick up outside both the Conservative and Labour Party HQs tonight, Labour have had to cancel an event scheduled for this evening because they can't guarantee the safety of its staff.
The event? A phone bank to remind voters in Oldham to go out and vote Labour on Thursday night...
So an event designed to help the Labour Party hold on to a seat has had to be cancelled due to a possibly violent protest by a group whose Executive Chairman is also the Leader of the Labour Party.
Edited by The Hypno-Toad on Tuesday 1st December 16:55
XJ40 said:
I'd say he's both principled and something of an ideologue. He come across to me as sincere in much of what he says and not willfully ignorant.
Of course his problem, and that of left wing idealists generally, is they seem to have a complete lack of pragmatism and credible alternative solutions. I actually think it would be fascinating to see what he'd do if he was in charge of the country for a term, for the good of the country it's best that stays as a hypothetical senario though!
I agree that he doesn't seem very effective at actual politics and diplomacy which is why he'll never be a good leader, he's more at home standing on the soap box protesting/spouting off. But we do need the Corbyn's and the Abbots to exist, for the sake of a pural political system and as an opposing voice (even if it's just to rant in the wind) to represent and be inclusive of the full spectrum of valid opinion. It's not desireable to have a narrow debate and a relatively large disenfranchised minority who feel they have no-one to vote for.
Nice post.Of course his problem, and that of left wing idealists generally, is they seem to have a complete lack of pragmatism and credible alternative solutions. I actually think it would be fascinating to see what he'd do if he was in charge of the country for a term, for the good of the country it's best that stays as a hypothetical senario though!
I agree that he doesn't seem very effective at actual politics and diplomacy which is why he'll never be a good leader, he's more at home standing on the soap box protesting/spouting off. But we do need the Corbyn's and the Abbots to exist, for the sake of a pural political system and as an opposing voice (even if it's just to rant in the wind) to represent and be inclusive of the full spectrum of valid opinion. It's not desireable to have a narrow debate and a relatively large disenfranchised minority who feel they have no-one to vote for.
I don't think he'll be able to learn pragmatism before he has his Ides of March moment.
The Hypno-Toad said:
Back on topic (a bit)
Because Stop The War and their buddies are spoiling for a major kick up outside both the Conservative and Labour Party HQs tonight, Labour have had to cancel an event scheduled for this evening because guarantee the safety of its staff.
The event? A phone bank to remind voters in Oldham to go out and vote Labour on Thursday night...
So an event designed to help the Labour Party hold on to a seat has had to be cancelled due to a possibly violent protest by a group whose Executive Chairman is also the Leader of the Labour Party.
Awesome muppetry.Because Stop The War and their buddies are spoiling for a major kick up outside both the Conservative and Labour Party HQs tonight, Labour have had to cancel an event scheduled for this evening because guarantee the safety of its staff.
The event? A phone bank to remind voters in Oldham to go out and vote Labour on Thursday night...
So an event designed to help the Labour Party hold on to a seat has had to be cancelled due to a possibly violent protest by a group whose Executive Chairman is also the Leader of the Labour Party.
XJ40 said:
I'd say he's both principled and something of an ideologue. He come across to me as sincere in much of what he says and not willfully ignorant.
Of course his problem, and that of left wing idealists generally, is they seem to have a complete lack of pragmatism and credible alternative solutions. I actually think it would be fascinating to see what he'd do if he was in charge of the country for a term, for the good of the country it's best that stays as a hypothetical senario though!
I agree that he doesn't seem very effective at actual politics and diplomacy which is why he'll never be a good leader, he's more at home standing on the soap box protesting/spouting off. But we do need the Corbyn's and the Abbots to exist, for the sake of a pural political system and as an opposing voice (even if it's just to rant in the wind) to represent and be inclusive of the full spectrum of valid opinion. It's not desireable to have a narrow debate and a relatively large disenfranchised minority who feel they have no-one to vote for.
I hate to admit it and agree with most of what you say but there is modern history of 'fruit cakes' and 'nutters' influencing mainstream politics. Of course his problem, and that of left wing idealists generally, is they seem to have a complete lack of pragmatism and credible alternative solutions. I actually think it would be fascinating to see what he'd do if he was in charge of the country for a term, for the good of the country it's best that stays as a hypothetical senario though!
I agree that he doesn't seem very effective at actual politics and diplomacy which is why he'll never be a good leader, he's more at home standing on the soap box protesting/spouting off. But we do need the Corbyn's and the Abbots to exist, for the sake of a pural political system and as an opposing voice (even if it's just to rant in the wind) to represent and be inclusive of the full spectrum of valid opinion. It's not desireable to have a narrow debate and a relatively large disenfranchised minority who feel they have no-one to vote for.
Without the extreme factions, we will most likely never explore the boundaries of normality and what sits squarely in the 'middle ground'.
Middle ground saccharin politics doesn't do anybody any long term good. We should all be challenged regularly (Much as I was challenged on this very thread a few pages ago
) Without te extremes, we do disenfranchise many in society and they/we should all have a voice, no matter how extreme (within reason and sensible limits) and should be heard. Ignore these voices if we choose, but they should be allowed to voice their opinions!
Such a shame that the current front bench of Labour is right at the very left extreme. Losing the Oldham election may change it, but will further alienate the vocal left. Winning it with a small majority may actually be good for Labour (controversial I admit) but also good for UK plc.
A toned down Corbyn party may actually force some good social decisions and in turn, tone down some of the more right wing Tory decisions and suggestions. Nonsense arguments wont gather much traction. All clearly in my own blinkered opinion.
johnxjsc1985 said:
mybrainhurts said:
What did the Romans ever do for us?
a love of fast Chariots with lots of horsesDeal has been done (I reckon) , the Russian will go in on the ground "to support local forces" as per the Yanks in Iraq.
Syria is "their satellite" after all
Edited by Stickyfinger on Tuesday 1st December 17:34
johnxjsc1985 said:
mybrainhurts said:
What did the Romans ever do for us?
a love of fast Chariots with lots of horses
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9foi342LXQE
:sigh:
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff