Jeremy Corbyn's Labour

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Just finished watching TW. It seems even Gorgeous George is now turning his back on Corbyn, criticizing his reaction to the killing of terrorists in Paris by armed police. He made a good point (he made a few in fairness) about Hillary Benn being the wrong choice for shadow foreign secretary from a Corbyn POV. Suggested it needed to be more of a ally like Diane Abbott.
As much as I would have loved to have seen that, I don't think even Jezer could have kept a straight face with that one.
Can see Benn making a decent interim leader quite soon though.

He said Benn was the wrong choice but he didn't say why - so if he was making a good point I don't know why as he didn't elaborate.
He did criticise those is the party who were not backing Corbyn - so I'm not sure how that can be seen as turning his back on him.

He did fall into the tabloid trap though of criticising Corbyn's initial comments on shoot to kill. What the media paint as a U turn was actually part of the same interview. Corbyn said he didn't trust a shoot to kill policy, and then later in the same interview said that the police would be right to kill if it would save lives. In the same interview. At the end of their chat George and Andrew Neil said neither of them would back a general shoot to kill policy and both at the same time said 'of course not' like it would be the most ludicrous suggestion.

Everyone knows that if you can take a terrorist alive then you should - chiefly because they will have information that will stop other terrorists.
The media have a shoot to kill policy towards Corbyn, what he said was reasonable and later qualified.

This is just a good distraction from the danger the government are putting us all in by massively reducing the police head count.

The chief of the Met's criticism of that is just a footnote in the printed press.

 

[Bearded Shrimper]

To be fair, it was an incredibly close vote and only one ward. But still one Labour would have hoped to have held on to.

i doubt we'll lose Oldham. we have a huge majority there and seats with Labour majorities should be Corbyn's natural territory. if we do really badly his days might well be numbered

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

He said Benn was the wrong choice but he didn't say why - so if he was making a good point I don't know why as he didn't elaborate.
He did criticise those is the party who were not backing Corbyn - so I'm not sure how that can be seen as turning his back on him.

He did fall into the tabloid trap though of criticising Corbyn's initial comments on shoot to kill. What the media paint as a U turn was actually part of the same interview. Corbyn said he didn't trust a shoot to kill policy, and then later in the same interview said that the police would be right to kill if it would save lives. In the same interview. At the end of their chat George and Andrew Neil said neither of them would back a general shoot to kill policy and both at the same time said 'of course not' like it would be the most ludicrous suggestion.

Everyone knows that if you can take a terrorist alive then you should - chiefly because they will have information that will stop other terrorists.
The media have a shoot to kill policy towards Corbyn, what he said was reasonable and later qualified.

This is just a good distraction from the danger the government are putting us all in by massively reducing the police head count.

The chief of the Met's criticism of that is just a footnote in the printed press.

I don't know how much you know or rather think you know about police budgets, I happen to know rather a lot. I am happy to go with you anytime on this. As for members of labour not backing the leader then I would imagine there would be a lot to choose from being that less than 20 MP's (out of over 230) backed him in the election. After the week Corbyn has had, the number backing him now might even be single figures.

 

[Shrimpers are Magic]

i doubt we'll lose Oldham. we have a huge majority there and seats with Labour majorities should be Corbyn's natural territory. if we do really badly his days might well be numbered

Labour won't lose Oldham but the majority will shrink, some say even by half. Hardly a growing endorsement on the "New Way" Corbyn style.

 

[Firestorm]

Anyone see hignfy ? Rees Mogg said he respected (but didnt agree with) Corbyn for sticking to his principles even though they were unpopular.
Fair play to him, he played the issue not the man.

 

[RHB]

Anyone see hignfy ? Rees Mogg said he respected (but didnt agree with) Corbyn for sticking to his principles even though they were unpopular.
Fair play to him, he played the issue not the man.

Yeah, I saw it, and I was surprised at Rees Mogg saying that. I was even more surprised to see him on HIGNFY. A man who has had a personality bypass.

 

[rigsby]

He said Benn was the wrong choice but he didn't say why - so if he was making a good point I don't know why as he didn't elaborate.
He did criticise those is the party who were not backing Corbyn - so I'm not sure how that can be seen as turning his back on him.

He did fall into the tabloid trap though of criticising Corbyn's initial comments on shoot to kill. What the media paint as a U turn was actually part of the same interview. Corbyn said he didn't trust a shoot to kill policy, and then later in the same interview said that the police would be right to kill if it would save lives. In the same interview. At the end of their chat George and Andrew Neil said neither of them would back a general shoot to kill policy and both at the same time said 'of course not' like it would be the most ludicrous suggestion.

Everyone knows that if you can take a terrorist alive then you should - chiefly because they will have information that will stop other terrorists.
The media have a shoot to kill policy towards Corbyn, what he said was reasonable and later qualified.

This is just a good distraction from the danger the government are putting us all in by massively reducing the police head count.

The chief of the Met's criticism of that is just a footnote in the printed press.

So how do you know who is wearing a suicide vest. Would you take the word of a terrorist who says "OK guvnor its a fair cop I'll come quietly"

After the Madrid train bombings the Spanish police raided a suspect flat ended up with one dead and about a dozen injured. In the confusion several terrorists managed to escape. Not a good advert for trying to capture a group of jihadists alive.

 

[Benfleet A1]

The sooner the Labour Party put this man in a padded cell, the better. I particularly bulked at the 'negotiated settlement' bit. Negotiate with who exactly?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/21/jeremy-corbyn-defies-labour-colleagues-call-settlement-syria

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

I don't know how much you know or rather think you know about police budgets, I happen to know rather a lot. I am happy to go with you anytime on this. As for members of labour not backing the leader then I would imagine there would be a lot to choose from being that less than 20 MP's (out of over 230) backed him in the election. After the week Corbyn has had, the number backing him now might even be single figures.

I'm not sure I want to go with you thanks very much but yes I would be interested to read what you know about police budgets so feel free to share.

 

[Firestorm]

The sooner the Labour Party put this man in a padded cell, the better. I particularly bulked at the 'negotiated settlement' bit. Negotiate with who exactly?

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/21/jeremy-corbyn-defies-labour-colleagues-call-settlement-syria

Negotiate with any Mulim, I mean according to some, they're all to blame:winking:

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

So how do you know who is wearing a suicide vest. Would you take the word of a terrorist who says "OK guvnor its a fair cop I'll come quietly"

After the Madrid train bombings the Spanish police raided a suspect flat ended up with one dead and about a dozen injured. In the confusion several terrorists managed to escape. Not a good advert for trying to capture a group of jihadists alive.

I don't suppose they could be 100% sure if someone is wearing a bullet proof vest. They also can't be certain it's even the right person - which is a big reason why shoot to kill is not best policy. If others or their own lives are immediately at risk the shoot to kill would sometimes need to be used - which is what Corbyn said in that first interview (but that bit wasn't widely reported).
Its not something that should never be used but it should be a last resort.

 

[Benfleet A1]

Negotiate with any Mulim, I mean according to some, they're all to blame:winking:

Not all the right leaning members of this board think that. We aren't all goose stepping, rabid nazi dogs (I'm a feral rat and quite happy with that) The whole point is Corbyn is talking about dialog with a organization that has no intentions of talking with anyone. What sort of conversation could you possibly have with these things that behead aid workers, throw suspected homosexuals from tall buildings and carry out cage burnings.

Where do you even start after Paris and London, Madrid and Bari before them. How do you negotiate with someone who drags dead bodies down the road tied to the back of a Land Cruiser. Corbyn is living in a dream world if he thinks there is a political solution with these animals that have no political agenda.

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

Personally I approve of air strikes on IS strongholds.

What we should accept though is that by doing so we make ourselves a bigger target for IS. Anyone saying that Corbyn's pacifist leanings put us in danger - I think they are wrong. It's the air strikes that he is against that will put us in more danger. But personally I accept that risk and think his policy on this is wrong.

 

[rigsby]

Personally I approve of air strikes on IS strongholds.

What we should accept though is that by doing so we make ourselves a bigger target for IS. Anyone saying that Corbyn's pacifist leanings put us in danger - I think they are wrong. It's the air strikes that he is against that will put us in more danger. But personally I accept that risk and think his policy on this is wrong.

The problem is that if no one attempts to strike their training camps and individuals are allowed to come and go to Syria, then their numbers will only increase anyway. Which would of course ultimately put more local Syrians and Europeans at risk.

Britain has always been right up there on the terrorist list of targets, just behind USA. We can't step back and decide we don't want to play any more even if we wanted to. Beside sitting on the side lines doesn't appear to have helped Belgium.

 

[Firestorm]

Its a real 'scuse the pun, minefield . On the one hand , as GJG says how do you negotiate with a group which has nothing to negotiate over and has never shown any inclination to converse over anything, the kidnappings are not for reward or bargaining, just for show.
The flip is attacking them, unless it is particularly precise and devastating , will result in reprisal attacks.
if they are prolonged it may increase the migrant issue as in the wake of the attacks Assad may push further against the non ISIS rebels , displacing more innocent civilians.
It may well send some endorsement to the nutters over here that violence against Muslims is good and increase random attacks , which may alienate the local population and in turn add to further radicalisation .
Plus there is the wider Syrian issue. 4 years ago Assad was the baddie, and what he was doing to his own people warranted debate on whether the UK should take up arms against him, he needs to be negotiated with, plans need to be in place for Syria.
Personally I think the west should sit down with Assad, offer him safety as long as he stands down once the region is stable, at the same time speak with the Rebel leaders and tell them what is going on once ISIS are out of the way, and negotiate a ceasefire . Then get the two parties to work with the UN to take out ISIS, Clear them out completely then with aid and assistance , rebuild the country and support them so as not to instil further radicalisation.
Learn from the mistakes made after pulling out of Iraq , from the disharmony caused by the Arab spring in Libya and the shambles post uprising in Egypt. Its these power vacuums which allow the radicals and extremists to flourish . Show people that the rest of the world will not tolerate terrorism , but will fully support whatever religion or race wishes to overthrow tyranny and live peacefully.

 

[londonblue]

More importantly I think I need to get Jeremy Corduroy to broker a peace deal between me and my tennis racket. After about 20 years of non-use it is struggling to let me play a decent shot. I think this might be because it has what Dunlop call an Impact Shock Isolation System, and therefore has ISIS written all over it!

 

[Another Surrey Shrimper]

The problem is that if no one attempts to strike their training camps and individuals are allowed to come and go to Syria, then their numbers will only increase anyway. Which would of course ultimately put more local Syrians and Europeans at risk.

Britain has always been right up there on the terrorist list of targets, just behind USA. We can't step back and decide we don't want to play any more even if we wanted to. Beside sitting on the side lines doesn't appear to have helped Belgium.

I agree that we should be involved in military action against IS. I do think that makes us a bigger target though so the 'Corbyn a danger to Britain' argument that Cameron peddles is totally wrong IMO. I think we are bringing more problems here - but a price worth paying.
We should recognise that 14 (?) years of war on terror and we are where we are today.

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Unity is what ISIS fear, a unified approach to obliterating them and wiping them off the planet rather than sitting round a tea table and sharing cake is the only way to deal with this situation. Notice they've not attacked China as yet, I doubt very much the Chinese would wait for any approval from anywhere else before stepping in with both feet!

Do you have any sources for this, because this completely contradicts everything I've read about ISIS?

eg http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Oh and ISIS have executed some Chinese nationals.

i doubt we'll lose Oldham. we have a huge majority there and seats with Labour majorities should be Corbyn's natural territory. if we do really badly his days might well be numbered

Corbyn will probably do better in by-elections because of the low turnout and his followers seem quite devout, but overall he's in trouble. The polls are horrific and the timing of Paris couldn't have been much worse for him. UKIP profile better somewhere like Oldham than an Islington liberal and a strong UKIP showing could, unfortunately, resurrect UKIP - what a legacy that would be for Corbyn.

I think Labour hold on, but UKIP are the story.

 

[Blueronron]

Do you have any sources for this, because this completely contradicts everything I've read about ISIS?

eg http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

Oh and ISIS have executed some Chinese nationals.




Corbyn will probably do better in by-elections because of the low turnout and his followers seem quite devout, but overall he's in trouble. The polls are horrific and the timing of Paris couldn't have been much worse for him. UKIP profile better somewhere like Oldham than an Islington liberal and a strong UKIP showing could, unfortunately, resurrect UKIP - what a legacy that would be for Corbyn.

I think Labour hold on, but UKIP are the story.

Or do you think it may be tactical voting by Tories, as they have not a chance in hell, but voting UKIP to try and oust Labour
By election are allways poor turnouts and JC is strung up if he wins by a large majority, its a a case, well he should have, or if the majority is cut, its Oh its the JC factor
Find it funny those he think he cannot win an election, seem to write a lot about him, is it a form of flattery by you people

A man of principle is hard to find and in politics as rare as hens teeth, but JC ticks the boxes, The working class hero call me Dave, Farage, Wee Jimmy Crankie and less we forget Farron all panda to what you want to hear, JC is early days, but has stuck by his beliefs, and if the time comes when the party disagrees with him, I believe he will listen and go with the majority, hence a good leader listens to his men

UTS

 

[Yorkshire Blue]

Or do you think it may be tactical voting by Tories, as they have not a chance in hell, but voting UKIP to try and oust Labour
By election are allways poor turnouts and JC is strung up if he wins by a large majority, its a a case, well he should have, or if the majority is cut, its Oh its the JC factor
Find it funny those he think he cannot win an election, seem to write a lot about him, is it a form of flattery by you people

A man of principle is hard to find and in politics as rare as hens teeth, but JC ticks the boxes, The working class hero call me Dave, Farage, Wee Jimmy Crankie and less we forget Farron all panda to what you want to hear, JC is early days, but has stuck by his beliefs, and if the time comes when the party disagrees with him, I believe he will listen and go with the majority, hence a good leader listens to his men

UTS

Not tactical voting. Protest voting maybe.

The BNP got 3,000 votes there 5 years ago.

I write a lot about elections as psephology interests me and Corbyn offers some extreme numbers, like Trump in the US.