Xann Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 A bloke says he doesn't intend to make the same mistake Bliar made, when he bought US bullshit and started a conflict that's claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, with the aftermath still rolling on. Are we comparing this with the security issue of Brexit backer Banks stinking of Putin and China installing our new comms? Hahahahahahahahahaha - Idiocy in full effect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 36 minutes ago, Xann said: A bloke says he doesn't intend to make the same mistake Bliar made, when he bought US bullshit and started a conflict that's claimed hundreds of thousands of lives, with the aftermath still rolling on. Are we comparing this with the security issue of Brexit backer Banks stinking of Putin and China installing our new comms? Hahahahahahahahahaha - Idiocy in full effect. No, a Bloke says an UNELECTED group of people united by paying a subscription to a political party will decide if the country goes to war or not. That's real idiocy How many Tories have joined Labour to get votes in their elections before? Next they'll be joining to declare war. Think about it, its absolute stupidity. On a more serious point, the country was lied to but was in favour broadly speaking at the time, of the Iraq war, iirc that included a majority of Labour members from the polls taken at the time Take a step back and consider the following fake headline in a newspaper. How would you react to that? Your reaction needs to be exactly the same "Boris Johnson Will Only Start a War if Conservative Party Members Approve" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 2 hours ago, snowychap said: I do sometimes think it's a bit rum to automatically dismiss those who propose things that don't meet with one's own preconceived ideas or what a significant proportion of the current electorate might assume to be credible as 'hard of thinking'. Richard Burgeon is hard of thinking. Unless we take this approach Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, Xann said: A bloke says he doesn't intend to make the same mistake Bliar made, Bliar did make a monumental "mistake" (mistake's not really an adequate word). Never wanting a repeat of that is good. Burgeon's brain fart (from the linked article above) doesn't do what you're saying. Quote Under his peace pledge, he explained, “the party would not endorse, or back, or support military action, unless the members gave it their explicit approval – apart from when there’s UN approval for it, or there’s a genuine national emergency”. He conceded that a Labour prime minister would have the prerogative to sanction military action without the party’s support, but suggested there would be “political consequences”. These people are in a special category of their own. "The thing to do to get the tories out, is to carry on with what the bloke who just got a record battering did, and then add on some extra "laugh at this" ludicrous measures for giggles. What could possibly go wrong (apart from the tories staying in power and doing more damage)". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 (edited) 1 hour ago, blandy said: Richard Burgeon is hard of thinking. Unless we take this approach Nope - you've utterly failed to grasp the meaning of my post (as it was not about those making proposals). Edited February 6, 2020 by snowychap Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 18 minutes ago, snowychap said: Nope - you've utterly failed to grasp the meaning of my post (as it was not about those making proposals). Perhaps you'd care to expand, then, Darren, as it was Richard Burgeon and his ilk that I specifically aimed the comment at? 5 hours ago, blandy said: This is not aimed at you, HV, but Burgeon.... a significant part of the Corbyn/RLB/Burgeon types are beyond compare as absolute incompetent, hard of thinking, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 5 hours ago, bickster said: No, a Bloke says an UNELECTED group of people united by paying a subscription to a political party will decide if the country goes to war or not. That's real idiocy How many Tories have joined Labour to get votes in their elections before? Next they'll be joining to declare war. Think about it, its absolute stupidity. Do remember Bliar and Cameron made appalling decisions in Iraq and Syria, so I am definitely in favour of some due diligence before the killing starts. Let's see the proposed mechanism, then decide eh? If it ended up being the ill informed deciding on war? Then yes, it's as daft as Brexit and he's a bellend. 4 hours ago, blandy said: These people are in a special category of their own. "The thing to do to get the tories out, is to carry on with what the bloke who just got a record battering did, and then add on some extra "laugh at this" ludicrous measures for giggles. What could possibly go wrong (apart from the tories staying in power and doing more damage)". Again, wouldn't it be interesting to see what finally appeared on the table? Those 'political conqequences' might allow for legislation to retrospectively review a premier's decision making in times of conflict? Another Bliar might think twice if there's a potential custodial sentence for being carried away with US bloodlust? Also the electorate will collect on their idiocy If they want more of the same, and are prepared to inflict more of the same on the less fortunate come the next election? After the lies become apparent? Then bollocks to them. A number of us sacrificed our votes in an attempt to save the NHS, the Union and the less fortunate, but if the ***** insist on it? Let our post Empire decline become complete with the dissolution of United Kingdom. It'll be karma after all. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, blandy said: Perhaps you'd care to expand 1 hour ago, snowychap said: it was not about those making proposals Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 39 minutes ago, Xann said: 'political conqequences' might allow for legislation to retrospectively review a premier's decision making in times of conflict? Legal consequences - hell yeah!. Political consequences - nah, it's wishy washy nothingness. If he were suggesting law change to hold PMs (or other ministers) to legal account for the likes of what Blair did, then I'd be all for it. But what he said was consult the members, and the PM could ignore them anyway - I mean what's the point when you're faced with a potential repeat Blair situation. And political consequences for a Labour PM who ignored the members (who say voted, hypothetically 51/49% against whatever the leader wanted to do - what if the MPs were with the PM - the MPs are representatives, not delegates. The MPs are paid a ton of money (relatively) to take these momentous decisions and are provided with much better data than the public to make decisions on. There are select committees, experts on tap, the official secrets act, classified data, implications for following a course of action that are beyond the likes if me or you. Populism and national sort of "pride" go up when there's a threat to the nation (or perceived threat) the population is not remotely well placed to make these decisions. Time to arrange a consultation with the Labour membership is another issue. It's just nonsense, weak thinking, something said to win some votes from Labour members in his election bid. It's drivel. They're off their **** rockers half of them and it's a shame - as you've said before we've got a lamentable set of politicians across the parties. He's one of the bells. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 *****, really? Bollocks to who? UK citizens? Unless you think you are wiser or superior to the many of course. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 6, 2020 Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, colhint said: *****, really? Bollocks to who? UK citizens? Unless you think you are wiser or superior to the many of course. Fookin Hell. Really? You want to try reading it again? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 6, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 6, 2020 1 hour ago, snowychap said: 3 hours ago, snowychap said: it was not about those making proposals I read Quote I do sometimes think it's a bit rum to automatically dismiss those who propose things that don't meet with one's own preconceived ideas or what a significant proportion of the current electorate might assume to be credible as 'hard of thinking'. As being about those making proposals. Still none the wiser, despite you repeating what you said. But anyway, have a good evening. I'll probably get what you meant later. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 A sensible system might be to let the Home, Foreign and Defense secretaries have a say in premeditated military action, as they're already party to sensitive information. In that scenario Robin Cook would have put the kibosh on Blair's vanity war, and we wouldn't have seen Iraqis picking up bits of their children after a visit to the shops. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2020 3 hours ago, Xann said: A sensible system might be to let the Home, Foreign and Defense secretaries have a say in premeditated military action, as they're already party to sensitive information. In that scenario Robin Cook would have put the kibosh on Blair's vanity war, and we wouldn't have seen Iraqis picking up bits of their children after a visit to the shops. Yeah, though basically it's now a thing where the cabinet discusses it, then it goes to a full vote of parliament - see how Cameron and Syria went and what he wanted to do got stopped. This is why, really what Burgeon's saying is nothing more than trying to get members to vote for him to be deputy by saying "involve members" despite it being a daft and impractical idea in terms of what's the best way of achieving something. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Xann Posted February 7, 2020 Share Posted February 7, 2020 20 minutes ago, blandy said: Yeah, though basically it's now a thing where the cabinet discusses it, then it goes to a full vote of parliament - see how Cameron and Syria went and what he wanted to do got stopped. This is why, really what Burgeon's saying is nothing more than trying to get members to vote for him to be deputy by saying "involve members" despite it being a daft and impractical idea in terms of what's the best way of achieving something. Ministers don't need to according to Wiki. Quote The power to deploy military forces is currently exercised by ministers under the royal prerogative and does not require parliamentary authorisation. Since 2003, however, successive Governments have informed and consulted the House of Commons about the decision to use force and the progress of military campaigns. Doubts over the existence of the convention were arguably laid to rest in 2013, when a Government motion to deploy military forces in Syria was defeated. Wiki Which would suggest to me that a PM takes it to Parliament when they don't really have the stomach for it, but don't want to look weak to whoever it is we're out to intimidate? Others may have a different take? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blandy Posted February 7, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 7, 2020 1 hour ago, Xann said: a PM takes it to Parliament when they don't really have the stomach for it, but don't want to look weak to whoever it is we're out to intimidate? Yeah, that's a fair take. Another, perhaps is that after Blair's and then Cameron's with Libya, the idea of getting back up from parliament, either to share the blame if it goes wrong, or some other reason like "it wasn't me you can't lock me up" or.... Whatever, I think we're agreeing War is bad whether you're a biased warmonger or a wishy washy Big Brother TV manipulator. Don't do it kids. Peace out. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
colhint Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 It seems the leadership race is turning a bit ugly. Labour accuses Starmer of data breach The Labour party has formally reported members of Sir Keir Starmer's leadership campaign team to the Information Commissioner, accusing them of hacking into the party's membership database, the BBC has learned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 presumably from the RLB acolytes, I swear labour has no interest in actually governing. Dipsticks. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 10, 2020 Moderator Share Posted February 10, 2020 3 minutes ago, Rodders said: presumably from the RLB acolytes, I swear Momentum has no interest in actually governing. Dipsticks. FTFY 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodders Posted February 10, 2020 Share Posted February 10, 2020 yes that's fairer. Anything to get their anointed one leader. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts