The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[Awol]

14 minutes ago, snowychap said:

There was a 10 hour debate yesterday in parliament and as Hilary Benn said in his speech:

 

Having not listened to the whole 10hr debate I didn't hear them, did you? Clearly Benn didn't agree with those legitimate arguments or his speech would have been rather different. 

So as before, what were the arguments given that trumped the points he made?

[snowychap]

8 hours ago, Awol said:

Having not listened to the whole 10hr debate I didn't hear them, did you? Clearly Benn didn't agree with those legitimate arguments or his speech would have been rather different. 

So as before, what were the arguments given that trumped the points he made?

It's a bit rum to be expecting other people to deliver a neat precis of a 10 hour debate for your consumption in order that you can then decide whether or not their arguments 'trump' what Mr Benn said.

Whether or not opposing, legitimate (Benn's word not mine) arguments 'trump' Benn's arguments are more likely to be down to whether or not they were the argument(s) you or I want to hear, no? Especially if we accept that we both come from opposing, predetermined and probably intransigent positions on the motion.

Of course Benn's argument would have been different if he had agreed with opinions other than the one he expressed last night.

Julian Lewis (see Hansard of yesterday) was one person who spoke against the motion - I can't tell you whether or not the details in it are/were right and, slightly taking issue with my claim a couple of sentences above, it probably isn't an argument that I wanted to hear.

Quote

Excerpt as per guidelines:

Hon. Members are being asked to back airstrikes against Daesh in order to show solidarity with our French and American friends, yet a gesture of solidarity, however sincerely meant, cannot be a substitute for hard-headed strategy.

Most Defence Committee members probably intend to vote for such airstrikes, but I shall vote against airstrikes, in the absence of credible ground forces, as ineffective and potentially dangerous, just as I voted against the proposal to bomb Assad in 2013. Indeed, the fact that the British Government wanted to bomb first one side and then the other in the same civil war, and in such a short space of time, illustrates to my mind a vacuum at the heart of our strategy.

 

Edited December 3, 2015 by snowychap
Took out the erroneous 's

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, snowychap said:

I'm not sure why the lack of oratory skill of speakers is a fault of the audience.

would it have helped if I had bolded the last part of your sentence for you   ? there's being a pedant and then there is a whole new level

[Awol]

15 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a bit rum to be expecting other people to deliver a neat precis of a 10 hour debate for your consumption in order that you can then decide whether or not their arguments 'trump' what Mr Benn said.

Whether or not opposing, legitimate (Benn's word not mine) arguments 'trump' Benn's arguments are more likely to be down to whether or not they were the argument(s) you or I want to hear, no? Especially if we accept that we both come from opposing, predetermined and probably intransigent positions on the motion.

Of course Benn's argument would have been different if he had agreed with opinions other than the one he expressed last night.

Julian Lewis's (see Hansard of yesterday) was one person who spoke against the motion - I can't tell you whether or not the details in it are/were right and, slightly taking issue with my claim a couple of sentences above, it probably isn't an argument that I wanted to hear.

 

I was asking OBE and anyone else who wanted to chip in why they thought Benn's arguments were wrong and betrayed Labour's values.

You came back with a quote from Benn saying others had made legitimate arguments, effectively answering a question I hadn't asked. 

I then asked if you'd watched the whole thing, not if you'd mind summarizing a 10 hour debate for me....

However Julian Lewis' argument revolves around a lack of ground forces, implying the commitment is insufficient. I'm pretty sure that's not a relevant position for the left wingers who are criticizing Benn's speech.

 

[tonyh29]

1 hour ago, OutByEaster? said:

Benn spoke very well. He's completely in opposition to the people he's supposed to represent, and to the party whose principles he's ignored, but he does speak very well - he's a proper politician. 

And yes, I do mean proper politician as an insult - he's one of a number of Labour MP's that's put the chance to attack a leader he doesn't like above the lives of Syrian civilians - if anything he's worse than most, because he's used the whole episode as a chance to audition for the role of leader. He's everything that has been wrong with politics for the last 30 years - an excellent politician who belongs on the other side of the house idealogically but who would instead rather further the work of Mr Blair in making the two parties corporate clones.

"Hey, while we're on the subject of war, get me! Pretty smooth huh?" 

 

 

 

 

unless you've polled the view of every member in his constituency how can you say he is in opposition to the people he is supposed to represent ? 

when you say ignored the principles of a party  ..do you mean because this attack was legal rather than the illegal attack on Iraq 

technically speaking short term he has more to lose by going against his leader than siding with him surely ?  I'll give him the benefit of the doubt that he made that speech for the right reasons (in his  opinion at least) rather then a leadership challenge ,

[tonyh29]

29 minutes ago, snowychap said:

It's a bit rum to be expecting other people to deliver a neat precis of a 10 hour debate for your consumption in order that you can then decide whether or not their arguments 'trump' what Mr Benn said.

Whether or not opposing, legitimate (Benn's word not mine) arguments 'trump' Benn's arguments are more likely to be down to whether or not they were the argument(s) you or I want to hear, no? Especially if we accept that we both come from opposing, predetermined and probably intransigent positions on the motion.

Of course Benn's argument would have been different if he had agreed with opinions other than the one he expressed last night.

Julian Lewis's (see Hansard of yesterday) was one person who spoke against the motion - I can't tell you whether or not the details in it are/were right and, slightly taking issue with my claim a couple of sentences above, it probably isn't an argument that I wanted to hear.

 

His voting record makes interesting reading :

Consistently voted for the Iraq war     

Almost always voted for use of UK military forces in combat operations overseas   

 

26th Sept 20014 Julian Lewis voted for UK air strikes in Iraq to support Iraqi forces' efforts against ISIL.      

 

He seems more confused than a chameleon in a packet of skittles                                                                                                                                                                                                  

[Jon]

3 hours ago, Demitri_C said:

Don't agree with you. I think he would make a good labour leader. 

I'm not sure you get a vote on that Dem. I sincerely doubt you're a Labour member ... or even paid the £3 last time to get Jez in.

[blandy]

12 hours ago, Mantis said:

From a Labour perspective, Hilary Benn is starting to look like a very good potential leader right about now.

And doesn't he know it. He's something of a hypocrit. 

 

1 hour ago, Awol said:

Clearly Benn didn't agree with those legitimate arguments or his speech would have been rather different. 

About 2 weeks ago (after Paris) in my Sunday paper he was interviewed at length and saying stuff like 

Quote

 

But Mr Benn said the “terrible events in Paris” meant it was “even more important that we bring the Syrian civil war to an end” before considering air strikes on Isis.

He outlined his thinking: “Why? Because the vacuum in which Isil/Daesh [Islamic State] in Syria thrives is a consequence of that civil war.

“Therefore I hope that the talks that are taking place really will redouble their efforts to say, look we’ve got a find a way of bringing this to a conclusion – we’ve got to bring this to an end....

“Because then, people can then really focus their efforts on the threat from Isil/Daesh and the circumstances in Syria will have changed.”

Mr Benn, who supports military intervention to protect civilians, said he did not think the Government was planning to come forward with a proposal to extend air strikes from Iraq into Syria. 

But asked if he thought they should, Mr Benn said: “No.” He added: “They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.” 

The shadow Foreign Secretary added: “The most useful contribution we can make is to support as a nation the peace talks that have started. That is the single most important thing we can do.”

So although at the time of the interview he was OK with military intervention to protect civilians, he's shifted his position massively overall. Having read that article, it's been revealing to see what he's done since.  He wants to be leader. The two things do not seem unrelated to me.

note: I think he'd be less bad at being leader than Corbyn is. My comment is on the nature and reasons he might have shifted his view so significantly.
 

 

[Mantis]

6 hours ago, Jon said:

Seeing as how the labour membership has recently voted overwhelmingly for a proper left wing socialist as leader,  I very much doubt a right wing blairite hawk fits the bill.  Maybe he could cross the floor and apply for the job over there?  I hear there's an opening coming up soon. 

Oh well, better get used to a huge Labour defeat in 2020 then - not that I'll be complaining about that.

[sharkyvilla]

50 minutes ago, blandy said:

And doesn't he know it. He's something of a hypocrit. 

 

About 2 weeks ago (after Paris) in my Sunday paper he was interviewed at length and saying stuff like 

So although at the time of the interview he was OK with military intervention to protect civilians, he's shifted his position massively overall. Having read that article, it's been revealing to see what he's done since.  He wants to be leader. The two things do not seem unrelated to me.

note: I think he'd be less bad at being leader than Corbyn is. My comment is on the nature and reasons he might have shifted his view so significantly.
 

 

Was that before, or after the UN vote?  I can see why he may have come around to his view in recent days or weeks.  There was also a leadership election a few months ago that he didn't run for, so I don't really buy that he suddenly chose last night to make a run for it.

[blandy]

9 minutes ago, sharkyvilla said:

Was that before, or after the UN vote?

it was printed 6 days before, Sharky.

You might be right, of course and I acknowledge that, though I feel that as Corbyn trounced all the other candidates who stood, they kind of couldn't really be the ones to depose him, if he's removed, so it kind of leaves a field of not very many. Benn I think has at least half an eye on being next leader - Labour cannot carry on being the utter shambles they are for much longer. Something will have to give.

[Chindie]

Corbyn will be knifed. There are too many influential figures in the party that fundamentally hate the man, it will come to a head and he'll be deposed. At the moment it seems to me that they're simply biding their time for a convenient matter that will cloak the knives when they strike.

That's why any talk of Labour being unelectable under him is a bit ambitious. It's exceptionally unlikely he'll stand in an General Election as leader, there's not a chance they won't be rid inside 5 years. I think Corbyn somewhat knows it too, his aim seems largely to drive the party Left before being booted with the hope some of it sticks.

[Mantis]

1 hour ago, sharkyvilla said:

Was that before, or after the UN vote?  I can see why he may have come around to his view in recent days or weeks.  There was also a leadership election a few months ago that he didn't run for, so I don't really buy that he suddenly chose last night to make a run for it.

Same. He may one day run for leader but I think last night was simply him arguing passionately for what he believes in - can't really fault him for that.

[MakemineVanilla]

I can't help it, I seem to admire Corbyn more with each day that passes.

It makes a change to get a party leader with principles rather than revolting oleaginous phonies like Blair and Cameron.

Hopefully last night's vote will lead to a purge of all those Blairite sinecurists who see political advantage in bombing civilians.  

Power at any cost, as long as someone else bears that cost.

 

[Eames]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

 

It makes a change to get a party leader with principles rather than revolting oleaginous phonies like Blair and Cameron.

 

The last one of those we had was Thatcher. 

[TrentVilla]

Just now, Eames said:

The last one of those we had was Thatcher. 

Sadly she lacked humor, compassion, warmth, a heart and empathy.

[Demitri_C]

2 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I can't help it, I seem to admire Corbyn more with each day that passes.

It makes a change to get a party leader with principles rather than revolting oleaginous phonies like Blair and Cameron.

Hopefully last night's vote will lead to a purge of all those Blairite sinecurists who see political advantage in bombing civilians.  

Power at any cost, as long as someone else bears that cost.

 

my concern with corbyn is should shit hit the fan I have absolutely no faith he will have that ruthless streak to act on it. He comes across as really soft to me, and thats not what you want from a  leader of a country. 

[Chindie]

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man so Tory you could probably read the party history embedded through him like a stick of rock, in a moment where he was unusually likeable for a fleeting second, said of Corbyn on HIGNFY recently that it was admirable that he was a politician with principles that he stuck to.

Can't really disagree. It makes him anachronistically old fashioned though, in today's politics, which further won't win him favours because you need to malleable and slippery to succeed now.

[Mantis]

29 minutes ago, MakemineVanilla said:

I can't help it, I seem to admire Corbyn more with each day that passes.

It makes a change to get a party leader with principles rather than revolting oleaginous phonies like Blair and Cameron.

Hopefully last night's vote will lead to a purge of all those Blairite sinecurists who see political advantage in bombing civilians.  

Power at any cost, as long as someone else bears that cost.

 

Or maybe they just believe (rightly or wrongly) that we should be doing something to combat ISIS, especially when we're already fighting them in Syria? You don't have to agree with their decision but to claim that they voted for air strikes for "political advantage" is a bit ridiculous.

It's not like they voted to bomb civilians anyway.

[TheAuthority]

34 minutes ago, Chindie said:

Even Jacob Rees-Mogg, a man so Tory you could probably read the party history embedded through him like a stick of rock, in a moment where he was unusually likeable for a fleeting second, said of Corbyn on HIGNFY recently that it was admirable that he was a politician with principles that he stuck to.

I've seen JRM trot this line a few times recently. He begins by saying he admires Corbyn's principles as a pacifist and then says it's a reason why he should never be Prime Minister. It's a classic political oily move to be nice about the opposition and reframe the positive into a negative. I must admit I thought it was clever when I heard it although I find JRM fairly odious and antiquated.