Wednesday 6th July 2016

[SpinningHugo]

Another day, another set of rhetorical questions,

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

I'll nibble. I am a Labour Party member. I am not a momentum member.

If there was enough dissatisfaction in the PLP, flag it up. If it can't be resolved follow the rules, get the 50/51 names and challenge. Make the positive case of why choose them.

Which I think is what happens too. What happens next. i think the challenger loses, and then?

[Rebecca]

I did so even believing in WMDs (which everyone did, up to and including Blair).

'Everyone' didn't include me. At the time I couldn't understand why people found it so plausible.

I don't believe I'm alone in that.

I didn't believe it either.
At all.
At the time I was living in N Yorks,and was very close to an eldely couple.
Their daughter had been awarded an OBE for archaelogical work in Iraq.She was there for years,
She said that no way were there wmd.Since the sanctions had been imposed Iraq was starved of money.

[gilsey]

I did so even believing in WMDs (which everyone did, up to and including Blair).

'Everyone' didn't include me. At the time I couldn't understand why people found it so plausible.

I don't believe I'm alone in that.

What was your evidence to the contrary (at the time)? Why wasn't the view of the UK/US intelligence service the best available, couple with the Saddam Hussein regime's avoidance of inspections? What other evidence was there?

Proving a negative is very difficult, as was widely noted at the time.

Not evidence, but a plausible (to me) alternative scenario. That Saddam had given up on WMDs but wouldn't 'lose face' to his own people and his opponents in the region by admitting it.
Possibly he thought that MI6 and the CIA were too clever to fall for it.

[SpinningHugo]

Blair did a lot of good stuff, most memorably the Good Friday Agreement and investment in schools and hospitals after years of terrible neglect by Tory governments. But of course it's his disastrous mistake over Iraq that most people mostly remember.

I know it's received wisdom that Blair lied. It'd be more accurate to say he received highly flawed intelligence that he accepted as gospel. He should have emulated Wilson and stayed out of the whole debacle despite intense pressure from the US.

Another thing to remember is that he had to rely on Tory MPs to get parliamentary assent for the invasion, whenever people claim that the Labour Party were all gung-ho for it. A significant number were against it.

I think the only Tory MP to vote against the invasion was Jonathan Sayeed.

244 Labour MPs voted for the invasion. With 149 MPs from all parties against, no Tory votes were required.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Morning all.

You know that if Labour suggested this, the usual suspects would be foaming at the mouth..."typical tax and spend", "spending money we haven't got " etc etc

Indeed - Tories outflanking Blairites (remember Kendall's "permanent budget surplus"?) on the left, yet again.

[StephenDolan]

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

I'll nibble. I am a Labour Party member. I am not a momentum member.

If there was enough dissatisfaction in the PLP, flag it up. If it can't be resolved follow the rules, get the 50/51 names and challenge. Make the positive case of why choose them.

Which I think is what happens too. What happens next. i think the challenger loses, and then?

Unfortunately that didn’t happen. Uncertainty, lots of briefing, no confidence vote, more briefing, still no official challenge. Still no one making a case of why them.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I think the only Tory MP to vote against the invasion was Jonathan Sayeed

No, there were about 15 I think - Ken Clarke and Douglas Hogg being amongst the most prominent.

[SpinningHugo]

I'll nibble. I am a Labour Party member. I am not a momentum member.

If there was enough dissatisfaction in the PLP, flag it up. If it can't be resolved follow the rules, get the 50/51 names and challenge. Make the positive case of why choose them.

Which I think is what happens too. What happens next. i think the challenger loses, and then?

Unfortunately that didn’t happen. Uncertainty, lots of briefing, no confidence vote, more briefing, still no official challenge. Still no one making a case of why them.

I was talking about from here.

The past is so much spilled milk.

[StephenDolan]

Which I think is what happens too. What happens next. i think the challenger loses, and then?

Unfortunately that didn’t happen. Uncertainty, lots of briefing, no confidence vote, more briefing, still no official challenge. Still no one making a case of why them.

I was talking about from here.

The past is so much spilled milk.

For now, I'll go along with the line drawing.


Corbyn is the leader. The Tories are in disarray. Once they've appointed a leader they'll pull back together.

This is the time for Labour to be pulling together and pointing their guns on the government.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Imagining that the 170 MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Or indeed forgetting that those who resigned from the front bench had differing motivations - several of the later resignees did so "to get things over with" (Keir Starmer's letter to JC basically read "I'm resigning because everybody else is") Last night the Graun reported that several MPs were becoming annoyed with the "plotters" for their failure to actually do anything - though this was later censored out of their reports, why?

[ephemerid]

Another day, another set of rhetorical questions,

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

A rhetorical question is a question you ask without necessarily expecting an answer.
It might be one that does not have an answer.
It might be one that has an obvious answer, but has been asked to make a point.
It might be posed purely for effect.

If I am "exactly the kind of person" you want to answer your questions, because you are "trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter", yet again you have assumed a fact not in evidence.

I am not a Corbyn supporter. I am not a supporter of Momentum. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party.

I am, if anything, a liberal socialist who no longer has a party that represents my views.

What matters in this tawdry business is that a party which claims to be democratic is deliberately plotting to usurp the leader the party members put in place. That is ethically, morally, politically, and un-democratically wrong.
What matters is that certain members of the PLP appear to think that deposing a leader, elected under the agreed rules, is more important than providing robust opposition to this vicious and mendacious government.

A Corbyn-led Labour Party may or may not be attractive to the UK voters. The truth is that we do not know.
There is an assumption, by some who post here, that he is "unelectable". There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Corbyn has never, ever, not once, lost any election or vote that he has contested.

There is one thing he has achieved for which I am thankful - he has shaken up the complacency and arrogance of politics in this benighted country. People are having to think, having to decide what they think Labour stands for.
The membership voted for Corbyn because his approach appealed to them; they voted for him because he's not the same as all the others; they voted for him in their hundreds of thousands because they liked what he had to say.

There was some talk here and pretty much everywhere else after the EU Referendum about the stupidity of the average voter.
There is an undercurrent of a similar thing when certain people talk about the voting members of the Labour Party.

It's enough to make me consider re-joining just so that I can vote for Corbyn in any future leadership contest - not because I support him per se, but because it will do the Labour heirarchy a lot of good to understand who pays their wages, who runs their campaigns, and who they bloody well answer to. If the party splits, it's not the end of the world. Something good could come of it.

[frightful_oik]

Imagining that the 170MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Nor does it help assuming that FTN is an homogenous block. I'm not pro-Corbyn; I'm not a Labour member or three-pounder. But I am against these gallant quislings who have done nothing, absolutely nothing, for the last 6 years except oppose their leader because it wasn't who they wanted. I want Corbyn to thrash them and for them to show a long period of contrition and compliance with the members' wishes. But they won't will they? That's a rhetorical question btw.

[SpinningHugo]

Another day, another set of rhetorical questions,

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

A rhetorical question is a question you ask without necessarily expecting an answer.
It might be one that does not have an answer.
It might be one that has an obvious answer, but has been asked to make a point.
It might be posed purely for effect.

If I am "exactly the kind of person" you want to answer your questions, because you are "trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter", yet again you have assumed a fact not in evidence.

I am not a Corbyn supporter. I am not a supporter of Momentum. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party.

I am, if anything, a liberal socialist who no longer has a party that represents my views.

What matters in this tawdry business is that a party which claims to be democratic is deliberately plotting to usurp the leader the party members put in place. That is ethically, morally, politically, and un-democratically wrong.
What matters is that certain members of the PLP appear to think that deposing a leader, elected under the agreed rules, is more important than providing robust opposition to this vicious and mendacious government.

A Corbyn-led Labour Party may or may not be attractive to the UK voters. The truth is that we do not know.
There is an assumption, by some who post here, that he is "unelectable". There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Corbyn has never, ever, not once, lost any election or vote that he has contested.

There is one thing he has achieved for which I am thankful - he has shaken up the complacency and arrogance of politics in this benighted country. People are having to think, having to decide what they think Labour stands for.
The membership voted for Corbyn because his approach appealed to them; they voted for him because he's not the same as all the others; they voted for him in their hundreds of thousands because they liked what he had to say.

There was some talk here and pretty much everywhere else after the EU Referendum about the stupidity of the average voter.
There is an undercurrent of a similar thing when certain people talk about the voting members of the Labour Party.

It's enough to make me consider re-joining just so that I can vote for Corbyn in any future leadership contest - not because I support him per se, but because it will do the Labour heirarchy a lot of good to understand who pays their wages, who runs their campaigns, and who they bloody well answer to. If the party splits, it's not the end of the world. Something good could come of it.

Well, whatever it is, it is a question you don't want to answer.

[SpinningHugo]

Imagining that the 170 MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Does anyone think such an obviously stupid thing?

[SpinningHugo]

Imagining that the 170MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Nor does it help assuming that FTN is an homogenous block. I'm not pro-Corbyn; I'm not a Labour member or three-pounder. But I am against these gallant quislings who have done nothing, absolutely nothing, for the last 6 years except oppose their leader because it wasn't who they wanted. I want Corbyn to thrash them and for them to show a long period of contrition and compliance with the members' wishes. But they won't will they? That's a rhetorical question btw.

no, they won't.

I think from your perspective that is fair enough. This battle is really about revenge and hang the consequences they don't matter.

There is always a tension in life between the best course going forward, and justice for past wrongdoing.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Imagining that the 170 MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Does anyone think such an obviously stupid thing?

Yes, there has been some "all 170 MPs will form a new party if Corbyn wins again!!!" squealing from typically clueless lobby journalists.

[StephenDolan]

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

A rhetorical question is a question you ask without necessarily expecting an answer.
It might be one that does not have an answer.
It might be one that has an obvious answer, but has been asked to make a point.
It might be posed purely for effect.

If I am "exactly the kind of person" you want to answer your questions, because you are "trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter", yet again you have assumed a fact not in evidence.

I am not a Corbyn supporter. I am not a supporter of Momentum. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party.

I am, if anything, a liberal socialist who no longer has a party that represents my views.

What matters in this tawdry business is that a party which claims to be democratic is deliberately plotting to usurp the leader the party members put in place. That is ethically, morally, politically, and un-democratically wrong.
What matters is that certain members of the PLP appear to think that deposing a leader, elected under the agreed rules, is more important than providing robust opposition to this vicious and mendacious government.

A Corbyn-led Labour Party may or may not be attractive to the UK voters. The truth is that we do not know.
There is an assumption, by some who post here, that he is "unelectable". There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Corbyn has never, ever, not once, lost any election or vote that he has contested.

There is one thing he has achieved for which I am thankful - he has shaken up the complacency and arrogance of politics in this benighted country. People are having to think, having to decide what they think Labour stands for.
The membership voted for Corbyn because his approach appealed to them; they voted for him because he's not the same as all the others; they voted for him in their hundreds of thousands because they liked what he had to say.

There was some talk here and pretty much everywhere else after the EU Referendum about the stupidity of the average voter.
There is an undercurrent of a similar thing when certain people talk about the voting members of the Labour Party.

It's enough to make me consider re-joining just so that I can vote for Corbyn in any future leadership contest - not because I support him per se, but because it will do the Labour heirarchy a lot of good to understand who pays their wages, who runs their campaigns, and who they bloody well answer to. If the party splits, it's not the end of the world. Something good could come of it.

Well, whatever it is, it is a question you don't want to answer.

SH, that doesn't bring much to the discussion. Present your position, FTN shouldn't become a hostile place.

Yes, I know noone made me moderator

[SpinningHugo]

Imagining that the 170 MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Does anyone think such an obviously stupid thing?

Yes, there has been some "all 170 MPs will form a new party if Corbyn wins again!!!" squealing from typically clueless lobby journalists.

Well that is a crazy thing to say.

Who has said that? Link?

[Tizme1]

Which I think is what happens too. What happens next. i think the challenger loses, and then?

Unfortunately that didn’t happen. Uncertainty, lots of briefing, no confidence vote, more briefing, still no official challenge. Still no one making a case of why them.

I was talking about from here.

The past is so much spilled milk.

OK despite not being 'Labour' I'll bite. The challenger loses. Corbyn is the elected leader still. The PLP rally behind him and get on with the job of being The Official Opposition. That's what should happen. What would happen is the PLP would continue disrupting and undermining as they have from the moment he was elected. And as they did previously against Miliband.

It would seem, the PLP would rather destroy the whole Labour movement than have it develop in a way that isn't to their taste.

Is that democracy?

[RogerOThornhill]

Guess what?

At the time when all the focus is on Chilcott, the report on teachers pay is finally published.

Shocked etc...wonder what else will be slipped out today?

[StephenDolan]

Anyone watching?

All those I'm tracking give the impression that Chilcot is pretty scathing.

[nickyinnorfolk]

Blair did a lot of good stuff, most memorably the Good Friday Agreement and investment in schools and hospitals after years of terrible neglect by Tory governments. But of course it's his disastrous mistake over Iraq that most people mostly remember.

I know it's received wisdom that Blair lied. It'd be more accurate to say he received highly flawed intelligence that he accepted as gospel. He should have emulated Wilson and stayed out of the whole debacle despite intense pressure from the US.

Another thing to remember is that he had to rely on Tory MPs to get parliamentary assent for the invasion, whenever people claim that the Labour Party were all gung-ho for it. A significant number were against it.

I think the only Tory MP to vote against the invasion was Jonathan Sayeed.

244 Labour MPs voted for the invasion. With 149 MPs from all parties against, no Tory votes were required.

My point is that 140 Labour MPs voted against, as did the LibDems, so Tory support (with tub thumping from then Tory leader IDS) played a not insignificant part.

[mbc1955]

I've read the thread so far and my considered opinion is that we should collectively cease to debate Hugo. He's merely a distraction, a whisper of Henry Kissinger's realpolitik, where the morality of any action is irrelevant when placed against its practical effect.

Of course Hugo wants to dismiss placing blame, since he is a proponent of the faction that are to blame: the guilty always go on about it being of no practical purpose to point the finger. And he then builds his pragmatic argument upon an interpretation of the 'reality' of the situation that coincidentally claims that the only practical, 'real world' way forward is to act entirely in accordance with the 'guilty'. We have a pertinent parallel: Hugo's case is exactly like Oscar Pistorius arguing that he shouldn't go to prison for murdering Reeva Steenkamp, for what good would it do when he could be out and about doing 'good' things.

It's the force majeure argument: act in every despicable way you can think of and, when you have rendered the situation chaotic beyond belief, blithely claim that you are the only ones who can manage this purpose-built chaos. It's the argument of bullies, swine and bastards throughout history: might makes right.

Hugo's 'only plausible' solution is also based only upon assumptions drawn by himself which, amazingly, exactly support his position, without taking into account anybody else's opinions, or indeed hard evidence. If anyone's heard of Dave Sim, they'll recognise the technique instantly.

And it completely glosses over the fact that the course of events initiated by 'his side' demonstrates their basic lack of any competence. If you're going to be a treacherous, self-serving plotter, then at least have the decency to be an efficient treacherous, self-serving plotter, because at the moment, you're undercutting any claim you might make that you and only you can fix the crap you've brought about, and no-one's buying that.

So why waste your time arguing with someone so self-serving as Hugo? Do something positive instead. We certainly need that.

[frightful_oik]

Imagining that the 170MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Nor does it help assuming that FTN is an homogenous block. I'm not pro-Corbyn; I'm not a Labour member or three-pounder. But I am against these gallant quislings who have done nothing, absolutely nothing, for the last 6 years except oppose their leader because it wasn't who they wanted. I want Corbyn to thrash them and for them to show a long period of contrition and compliance with the members' wishes. But they won't will they? That's a rhetorical question btw.

no, they won't.

I think from your perspective that is fair enough. This battle is really about revenge and hang the consequences they don't matter.

There is always a tension in life between the best course going forward, and justice for past wrongdoing.

That cuts both ways SH. My attitude is that the PLP should abide by the members' wishes or abide somewhere else. If they succeed in their mission they will lose one vote forever. That is not speculation: it's a fact.

[nickyinnorfolk]

Anyone watching?

All those I'm tracking give the impression that Chilcot is pretty scathing.

Checking Twitter off and on. Yes, scathing seems the word.

[ohsocynical]

So, what will today lead to ?

The Blair haters will carry on treating him as if he is the devil incarnate and evil personified.
If they don't hear what they want to hear the report will be written off as a whitewash.

There have been a lot of interviews with relatives of soldiers who died in the war, or soldiers who fought and are suffering emotionally as a result.
I don't mean to offend anyone who may have relatives in the military, but what do people think being a soldier is about ? Has there ever been a time that equipment was top class and plentiful ?
Do the relatives queuing up to call for Blair to go to prison ever wonder what their loved ones may have done during active service ? How many children, or innocent civilians may have died as a result of their loved ones signing up to be, let's be honest, killers for the state ?

A lot of the Blair haters are apologists for Palestinians sending rockets, or other violent and counterproductive actions.

So, I shall be gardening today, weather permitting.
It is important to understand what happened and why, and ensure things are different in the future, but feel some of those demanding blood are somewhat hypocritical.

In his teens, our son wanted to go in the services...We sat him down and made sure he realised that basically he would be trained for killing people or enabling the killing, and as long as he understood properly and was okay with it, we would be proud of him.
He had Perthes disease when he was young which unfortunately stopped him passing the medical, but I sympathise with YahYah's sentiments. That's how I feel about it.

[PorFavor]

Anyone watching?

All those I'm tracking give the impression that Chilcot is pretty scathing.

Checking Twitter off and on. Yes, scathing seems the word.

Excoriating, according to the BBC News (Norman Smith who had access to the executive version of the report). I watched John Chilcot deliver his address. Damning.

[HindleA]

http://www.iraqinquiry.org.uk/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[ephemerid]

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

A rhetorical question is a question you ask without necessarily expecting an answer.
It might be one that does not have an answer.
It might be one that has an obvious answer, but has been asked to make a point.
It might be posed purely for effect.

If I am "exactly the kind of person" you want to answer your questions, because you are "trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter", yet again you have assumed a fact not in evidence.

I am not a Corbyn supporter. I am not a supporter of Momentum. I am no longer a member of the Labour Party.

I am, if anything, a liberal socialist who no longer has a party that represents my views.

What matters in this tawdry business is that a party which claims to be democratic is deliberately plotting to usurp the leader the party members put in place. That is ethically, morally, politically, and un-democratically wrong.
What matters is that certain members of the PLP appear to think that deposing a leader, elected under the agreed rules, is more important than providing robust opposition to this vicious and mendacious government.

A Corbyn-led Labour Party may or may not be attractive to the UK voters. The truth is that we do not know.
There is an assumption, by some who post here, that he is "unelectable". There is no evidence to support that assumption.
Corbyn has never, ever, not once, lost any election or vote that he has contested.

There is one thing he has achieved for which I am thankful - he has shaken up the complacency and arrogance of politics in this benighted country. People are having to think, having to decide what they think Labour stands for.
The membership voted for Corbyn because his approach appealed to them; they voted for him because he's not the same as all the others; they voted for him in their hundreds of thousands because they liked what he had to say.

There was some talk here and pretty much everywhere else after the EU Referendum about the stupidity of the average voter.
There is an undercurrent of a similar thing when certain people talk about the voting members of the Labour Party.

It's enough to make me consider re-joining just so that I can vote for Corbyn in any future leadership contest - not because I support him per se, but because it will do the Labour heirarchy a lot of good to understand who pays their wages, who runs their campaigns, and who they bloody well answer to. If the party splits, it's not the end of the world. Something good could come of it.

Well, whatever it is, it is a question you don't want to answer.

D'oh.

Having said "I think YOUR ANSWER (and RS's) is that you don't care...etc." you now say I don't want to answer.

I answered. You think it's an answer, then you think I haven't answered. I have. As you said the first time.



Bored now.

[StephenDolan]

Messi v Chilcot. Big news clash.

[ephemerid]

(my edit)
So why waste your time arguing with someone so self-serving as Hugo? Do something positive instead. We certainly need that.

True. I just can't help sometimes.......

Pax.

[JonnyT1234]

Imagining that the 170MPs who no-confidenced Corbyn are a homogenous bloc doesn't help in understanding the current situation.

Nor does it help assuming that FTN is an homogenous block. I'm not pro-Corbyn; I'm not a Labour member or three-pounder. But I am against these gallant quislings who have done nothing, absolutely nothing, for the last 6 years except oppose their leader because it wasn't who they wanted. I want Corbyn to thrash them and for them to show a long period of contrition and compliance with the members' wishes. But they won't will they? That's a rhetorical question btw.

Not just the PLP but also certain Labour members too. Hello Hugo!

[AnatolyKasparov]

Messi v Chilcot. Big news clash.

Thought that he had really gone to Man City for a moment. Messi that is, not Chilcot

[JonnyT1234]

Messi v Chilcot. Big news clash.

Thought that he had really gone to Man City for a moment. Messi that is, not Chilcot

The transfer will take 7 years and cost millions.

[citizenJA]

Another day, another set of rhetorical questions,

Do you know what a rhetorical question is? (Clue: that isn't one either).

Trying to be serious, what do you expect to happen? Is there a plausible story that goes well for Labour from here?

These are actual questions. You are exactly the kind of person I want to answer them. I am trying to understand the mindset of the Corbyn supporter.

I think your answer (and RS's) is that you don't care, what matters are other things.

To others: sorry for biting.

If I want to understand others' 'mindset', if I want answers to questions finding out others' opinions, I ask using respectful and trustworthy unpretentiousness. I don't always succeed. No human being is perfect. When I neglect treating others with respect, when possible, I apologise and make amends. I endeavour not to make mistakes again. Cooperative, effective communication founded on trust and respect is a lifelong practice. This practice helps prevent war, lawsuits and disharmony within the flat I live in.

I don't trust you. I mean you no harm. I speak for no one but myself.

I apologise to everyone for bringing this rather off-topic post to the thread. I don't wish to derail the political thread we're sharing.

[StephenDolan]

504. The JIC continued to judge that co‑operation between Iraq and Al Qaida was
“unlikely”, and that there was no “credible evidence of Iraqi transfers of WMD‑related
technology and expertise to terrorist groups”.
505. In mid‑February 2002, in preparation for Mr Blair’s planned meeting with President
Bush in early April 2002, No.10 commissioned the preparation of a paper to inform the
public about the dangers of nuclear proliferation and WMD more generally in four key
countries of concern, North Korea, Iran, Libya and Iraq.
506. When the preparation of this document became public knowledge, it was perceived
to be intended to underpin a decision on military action against Iraq. The content and
timing became a sensitive issue.
507. Reflecting the UK position that action was needed to disarm Iraq, Mr Blair and
Mr Straw began, from late February 2002, publicly to argue that Iraq was a threat which
had to be dealt with; that Iraq needed to disarm or be disarmed in accordance with theobligations imposed by the UN; and that it was important to agree to the return of UN
inspectors to Iraq.
508. The focus on Iraq was not the result of a step change in Iraq’s capabilities
or intentions.
509. When he saw the draft paper on WMD countries of concern on 8 March, Mr Straw
commented:
“Good, but should not Iraq be first and also have more text? The paper has to show
why there is an exceptional threat from Iraq. It does not quite do this yet.”200
510. On 18 March, Mr Straw decided that a paper on Iraq should be issued before one
addressing other countries of concern.
511. On 22 March, Mr Straw was advised that the evidence would not convince public
opinion that there was an imminent threat from Iraq. Publication was postponed.
512. No.10 decided that the Cabinet Office Overseas and Defence Secretariat should
co‑ordinate the production of a “public dossier” on Iraq, and that Mr Campbell should
“retain the lead role on the timing/form of its release”.

Apologies for the formatting. But, wow.

[JonnyT1234]

I would like to respond to comments today but I fear I'm going to be blinded by all the whitewash...

Yum. Humble pie. Tasty.

Plus Blair is speaking so I'll also be feeling very sick.

Still utterly nauseating.

[HindleA]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -live-test" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Evaluation of prepaid card test for benefits


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... o-mar-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ESA stats.


Just a couple of outpourings today from the beloved DWP.

[citizenJA]

Blair did a lot of good stuff, most memorably the Good Friday Agreement and investment in schools and hospitals after years of terrible neglect by Tory governments. But of course it's his disastrous mistake over Iraq that most people mostly remember.

I know it's received wisdom that Blair lied. It'd be more accurate to say he received highly flawed intelligence that he accepted as gospel. He should have emulated Wilson and stayed out of the whole debacle despite intense pressure from the US.

Another thing to remember is that he had to rely on Tory MPs to get parliamentary assent for the invasion, whenever people claim that the Labour Party were all gung-ho for it. A significant number were against it.

I think the only Tory MP to vote against the invasion was Jonathan Sayeed.

Over eighty-five Labour MPs voted against UK military involvement in the Iraqi war. Three Tory MPs voted against UK involvement in the Iraqi war, according to the link below.

Iraq — Declaration of War — 18 Mar 2003 at 22:00

The motion voted through by a majority of MPs agreed that the Government "should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".

This resulted in the United Kingdom joining the United States led invasion of Iraq two days later.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.p ... number=118

[RogerOThornhill]

You may recall I cast doubt on Nick Gibb's statement to the effect that "there were 200 academy conversions last month".

Well, I was right - it was bullshit.



It was never likely that that sort of number would convert when it wasn't either the end of the LA accounting year or academy year.

He really is a shameless liar.

[NonOxCol]

Cameron doing his best to perform the whitewash Chilcot didn't.

There are no expletives strong enough for him.

[ephemerid]

https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -live-test

Evaluation of prepaid card test for benefits


https://www.gov.uk/government/statistic ... o-mar-2016" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ESA stats.


Just a couple of outpourings today from the beloved DWP.

Thanks for this, A.

The ESA stats are interesting - and thanks to the new reporting system, mandatory reconsiderations, etc. the delay in the figures we get now is nearly a year. Apart from a few percentage-point changes, the figures for 2015 published here aren't all that different from the year before. People are still getting sick at the same rate, they still sign off ESA when they get better at the same rate.....

One little snippet made me smile - in the bit where it says what we should consider when taking conclusions from the figures - "there may also be other undetected factors at work". Ooh, like targets, maybe?

[RogerOThornhill]

You may recall I cast doubt on Nick Gibb's statement to the effect that "there were 200 academy conversions last month".

Well, I was right - it was bullshit.



It was never likely that that sort of number would convert when it wasn't either the end of the LA accounting year or academy year.

He really is a shameless liar.

It's also worth noting that figure for maintained schools of 16k+ - that's how many they think they'll convert between now and 2022.

Not a chance in hell...

[frog222]

Cameron doing his best to perform the whitewash Chilcot didn't.

There are no expletives strong enough for him.

Well, of course he's supporting Blair's "" Good Faith "" excuse because the 146 Tories went along too !

And if Blair ever went into court ( I agree with RobertSnozers on the uselessness / unlikelihood of that ), the precedent would be set for Libya ...

I switched off Radio4 when Campbell came on .

[ephemerid]

[quote="HindleA"]https://www.gov.uk/government/publicati ... -live-test

Evaluation of prepaid card test for benefits


For those who haven't read this (or don't want to!)

There were supposed to be 150 claimants involved in this "test" - in the end, there were 55. More volunteered, but dropped out.
The 55 were "recruited" by various key workers. The project was based in Kent.

The evaluation was done thus - interviews with 20 claimants who used the cards; interviews with 7 who chose not to; plus a lot more interviews with managers, key workers, and service providers/managers/etc. from various other places using pre-paid cards in other ways.

The conclusions are - that it is feasible to make benefit payments using pre-paid card technology and that claimants can (with support) use the cards to "manage their money", and that the cards "have the potential to promote financial inclusion and independence".

Well, I think we knew it was feasible.

The problems for the 55 people included - not understanding the process fully, not being able to access help via the helpline. and the usual crapola that you'd expect from anything the DWP dreams up.

The service providers working with the claimants were asked if having the card gave them "more direction in life".

FFS.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Margaret Beckett, the Labour MP who was environment secretary at the time, sounded almost tearful as she told MPs that people who voted for the war (like her) had to take responsibility for what they did. But did Cameron agree that terrorists also needed to take responsibility for what they did.

Well yes, in the same way that if you abolished the police, criminals would still be responsible for their individual crimes...

It's an important point though. You often see victims from car bombs treated like British troops killed them.

[yahyah]

I suppose today kyboshes Angela Eagle's chances ?
Owen Smith became an MP in 2010.

[AnatolyKasparov]

Ian Austin MP calling somebody else a "disgrace". Mate, here's a mirror.

[TR'sGhost]

I suppose today kyboshes Angela Eagle's chances ?
Owen Smith became an MP in 2010.

I would have thought her getting an internet domain ready for her leadership bid days before the attempted coup while still saying she supported Corbyn hasn't done her any favours.

Neither has her "I'm standing", "No, I'm not standing", "cancel that, I'm standing", "or am I..." dithering.

Whether she's simply deceitful and incompetent, or deceitful and doesn't fancy trashing what's left of her career by standing against Corbyn and getting heavily defeated, or rampantly opportunist or even just incompetent I don't know.

What I do know is that she fails to impress me very much. Then again, none of the PLP plotters-in-chief are exactly appealing either.

[ephemerid]

Show and I were watching BBC Parliament - and Bob Stewart asked if the injured service personnel from Iraq and many other conflicts could be assured that they would be "looked after".

The departing GRPPFGTCC said yes. By which he means they will be subjected to ESA and PIP assessments, not necessarily be given priority NHS treatment, and generally left to charity.

Thank whatever god or gods you believe in for the Royal British Legion, SSAFA, Help For Heroes, and all the other charities, carers, families, and friends who do the governments' job.

The Armed Forces Covenant - "The Armed Forces Covenant is a promise by the nation ensuring that those who serve or who have served in the armed forces, and their families, are treated fairly".
Tell that to the 9,000 ex-servicemen who are homeless; the ex-servicemen unable to access MH services for PTSD and who are over-represented in alcohol misuse statistics; tell that to the war widow whose pension is £135 a week.

I despise Cameron. I am glad he's going - my only caveat to that is that he will get away with what he's done to my country. Effing spiv.