Saturday 28th & Sunday 29th November 2015

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 11:54 am

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Willow904 wrote:This is Cameron's war, Corbyn can't hope to stop it however right he may be in his wish to do so.
Ed did. Corbyn's USP is that he is his own man, not a 'professional' politician, that was what endeared him to the people who overwhelmingly voted for him as Leader; but there are times where you have to compromise, where you have to be able to play the realpolitik games to stop some of Cameron's more outrageous idiocies, and it is questionable whether Jezza is capable of doing that without alienating those who voted for him ...... actually, whether he is capable of doing that full stop.

When Ed stopped Cameron, it was Cameron's idea. The US hadn't asked us to bomb Syria, let alone the French. There was a bigger government rebellion on the cards also. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire Corbyn's principles in this, I understand his desire to stop this bombing campaign, it's wrong and will be a disaster, but I don't think it's worth risking the Labour party over it as there's less chance to stop it this time, in which case maintaining party unity should have been the top priority. If he met with his shadow cabinet and suggested a free vote, would there have been dissent and briefing to the press? What did he say or do that has created this disunity that is damaging the party? I can't understand what's gone wrong, that this has become about Labour, not the government's poor decision to go to war on a widely panned weak argument. This is why I've lost faith in Corbyn, a little. If John McDonnell could see a free vote as the best option early on, why hasn't that already been agreed and the focus thrown back on Cameron's weak case?

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:02 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
refitman wrote:Out of interest, when was Corbyn meant to gain the "moderates" trust? Was is when they were talking about a coup before he'd even been elected? Was it when they refused the offer of Shadow posts and then moaned about not being in positions of power? Was it when they complained about Corbyn making Labour unelectable, but then started talking about throwing the London Mayor bid? Or the Oldham by-election? Has it been when the likes of Danczuk has spent every week dripping bile from Dacre and Murdoch pages?
I see this as a separate and more serious issue. The collapse in trust and communication that is happening now is between Corbyn and his shadow cabinet, the MPs who were willing to give him a chance. Not the plotting Blairite backbenchers, who don't matter, as such, because they are backbenchers and if they rebel won't be seen as challenge to Corbyn's authority. Given the weakness of Cameron's case to bomb, how is it Corbyn can't convince his team to take a position to insist on a proper plan before supporting bombing? Is it because Corbyn has been saying he won't support bombing under any circumstances? I could see how such inflexibility could cause problems. I'm also concerned that Diane Abbott seems to have been making such a case on tv, on behalf of who exactly? Herself, Corbyn, Labour? Hilary Benn should be the first person Corbyn should be sharing his thinking with and should be responsible for talking to the media on the issue.

John McDonnell appears to have now made an appearance on tv, which I'm about to go read now. Someone needs to get a grip. Let's hope he has something useful to contribute.

Sadly the Labour rebels are using Syria as part of their agenda, and I think it's disgusting. If they force a leadership election then I'm off. And it's not flouncing. I refuse to give their disgraceful behaviour legitimacy, and have no other effective way of showing my displeasure.
And from what I've read on Twitter there are an awful lot of people that are going to do the same.

France has specifically asked the UK to back them in this. Some Labour MPs may genuinely feel doing so is the right thing to do, rather than just an excuse to attack Corbyn. And these aren't rebels. These are MPs who accepted the members vote and accepted a place in Corbyn's cabinet in a genuine attempt to respect the democracy within the party. These are shadow cabinet members who have expressed a desire for Cameron to present a follow up plan and other doubts about the action. If Corbyn can't reach out to them and come to some kind of cabinet consensus, his leadership can't work. Anyway, a free vote appears to be on the cards. The situation may still be resolved.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:06 pm

Actually I think myself that "je suis Paris" is one of the best arguments for our getting involved militarily. Solidarity is important, but it has to be weighed against other things.

And I have no doubt that some Labour MPs who back action do so totally sincerely. I think that JC fully accepts that too.

But not everybody, however. People briefing hacks that they intend to vote with Cameron "to spite Corbyn" are completely out of order, I hope everybody here can agree.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:07 pm

RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
refitman wrote:Out of interest, when was Corbyn meant to gain the "moderates" trust? Was is when they were talking about a coup before he'd even been elected? Was it when they refused the offer of Shadow posts and then moaned about not being in positions of power? Was it when they complained about Corbyn making Labour unelectable, but then started talking about throwing the London Mayor bid? Or the Oldham by-election? Has it been when the likes of Danczuk has spent every week dripping bile from Dacre and Murdoch pages?
Since when was Danczuk moderate? Have to admit I've been getting a touch twitchy of late about the use of the word "moderate" (the inverted commas being germane) almost as a term of abuse, lumping in everybody from Kippers (in all but name) like Danczuk to supporters of genuine moderates like Creasy, Burnham et al; it is akin to the way some threw around the label "Red Tories", as a pejorative label for all Labour supporters, in the run up to GE.

"Moderate", "Red Tory", "Corbynite" ....... are these labels really helping, as we try to find a way for the different wings of the Labour Party 'broad church' to work more harmoniously?
The problem with 'moderate' is that this is the term the media is using to refer to the right of the Labour party, which includes figures like Danczuk and Milburn as much as it does people like Tristram Hunt. They use the term to imply that anyone anti-Corbyn is reasonable and widely palatable, and because the more accurate term 'Blairite' is poison. It sets them against the so-called 'hard left'. It is therefore entirely understandable that people have quickly come to use the term 'moderate' as pejorative. It was the media and the 'moderates' themselves who made the term into a weapon, they can hardly complain when it is turned back on them.

Firstly, when did we on FTN start dancing to the media's tune? Secondly:

...... they can hardly complain when it is turned back on them.

"They"? Another instance of labeling.

The person 'complaining' about this usage of the word is me - actually, I am simply suggesting none of these labels is helpful - and I certainly don't consider myself to be in the same category as Selfie Simon. Maybe a little thought before we use these labels could take some of the unhelpful heat out of the debate here? Just my two pennorth .......

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:07 pm

Just to add to the general sense of disarray, I've just received (through the post) a Labour Party membership renewal request. I renewed just a fairly short while ago (you may remember that I posted here that the on-line mechanism wasn't working for me) but long enough ago for it not to have "crossed in the post" as it were. Is the whole shebang in some sort of melt-down? I may be over-reacting, but I find it adds to my feelings of dismay.

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:18 pm

I think you are in this case - lets not forget the party's membership department has been rather busier than usual recently

(not just with all the people joining, but a not insignificant number of departures too)

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:23 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually I think myself that "je suis Paris" is one of the best arguments for our getting involved militarily. Solidarity is important, but it has to be weighed against other things.

And I have no doubt that some Labour MPs who back action do so totally sincerely. I think that JC fully accepts that too.

But not everybody, however. People briefing hacks that they intend to vote with Cameron "to spite Corbyn" are completely out of order, I hope everybody here can agree.

Which Labour MP are we talking about? Are they in the shadow cabinet? I haven't heard this myself. I've had a quick look at some of the papers' stories on this but can't find it.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:34 pm

Rebecca wrote:
TobyLatimer wrote:His column in today's Times goes further and says Corbyn is right.
CU4i6YTWUAAHQr4.jpg

Not a very good scan though, https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CU4i6YTWUAAHQr4.jpg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
The thing is,I have seen no serious opinion saying that Cameron is right.
Corbyn is right,he is,but ,seeing as he is Corbyn he must be wrong.
Why is this happening?

Good question.

Good-afternoon, everyone.

HindleA · Post by **HindleA** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:40 pm

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-activist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

David Cameron backs Grant Shapps amid scandal over activist
Prime minister has ‘full confidence’ in former Conservative party co-chairman, who has been urged to resign by father of blogger found dead after allegations of bullying

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:40 pm

Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually I think myself that "je suis Paris" is one of the best arguments for our getting involved militarily. Solidarity is important, but it has to be weighed against other things.

And I have no doubt that some Labour MPs who back action do so totally sincerely. I think that JC fully accepts that too.

But not everybody, however. People briefing hacks that they intend to vote with Cameron "to spite Corbyn" are completely out of order, I hope everybody here can agree.
Which Labour MP are we talking about? Are they in the shadow cabinet? I haven't heard this myself. I've had a quick look at some of the papers' stories on this but can't find it.

As (almost) ever, they are anonymous. Probably not shadow cabinet as it would likely have been stated if they were.

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 12:48 pm

Grant Shapps resigns. His position is to be taken up by Michael Green.

: ScreenShot01140.jpg (14.52 KiB) Viewed 5535 times

TobyLatimer · Post by **TobyLatimer** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:01 pm

Although I'd prefer this

: ScreenShot01140.jpg (23.55 KiB) Viewed 5522 times

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:09 pm

refitman wrote:Out of interest, when was Corbyn meant to gain the "moderates" trust? Was is when they were talking about a coup before he'd even been elected? Was it when they refused the offer of Shadow posts and then moaned about not being in positions of power? Was it when they complained about Corbyn making Labour unelectable, but then started talking about throwing the London Mayor bid? Or the Oldham by-election? Has it been when the likes of Danczuk has spent every week dripping bile from Dacre and Murdoch pages?

You're obviously another Corbyn cultist Dan, even though you didn't even vote for him

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:22 pm

Afternoon all.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-activist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said the other day the one thing you simply cannot do when leading an organisation is to ignore something like this because it will come back and bite you on the arse at some point.

I've done two of these and know that investigating them is horrible because of having to sort out conflicting claims but necessary.

I have no sympathy for them. What the parents of that lad must be thinking hearing all of this coming out now...

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:22 pm

What descriptions do you think we should use Grim ?
Or abandon any differentiation at all....

I use '' '' around the word moderate because most of the people described as such are not actually centre ground.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:26 pm

Willow904 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
Willow904 wrote:This is Cameron's war, Corbyn can't hope to stop it however right he may be in his wish to do so.
Ed did. Corbyn's USP is that he is his own man, not a 'professional' politician, that was what endeared him to the people who overwhelmingly voted for him as Leader; but there are times where you have to compromise, where you have to be able to play the realpolitik games to stop some of Cameron's more outrageous idiocies, and it is questionable whether Jezza is capable of doing that without alienating those who voted for him ...... actually, whether he is capable of doing that full stop.
When Ed stopped Cameron, it was Cameron's idea. The US hadn't asked us to bomb Syria, let alone the French. There was a bigger government rebellion on the cards also. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire Corbyn's principles in this, I understand his desire to stop this bombing campaign, it's wrong and will be a disaster, but I don't think it's worth risking the Labour party over it as there's less chance to stop it this time, in which case maintaining party unity should have been the top priority. If he met with his shadow cabinet and suggested a free vote, would there have been dissent and briefing to the press? What did he say or do that has created this disunity that is damaging the party? I can't understand what's gone wrong, that this has become about Labour, not the government's poor decision to go to war on a widely panned weak argument. This is why I've lost faith in Corbyn, a little. If John McDonnell could see a free vote as the best option early on, why hasn't that already been agreed and the focus thrown back on Cameron's weak case?

Some of the reports I've heard since the PLP / Shadow Cabinet meetings on Syria appear to be saying that some of the angry with Corbyn MPs are angry because a free vote might be allowed and they think there must be a collective shadow cabinet / party position on matters of national security - that Labour isn't credible without a clear, unified position. Some here also share that view. I don't - I think such a big decision should be a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote. Whatever our respective views - it should be above taking swipes at individuals and party dynamics. It should be about Syria and Cameron's case.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:30 pm

RogerOThornhill wrote:Afternoon all.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/201 ... l-activist" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

As I said the other day the one thing you simply cannot do when leading an organisation is to ignore something like this because it will come back and bite you on the arse at some point.

I've done two of these and know that investigating them is horrible because of having to sort out conflicting claims but necessary.

I have no sympathy for them. What the parents of that lad must be thinking hearing all of this coming out now...

Yes - it must be absolutely awful. The long piece in the G was truly shocking. And I'm finding myself sickened - even more than I already was - as more and more allegations and details are set out that this sort of sleasy, nasty behaviour and tactics played a pivotal role in the election that Cameron 'won'. It screams SPIV job all the way through.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:31 pm

norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 3m3 minutes ago
Grant Shapps has resigned as minister following Tory youth wing bullying claims

The 'full confidence in' hammer has struck again then.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:36 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually I think myself that "je suis Paris" is one of the best arguments for our getting involved militarily. Solidarity is important, but it has to be weighed against other things.

And I have no doubt that some Labour MPs who back action do so totally sincerely. I think that JC fully accepts that too.

But not everybody, however. People briefing hacks that they intend to vote with Cameron "to spite Corbyn" are completely out of order, I hope everybody here can agree.

Argghhh. I suspected as much.
But on the other hand, are these people real ?....any journo can make up a quote can't they ?
Not sure it is possible to really assess what is real and not at the moment.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:38 pm

Was busy cussing about my reply to RR's PM going into oblivion as I pressed the wrong key, but John McDonnell just got a big round of applause on Any Questions re Syria.
Unfortunately I didn't hear what he said to merit it.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:42 pm

yahyah wrote:What descriptions do you think we should use Grim ?
Or abandon any differentiation at all.....

Personally I think the latter would be preferable. As a society we've become label happy but, unlike pigeons, people are too nuanced to fit easily into holes.

yahyah wrote:I use '' '' around the word moderate because most of the people described as such are not actually centre ground.

Yes, described (as RS pointed out) as such by our friends in the Fourth Estate, in an (obviously successful) attempt to dictate the narrative. Aren't we better than that here?

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:43 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
norman smith ‏@BBCNormanS 3m3 minutes ago
Grant Shapps has resigned as minister following Tory youth wing bullying claims
The 'full confidence in' hammer has struck again then.

So how long before Feldman is forced to quit as party chairman?

If Warsi knew than so must have he have done too.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:44 pm

yahyah wrote:Was busy cussing about my reply to RR's PM going into oblivion as I pressed the wrong key, but John McDonnell just got a big round of applause on Any Questions re Syria.
Unfortunately I didn't hear what he said to merit it.

He was asking people not to mistake democracy for division - that there was debate going on in the party and people should be allowed to make their decision independent of party pressures. That there were also differing views in the Conservative party. Then there was an interjection from Dimbleby saying but Cameron has got a postion and his cabinet agree it ... to which McDonnell said but he has said he will only bomb Syria with the consent of parliament and is going to put it to a full parliamentary vote so the HoC overall gets to decide - that's democracy. And then there was the applause.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:44 pm

PorFavor wrote:Just to add to the general sense of disarray, I've just received (through the post) a Labour Party membership renewal request. I renewed just a fairly short while ago (you may remember that I posted here that the on-line mechanism wasn't working for me) but long enough ago for it not to have "crossed in the post" as it were. Is the whole shebang in some sort of melt-down? I may be over-reacting, but I find it adds to my feelings of dismay.

We've got standing orders for payment it just seems to continue regardless.

I spoke to someone in the membership department yesterday, at length, about what happens when you leave, whether anyone actually collates what your reason is.
They do send you a form apparently, and the reasons are noted but not made public.

Does anyone know exactly who within the party has access to the leaving the party reason statistics ?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:50 pm

Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:52 pm

Paul Waugh Retweeted
Harry Cole ‏@MrHarryCole 26m26 minutes ago
Understand Shapps was key to drafting of the letters of praise from PM to Clarke and DC now "apoplectic".

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:54 pm

yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !

But potentially less misunderstandings and ill feeling?

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:55 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Paul Waugh Retweeted
Harry Cole ‏@MrHarryCole 26m26 minutes ago
Understand Shapps was key to drafting of the letters of praise from PM to Clarke and DC now "apoplectic".

I bet Cameron's gone a deep shade of coqueliot !

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:56 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !
But potentially less misunderstandings and ill feeling?

Yes, but harder work

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:57 pm

Ten days is a long time in politics.
November 18th Toady Young was tweeting that the Tory suicide & alleged blackmail & pimping out was 'not exactly page one stuff'

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:57 pm

Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 3m3 minutes ago
Shapps resigns over Tory bullying scandal: a tale of a party’s desperation for ground troops http://bit.ly/1Om3KGx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... More widely than the way Shapps and his colleagues reacted to complaints, is the question of why Clarke, a man widely reputed in Tory circles as poisonous, became so indispensable to the Conservative campaigning machine, even after his association had highlighted his unsuitability to be a candidate after the 2010 election. The answer is that the Tory party was desperate for ground troops to fight Labour, and with a small and often elderly membership, this was hard to come by. It seems that their desperation stopped them asking the sorts of questions that an organisation with the luxury of many footsoldiers should have asked. Clarke being a liability may have looked rather less of a threat compared to being utterly swamped by Labour activists in key seats. But it’s not just Clarke, who denies bullying Johnson. Those involved in Tory youth politics say bullying was rife and not limited to one man...

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 1:57 pm

TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Since when was Danczuk moderate? Have to admit I've been getting a touch twitchy of late about the use of the word "moderate" (the inverted commas being germane) almost as a term of abuse, lumping in everybody from Kippers (in all but name) like Danczuk to supporters of genuine moderates like Creasy, Burnham et al; it is akin to the way some threw around the label "Red Tories", as a pejorative label for all Labour supporters, in the run up to GE.

"Moderate", "Red Tory", "Corbynite" ....... are these labels really helping, as we try to find a way for the different wings of the Labour Party 'broad church' to work more harmoniously?
The problem with 'moderate' is that this is the term the media is using to refer to the right of the Labour party, which includes figures like Danczuk and Milburn as much as it does people like Tristram Hunt. They use the term to imply that anyone anti-Corbyn is reasonable and widely palatable, and because the more accurate term 'Blairite' is poison. It sets them against the so-called 'hard left'. It is therefore entirely understandable that people have quickly come to use the term 'moderate' as pejorative. It was the media and the 'moderates' themselves who made the term into a weapon, they can hardly complain when it is turned back on them.
Firstly, when did we on FTN start dancing to the media's tune? Secondly:
...... they can hardly complain when it is turned back on them.
"They"? Another instance of labeling.

The person 'complaining' about this usage of the word is me - actually, I am simply suggesting none of these labels is helpful - and I certainly don't consider myself to be in the same category as Selfie Simon. Maybe a little thought before we use these labels could take some of the unhelpful heat out of the debate here? Just my two pennorth .......

(my bold)
Yes, thank you!

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:02 pm

Have just twigged how to stop a pic being too large and skewing the page.
Remove the words 'large' at the end of the link.

RogerOThornhill · Post by **RogerOThornhill** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:03 pm

yahyah wrote:

Ten days is a long time in politics.
November 18th Toady Young was tweeting that the Tory suicide & alleged blackmail & pimping out was 'not exactly page one stuff'

Reminds me of Kenneth Wolstenhome in the WC Final 1966...."It is now!"

Willow904 · Post by **Willow904** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:03 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote: Ed did. Corbyn's USP is that he is his own man, not a 'professional' politician, that was what endeared him to the people who overwhelmingly voted for him as Leader; but there are times where you have to compromise, where you have to be able to play the realpolitik games to stop some of Cameron's more outrageous idiocies, and it is questionable whether Jezza is capable of doing that without alienating those who voted for him ...... actually, whether he is capable of doing that full stop.
When Ed stopped Cameron, it was Cameron's idea. The US hadn't asked us to bomb Syria, let alone the French. There was a bigger government rebellion on the cards also. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire Corbyn's principles in this, I understand his desire to stop this bombing campaign, it's wrong and will be a disaster, but I don't think it's worth risking the Labour party over it as there's less chance to stop it this time, in which case maintaining party unity should have been the top priority. If he met with his shadow cabinet and suggested a free vote, would there have been dissent and briefing to the press? What did he say or do that has created this disunity that is damaging the party? I can't understand what's gone wrong, that this has become about Labour, not the government's poor decision to go to war on a widely panned weak argument. This is why I've lost faith in Corbyn, a little. If John McDonnell could see a free vote as the best option early on, why hasn't that already been agreed and the focus thrown back on Cameron's weak case?
Some of the reports I've heard since the PLP / Shadow Cabinet meetings on Syria appear to be saying that some of the angry with Corbyn MPs are angry because a free vote might be allowed and they think there must be a collective shadow cabinet / party position on matters of national security - that Labour isn't credible without a clear, unified position. Some here also share that view. I don't - I think such a big decision should be a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote. Whatever our respective views - it should be above taking swipes at individuals and party dynamics. It should be about Syria and Cameron's case.

Thanks for the response. It answers some questions. There are clearly concerns among some about the "Labour a threat to security" narrative currently being constructed by the Tories and that it might have the same effect as the "spent all the money" narrative. I'm not sure I agree with that. It would be different if our ally Turkey hadn't shot down a Russian jet. The lack of clarity over who we would be fighting in Syria and on whose side, makes this a question of the PM's competence in whether he has a clear and legit plan (neither the UN or the plea of self defence gives a mandate to attack Assad, for instance). I don't think a free vote for Labour MPs would have any lasting impact on Labour's security reputation given the complexity of this specific issue. Labour should be hammering the point about the need for a proper follow up plan home, using people like Dan Jarvis to explain why Cameron's proposals fall short, not sending out questionnaires and sniping at each other.

yahyah · Post by **yahyah** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:04 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Isabel Hardman ‏@IsabelHardman 3m3 minutes ago
Shapps resigns over Tory bullying scandal: a tale of a party’s desperation for ground troops http://bit.ly/1Om3KGx" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

... More widely than the way Shapps and his colleagues reacted to complaints, is the question of why Clarke, a man widely reputed in Tory circles as poisonous, became so indispensable to the Conservative campaigning machine, even after his association had highlighted his unsuitability to be a candidate after the 2010 election. The answer is that the Tory party was desperate for ground troops to fight Labour, and with a small and often elderly membership, this was hard to come by. It seems that their desperation stopped them asking the sorts of questions that an organisation with the luxury of many footsoldiers should have asked. Clarke being a liability may have looked rather less of a threat compared to being utterly swamped by Labour activists in key seats. But it’s not just Clarke, who denies bullying Johnson. Those involved in Tory youth politics say bullying was rife and not limited to one man...

I think this whole sad and sordid mess may end up not fully explained.
Just like the question 'is it possible phone hacking was used to help win an election'.

Post by **refitman** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:04 pm

yahyah wrote:Have just twigged how to stop a pic being too large and skewing the page.
Remove the words 'large' at the end of the link.

If only someone had written a handy guide? *cough* http://flythenest.org/viewtopic.php?p=5802#p5802" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false; *cough*

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:08 pm

yahyah wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !
But potentially less misunderstandings and ill feeling?
Yes, but harder work

You're a jewel, yahyah.
Some of the most valuable work you do is gardening, in my opinion.
What is cultivated is grown and harvested.
There's no shortcut.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:08 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:
Willow904 wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:Actually I think myself that "je suis Paris" is one of the best arguments for our getting involved militarily. Solidarity is important, but it has to be weighed against other things.

And I have no doubt that some Labour MPs who back action do so totally sincerely. I think that JC fully accepts that too.

But not everybody, however. People briefing hacks that they intend to vote with Cameron "to spite Corbyn" are completely out of order, I hope everybody here can agree.
Which Labour MP are we talking about? Are they in the shadow cabinet? I haven't heard this myself. I've had a quick look at some of the papers' stories on this but can't find it.
As (almost) ever, they are anonymous. Probably not shadow cabinet as it would likely have been stated if they were.

Do we even have a direct quote?

Don't assume that people who support Corbyn can't stick out anonymous quotes too. And don't rule out Chinese Whispers?

I saw Lindsey German saying this as well.

TheGrimSqueaker · Post by **TheGrimSqueaker** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:09 pm

yahyah wrote:
TheGrimSqueaker wrote:
yahyah wrote:Fair enough Grim.
Will refer to the individuals by name in future but it may make for some long lists !
But potentially less misunderstandings and ill feeling?

Yes, but harder work

To (almost) quote the words of JFK:

We choose to do these things, not because they are easy, but because they are hard, because that goal will serve to organize and measure the best of our energies and skills, because that challenge is one that we are willing to accept, one we are unwilling to postpone, and one which we intend to win, and the others, too.

At the risk of continuing to flog the deceased equine, the Fourth Estate take the easy option. If we aren't better than them then we are wasting our time & energy.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:21 pm

Keith Vaz ‏@Keith_Vaz 2m2 minutes ago
People should stop attacking @JeremyCorbyn4PM. These are issues of national security which require cool heads and a calm debate.

Good gracious.

PorFavor · Post by **PorFavor** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:25 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Keith Vaz ‏@Keith_Vaz 2m2 minutes ago
People should stop attacking @JeremyCorbyn4PM. These are issues of national security which require cool heads and a calm debate.
Good gracious.

Blimey. I didn't see that coming.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:26 pm

If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

Tubby Isaacs · Post by **Tubby Isaacs** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:29 pm

AnatolyKasparov wrote:I think you are in this case - lets not forget the party's membership department has been rather busier than usual recently

(not just with all the people joining, but a not insignificant number of departures too)

Have lots of people really left?

AnatolyKasparov · Post by **AnatolyKasparov** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:32 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:
AnatolyKasparov wrote:I think you are in this case - lets not forget the party's membership department has been rather busier than usual recently

(not just with all the people joining, but a not insignificant number of departures too)
Have lots of people really left?

Some have, yes - a couple have even had Graun columns to expound on it at tedious length

Nowhere near as many who have joined, for sure - but they are likely what has stopped total membership topping 400k thus far.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:32 pm

ohsocynical wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@Rebecca

Thanks, as I say probably nothing much but I have been stripping mouldy wallpaper in my bathroom this week and I just wonder whether that may have affected her. You know what cats are like and she's not used to wandering off and poking her nose into everything, they've only got a roof terrace and rooftops to wander.

'And on the subject of mould or condensation, I have to have the windows open every morning to dry the flat out, especially the bathroom. Brrr! I do use the heating afterwards though with the thermostat set at ten degrees.
The secret to any damp room is when the heat on you should leave a window cracked open, otherwise if you keep the window shut as it dries it causes moisture which then has nowhere to go.
That is if you can afford to do that.

I don't have the heating on at night, but always keep the bedroom window open a crack except on the very coldest nights. Keeping the air circulating is important.

I didn't ever have problems with damp until I stopped work to care for Rosie.
Unheated homes become cold/damp homes in my experience,and no way could I,,and thousands of people,afford to have the heating on during the day,let alone night.
Luckily,my lovely woodburner keeps us toasty warm,and we really only use one room in the day.
At night,jump into a warm bed with a hwb.

rebeccariots2 · Post by **rebeccariots2** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:34 pm

Rebecca wrote:
ohsocynical wrote:
utopiandreams wrote:@Rebecca

Thanks, as I say probably nothing much but I have been stripping mouldy wallpaper in my bathroom this week and I just wonder whether that may have affected her. You know what cats are like and she's not used to wandering off and poking her nose into everything, they've only got a roof terrace and rooftops to wander.

'And on the subject of mould or condensation, I have to have the windows open every morning to dry the flat out, especially the bathroom. Brrr! I do use the heating afterwards though with the thermostat set at ten degrees.
The secret to any damp room is when the heat on you should leave a window cracked open, otherwise if you keep the window shut as it dries it causes moisture which then has nowhere to go.
That is if you can afford to do that.

I don't have the heating on at night, but always keep the bedroom window open a crack except on the very coldest nights. Keeping the air circulating is important.
I didn't ever have problems with damp until I stopped work to care for Rosie.
Unheated homes become cold/damp homes in my experience,and no way could I,,and thousands of people,afford to have the heating on during the day,let alone night.
Luckily,my lovely woodburner keeps us toasty warm,and we really only use one room in the day.
At night,jump into a warm bed with a hwb.

I wondered - just for a second - what a hwb was. Nearly had my eyebrows raising there.

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:43 pm

Tubby Isaacs wrote:If we think of Corbyn as PM now, with a free hand, how do you think he'd handle relations with France? He's talked about reforming the EU from inside, and he could pretty much kiss goodbye to French help if he didn't back them now, or give them practical support in some way. He could add them to the entirety of Eastern Europe with his anti-NATO stuff.

Can you imagine him achieving much? I can't, really. His school of leftist have always been so hostile to the EU, NATO etc, because they think in terms of themselves taking principled decisions in isolation. Internationalism is talking to people like them in other countries, even if they have zero importance.

It isn't really like that.

Well,Tubby,we can all imagine 'what if 'events with outcomes within the parameters of our own prejudices and experiences.
In the real world we have a PM who is more or less a laughing stock worldwide.(remember the dead pig fucking incident?),who has very little credibility in europe.
So,I will worry about the reality rather than fret about the notion that Corbyn,a backbencher until September,is now PM,Labour having lost the last two GEs.
Maybe,if more leaders were like Corbyn,who won the Ghandi peace prize,the world would be a better place.

citizenJA · Post by **citizenJA** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:43 pm

Willow904 wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Willow904 wrote: When Ed stopped Cameron, it was Cameron's idea. The US hadn't asked us to bomb Syria, let alone the French. There was a bigger government rebellion on the cards also. I guess what I'm saying is that I admire Corbyn's principles in this, I understand his desire to stop this bombing campaign, it's wrong and will be a disaster, but I don't think it's worth risking the Labour party over it as there's less chance to stop it this time, in which case maintaining party unity should have been the top priority. If he met with his shadow cabinet and suggested a free vote, would there have been dissent and briefing to the press? What did he say or do that has created this disunity that is damaging the party? I can't understand what's gone wrong, that this has become about Labour, not the government's poor decision to go to war on a widely panned weak argument. This is why I've lost faith in Corbyn, a little. If John McDonnell could see a free vote as the best option early on, why hasn't that already been agreed and the focus thrown back on Cameron's weak case?
Some of the reports I've heard since the PLP / Shadow Cabinet meetings on Syria appear to be saying that some of the angry with Corbyn MPs are angry because a free vote might be allowed and they think there must be a collective shadow cabinet / party position on matters of national security - that Labour isn't credible without a clear, unified position. Some here also share that view. I don't - I think such a big decision should be a matter of conscience and subject to a free vote. Whatever our respective views - it should be above taking swipes at individuals and party dynamics. It should be about Syria and Cameron's case.
Thanks for the response. It answers some questions. There are clearly concerns among some about the "Labour a threat to security" narrative currently being constructed by the Tories and that it might have the same effect as the "spent all the money" narrative. I'm not sure I agree with that. It would be different if our ally Turkey hadn't shot down a Russian jet. The lack of clarity over who we would be fighting in Syria and on whose side, makes this a question of the PM's competence in whether he has a clear and legit plan (neither the UN or the plea of self defence gives a mandate to attack Assad, for instance). I don't think a free vote for Labour MPs would have any lasting impact on Labour's security reputation given the complexity of this specific issue. Labour should be hammering the point about the need for a proper follow up plan home, using people like Dan Jarvis to explain why Cameron's proposals fall short, not sending out questionnaires and sniping at each other.

Apologies if this has been posted and I've not seen it here. Dave, his Tory government along with a news media supporting a Tory government attempting avoidance of Tory government responsibility by calling out, 'Labour disarray' is wholly unconscionable, though it's unsurprising. It's the main feature of of nearly six years of Tory leadership, much to the sorrow of most people in the UK suffering because of this infantile government. Dangerous as hell, too.

"My five tests for backing military action in Syria"
Dan Jarvis
Monday 23 November 2015

"First, we need clarity about the difference that extending Britain’s intervention will make to hastening Isis’s defeat. Our role should not solely be justified by solidarity, but on how we can make a practical difference.

Second, any military action must be accompanied by a diplomatic plan to broker a political agreement to end the conflict in Syria. We cannot divorce our action from the wider context of the civil war that has created a haven for Isis. ...[W]e will not be able to defeat Isis solely from the air. In the longer term a presence will be needed on the ground to keep the peace. This needs to be led by troops from the region – otherwise we risk reinforcing Isis’s narrative.

Third, we should be using our economic power as well as military resources. Isis is trading like a state, so we need to follow the money. That should include economic sanctions, cutting off the finances and targeting the human trafficking operations that fund its bloodshed.

Fourth, the prime minister must provide assurances that post-conflict reconstruction is not being treated as an afterthought. Syria is a failed state with broken institutions, and will need to be rebuilt. The fact that many former commanders from Saddam Hussein’s army now occupy senior roles within Isis is testament to the failures of the “de-Ba’athification” process in Iraq. We must not repeat these mistakes. Military action should go hand in hand with humanitarian relief and a development effort to create a stable Syrian administration.

Finally, what makes Isis more dangerous than other foes we have faced is that it has proved itself capable of reaching across borders and poisoning the minds of our own citizens. I hope, therefore, that any proposal laid before parliament will include measures to strengthen community cohesion, give our police the resources they need, and prevent extremism from finding a voice in our communities."

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfre ... amic-state

Rebecca · Post by **Rebecca** » Sat 28 Nov, 2015 2:45 pm

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Rebecca wrote:
ohsocynical wrote: The secret to any damp room is when the heat on you should leave a window cracked open, otherwise if you keep the window shut as it dries it causes moisture which then has nowhere to go.
That is if you can afford to do that.

I don't have the heating on at night, but always keep the bedroom window open a crack except on the very coldest nights. Keeping the air circulating is important.
I didn't ever have problems with damp until I stopped work to care for Rosie.
Unheated homes become cold/damp homes in my experience,and no way could I,,and thousands of people,afford to have the heating on during the day,let alone night.
Luckily,my lovely woodburner keeps us toasty warm,and we really only use one room in the day.
At night,jump into a warm bed with a hwb.
I wondered - just for a second - what a hwb was. Nearly had my eyebrows raising there.

Oh really!I WAS going to write 'hottie',my usual way of referring to them,but worried someone would get the wrong idea!