FlyTheNest

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:26 am**

Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:34 am**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?

I'd be interested in this too. My understanding up to this point had been he'd thought that expansion of NATO with Poland, considering Ukraine etc had been a mistake. Ditto allowing NATO to dictate minimum defence spending by its members.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:38 am**

Morning all,

Just returned from mini break to Cornwall to find three leaflets on my door - Kendall didn't even bother to send a mailshot. For some reason, I should be swayed by the fact that David Walliams is supporting Andy Burnham.

Disappointed to see Yvette Cooper trying the desperate fingertips approach of Miliband. I've got no new policies, so this thing that Labour did that was good; I'll bring that back. Absolutely no reason why, if Surestart has sound financial reasons for existing - and isn't dominated by middle class mothers inadvertently intimidating the target audience - it couldn't fit under one of the other packages.

Andy Burnham came across as Continuity Miliband, saying that the problem seems to be that Labour weren't contrite enough. Nothing will ever be enough for his detractors, and donning sackcloth and ashes just validates their arguments. Like the focus on technical colleges, although we do have them at the moment; they're called Studios, or university technical colleges, and are the only good thing about the Free Schools Network. A lot of the time when politicians talk about focussing on something, they mean getting the media to pay attention to something that's happening already.

http://studioschoolstrust.org/node/3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
http://www.utcolleges.org/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Lots of ankle flashing about 'considering' things like Land Value Tax, reintroducing the 50p tax rate and returning the railways to public ownership, but still no bold vision - and there can't be, because he was in the cabinet and shadow cabinet, so he's hamstrung by association.

And then there was Corbyn. A clear statement of beliefs and principles; only a few broad brush policies, allowing himself to be guided by events, so he isn't held hostage in five years' time and a free acknowledgement that an entire programme for a country cannot spring fully formed from the head of a Party Leader, but that we are in a period of opposition, and that we have time to develop and justify policies, rather than throwing bread to try and entice votes. Plus, he refuses to let the personal be a part of politics, and that's something we desperately need.

Also, I had an idea about a Galaxy Quest style film starring Iron Maiden who are dragged into being reluctant Demon Hunters. Includes scenes where Bruce Dickinson both swordfights and pilots a small passenger jet through a hellstorm; Maybe Adrian Smith tackles a giant coelacanth as well. May or may not be a musical. Coming to a Kickstarter near you.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:40 am**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?

Sorry - no.

But I found this at opendemocracy -

Questions over NATO

Anti-imperialism trumps other factors too. Take Corbyn’s approach to NATO, which Labour helped establish. Last year, Corbyn berated the 'enormous expansion of NATO into a global force' and urged a 'serious debate about Britain’s overall defence and foreign policy' (including the nuclear deterrent) as 'NATO membership has brought us enormous levels of military expenditure and…involved us in countless conflicts.' He specifically challenged sending troops to Poland, Estonia and Ukraine and, while he would not 'condone Russian behaviour or expansion,' he said 'it is not unprovoked.' He told the Guardian last week that 'I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybodys else’s expansion. But there has got to be some serious discussions about de-escalating the military crisis in central Europe. Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.'

There's no indication, that I could see, of when these words were uttered - but uttered they were (I assume). I tend to agree with him.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ign-policy

Edited to add

"No indication of when etc" - apart, of course, from the words "last year"!

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:41 am**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?

There is a lot along these lines

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-nato/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is pretty typical of Corbyn's oeuvre.

His website is a very useful resource. No doubt the Tories have archived it all.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:43 am**

StephenDolan wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
I'd be interested in this too. My understanding up to this point had been he'd thought that expansion of NATO with Poland, considering Ukraine etc had been a mistake. Ditto allowing NATO to dictate minimum defence spending by its members.

At the risk of descending into "let me google that for you" condescension:
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-nato/

I do not believe in the continuation of defence alliances that have within them a built-in accelerator of cost and of danger, as well as massive pressures from the arms and other industries to sell more of their goods, when the needs of the world are health, education, food and housing. Those are the issues that we should prioritise, not weapons of mass destruction. I realise that this is a minority position in the Chamber today but I am not actually alone among the wider public in holding those views.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:43 am**

PorFavor wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
Sorry - no.

But I found this at opendemocracy -

Questions over NATO

Anti-imperialism trumps other factors too. Take Corbyn’s approach to NATO, which Labour helped establish. Last year, Corbyn berated the 'enormous expansion of NATO into a global force' and urged a 'serious debate about Britain’s overall defence and foreign policy' (including the nuclear deterrent) as 'NATO membership has brought us enormous levels of military expenditure and…involved us in countless conflicts.' He specifically challenged sending troops to Poland, Estonia and Ukraine and, while he would not 'condone Russian behaviour or expansion,' he said 'it is not unprovoked.' He told the Guardian last week that 'I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybodys else’s expansion. But there has got to be some serious discussions about de-escalating the military crisis in central Europe. Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.'

There's no indication, that I could see, of when these words were uttered - but uttered they were (I assume). I tend to agree with him.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ign-policy

Good of him not to condone Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:45 am**

TobyLatimer wrote:Live blog now up at the Graun, for those who venture there http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blo ... rs-edition

I just ventured there Toby ... and one of the first comments I see is NicholasB telling people that Jeremy Corbyn is one of the 'stupidest and least educated' MPs in the HoC ... apparently he hasn't written a book (quelle horreur) and doesn't even read much.

I got out quickly ... just checking I'm more or less still in one piece and got my marbles.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:47 am**

l see the troll is still having a laugh.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:47 am**

RobertSnozers wrote:
citizenJA wrote: I've made an excellent rhubarb crumble - how many want ice cream on top?
Lovely! Yes please.

I made an apple crumble last week with Grasmere gingerbread in the topping. Was rather nice though I say so myself. I'd be happy to make one for anyone who will pay for me to go back to the Lake District to get some more gingerbread

A gingerbread topping on an apple crumble! Sounds wonderful. With your permission, I'll try that on a crumble giving RobertSnozers credit for the success.

My friends here, everyone, thank you for posting & keeping the connection alive.

My contributions regarding the Labour leadership contest are bland little posts asking everyone to "vote Labour".
Daily I've confirmation of what I think is the greatest problem facing our country & people - Tory government.
Labour is currently many decent human beings part of a political party originating from our yearning for fairness.
Labour party history includes accomplishments benefiting everyone demonstrating this fairness is possible.

I envision the Labour party cooperating & functioning in government with all left-wing political parties in the UK.
The cooperation between left-wing parties is difficult.

I make an excellent apple-pear pie.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:48 am**

Christopher Hope ‏@christopherhope 1m1 minute ago
Ed Milband's spokesman:“Ed will not be intervening in this contest as he has said right from the start." (more following)

Christopher Hope ‏@christopherhope 1m1 minute ago
Ed Miliband's spokesman: “He is following established precedent and believes that the debate must play out between the candidates.”

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:53 am**

SpinningHugo wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
There is a lot along these lines

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-nato/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is pretty typical of Corbyn's oeuvre.

His website is a very useful resource. No doubt the Tories have archived it all.

"My plea is simply this. We live in a world where a quarter of the world’s population are hungry, if not starving. We live in a world where the environmental consequences of what we are doing are catastrophic for future generations. Yet we are spending a vast amount of money on armaments, which, in turn, encourages others to spend vast amounts of money on armaments. We have a growing arms race between NATO and Russia, despite the apparently cosy chats between members of the Russian Communist party and delegates to the NATO Assembly. I absolutely welcome those and wish they could be videoed and portrayed to the whole world. The same applies to China.

If we are to live in a world of peace in the future, it will not be achieved by spending more and more on weapons. It will be achieved by spending less on weapons and more on dealing with the problems of human misery and human insecurity. I hope that instead of developing a nuclear shield or the missile shield along the eastern flank of NATO, we will instead move towards much better relations with all the power blocs as a way of bringing about a more peaceful world.

I do not believe in the continuation of defence alliances that have within them a built-in accelerator of cost and of danger, as well as massive pressures from the arms and other industries to sell more of their goods, when the needs of the world are health, education, food and housing. Those are the issues that we should prioritise, not weapons of mass destruction. I realise that this is a minority position in the Chamber today but I am not actually alone among the wider public in holding those views."

- Jeremy Corbyn

Thank you for the link.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 11:56 am**

Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of NATO peacefully joining human beings.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:03 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
There is a lot along these lines

http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-nato/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

That is pretty typical of Corbyn's oeuvre.

His website is a very useful resource. No doubt the Tories have archived it all.

I agree Corbyn's website is useful.
I wish the Tories adopted Labour MP Jeremy Corbyn's work & values now to better lead the UK.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:05 pm**

The reason I asked here on NATO rather than googling it as I realise there are lots of articles on it online, but I wondered if anybody actually following his bid had seen it come up.

Thanks to all those who posted links, my conclusion is therefore most likely in favour of leaving NATO.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:05 pm**

DonutHingeParty wrote:
StephenDolan wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
I'd be interested in this too. My understanding up to this point had been he'd thought that expansion of NATO with Poland, considering Ukraine etc had been a mistake. Ditto allowing NATO to dictate minimum defence spending by its members.
At the risk of descending into "let me google that for you" condescension:
http://jeremycorbyn.org.uk/articles/speech-nato/

I do not believe in the continuation of defence alliances that have within them a built-in accelerator of cost and of danger, as well as massive pressures from the arms and other industries to sell more of their goods, when the needs of the world are health, education, food and housing. Those are the issues that we should prioritise, not weapons of mass destruction. I realise that this is a minority position in the Chamber today but I am not actually alone among the wider public in holding those views.

~~I must ask your pardon, DonutHingeParty, I thanked the wrong person for posting the Corbyn website.~~
Thank you for the link.

Edited to add, thank you SpinningHugo & DonutHingeParty for posting Corbyn's website link.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:14 pm**

HindleA wrote:Morning

And verilly,the non enjoiners of the Corbyn road to electoral oblivion will be scrutinised for exhibiting any possible deviance from the chosen path.Long term members will be castigated as betraying their values.Each word will be examined as to pureness of thought by a self selecting committee of his disciples and held up as proof of impurity if found to be wanting.

It simply won't do, will it, A?

Luckily, the majority of the non enjoiners of the Corbyn road to we-have-no-idea-what-will-happen electoral thingummyjig are in fact putting forward some very useful views and are more than willing to discuss things in a mature unspun reasonable fashion.

Hell, they even provide links to real policies! Hell, yeah, they even apologise if they are mistaken!

Being a totally religiously intolerant unthinking pure-of-mind disciple acolyte devotee type, I'm lying when I say I am still persuadeable. Gimme some good old time religion, and if it comes from Yvette, Andy, or Liz (in the form of the Ten Commandments) and I will sing the Hallelujah Chorus all on my own. In parallel thirds, even.

I love your little jokes. You Mad Bastard(TM) you.

Love and kisses.

A. xx

(Nother)

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:16 pm**

Tonibel wrote:I shall be so disappointed/disillusioned if They persuade Ed to come out against Corbyn. I think and hope he's better than that.

CitJA. Yes please, if it's Marmite icecream

I've only vanilla ice cream at the moment but will pick up some Marmite ice cream as soon as I can.
xx
cJA

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:21 pm**

citizenJA wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of NATO peacefully joining human beings.

NATO has kept the peace in Europe for a very long time, and it has done so carefully. For example it has not permitted Ukraine to join, although had it done so Eastern Ukraine would probably not be under attack.

The alliance provides a guarantee that any attack on a member country will be seen as an attack on all and the defence spending commitments (which are modest) are there to make this commitment mean something.

Until recently NATO looked like an anachronism (preserved in part by a reluctance of many governments to allow an EU equivalent), however Russian expansionism has once again made it largely relevant. If you are a Baltic state you are really happy about it. If you remove NATO and the Americans go home the only military power on the continent would be Russia. While they are not the threat of the Cold War era they are an aggressive nationalist dictatorship far stronger than their neighbours.

If history is a guide, the USA was absent in Europe at the start of the 20th century and again in the 20s and 30s. There is no getting away from the fact that Europe totally screwed it up on both occasions. Had America not been involved in stabilising the Balkans in the 90s who knows what the death toll would have been.

A platform of giving up nukes and exiting NATO could be viewed as leaving the country defenceless, because it actually is.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:24 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
yahyah wrote:Am probably ending up trying to be devil's advocate for Kendall.
I don't warm to her, I wouldn't vote for her but I think she has often been attacked unfairly for what are her beliefs.
Yes I don't agree with any of the abusive attacks on any of the candidates (I just don't get why anyone thinks it's OK to do that). I think Kendall started off with the wrong tone for her campaign ... it felt like quite an attack on parts of the party that had worked pretty hard for the election / Miliband at a time when people were feeling very down and tired. And whilst she has rowed back from the berating a bit recently - the early impression sticks. I'm also daft / soft enough to think that I'd like to see a collegiate, respectful approach from the candidates ... rather than the more competitive approach she started with. I know they want to beat the other candidates but showing that you can respect different perspectives and will be able to work with others who hold them is an important element of leadership IMO.

Yes, her attacks on Burnham/Cooper jarred with me and I have no doubt many others.

Of course trying to distinguish herself from two more prominent "mainstream" candidates was always going to be a problem. But the way to combat that was being distinctive in a *positive* way - easier said than done I know, but her actual campaign has done her few favours.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:27 pm**

SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:Can anybody confirm or deny the line casually quoted in the Guardian that Corbyn is in favour of withdrawing from NATO?
Sorry - no.

But I found this at opendemocracy -

Questions over NATO

Anti-imperialism trumps other factors too. Take Corbyn’s approach to NATO, which Labour helped establish. Last year, Corbyn berated the 'enormous expansion of NATO into a global force' and urged a 'serious debate about Britain’s overall defence and foreign policy' (including the nuclear deterrent) as 'NATO membership has brought us enormous levels of military expenditure and…involved us in countless conflicts.' He specifically challenged sending troops to Poland, Estonia and Ukraine and, while he would not 'condone Russian behaviour or expansion,' he said 'it is not unprovoked.' He told the Guardian last week that 'I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybodys else’s expansion. But there has got to be some serious discussions about de-escalating the military crisis in central Europe. Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.'

There's no indication, that I could see, of when these words were uttered - but uttered they were (I assume). I tend to agree with him.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ign-policy
Good of him not to condone Putin's invasion of Ukraine.

Cracking bit of snark there. Was that really called for?

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:30 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:
citizenJA wrote: I've made an excellent rhubarb crumble - how many want ice cream on top?
Lovely! Yes please.

I made an apple crumble last week with Grasmere gingerbread in the topping. Was rather nice though I say so myself. I'd be happy to make one for anyone who will pay for me to go back to the Lake District to get some more gingerbread

Is that the Elizabeth David recipe ?
One of the most delicious things ever, and foolproof.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:35 pm**

Quite a few on the hard left are *much* more pro-Putin than JC has been - so are quite a few on the "old style" right, but that's the stuff of a separate discussion

So yeah, I think it was a tad snarky by Hugo in this instance.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:37 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of NATO peacefully joining human beings.
NATO has kept the peace in Europe for a very long time, and it has done so carefully. For example it has not permitted Ukraine to join, although had it done so Eastern Ukraine would probably not be under attack.

The alliance provides a guarantee that any attack on a member country will be seen as an attack on all and the defence spending commitments (which are modest) are there to make this commitment mean something.

Until recently NATO looked like an anachronism (preserved in part by a reluctance of many governments to allow an EU equivalent), however Russian expansionism has once again made it largely relevant. If you are a Baltic state you are really happy about it. If you remove NATO and the Americans go home the only military power on the continent would be Russia. While they are not the threat of the Cold War era they are an aggressive nationalist dictatorship far stronger than their neighbours.

If history is a guide, the USA was absent in Europe at the start of the 20th century and again in the 20s and 30s. There is no getting away from the fact that Europe totally screwed it up on both occasions. Had America not been involved in stabilising the Balkans in the 90s who knows what the death toll would have been.

A platform of giving up nukes and exiting NATO could be viewed as leaving the country defenceless, because it actually is.

NATO is fine.
The armaments are the problem.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:37 pm**

Well, it's done. I've voted in the Labour leadership contest, deputy contest and some other stuff where I voted for people I have never heard of (bar Glyn Ford, sometime MEP for the SW) for things I'm not entirely clear what they are. I've had similar voting experiences as a Co-op member. It's like sticking a pin in the phone book, really. Oh well, I'm sure any one of them will make a good NPF candidate or CAC member, whatever those things happen to be!

As for the big ones, let's just say I doubt anyone I picked will actually win. Story of my life, really. I've never been on the same page as the majority (or vocal minority) on pretty much anything, ever. Blair is probably the only "winner" I have ever voted for and even then I didn't actually support him, but rather voted for Labour despite him. I even managed to be against the first Gulf War and in support of the second, that's how contrary I am.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:37 pm**

TechnicalEphemera wrote:The reason I asked here on NATO rather than googling it as I realise there are lots of articles on it online, but I wondered if anybody actually following his bid had seen it come up.

Thanks to all those who posted links, my conclusion is therefore most likely in favour of leaving NATO.

Afternoon, TE.

I think your conclusion is probably what Corbyn would like to see if his hopes of another way for NATO can't work - and I don't think they can work, in reality. Which is a shame.
Leaving NATO would not be a good thing, IMHO; but I certainly think that there is a need to look long and hard at what its' aims and objectives should be in a rapidly changing world.

We - ie. the UK - are not without influence on the world stage; but we are not as influential as we were, and what real power we have is closely allied to either the EU or what the Americans will allow (Trident being a case in point).

I think it's important that the UK stays in - the threats are different, the world has changed since 1949, as have the members of NATO.
There are a lot more of them now.
I doubt that any Corbyn-led shadow cabinet, or even a Corbyn-led government (which I don't think will ever happen, even if he wins this contest) would get the authority necessary to pull out of NATO.

I think that, as with some of his other ideas, this is not a goer. But - I am voting for him not because I think he's right about everything (he isn't) but because he is on the record as saying he will aim for more inclusive and democratic politics within his party.
What he IS right about is that we need to challenge austerity politics, we need to preserve our welfare state (and I use that term in its' broadest sense) and we absolutely need a tough and principled opposition as soon as possible.
For me, that's enough - because however powerful his convictions, he knows that the policies he wants (eg. elections to cabinet positions) will more than likely mean that the consensus is against some of his wackier ideas.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:42 pm**

I've got it down in my diary that the candidates will be on Channel 4 News tonight, just trying to check if that is true.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:45 pm**

I admit to not knowing what 'snarky' meant.

I do now. According to various google search definitions - 'snide and sharply critical'. North American.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:46 pm**

gilsey wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
yahyah wrote:Morning.

Just ignore Mandelson. He isn't worth the rise in blood pressure.
I think everyone but the media has been ignoring him for a decade
OBM's nicked your line on twitter.

Or great minds think alike.

I've only just started my daily lurk, so this is an unintentional theft. Mandy isn't worth it.

Nice to see Blair was at Putin's vanity economic conference this weekend. I only mention it because of the trolling by association those who like Blair have been trying to fling at Mr. Disaster For Labour Because I Say So.

/returns to lurking

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:47 pm**

The World at One ‏@BBCWorldatOne 17m17 minutes ago
Please keep your questions coming for @leicesterliz on #wato today: 03700 100 444 or tweet us. http://bbc.in/1DXcIXy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:48 pm**

yahyah wrote:
RobertSnozers wrote:
citizenJA wrote: I've made an excellent rhubarb crumble - how many want ice cream on top?
Lovely! Yes please.

I made an apple crumble last week with Grasmere gingerbread in the topping. Was rather nice though I say so myself. I'd be happy to make one for anyone who will pay for me to go back to the Lake District to get some more gingerbread
Is that the Elizabeth David recipe ?
One of the most delicious things ever, and foolproof.

No, but thank you, yahyah!
I've another rhubarb crumble recipe to try now.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:52 pm**

refitman wrote:
SpinningHugo wrote:
PorFavor wrote: Sorry - no.

But I found this at opendemocracy -

Questions over NATO

Anti-imperialism trumps other factors too. Take Corbyn’s approach to NATO, which Labour helped establish. Last year, Corbyn berated the 'enormous expansion of NATO into a global force' and urged a 'serious debate about Britain’s overall defence and foreign policy' (including the nuclear deterrent) as 'NATO membership has brought us enormous levels of military expenditure and…involved us in countless conflicts.' He specifically challenged sending troops to Poland, Estonia and Ukraine and, while he would not 'condone Russian behaviour or expansion,' he said 'it is not unprovoked.' He told the Guardian last week that 'I am not an admirer or supporter of Putin’s foreign policy, or of Russian or anybodys else’s expansion. But there has got to be some serious discussions about de-escalating the military crisis in central Europe. Nato expansion and Russian expansion – one leads to the other, and one reflects the other.'

There's no indication, that I could see, of when these words were uttered - but uttered they were (I assume). I tend to agree with him.

https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdo ... ign-policy
Good of him not to condone Putin's invasion of Ukraine.
Cracking bit of snark there. Was that really called for?

Strictly speaking, it was also an argumentum ex silentio - an appeal from silence. It's a form of compositional logical fallacy - not unrelated to the weakness of the argument it is advancing. Style versus content? That one was classy on all levels.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 12:59 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:
TechnicalEphemera wrote:
citizenJA wrote:Jeremy Corbyn is in favour of NATO peacefully joining human beings.
NATO has kept the peace in Europe for a very long time, and it has done so carefully. For example it has not permitted Ukraine to join, although had it done so Eastern Ukraine would probably not be under attack.

The alliance provides a guarantee that any attack on a member country will be seen as an attack on all and the defence spending commitments (which are modest) are there to make this commitment mean something.

Until recently NATO looked like an anachronism (preserved in part by a reluctance of many governments to allow an EU equivalent), however Russian expansionism has once again made it largely relevant. If you are a Baltic state you are really happy about it. If you remove NATO and the Americans go home the only military power on the continent would be Russia. While they are not the threat of the Cold War era they are an aggressive nationalist dictatorship far stronger than their neighbours.

If history is a guide, the USA was absent in Europe at the start of the 20th century and again in the 20s and 30s. There is no getting away from the fact that Europe totally screwed it up on both occasions. Had America not been involved in stabilising the Balkans in the 90s who knows what the death toll would have been.

A platform of giving up nukes and exiting NATO could be viewed as leaving the country defenceless, because it actually is.
Alternatively, Europe had a history of antagonism going back to the 18th century and the end of conflict could be seen largely as a result of countries mutually deciding to take a different approach to dealing with each other, i.e. the EU.

It's not surprising that the failure of Nato to wind up after the end of the Cold War, and its apparent long term plans for expansion which did include Poland, Georgia and Ukraine, are seen in Russia as aggressive. If the west had moved away from Cold War military 'spheres of influence' and playing geopolitical games, things might look rather different.

Every war started was a bad choice made.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:07 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:Straw poll: would Burnham's pledge to give Corbyn a job in his team influence anyone to change the way they vote?

It's an outside possibility, depending on what else might develop. But the word "pledge" doesn't have a very good track record in political circles.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:08 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:Straw poll: would Burnham's pledge to give Corbyn a job in his team influence anyone to change the way they vote?

I think it's an important distinction between him and Kendall, Cooper. But I already prefer Burnham over those two anyway ... so bit of a redundant question. At least Burnham is clearly recognising a major shift in the membership / supporters is occurring - or rather a vocalisation of dissatisfaction with the status quo - and is trying to respond to and work with that.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:09 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:Straw poll: would Burnham's pledge to give Corbyn a job in his team influence anyone to change the way they vote?

Have to admit the clarity I felt the other day was clouded a little by that, and made me nudge Andy up from 2nd choice to about 1.5.

& don't forget, if you are only placing one vote, don't put an X or it won't count, must be 1, as in 1st choice.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:10 pm**

Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 2m2 minutes ago
Corbyn welcomes Burnham's "inclusive tone towards our campaign and the view is mutual - if we win we would involve Andy our team".

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:12 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:
Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 2m2 minutes ago
Corbyn welcomes Burnham's "inclusive tone towards our campaign and the view is mutual - if we win we would involve Andy our team".

Good to hear that.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:16 pm**

Kendall sounding very subdued on WATO.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:22 pm**

She's being asked about free schools and their lack of accountability ... and what her position is.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:29 pm**

onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Strictly speaking, it was also an argumentum ex silentio - an appeal from silence. It's a form of compositional logical fallacy - not unrelated to the weakness of the argument it is advancing. Style versus content? That one was classy on all levels.

Crikey!

I say, there some jolly clever chaps in this 'ere boutique.

I'm liking the Latin, I must say.

My favourite today, Mandelson take note, is "corvus oculum corvi non eruit".

)

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:33 pm**

yahyah wrote:
rebeccariots2 wrote:
Patrick Wintour ‏@patrickwintour 2m2 minutes ago
Corbyn welcomes Burnham's "inclusive tone towards our campaign and the view is mutual - if we win we would involve Andy our team".
Good to hear that.

It is. And I am liking the "we".

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:37 pm**

Wow. That woman from the Rhondda who just asked Liz Kendall about the erosion of workers terms and conditions and how we've got to blaming the unemployed and immigrants for many things ... was very powerful.

For those not listening she told us she had just been diagnosed with lung cancer but what she was most frightened about wasn't the cancer it was that she's on a zero hours contract so she has no money - no sick or holiday pay, nothing. And she was wonderfully direct about the lack of proper jobs with any security and what it was doing to people such as her.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 1:37 pm**

According to a Twitter exchange between pk1, SH, and David Mitchell, the latter did not write the article SH linked to.

I apologise for stating that he did.

I do not apologise for my interpretation of it.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:00 pm**

yahyah wrote:I've got it down in my diary that the candidates will be on Channel 4 News tonight, just trying to check if that is true.

In the studio? Burnham is in Liverpool at 7pm.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:01 pm**

FOAD, this is the 'exchange' (read from bottom up):

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:06 pm**

Well - it had to happen. The G has now got David Miliband to comment on Corbyn's bid for leadership. It's an 'Exclusive' on the home page.

Good on you Ed for knowing when to stay quiet.

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:09 pm**

rebeccariots2 wrote:Well - it had to happen. The G has now got David Miliband to comment on Corbyn's bid for leadership. It's an 'Exclusive' on the home page.

Good on you Ed for knowing when to stay quiet.

Ah, the right blabber speaks . . . .

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:16 pm**

A recent statement by the older Miliband on Twitter was - and I quote verbatim - "Labour needs new ideas, not old ones".

That was - quite literally - it.

But it was treated by many in the "bubble" as some amazingly profound and meaningful insight

Posted: **Mon 17 Aug, 2015 2:19 pm**

RobertSnozers wrote:
ephemerid wrote:
onebuttonmonkey wrote:
Strictly speaking, it was also an argumentum ex silentio - an appeal from silence. It's a form of compositional logical fallacy - not unrelated to the weakness of the argument it is advancing. Style versus content? That one was classy on all levels.
Crikey!

I say, there some jolly clever chaps in this 'ere boutique.

I'm liking the Latin, I must say.

My favourite today, Mandelson take note, is "corvus oculum corvi non eruit".

)
Whereas my words to Mandelson are 'futue te ipsum et caballum tuum'

More seriously, I like this from the film Kingdom Of Heaven and have tried to adopt it as a personal motto. It isn't always easy.

Nemo vir est qui mundum non reddat meliorem

The man is nothing who doesn't make the world better? O' Level Latin only.

FlyTheNest

Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015

Re: Monday 17th August 2015