Wednesday 1st March 2017

[Temulkar]

Which crime do you consider Blair to have committed?

I think that the invasion of Iraq was unlawful, as contrary to international law. I marched agaisnt it at the time. You cannot go from that proposition to the conclusion that Blair personally committed a crime.

One of the many idiocies of Corbyn is his repeated hints that Blair should stand trial, in the Hague or elsewhere.

Ok, for which offences? Itemise them.

And to help you out, if you start with Nuremberg it shows you know nothing at all about the current condition of international criminal law.

1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity

I am afraid you are just making those up without properly itemising specific offences. That isn't how criminal law works.

Are you proposing thee are UK offences, or under international criminal law. Presumably the latter?

So, taking one, "war crimes". Which war crimes are you claiming Blair committed? Under which Convention. Itemising the occasion on which this happened .

Go and give it a google. See if you can find a (serious) legal writer claiming Blair committed a crime.

Article 7 Crimes against Humanity.

e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law.
(f) Torture;

Article 8. War Crimes

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

b(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Blair wont face trial because we are the victors, just like Bush, it doesnt mean he isnt responsible or guilty, it means he has escaped justice.

[AngryAsWell]

Really no.

The government should have added much more to the national debt. It has been running a deficit that is too small. You need to run a larger deficit until monetary policy gets off the zlb.

You can't both argue

(1) "Austerity" is counterproductive

and

(2) The deficit (and consequently the debt) should be lower.

It is economically illiterate.

Point being austerity has not worked "because" the deficit is still running so high. This sort of message gets through, whereas saying "people are suffering because of the cuts" just elicits "well they should just get a job then".

We needed more debt. The deficit is still too low. It needs to be higher to get off the zlb. Champion is making a bad, and basic, mistake.

Perhaps, but in post truth politics it's not so easy to explain that position, whereas telling my - tory - neighbour how high our deficit and debt are shocks her out of smugness and makes her think about what the government are doing - and why they are doing it if there are no improvement in out national finances, which are in fact getting "worse".

[Temulkar]

And can I just point out taht nuremburg and tokyo are the basis of our international law on this, so...

[SpinningHugo]

1.Participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of a crime against peace
2.Planning, initiating and waging wars of aggression and other crimes against peace
3.War crimes
4.Crimes against humanity

I am afraid you are just making those up without properly itemising specific offences. That isn't how criminal law works.

Are you proposing thee are UK offences, or under international criminal law. Presumably the latter?

So, taking one, "war crimes". Which war crimes are you claiming Blair committed? Under which Convention. Itemising the occasion on which this happened .

Go and give it a google. See if you can find a (serious) legal writer claiming Blair committed a crime.

Article 7 Crimes against Humanity.

e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law.
(f) Torture;

Article 8. War Crimes

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

b(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Blair wont face trial because we are the victors, just like Bush, it doesnt mean he isnt responsible or guilty, it means he has escaped justice.

Right, so if you actually look down your cut and paste list, and reflect, on what occasions are you claiming Blair personally did these things?

When did he torture someone? When did he subject someone to humiliating and degrading treatment? And so on.

To be clear, let it be assumed, arguendo, that UK state troops did do all of these things at some point during the Iraq War, when did Blair do them? What did he do that made him responsible for, say, the acts of torture?

It is, and I am sorry, juvenile sub-SWP stuff to claim Blair is a war criminal.

There are many serious allegations that can be made, and substantiated, about Blair's decision making in backing the second Iraq war. The Chilcot Inquiry was utterly damning. Why you feel the need to make allegations that are not in fact true, or remotely capable of being substantiated, instead is odd. I would dismiss this as just being your usual messageboard persona, but this view is widespread, and encompasses the current leader of the opposition too.

There are no real world serious lawyers who think Blair is a criminal.

[Temulkar]

I am afraid you are just making those up without properly itemising specific offences. That isn't how criminal law works.

Are you proposing thee are UK offences, or under international criminal law. Presumably the latter?

So, taking one, "war crimes". Which war crimes are you claiming Blair committed? Under which Convention. Itemising the occasion on which this happened .

Go and give it a google. See if you can find a (serious) legal writer claiming Blair committed a crime.

Article 7 Crimes against Humanity.

e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law.
(f) Torture;

Article 8. War Crimes

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;
(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;
(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
vi) Wilfully depriving a prisoner of war or other protected person of the rights of fair and regular trial;
(vii) Unlawful deportation or transfer or unlawful confinement;

b(iv) Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated;

(xx) Employing weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare which are of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering or which are inherently indiscriminate in violation of the international law of armed conflict, provided that such weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare are the subject of a comprehensive prohibition and are included in an annex to this Statute, by an amendment in accordance with the relevant provisions set forth in articles 121 and 123;

(xxi) Committing outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment.

Blair wont face trial because we are the victors, just like Bush, it doesnt mean he isnt responsible or guilty, it means he has escaped justice.

Right, so if you actually look down your cut and paste list, and reflect, on what occasions are you claiming Blair personally did these things?

When did he torture someone? When did he subject someone to humiliating and degrading treatment? And so on.

To be clear, let it be assumed, arguendo, that UK state troops did do all of these things at some point during the Iraq War, when did Blair do them? What did he do that made him responsible for, say, the acts of torture?

It is, and I am sorry, juvenile sub-SWP stuff to claim Blair is a war criminal.

There are many serious allegations that can be made, and substantiated, about Blair's decision making in backing the second Iraq war. The Chilcot Inquiry was utterly damning. Why you feel the need to make allegations that are not in fact true, or remotely capable of being substantiated, instead is odd. I would dismiss this as just being your usual messageboard persona, but this view is widespread, and encompasses the current leader of the opposition too.

There are no real world serious lawyers who think Blair is a criminal.

Leaders and heads of state also bear responsibility, Hugo, I thought you claimed legal expertise? Goring didn't gas a single jew, didn't fire a single shot in aggression; he was still responsible.

[HindleA]

Suggest "it's not a fucking static situation",educational plan for journos,commentators(PIP cut)

[Temulkar]

And we have misconduct in office and impeachment in this country, although the lattre is a joke, and for legal brains I think Lord Macdonald counts.

Lord Macdonald said: "In behaving in this disreputable way to win tainted legal backing for massive armed conflict, it seems very likely that Mr Blair roundly abused the trust placed in him by the public."
It is a defence to misconduct in public office that the office holder had a reasonable excuse. Lord Macdonald concedes that Mr Blair would be able to argue that Saddam's continued rule in Iraq would have created security Armageddon, but believes that "Chilcot and history have combined to expose his defence as a busted flush".

[HindleA]

If an actual person,due to a change gets less,it's a fucking cut,regardless of whether it is at this precise nanosecond.Upside down hanging remedial therapy implemented.

[SpinningHugo]

Leaders and heads of state also bear responsibility, Hugo, I thought you claimed legal expertise? Goring didn't gas a single jew, didn't fire a single shot in aggression; he was still responsible.

So, your claim is that if State's troops torture someone, that makes the Prime Minister of that state guilty of a war crime?

I don't think you know anything about international criminal law at all. I also don't understand why you persist in making a claim you must know is ridiculous.

Goring wasn't guilty just because he was a member of the government of a country whose state agents murdered people.

[Temulkar]

Leaders and heads of state also bear responsibility, Hugo, I thought you claimed legal expertise? Goring didn't gas a single jew, didn't fire a single shot in aggression; he was still responsible.

So, your claim is that if State's troops torture someone, that makes the Prime Minister of that state guilty of a war crime?

I don't think you know anything about international criminal law at all. I also don't understand why you persist in making a claim you must know is ridiculous.

Goring wasn't guilty just because he was a member of the government of a country whose state agents murdered people.

Umm actually he was, but that is an historical issue, so I don't expect you to understand it.

[SpinningHugo]

And we have misconduct in office and impeachment in this country, although the lattre is a joke, and for legal brains I think Lord Macdonald counts.

Lord Macdonald said: "In behaving in this disreputable way to win tainted legal backing for massive armed conflict, it seems very likely that Mr Blair roundly abused the trust placed in him by the public."
It is a defence to misconduct in public office that the office holder had a reasonable excuse. Lord Macdonald concedes that Mr Blair would be able to argue that Saddam's continued rule in Iraq would have created security Armageddon, but believes that "Chilcot and history have combined to expose his defence as a busted flush".

Right, now you are getting closer.

So instead of alleging that Blair committed some kind of war crime under international law (which is ridiculous) you are on stronger ground in arguing he committed an offence of misconduct in a public office under UK domestic law. And no doubt the decision to go to war in Iraq was seriously defective for the reasons set out in Chilcott.

But, that offence must be wilful. Getting it wrong, negligently, isn't enough.

[SpinningHugo]

Leaders and heads of state also bear responsibility, Hugo, I thought you claimed legal expertise? Goring didn't gas a single jew, didn't fire a single shot in aggression; he was still responsible.

So, your claim is that if State's troops torture someone, that makes the Prime Minister of that state guilty of a war crime?

I don't think you know anything about international criminal law at all. I also don't understand why you persist in making a claim you must know is ridiculous.

Goring wasn't guilty just because he was a member of the government of a country whose state agents murdered people.

Umm actually he was, but that is an historical issue, so I don't expect you to understand it.

Ummm. No he wasn't. What do you think the trial at Nuremberg was about? What facts do you think were being established?

[Temulkar]

So, your claim is that if State's troops torture someone, that makes the Prime Minister of that state guilty of a war crime?

I don't think you know anything about international criminal law at all. I also don't understand why you persist in making a claim you must know is ridiculous.

Goring wasn't guilty just because he was a member of the government of a country whose state agents murdered people.

Umm actually he was, but that is an historical issue, so I don't expect you to understand it.

Ummm. No he wasn't. What do you think the trial at Nuremberg was about? What facts do you think were being established?

The Nuremburg trials happened because of the political will for them. Goering for all his sins was convicted on all counts because he was part of the government, and the remaining de facto leader of the remaining Nazis. Whilst he was clearly guilty of the first two counts of the indictment against him, his responsibility for the other two counts was not based on direction or even direct knowledge of those crimes. It could not even be proven that he was aware of, or ordered, or could have stopped the murder of of the great escapers, yet he was convicted in his role as head of the luftwaffe.

He was guillty and bore responsibility on the last two not because of knowledge or direction, but because it could be reasonably assumed that he should and could have known and should and could have done something about it.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Weird fact

Gerald Kaufman is the 24th sitting Labour MP to have died since April 2000; in the same period 1 Tory, 1 LibDem, 1 UUP and 1 Independent MP have died

The numbers were much more equal in the 1992-7 period, when the Tories' majority basically died off. I wonder if they consciously did something about how destabilizing that was. Though I suppose there are still some old MPs there- Ken Clarke, Alan Haselhurst.

[Tubby Isaacs]

I see the plot against Corbyn has been revealed.

It's known as Operation Rope. It's working very well.

[HindleA]

"Extra bedroom to be allowed for disabled adults who cannot share and disabled child needing overnight carer "HB Circular (not up yet)


4/5 months

Regulations amended,from April 1st.(appropriate-we love you,really)

[AngryAsWell]

Example
Saying (Pinched from CiF over on AS blog)
"When the UK Labour government invested in creating the NHS in 1948, the ratio of debt to GDP was over 200 per cent, and that higher public investment led to higher growth. High debt ratios did not prompt cuts to public investment in the 1940s, 1950s or 1960s.

What is unarguable is that at the same time as imposing cruel spending cuts that have been shown to hit women hardest, this government has added almost £700bn to the national debt.

That’s not just more than the last Labour government.

It’s more than every Labour government, in history, added together!"

Ramming that home cuts through the "Labour are rubbish on the economy!" narrative than trying to explain why we need to borrow more, which just leads to the "Labour will bankrupt the country!" response (which is impossible as we issue our own currency) but very hard to explain to those hard of understanding.
May has used this argument again today to justify yet more cuts to PIP, which we are told are NOT cuts, just a reduction in future payments.... go figure.

[SpinningHugo]

Umm actually he was, but that is an historical issue, so I don't expect you to understand it.

Ummm. No he wasn't. What do you think the trial at Nuremberg was about? What facts do you think were being established?

The Nuremburg trials happened because of the political will for them. Goering for all his sins was convicted on all counts because he was part of the government, and the remaining de facto leader of the remaining Nazis. Whilst he was clearly guilty of the first two counts of the indictment against him, his responsibility for the other two counts was not based on direction or even direct knowledge of those crimes. It could not even be proven that he was aware of, or ordered, or could have stopped the murder of of the great escapers, yet he was convicted in his role as head of the luftwaffe.

He was guillty and bore responsibility on the last two not because of knowledge or direction, but because it could be reasonably assumed that he should and could have known and should and could have done something about it.

You are confusing causation (eg "A would not have happened but for B") with responsibility (which can be established even where A would have happened anyway). So, those Labour MPs who voted for brexit are responsible for the consequences, even though Brexit would have happened but for their individual votes.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Ken Loach will be in the Shadow Cabinet soon. They're really struggling now for defenders of Corbyn. Journalists have had it with him after the EU stuff. Union leaders are deserting. The core group of MPs is shrinking.

Actually, I shouldn't joke. The Lib Dems (by necessity) have loads of spokespeople from outside the Commons. I can imagine McDonnell thinking "Lords is bad, let's stick up Rhea Wolfson" instead.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Team Jez have a plot too. It's based on the 1974 British Lions "99 call". Somebody shouts "Iraq" and it all kicks off.

[Temulkar]

Ummm. No he wasn't. What do you think the trial at Nuremberg was about? What facts do you think were being established?

The Nuremburg trials happened because of the political will for them. Goering for all his sins was convicted on all counts because he was part of the government, and the remaining de facto leader of the remaining Nazis. Whilst he was clearly guilty of the first two counts of the indictment against him, his responsibility for the other two counts was not based on direction or even direct knowledge of those crimes. It could not even be proven that he was aware of, or ordered, or could have stopped the murder of of the great escapers, yet he was convicted in his role as head of the luftwaffe.

He was guillty and bore responsibility on the last two not because of knowledge or direction, but because it could be reasonably assumed that he should and could have known and should and could have done something about it.

You are confusing causation (eg "A would not have happened but for B") with responsibility (which can be established even where B would have happened anyway). So, those Labour MPs who voted for brexit are responsible for the consequences, even though Brexit would have happened but for their individual votes.

And you're spinning wildly as you realise you have talked utter tripe about Nuremburg... Brexit is not a crime against humanity, no matter how misguided it is.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Morning all.

Inheritance tax threshold talk in the Conservative Party. It must be approaching budget time. Good on Reeves highlighting this. I haven't seen any stats on how much this will cost the Treasury? Where this shortfall is going to be filled? How many JAMs does May anticipate will benefit from this?

The figure £1bn a year comes up a lot.

I think May will postpone it a couple of years to make herself look "moderate". The core vote are onside because of her Kipperism. Keep it back for a time when they aren't.

[SpinningHugo]

The Nuremburg trials happened because of the political will for them. Goering for all his sins was convicted on all counts because he was part of the government, and the remaining de facto leader of the remaining Nazis. Whilst he was clearly guilty of the first two counts of the indictment against him, his responsibility for the other two counts was not based on direction or even direct knowledge of those crimes. It could not even be proven that he was aware of, or ordered, or could have stopped the murder of of the great escapers, yet he was convicted in his role as head of the luftwaffe.

He was guillty and bore responsibility on the last two not because of knowledge or direction, but because it could be reasonably assumed that he should and could have known and should and could have done something about it.

You are confusing causation (eg "A would not have happened but for B") with responsibility (which can be established even where B would have happened anyway). So, those Labour MPs who voted for brexit are responsible for the consequences, even though Brexit would have happened but for their individual votes.

And you're spinning wildly as you realise you have talked utter tripe about Nuremburg... Brexit is not a crime against humanity, no matter how misguided it is.

You'll notice I am sure my initial comment about those who try to talk about international criminal law in 2017 by referring to Nuremberg.

[gilsey]

this government has added almost £700bn to the national debt.

That’s not just more than the last Labour government.

It’s more than every Labour government, in history, added together!

Sarah Champion, from AS blog.
More of this sort of thing please.

I'm praising the message, not the economics.

The govt have used the level of debt as justification for public spending cuts since 2010 and have failed on their own terms, it can't be wrong for the opposition to point it out as often as possible, particularly after the monstering of Labour over economic incompetence.

The public finance outcome at 2015 was roughly what Darling had put forward in 2010 because Osborne took a step back when he realised he'd pulled the rug out from under the economy, but all public expenditure is not equal. Darling wouldn't have taken it out on the disabled, the NHS and the people supported by councils in deprived areas.

[Temulkar]

You are confusing causation (eg "A would not have happened but for B") with responsibility (which can be established even where B would have happened anyway). So, those Labour MPs who voted for brexit are responsible for the consequences, even though Brexit would have happened but for their individual votes.

And you're spinning wildly as you realise you have talked utter tripe about Nuremburg... Brexit is not a crime against humanity, no matter how misguided it is.

You'll notice I am sure my initial comment about those who try to talk about international criminal law in 2017 by referring to Nuremberg.

Yes I noticed that, however since the indcitments at nuremburg and tokyo are the basis for international law in this matter, and given your repeated demonstrations of ignorance in this matter in this very thread, yahboo sucks.

[SpinningHugo]

Ken Loach will be in the Shadow Cabinet soon. They're really struggling now for defenders of Corbyn. Journalists have had it with him after the EU stuff. Union leaders are deserting. The core group of MPs is shrinking.

Actually, I shouldn't joke. The Lib Dems (by necessity) have loads of spokespeople from outside the Commons. I can imagine McDonnell thinking "Lords is bad, let's stick up Rhea Wolfson" instead.

Who is left, now that Owen, George, Zoe, Ellie Mae and so on have jumped?

Paul Mason and Liam Young. Any others?

[Temulkar]

NOw I have to do some work on Georgian cobblers and rights of way campaigners, but I shall just leave this snippet here... If true, it sorts of blows a hole in the no conspiracy theory... And text messages are pretty damaging evidence...

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/02/28/exclus ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

And you're spinning wildly as you realise you have talked utter tripe about Nuremburg... Brexit is not a crime against humanity, no matter how misguided it is.

You'll notice I am sure my initial comment about those who try to talk about international criminal law in 2017 by referring to Nuremberg.

Yes I noticed that, however since the indcitments at nuremburg and tokyo are the basis for international law in this matter, and given your repeated demonstrations of ignorance in this matter in this very thread, yahboo sucks.

Not the "source" if by that we mean "where the positive law is now found."

[gilsey]

Darling wouldn't have taken it out on the disabled, the NHS and the people supported by councils in deprived areas.

He wouldn't have thought it was a good idea to decimate the HMRC workforce either.

[Tubby Isaacs]

NOw I have to do some work on Georgian cobblers and rights of way campaigners, but I shall just leave this snippet here... If true, it sorts of blows a hole in the no conspiracy theory... And text messages are pretty damaging evidence...

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/02/28/exclus ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

that Farrelly persisted in voting against the Article 50 bill earlier this month, despite knowing that a large majority of his constituents wanted the opposite – and even though his own majority in Newcastle under Lyme is very slim – in order to turn local people against Labour before the by-election

[NonOxCol]

Hello.

This is doing the rounds on Twitter. I checked to see if it had been posted here yet.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It ain't nothing. Some of today's problems seemed to start round about the time we decided to pretend it was nothing.

I think some of the worst people are those who seemingly talked about little else apart from house prices at social functions, and now trot out every Tory falsehood in the book, as if they never did perfectly well thank you out of 1997-2007, never once felt the need to apologise for doing so, and were not even the ones hit hardest in 2008-09.

[Temulkar]

NOw I have to do some work on Georgian cobblers and rights of way campaigners, but I shall just leave this snippet here... If true, it sorts of blows a hole in the no conspiracy theory... And text messages are pretty damaging evidence...

https://skwawkbox.org/2017/02/28/exclus ... -campaign/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.

that Farrelly persisted in voting against the Article 50 bill earlier this month, despite knowing that a large majority of his constituents wanted the opposite – and even though his own majority in Newcastle under Lyme is very slim – in order to turn local people against Labour before the by-election

Yes I think that point is stretching it more than a bit, however, the text messages and the contact with a local donor for which there seems to be an electronic trail is far more damning. If they are true...

[StephenDolan]

So I can see that my opening post was a waste.

Anyway. Owen Jones made plenty of good points imho in his latest piece at the G. I'm sure plenty will disagree here. I'm hoping (naively) that there'll be a discussion that follows.

'Corbyn is a decent, honourable and principled man. He has to make a decision, and so do his parliamentary opponents. Whatever happens with the leadership, he needs to set out a clear and coherent strategy about how exactly Labour can overcome its existential crisis. Since the byelection rout, he has made it clear he isn’t going anywhere without even offering the vaguest outlines about how to turn it around. That isn’t good enough: again, consider the stakes. Both he and his team have to think hard. If Corbyn decides he is unable to confront the multiple existential crises enveloping Labour, then an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place. It is up to both Corbyn and the parliamentary Labour party. They should both be aware that history is a savage judge.'

Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ood-enough" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Tubby Isaacs]

There's one text message there, which looks to me like he thought Snell was a liability. Said nothing about other candidates.

He's written "more than once" for Progress- that'll be twice then. One of those is replying to something in Progress and sticking up for Miliband's strong support for Leveson.

[SpinningHugo]

Hello.

This is doing the rounds on Twitter. I checked to see if it had been posted here yet.

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

It ain't nothing. Some of today's problems seemed to start round about the time we decided to pretend it was nothing.

I think some of the worst people are those who seemingly talked about little else apart from house prices at social functions, and now trot out every Tory falsehood in the book, as if they never did perfectly well thank you out of 1997-2007, never once felt the need to apologise for doing so, and were not even the ones hit hardest in 2008-09.

Iraq, war criminal etc etc.

[AngryAsWell]

One man's poison is another man's meat
Meet the Kosovan Albanians who named their sons after Tony Blair
For Kosovan Albanians, Tony Blair is more than just an ex-British prime minister turned globetrotting statesman. He's the hero of the nation, who saved them in their hour of need. And how better to show gratitude than to name their sons after him? Julian Borger tracks down the Toniblers of Kosovo

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/20 ... r-tonibler" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[SpinningHugo]

So I can see that my opening post was a waste.

Anyway. Owen Jones made plenty of good points imho in his latest piece at the G. I'm sure plenty will disagree here. I'm hoping (naively) that there'll be a discussion that follows.

'Corbyn is a decent, honourable and principled man. He has to make a decision, and so do his parliamentary opponents. Whatever happens with the leadership, he needs to set out a clear and coherent strategy about how exactly Labour can overcome its existential crisis. Since the byelection rout, he has made it clear he isn’t going anywhere without even offering the vaguest outlines about how to turn it around. That isn’t good enough: again, consider the stakes. Both he and his team have to think hard. If Corbyn decides he is unable to confront the multiple existential crises enveloping Labour, then an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place. It is up to both Corbyn and the parliamentary Labour party. They should both be aware that history is a savage judge.'

Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ood-enough" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Longer video by St Paul here

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[AngryAsWell]

So I can see that my opening post was a waste.

Anyway. Owen Jones made plenty of good points imho in his latest piece at the G. I'm sure plenty will disagree here. I'm hoping (naively) that there'll be a discussion that follows.

'Corbyn is a decent, honourable and principled man. He has to make a decision, and so do his parliamentary opponents. Whatever happens with the leadership, he needs to set out a clear and coherent strategy about how exactly Labour can overcome its existential crisis. Since the byelection rout, he has made it clear he isn’t going anywhere without even offering the vaguest outlines about how to turn it around. That isn’t good enough: again, consider the stakes. Both he and his team have to think hard. If Corbyn decides he is unable to confront the multiple existential crises enveloping Labour, then an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place. It is up to both Corbyn and the parliamentary Labour party. They should both be aware that history is a savage judge.'

Corbyn says he’s staying. That’s not good enough

https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfr ... ood-enough" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Not a waste, I was thinking of a reply, then got distracted .... sorry

[AngryAsWell]

Paul Waugh‏Verified account
@paulwaugh

No10: Damian Green rang Debbie Abrahams personal mobile last Thurs rang out so left voicemail. Her Commons + constit office were rung too

Debbie Abrahams‏Verified account @Debbie_abrahams 1h1 hour ago
Debbie Abrahams Retweeted Paul Waugh
Not true. Green left message on mobile Monday morning. Four days after he sneaked out the statement & a day after Freeman's comments 1/2

Debbie Abrahams‏Verified account @Debbie_abrahams 1h1 hour ago
Debbie Abrahams Retweeted Paul Waugh
No message left at constituency office. Voicemail message left at parliamentary office on Thurs evening AFTER written statement issued 2/2

[Lost Soul]

Scottish woman and French husband ( scientist - specialist in renewable energy ) quit UK over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ver-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do the useless shower who've taken over this country not realise that 'freedom of movement' is progress and is an asset to be made use of.

They can't be as stupid as they seem - surely ?

[AngryAsWell]

Scottish woman and French husband ( scientist - specialist in renewable energy ) quit UK over Brexit

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/ ... ver-brexit" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Do the useless shower who've taken over this country not realise that 'freedom of movement' is progress and is an asset to be made use of.

They can't be as stupid as they seem - surely ?

Little Britain mentality rules us.

[Tubby Isaacs]

an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place

Jones seriously thinks this a solution?

Good Lord.

[SpinningHugo]

an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place

Jones seriously thinks this a solution?

Good Lord.

He doesn't want to admit he was wrong. He thinks the "ideas" could be popular, but have failed because of poor communication.

Like lots of his part of the left he doesn't want to admit error. He can see that once Corbyn is replaced by a normal Labour leader his cries for radicalism won't have much of a market as the obvious response will be

"we tried that, look where we ended up."

He is a bit of a coward.

[AnatolyKasparov]

an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place

Jones seriously thinks this a solution?

Good Lord.

Not only is it *a* solution, its arguably the only way out of this mess.

What's your alternative?

[Tubby Isaacs]

I respect him for admitting there's a serious problem with his former pick, and he did that quite a while ago.

I don't see there are really any policies. None emerged from the relaunch, that's for sure.

[AnatolyKasparov]

I agree on the policy question, the mitigation of course is that so much time since Sept 2015 has been spent fire fighting.

(and with that, I will relapse into silence for now - just to let people know I still read what is posted here regularly!)

[Tubby Isaacs]

I'm sure he feels a lack of support, but he's had space for policy.

Good to see you.

[Tubby Isaacs]

an agreement should be struck where he can stand down in exchange for the guarantee of an MP from the new generation on the ballot paper who is committed to the policies that inspired Corbyn’s supporters in the first place

Jones seriously thinks this a solution?

Good Lord.

Not only is it *a* solution, its arguably the only way out of this mess.

What's your alternative?

The leader and people around him to have basic self-awareness.

37 MPs isn't really all that many nominations to need. I think they had 40 expressing confidence last summer, didn't they? If you look like a winner, you'll get more fairly easily.

[HindleA]

Compulsive lying,then,it appears,at DWP remains at the top.

[Tubby Isaacs]

Nasty dig at Owen Smith in that Jones article.

It was delusional to imagine Owen Smith would prove more electable, given his gaffe-ridden commitment to overturning the EU referendum and even refusing to rule out membership of the euro and Schengen.

Overturning the EU referendum is IDS speak. A choice between whatever May comes up with and WTO only terms sounds very bad to me.

Schengen? That probably comes with a "soft Brexit". Is Corbyn implacably opposed to Schengen then? What a lovely guy. Must be great to rally behind him.

The Euro (in theory) comes with rejoining, if we decide we're getting murdered on it. Again, is that Jeremy's position? However badly it turns out, we never rejoin?

Misses the point entirely- Owen Smith suggests a long game on Brexit because he's got "convictions" on it. Jez is playing short term populist.