Next Leader of the Opposition

[Rincewind]

Well what Corbyn stands for I do not see as a far left thing. Health care for all a deceny education for all housing for all care for the vulnerable. Restore the faith of voters in MP's. An end to inequality. And he's being called a loony for wanting that. Well they had better lock me up as well.

[BlueSi13]

Well what Corbyn stands for I do not see as a far left thing. Health care for all a deceny education for all housing for all care for the vulnerable. Restore the faith of voters in MP's. An end to inequality. And he's being called a loony for wanting that. Well they had better lock me up as well.

 

 

Healthcare for all?  Housing for all?  Equality?  Personally I haven't come across anyone involved in politics on either side of the spectrum that doesn't want those things.

 

Besides, we both know he isn't being called a loony for those things Rince.

[Guest]

Or maybe he was less of a left-wing nutjob than Corbyn?  Do you realise how much damage you're inflicting on your own party with attitudes like that?  Do you realise how silly it sounds?  

 

As someone else mentioned on here, if a candidate more left-wing than Corbyn rears his/her head, does that make old Jezza a 'tory' too? Laughing stock.

 

I don't know what you're talking about.

 

I don't have a party, I don't vote in England, I just have a set of beliefs and morals. 

 

I guess you're the same since you claim to have voted for both Labour and Conservative - unless you really think there is very little difference between the labour party you voted for and the Tory party you voted for.

[Guest]

Healthcare for all?  Housing for all?  Equality?  Personally I haven't come across anyone involved in politics on either side of the spectrum that doesn't want those things.

 

Besides, we both know he isn't being called a loony for those things Rince.

 

No, he's being called a loony by Tory and Labour voters who are frightened that the electorate may actually have a choice of different views at the next election and by Labour mps who are worried about not having a cushy job. 

[Webbo]

No, he's being called a loony by Tory and Labour voters who are frightened that the electorate may actually have a choice of different views at the next election and by Labour mps who are worried about not having a cushy job. 

If people want that choice then those Labour mps will keep their job. You seem to be saying that Labour voters have no business in expressing a preference against Corbyn.

[Jon the Hat]

Corbyn is being called a loony because he is a ****ing loony.

[Claridge]

No, he's being called a loony by Tory and Labour voters who are frightened that the electorate may actually have a choice of different views at the next election and by Labour mps who are worried about not having a cushy job. 

In 4 years time they won't have a job if Corbyn wins.He is the John Redwood candidate and an absolute dream leader of labour.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

for the tories

[Guest]

If people want that choice then those Labour mps will keep their job. You seem to be saying that Labour voters have no business in expressing a preference against Corbyn.

 

No at all.

[Guest Bilo]

If people want that choice then those Labour mps will keep their job. You seem to be saying that Labour voters have no business in expressing a preference against Corbyn.

That last sentence nails it. Corbynites despise voters who choose other candidates, and there's already been talk of forcing out Progress and other factions.

[Alf Bentley]

No arguments from me, with hindsight Iraq was a monumental mistake.  However I believe (feel free to correct me if I'm wrong) the majority of Parliament and the wider populace supported military action, the world was a different place leading up to 2003, attitudes were far removed from what they are now.  Blaming Blair is convenient, but the story is much bigger than that.

 

Had to check my own memory of this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

 

Bear in mind that the attack on Iraq started on 18th March 2003. So, it is clear that, although the country was divided, almost every single poll before the war showed a majority opposed to the war. From 18th March, when war became a reality, the polls switched around as a majority understandably wanted to feel that they were backing our troops. After just over a year, when it had become clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that it was going to be a bloody and counter-productive conflict (just how counter-productive we are still seeing today), the polls switched back again to show a consistent and large majority against the war.

 

Also, a month before it started, somewhere between 1m and 3m people took to the streets of London to oppose the war in the largest demonstration that the country has ever seen: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

I was among them and it remains a source of great disillusionment to me that so little notice was taken of so much opposition.

 

 

That is what MP's do best. At the time of the Iraq war I was against it but I never knew the details. I am a natural pacifist anyway. There were however people I worked for it and some were Tories. These were the same ones who laughed at the Sun headline ''GOTCHA' during the Falklands. They looked at it as a game and the Iraqs as the villains because they were foreign.

I don't know how much Blair knew beforehand but he took the word of the ones reporting back It was mainly American intelligence wasn't it? At the time I thought the evidence wasn't strong enough but Parliament had decided already so did not need much pursuading. It was only left wingers and Liberals that mostly voted against it.

 

Here's the data on the parliamentary vote on the Iraq war: Labour MPs voted 254-84 for war (with a lot of abstentions), the Tories voted 146-2 in favour (and some of their spokespeople had even been critical of Blair for bothering to try for a UN resolution), the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid & SDLP all voted against war, the Ulster Unionists all voted for war. So, basically a New Labour/Tory/Ulster Unionist alliance supported war, while the Labour left, Lib Dems & nationalists voted against.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allpossible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq#cite_note-pw118-5

 

For anyone who has understandably forgotten what a wise, principled, statesman-like politician looks like, take 10 mins to watch Robin Cook's resignation speech and weep (I honestly nearly did): 

 

 

How Labour - or indeed the Tories - could do with someone of his calibre today.

[johnny the fox]

Had to check my own memory of this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

 

Bear in mind that the attack on Iraq started on 18th March 2003. So, it is clear that, although the country was divided, almost every single poll before the war showed a majority opposed to the war. From 18th March, when war became a reality, the polls switched around as a majority understandably wanted to feel that they were backing our troops. After just over a year, when it had become clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that it was going to be a bloody and counter-productive conflict (just how counter-productive we are still seeing today), the polls switched back again to show a consistent and large majority against the war.

 

Also, a month before it started, somewhere between 1m and 3m people took to the streets of London to oppose the war in the largest demonstration that the country has ever seen: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

I was among them and it remains a source of great disillusionment to me that so little notice was taken of so much opposition.

 

 

 

Here's the data on the parliamentary vote on the Iraq war: Labour MPs voted 254-84 for war (with a lot of abstentions), the Tories voted 146-2 in favour (and some of their spokespeople had even been critical of Blair for bothering to try for a UN resolution), the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid & SDLP all voted against war, the Ulster Unionists all voted for war. So, basically a New Labour/Tory/Ulster Unionist alliance supported war, while the Labour left, Lib Dems & nationalists voted against.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allpossible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq#cite_note-pw118-5

 

For anyone who has understandably forgotten what a wise, principled, statesman-like politician looks like, take 10 mins to watch Robin Cook's resignation speech and weep (I honestly nearly did): 

 

 

How Labour - or indeed the Tories - could do with someone of his calibre today.

http://suspiciousdeaths.blogspot.co.uk/2010/05/robin-cook.html    http://shaphan.typepad.com/blog/2006/05/questions_about.html http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/339807/Mystery-death-of-key-MP-witness-in-Diana-s-murder

[BlueSi13]

No, he's being called a loony by Tory and Labour voters who are frightened that the electorate may actually have a choice of different views at the next election and by Labour mps who are worried about not having a cushy job. 

 

I'm confused.  At the last general election voters had lots of left-wing options to choose from with such parties as:

 

The Communist Party

Left Unity

National Health Action Party

Reality Party

Respect Party

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Socialist Party 

Socialist Workers Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

 

Plus there are an absolute tonne of other left-wing political groups that people can join.  I wonder why next to nobody voted for them 

[BlueSi13]

Had to check my own memory of this: http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/iraq

 

Bear in mind that the attack on Iraq started on 18th March 2003. So, it is clear that, although the country was divided, almost every single poll before the war showed a majority opposed to the war. From 18th March, when war became a reality, the polls switched around as a majority understandably wanted to feel that they were backing our troops. After just over a year, when it had become clear that there were no weapons of mass destruction and that it was going to be a bloody and counter-productive conflict (just how counter-productive we are still seeing today), the polls switched back again to show a consistent and large majority against the war.

 

Also, a month before it started, somewhere between 1m and 3m people took to the streets of London to oppose the war in the largest demonstration that the country has ever seen: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/February_15,_2003_anti-war_protest

I was among them and it remains a source of great disillusionment to me that so little notice was taken of so much opposition.

 

 

 

Here's the data on the parliamentary vote on the Iraq war: Labour MPs voted 254-84 for war (with a lot of abstentions), the Tories voted 146-2 in favour (and some of their spokespeople had even been critical of Blair for bothering to try for a UN resolution), the Lib Dems, SNP, Plaid & SDLP all voted against war, the Ulster Unionists all voted for war. So, basically a New Labour/Tory/Ulster Unionist alliance supported war, while the Labour left, Lib Dems & nationalists voted against.

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-03-18&number=118&display=allpossible

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Parliamentary_approval_for_the_invasion_of_Iraq#cite_note-pw118-5

 

For anyone who has understandably forgotten what a wise, principled, statesman-like politician looks like, take 10 mins to watch Robin Cook's resignation speech and weep (I honestly nearly did): 

 

 

How Labour - or indeed the Tories - could do with someone of his calibre today.

 

Yet Blair then went on to win with a huge majority.  I personally remember the protests, but I don't think the overall national mood was as set against the war as you're making out.  I think the screw really began to turn years later when Blair left office and yet we were still in Iraq with a stark realisation that all we'd done is waste a fortune in men and equipment on opening Pandora's box.  Indeed such a realisation has still paralysed our (and indeed the USA's) foreign policy to such an extent that a threat like ISIS could capitalise and bring untold barbarism to the lives of millions.

[Guest]

I'm confused.  At the last general election voters had lots of left-wing options to choose from with such parties as:

 

The Communist Party

Left Unity

National Health Action Party

Reality Party

Respect Party

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Socialist Party 

Socialist Workers Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

 

Plus there are an absolute tonne of other left-wing political groups that people can join.  I wonder why next to nobody voted for them 

 

I'm confused as to why, as a Tory, you care?

[Rincewind]

I'm confused.  At the last general election voters had lots of left-wing options to choose from with such parties as:

 

The Communist Party

Left Unity

National Health Action Party

Reality Party

Respect Party

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Socialist Party 

Socialist Workers Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

 

Plus there are an absolute tonne of other left-wing political groups that people can join.  I wonder why next to nobody voted for them 

Maybe that was the problem. Too much choice so it spread the vote. I know a few people who voted Green because they were not happy  with what was happening within the Labour party. I still think they are a good alternative and the only realistic opposition to the Tory's.

[The Doctor]

I'm confused.  At the last general election voters had lots of left-wing options to choose from with such parties as:

 

The Communist Party

Left Unity

National Health Action Party

Reality Party

Respect Party

Socialist Party of Great Britain

Socialist Party 

Socialist Workers Party

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

 

Plus there are an absolute tonne of other left-wing political groups that people can join.  I wonder why next to nobody voted for them 

 

very few of which stood in many constituencies - all well and good saying they're out there, but if they're not there as a choice that means very little. My constituency had UKIP, Con, Green, Lib, Lab, Respect and an Indie in it; which left a grand total of one left wing party that had even a remote claim of being credible in labour - hardly the choice there beyond labour for left wing voters.

[Rincewind]

Maybe Labour should do a deal with some of the other parties to not stand in marginal seats that they need to win back. OK it will be less choice but given they have no chance who would they prefer to be in power?

[Claridge]

very few of which stood in many constituencies - all well and good saying they're out there, but if they're not there as a choice that means very little. My constituency had UKIP, Con, Green, Lib, Lab, Respect and an Indie in it; which left a grand total of one left wing party that had even a remote claim of being credible in labour - hardly the choice there beyond labour for left wing voters.

 Incredible to think that Labour didn't win the election for not being left-wing enough.

With Corbyn praising Bin Laden and Burnham advocating allowing more migrants in from Calais, its hard to see Labour failing next time.

Shame Lord Sutch is no longer alive as that would give us another credible party

[The Doctor]

 Incredible to think that Labour didn't win the election for not being left-wing enough.

With Corbyn praising Bin Laden and Burnham advocating allowing more migrants in from Calais, its hard to see Labour failing next time.

Shame Lord Sutch is no longer alive as that would give us another credible party

 

They lost it due to their abysmal PR work - the public fell for the "labour are bad with money" idea hook, line and sinker - the tories have managed to pin the global recession (the impact of which would have been worse on us under a tory government since the tories wanted more deregulation of the banks) on labour, and labour completely failed to even address that claim. 

 

Yep, saying it's a shame he couldn't be taken alive and forced to stand trial is such high praise 

[Buce]

Incredible to think that Labour didn't win the election for not being left-wing enough.

With Corbyn praising Bin Laden and Burnham advocating allowing more migrants in from Calais, its hard to see Labour failing next time.

Shame Lord Sutch is no longer alive as that would give us another credible party

Corbyn did not praise Bin Laden.

If you're going to talk shit, at least get your facts straight.

[Alf Bentley]

Yet Blair then went on to win with a huge majority.  I personally remember the protests, but I don't think the overall national mood was as set against the war as you're making out.  I think the screw really began to turn years later when Blair left office and yet we were still in Iraq with a stark realisation that all we'd done is waste a fortune in men and equipment on opening Pandora's box.  Indeed such a realisation has still paralysed our (and indeed the USA's) foreign policy to such an extent that a threat like ISIS could capitalise and bring untold barbarism to the lives of millions.

 

You're right that the country was pretty divided - and only became decisively anti-war after it was apparent that it was an unjustified disaster. But surely it shows something that almost every poll prior to the war was opposed, even if some were close? Likewise, the biggest demonstration in the history of the country shows something, surely?

 

Blair didn't win a huge majority in 2005, though:  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2005

Labour lost 47 seats and 5.5% of its vote, beating the Tories by just 35.2% to 32.4%, the smallest vote ever to secure a majority...even smaller than the Tories in 2015. Furthermore, most of those votes went not to the Tories, who supported the war, but to the anti-war Lib Dems (up 3.7% to an all-time record of 62 seats). Labour still won as Iraq was obviously far from the only issue of importance - they were presiding over an economic boom, a major expansion of public services and had a popular, charismatic leader (whatever I might think of his politics)....but the 2005 election result suggests that Iraq did their vote some serious damage.

 

Agree with most of your comments, though.

[Rincewind]

I've not seen what Corbyn said about Bin Laden. No doubt there have been several leaders admired for their warfare strategy throughout history. Not all of them were on our side.And some were right nasty buggers.

[Mark_w]

I've not seen what Corbyn said about Bin Laden. No doubt there have been several leaders admired for their warfare strategy throughout history. Not all of them were on our side.And some were right nasty buggers.

 

I certainly don't think Corbyn, or anyone else, is admiring Osama Bin Laden's 'strategy'. From the quotes I've seen his issue is that Bin Laden wasn't captured and given a fair trial before being punished for his crimes (someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've just glanced at a couple of articles). Don't think there's anything wrong with that stance if that's what Corbyn is saying, from what I've seen he's not actually said that Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, though that doesn't seem to have stopped the media putting it in the headline of various articles and various politicians jumping on it. Feels like a really lazy attack to me.

 

 

Around the same time, Mr Corbyn appeared on Iranian TV channel Press TV to criticise the fact Mr Bin Laden was not put on trial.

He described the fact the US and its allies were “descending deeper and deeper” towards using torture and extra-judicial killings as “a tragedy”.

“There was no attempt whatsoever that I can see to arrest him, to put him on trial, to go through that process,” he said.

“This was an assassination attempt, and is yet another tragedy, upon a tragedy, upon a tragedy. The World Trade Center was a tragedy, the attack on Afghanistan was a tragedy, the war in Iraq was a tragedy. Tens of thousands of people have died.

 

[Rincewind]

I was  trying to find another word other than praise. So from that quote I would say it was a tragedy that things got to the situation where Bin Laden was taken out. I do not think the Americans wanted a  trial. It would have been lengthy and the defense could have brought some things they did not want public so soon after.

[The Doctor]

I certainly don't think Corbyn, or anyone else, is admiring Osama Bin Laden's 'strategy'. From the quotes I've seen his issue is that Bin Laden wasn't captured and given a fair trial before being punished for his crimes (someone correct me if I'm wrong. I've just glanced at a couple of articles). Don't think there's anything wrong with that stance if that's what Corbyn is saying, from what I've seen he's not actually said that Bin Laden's death was a tragedy, though that doesn't seem to have stopped the media putting it in the headline of various articles and various politicians jumping on it. Feels like a really lazy attack to me.

"This was an assassination attempt and is yet another tragedy"

He clearly says it, but the context shows quite clearly that it's a tragedy because he wasn't made to face what he's done - something I suspect most attacking him for it would agree with, that it would have been preferable to make him stand trial for his crimes.