''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
Stay in your dreamworld. You have just demonstrated how unfit you are for any office. Ideal Corby-fodder if you ask me. Make sure you send an appropriate letter of congratulation when he wins.
I think the whip's note might have been a joke. When a Tory said Thatcher was a tigress surrounded by hamsters, I don't suppose he literally meant she had rodents in her cabinet.
Seems to be general agreement this afternoon on PB that Corbyn is already leader. Hope everyone has filled their boots at Betfair in that case! There's still £700 at 1.35 going begging if not.
Remember, not a vote has been cast, and there is no past record of accuracy to determine success either way. A few people on twitter can make a lot of noise.
Absolutely. Maybe the 'silent majority' will determine things. Strikes me that there is an assumption that pretty much all the union registered voters will go Corbyn - that can't be right IMHO. I remain on Cooper, but biting my fingernails. Certainly despite the high odds now think I've punted enough.
I hesitate to bring AGW into this but don't mention Jezza's view here. It's fine to have an opinion but he will be dogmatic about it.
I worry about people who say that “the science is settled.” They are always proved wrong. Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society from 1890 to 1895 declared that “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
A few years later, a revolution occurred with the discovery of relativity and quantum theory. Sometimes it’s the problem of correlation and causation. More recently, who can forget the fat is bad hypothesis? Cholesterol is bad, therefore eggs are bad. Studies showed a correlation between fat intake and heart disease, between cholesterol level and heart disease. There was definitely a consensus that reducing fat intake was the answer.
But there were facts still be discovered. Some types of lipoproteins are good. And there are different forms of HDL-cholesterol, different forms of LDL-cholesterol and various forms of apolipoproteins. Now carbohydrates are becoming the enemy (especially fructose). Who knows what the future holds? But it shows the problem of relying on surveys that are retrospective.
The gold standard for distinguishing correlation from causation is the double blind study. Follow groups chosen to be similar for all known factors and vary one of them. And don’t tell the participants or directors which is which.
Compared to lipid metabolism, climate change is vastly more complicated. Is carbon dioxide increase a causation or just a vague correlation? We need to divide the earth into two equal portions and increase CO2 in just one while all other factors remain the same - and there are far more factors involved here, some known and some unknown.
There is a scientific consensus but it is always a guess, an educated guess, but a guess. We should be finding ways to disprove the current hypothesis, not looking for ways to support it. That is real science.
It might be right, but is it worth spending fortunes onjust a good guess? Jezza will.
Do we feel lucky, punk?
I'll get my coat.
What is Jezza's view on AGW? Isn't his brother a leading light amongst Climate Change sceptics? Discovering that Jezza (secretly?) agreed might put the cat amongst the pigeons...
"He may well have finally put the brakes on the SNP juggernaut up here in Scotland, he is certainly drowning out the usually North Korean style SNP PR machine in the local news with some positive media attention of his own"
Fitalass wrong again. I know that is not news :-)
Assuming a Corbyn victory, his opposition to any meaningful further devolution will render a surge in Scotland pretty much dead on arrival.
Even if he were popular in Scotland, the political incompetence of both of the SLAB leadership contenders in condemning him before he became hot favourite will be used widely by the "SNP PR machine".
Further, as Corbyn has indicated that he would be kind enough to accept SNP support to put Labour in power, why would anyone bother to switch from SNP to Labour at GE 2020?
Only yesterday C4 news interviewed several young Scots who said they may switch from SNP to a Corbyn led Labour Party
Before Corbyn could take the fight to the SNP he first has to deal with SLAB - which lives in a perpetual state of civil war. Worth remembering that John McT who seems to have appointed himself as Witchfinder General on matters ABC is still SLAB's Chief off Staff - I think John McT and Blair McD would go as far as barricading themselves into SLAB's office in Glasgow to keep Corbyn out !!
If Corbyn becomes leader with membership backing they are irrelevant, in Glasgow yesterday a big turnout for his rally
As Corbyn is anti home rule and not a big fan of further devolution - as well as having no control over SLAB's candidate selection process etc - I can't immediately see why he'll revive SLAB's fortunes.
Because he would make Labour into an anti austerity movement and the place that would play best in is Scotland
The SNP are already are anti austerity movement who also favour independence when the time is right. Why then vote for a party which is anti austerity and anti independence/devolution - when UK Labour has been infected with SLABitis.
The SNP are already pushing through some cuts at Holyrood
I hesitate to bring AGW into this but don't mention Jezza's view here. It's fine to have an opinion but he will be dogmatic about it.
I worry about people who say that “the science is settled.” They are always proved wrong. Lord Kelvin, President of the Royal Society from 1890 to 1895 declared that “There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
A few years later, a revolution occurred with the discovery of relativity and quantum theory. Sometimes it’s the problem of correlation and causation. More recently, who can forget the fat is bad hypothesis? Cholesterol is bad, therefore eggs are bad. Studies showed a correlation between fat intake and heart disease, between cholesterol level and heart disease. There was definitely a consensus that reducing fat intake was the answer.
But there were facts still be discovered. Some types of lipoproteins are good. And there are different forms of HDL-cholesterol, different forms of LDL-cholesterol and various forms of apolipoproteins. Now carbohydrates are becoming the enemy (especially fructose). Who knows what the future holds? But it shows the problem of relying on surveys that are retrospective.
The gold standard for distinguishing correlation from causation is the double blind study. Follow groups chosen to be similar for all known factors and vary one of them. And don’t tell the participants or directors which is which.
Compared to lipid metabolism, climate change is vastly more complicated. Is carbon dioxide increase a causation or just a vague correlation? We need to divide the earth into two equal portions and increase CO2 in just one while all other factors remain the same - and there are far more factors involved here, some known and some unknown.
There is a scientific consensus but it is always a guess, an educated guess, but a guess. We should be finding ways to disprove the current hypothesis, not looking for ways to support it. That is real science.
It might be right, but is it worth spending fortunes onjust a good guess? Jezza will.
Seems to be general agreement this afternoon on PB that Corbyn is already leader. Hope everyone has filled their boots at Betfair in that case! There's still £700 at 1.35 going begging if not.
Remember, not a vote has been cast, and there is no past record of accuracy to determine success either way. A few people on twitter can make a lot of noise.
Absolutely. Maybe the 'silent majority' will determine things. Strikes me that there is an assumption that pretty much all the union registered voters will go Corbyn - that can't be right IMHO. I remain on Cooper, but biting my fingernails. Certainly despite the high odds now think I've punted enough.
Also need to remember that a significant proportion of the union registered and membership voters may not be particularly engaged in this contest through the internet. They may take the Mirror's and/or the Guardian's endorsements at face value without seeing the myriad of contrary opinions expressed BTL. Conversations in the workplace or the pub about the election may be very different to the "debates" raging on social media sites and elsewhere on the internet. And, importantly, many WILL NOT BE ON YOUGOV PANELS!
Listening to Andy Burnham on Any Questions. Labour might just have dodged a bullet. Utterly awful. Good when he plays to the gallery around renewables and the evil tories, but ripped apart from the left by people like Germaine Greer.
Jezza is fully behind AGW, and as Dr P says, he's not a man who will have his mind changed.
I've no problem with his opinion, but if new facts are discovered he won't change. He'll want to spend all our GDP on remedial measures even if the earth starts cooling.
That's why I worry about him.
But it doesn't matter, the Labour party, minus Nick and Jezza, will come to their senses
What is Jezza's view on AGW? Isn't his brother a leading light amongst Climate Change sceptics? Discovering that Jezza (secretly?) agreed might put the cat amongst the pigeons...
Oh, come on, Mr. Alex. What a man's brother believes in neither here nor there.
However, Corbyn has been quoted as saying he would like to reopen the coal mines. He has also been shown in photographs to be a supporter of green energy. What his actual beliefs are and, more importantly, what he would do if, by some miracle, he had to make a choice is anyone's guess.
It is very difficult to imagine any of this gang of four having the statesmanship or 'stateswomanship' to negotiate with Merkel et al, and that lack of capability includes Farron.
Why do we have so few people of that vital quality in politics today? Is it lack of quality education, family background or just lacking leadership qualities (or perhaps that experience from youth).
Because people with that sort of talent and capability can succeed in any walk of life and now that politics has become such a miserable and public endeavour they have no wish to put their families through the wringer.
Wrong David Miliband led Ed in 2010, Cameron led Davis in 2005 Clarke led IDS in 2001 in public polls and all were right
David Miliband, Davis and Clarke never faced a general election so how do you know the polls were right?
David Miliband may have been just as much a loser as his brother who beat him.
All would have done better than the leaders who won and in Davis case less well than Cameron
Please provide proof of this claim.
I don't think the issue with Clarke was ever his potential popularity with the electorate. The problem began and ended simply with the question of whether he could hold the party together. (The latter probably overblown because he was/is a highly intelligent policitican). Although it would have been a picnic compared with the task that would face Corbyn. I find it incredible that NickP acknowledges this as an issue/concern without giving any answer as to how he can possibly manage a party within which he has almost no support, has no personal record of loyalty in parliament, and with little evidence that people will be clamouring to associate with his team.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I certainly agree with Nick that the smearing of Corbyn, both by Tories and by the Labour Right, has been disgraceful.
As far as I can see, Corbyn has behaved gracefully under very unreasonable attacks. I certainly admire him for that.
I think it is worthwhile Labour learning the lessons of 2015, but on one thing Corbyn is surely right. The increasing inequality of the UK, and increasing reluctance of the very rich and of big companies to pay tax, is one of the most important issues facing the UK. That has a real resonance with the public, and it is not being articulated elsewhere.
If Corbyn is leader, and he manages to divert the energies of a united Labour Party into tackling this issue, then I see no reason why he might not win in 2020. 2020 will not be a re-run of 2015. Different issues will be important, and we will have had 10 years of cutbacks.
And a completely unpredictable Euro referendum.
Inequality isnt rising though, homelessness is at one of its lowest for thirty years, as is child poverty (quite dramatically on a couple of measure), both relative and absolute, as is unemployment, as is inflation. There are problems, as there always is, but under the coalition and now the Tories, the country isnt going to hell in a handcart.
Oh all of this. The inequality one most of all.
Just because some discredited chap with a beard says it, does not make it true.
Pretty soon we will have the Queen of Hearts ('words mean what I want them to mean') in charge of the Labour Party and the Knave of Hearts as its deputy leader. A real Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass mad mad world.
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I certainly agree with Nick that the smearing of Corbyn, both by Tories and by the Labour Right, has been disgraceful.
As far as I can see, Corbyn has behaved gracefully under very unreasonable attacks. I certainly admire him for that.
I think it is worthwhile Labour learning the lessons of 2015, but on one thing Corbyn is surely right. The increasing inequality of the UK, and increasing reluctance of the very rich and of big companies to pay tax, is one of the most important issues facing the UK. That has a real resonance with the public, and it is not being articulated elsewhere.
If Corbyn is leader, and he manages to divert the energies of a united Labour Party into tackling this issue, then I see no reason why he might not win in 2020. 2020 will not be a re-run of 2015. Different issues will be important, and we will have had 10 years of cutbacks.
And a completely unpredictable Euro referendum.
Inequality isnt rising though, homelessness is at one of its lowest for thirty years, as is child poverty (quite dramatically on a couple of measure), both relative and absolute, as is unemployment, as is inflation. There are problems, as there always is, but under the coalition and now the Tories, the country isnt going to hell in a handcart.
Oh all of this. The inequality one most of all.
Just because some discredited chap with a beard says it, does not make it true.
Pretty soon we will have the Queen of Hearts ('words mean what I want them to mean') in charge of the Labour Party and the Knave of Hearts as its deputy leader. A real Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass mad mad world.
Humpty Dumpty
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
Listening to Andy Burnham on Any Questions. Labour might just have dodged a bullet. Utterly awful. Good when he plays to the gallery around renewables and the evil tories, but ripped apart from the left by people like Germaine Greer.
I was always amazed that Burnham was readily touted as the likely winner. Labour have no credible leader, but then again the entire party is barely credible. It strikes me that if Corbyn had not been nominated then Cooper would have emerged as winner. The great weakness of Labour was laid bare however by the vitriol heaped on Kendall, this was the red carpet laid out for Corbyn to make his entrance on.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
If pointing out that Jeremy Corbyn is a far left weirdo counts as *smearing*, then having someone sectioned under the Mental Health Act is really a kind of *heckling*.
If nothing else, he likes being a far left weirdo. Many may not agree, but he approves of that stance, and I doubt he minds that label, as it shows him he is on the correct side (the 'If Blair and the other Tories are criticising me/him, then I/he must be correct' approach.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
Not really. I'll be absolutely fine with 10-15 more years of Tory government as they look after people like me. It's just a shame to see the party that did so much to ensure I got the opportunities I did put itself in a position of unelectability by choosing a leader who is not only economically illiterate but also the serial friend of this country's enemies. That said, if choosing him makrs you feel good about yourself, who am I to argue? Go for it.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I certainly agree with Nick that the smearing of Corbyn, both by Tories and by the Labour Right, has been disgraceful.
As far as I can see, Corbyn has behaved gracefully under very unreasonable attacks. I certainly admire him for that.
I think he's responded gracefully, for the most part, or ignored, attacks which in some instances may be reasonable and some instances not. I have not, however, seen that he has been smeared in any way - people have reported what he has said or believed, and they have also said if they like him or not. To my mind, smearing would involve untruths being spread about. There seems plenty about his views which are on the record which people in Labour and without do not like, so they haven't needed to smear (on the whole - a supposed note from the whips office is inconsequential, but hardly typical of the general attacks on Corbyn, which have been 'the man thinks this, he admits that, i don't agree)
Unless we are using the modern definition of smear - people saying things the other side disagrees with.
Hasn’t Corbyn been explicitly accused of being an anti-semite (by e.g., Ivan Lewis). That looks to me like smearing.
Isn’t referring to him as Jeremy Cor Bin Laden (which was in the comment I responded to) an example of smearing ?
There have also been claims from the Labour Right that there will be mass de-selections if he is leader. As far as I am aware, Corbyn has not proposed any such thing. That looks like smearing.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Another article by David H (for which many thanks), with which I am broadly in disagreement. If you are in a political party, as I have been for many years, you accept the changes to Party policy, some of which you may not support and if it's a fundamental for you, you have the option to leave said Party.
The problem becomes if, as a member of that Party, you are expected to swallow 90% of your principal opponent's agenda. The question then becomes whether it's just about power or is there more to it than that ?
One argument states that without power there's no point because you can have all the good ideas in the world but if you're never in a position to see them enacted, what's the point ? The counter to that is sometimes the good ideas are picked up by other parties and enacted and while you'd like to be the ones enacting and taking credit for them, if the ideas are good and they work, does it matter who has implemented them ?
The other argument says if the only aim is power and the only way to achieve that power is to agree with all the things your opponent has done, whether you agree with them or not, what's the point of the power if you simply perpetuate the policies of your opponent ?
The point then becomes it's better to be damned for who you are than for who you aren't. I look at Corbyn and his followers and see an attempt to try to articulate a different political and social path - I look at Burnham, Cooper and Kendall and see an almost complete acquiescence with the policies of the Coalition and even (in Kendall's case) with the Conservative majoritarian Government.
The point is not entirely whether such a path is credible - many, especially the Conservatives, will and are ridiculing it - but that a Party of Opposition needs to have an alternative vision to offer - to simply offer a watered-down version of current orthodoxy seems futile. We don't yet have the full shape of that path or policy programme - why should we, the election is four and three quarter years away - but for those who wish and want to oppose the Government, the starting point cannot be an implicit or explicit acceptance of vast tracts of the Government agenda including the principles of austerity.
Labour, from 2010-15, completely failed, in my view, to elaborate or articulate an alternative approach - one could not envisage a Miliband Government because there was nothing to envisage. At least with Corbyn there will be something - it may lack credibility, it will be ridiculed but at least there will be an alternative on offer for the electorate to consider.
That alone will be healthier for democracy than two parties engaging in a 21st century version of Butskellism.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
Didn't you miss Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA... can't think why...
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
No - Just a matter of waiting for nature to take its course.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
Didn't you miss Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA... can't think why...
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
Yes, some of them have indeed drunk the kool-aid of the AGW religion.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
It has been used successfully, but in a relatively small scale and sometimes for different reasons - e.g. for EOR or to resequester unwanted CO2 at gas fields.
It is do-able in the sense it is possible. And I'm in favour of anything which makes us self-sufficient in energy. Not sure that it's the best way to spend money though and it's a bit late for the big mines now.
Oh, and I've never voted Tory in my life. I even voted Labour in 1983 when Foot was leader (I got better). But as everyone who disapproves of Jezza is a Tory, I suppose I've been suppressing my inner baby-eater for all my life.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
Really? Billions earmarked since May this year? I am sure you have the requisite information at your fingertips so please share them with us.
That said Cameron seems to have no more idea about a sensible energy policy now that he is free of the Lib Dem excuse.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
There is a massive difference between funding small-scale projects to investigate new and untried technology (such as White Rose), and - as Ed did - banning any new coal-fired power stations unless they used the new and untried technology.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Of course he is facing a Tory party that armed the Saudis, Pol Pot, Saddam Hussein, Pinochet, Suharto and Islamist extremists in Libya, Syria and Afghanistan, many of the above hardly being known for pro-Jew or liberal outlooks.
They also actively collaborated militarily with terrorist groups in Ireland, rather than just suggesting talking with them.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
If Kezia wants to start to revive SLAB's fortunes in Scotland - here's my advice on where to start:
- Get rid of John McT and any remaining Murphy staffers lurking around at SLAB HQ. - Be brave enough to not only publish the SLAB leadership voting %s, but the numbers who voted and while she is at it how many members does SLAB have. - Abandon the various barmy GE2015 policies of the McMurphy boys and admit that SLAB were trying to take the Scottish electorate for a bunch of numpties. - Push to establish SLAB as a truly independent party and for UK Labour to adopt a Federal structure along the lines of the LibDems. - Clampdown on party infighting e.g. Glasgow City Council - be prepared to sack and kick out of the party those who refuse to play ball. - Be prepared to criticise the UK party when they mess up e.g. Welfare Bill. - Move quickly to align SLAB with Corbyn.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands
Strange as the Tories also get blamed for supporting toppling him for the war in 2003.
I'm not a big fan in general of blame by association, you could list similar numbers of deaths at the hands of the USA for example. And let's not forget lefty support for the Soviet Union and gushing admiration of Mao.
I agree with this. Corbyn will be - I am moderately certain - disastrous for Labour, but he will enliven politics, and provide a clear and very different choice for voters. Who will then choose the Conservatives.
But at least there will be the choice. When the post-war Tory Reform Group (whose members included MacLeod and Heath) urged the party to support Attlee's welfarism and nationalisation they condemned us to two generations of political stagnation whether it be under Conservative or Labour Governments.
Heath might have broken the spell of Butskellism had he had the courage but instead it was the political collapse of Labour that opened the door to a new political direction.
That new direction had always existed on the margins - the 1950s Liberals were in many ways the proto-Thatcherites.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
Just where are the billions allocated ? Where was it mentioned in the last budget? The last carbon capture experiments were a failure and they were by Ed Davey - remember him? The government want to see an expansion in shale gas exploration. Do labour?
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I
Inequality isnt rising though, homelessness is at one of its lowest for thirty years, as is child poverty (quite dramatically on a couple of measure), both relative and absolute, as is unemployment, as is inflation. There are problems, as there always is, but under the coalition and now the Tories, the country isnt going to hell in a handcart.
Oh all of this. The inequality one most of all.
Just because some discredited chap with a beard says it, does not make it true.
Pretty soon we will have the Queen of Hearts ('words mean what I want them to mean') in charge of the Labour Party and the Knave of Hearts as its deputy leader. A real Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass mad mad world.
Humpty Dumpty
"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean—neither more nor less."
It recently occurred to me that Labour are following a decided downwards trajectory in terms of leader electability. ...... Thing is, can they outdo themselves again? After Corbyn is deposed in 2017, could they possibly go one step further and find someone less electable still? SpongeBob SquarePants seems the only possibility. An animated kitchen sponge. But he'd need to get into Parliament first.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
Just where are the billions allocated ? Where was it mentioned in the last budget? The last carbon capture experiments were a failure and they were by Ed Davey - remember him? The government want to see an expansion in shale gas exploration. Do labour?
Maybe they've found a way to get it into the International Development budget?
I'm beginning to think that Mr Wisemann is yet another OGH nom de plume when he's feeling bored.
There are those on this site, Miss P, who are posting under new names. There are those who post under false pretenses i.e. pretending to be a person or of age etc. that they are not.. Then there are those who are real people, who can, and sometimes have been, met in person. It is only the last group that are worth engaging with.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
I don't distinguish between people on the basis of nationality. You appear to do so. Everything you have said about British mothers-wives-husbands - children etc - could be said about the many Iraqi victims. The only real difference ,of course, is that the British had no business being there. We were the aggressor and that is why I yearn to see Blair brought before the Hague Court. Failing that seeing him share the fate of Bin Laden - including being dumped at sea - would be very welcome.
So you are just as much as traitor as Corbyn then... thanks for the heads up
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
Fortunately for the sane amongst us should you and you fellow believers get too carried away, the Treason Act 1351 (as amended) is still in force
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I certainly agree with Nick that the smearing of Corbyn, both by Tories and by the Labour Right, has been disgraceful.
As far as I can see, Corbyn has behaved gracefully under very unreasonable attacks. I certainly admire him for that.
I think he's responded gracefully, for the most part, or ignored, attacks which in some instances may be reasonable and some instances not. I have not, however, seen that he has been smeared in any way - people have reported what he has said or believed, and they have also said if they like him or not. To my mind, smearing would involve untruths being spread about. There seems plenty about his views which are on the record which people in Labour and without do not like, so they haven't needed to smear (on the whole - a supposed note from the whips office is inconsequential, but hardly typical of the general attacks on Corbyn, which have been 'the man thinks this, he admits that, i don't agree)
Unless we are using the modern definition of smear - people saying things the other side disagrees with.
Hasn’t Corbyn been explicitly accused of being an anti-semite (by e.g., Ivan Lewis). That looks to me like smearing.
Isn’t referring to him as Jeremy Cor Bin Laden (which was in the comment I responded to) an example of smearing ?
There have also been claims from the Labour Right that there will be mass de-selections if he is leader. As far as I am aware, Corbyn has not proposed any such thing. That looks like smearing.
Neither makes up the most common of attacks against Corbyn, ie that he is unelectable and his ideas idiotic. Some level of smearing happens in politics, the idea he has been subjected to a disgraceful level of mainstream smearing is without foundation.
Hamas, Hezbollah and the PIRA have committed war crimes - specifically torturing and murdering prisoners. Deliberate and carefully planned murders of civilians as well.
And before anyone starts wibbling, the Hague Convention (the original one) was quite clear that non-official/national armies/resistance movements etc were covered by its provisions.
I always find it interesting when people sell the line "We must talk to x". But strangely all their condemnation is for y. And then pretend to be neutral and fair.
It is very difficult to imagine any of this gang of four having the statesmanship or 'stateswomanship' to negotiate with Merkel et al, and that lack of capability includes Farron.
Why do we have so few people of that vital quality in politics today? Is it lack of quality education, family background or just lacking leadership qualities (or perhaps that experience from youth).
Because people with that sort of talent and capability can succeed in any walk of life and now that politics has become such a miserable and public endeavour they have no wish to put their families through the wringer.
So has politics become the profession of the losers/those seeking power but are not capable of using it? There lies a dangerous opportunity path for dictators and similar maniacs.
We don't know if Corbyn's campaign is superficial and everything will fall apart once he gets elected. We don't know if he'll make a poor leader. We don't really know if Corbyn's past associations will harm him- they don't seem to have made much of an impact on the Labour core.
Burnham thought Corbyn an irrelevance and look where that got him.
Commentators are speculating on the Corbyn effect through the prism of 1980's politics- this may well still be relevant, or it may not be. We don't know.
Corbyn may well fail. The Labour Party may well split. We don't know, and there are enough supporters like myself who think "what the hell, let's give him a go"
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
It is doable. In fact I remember back in the eighties somebody suggesting a rather ingenious plan whereby you could use the carbon captured from burning coal as a fuel source itself, thus extracting even more energy from the coal or oil. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the only drawback with coal mining. It makes more sense to develop completely new technologies.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
There is a massive difference between funding small-scale projects to investigate new and untried technology (such as White Rose), and - as Ed did - banning any new coal-fired power stations unless they used the new and untried technology.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
Funnily enough, the old coal board back in the 60's and 70's was a world leader in cleaning and scrubbing coal fumes. The governments then didn't want to use the technology as it would increase the cost of the coal fired power stations. Believe it or not, the cost was peanuts compared to the price of the building of the power stations.
I understand that the by products of the scrubbing process would have been able to offset the costs to the extent of making a decent profit .
Might be interesting to see what updating the technology solutions could do today.
''When a notebook was mislaid by a member of the Whips' Office in 2002, Mr Corbyn was reportedly seen to have been described in it as 'Jeremy Cor Bin-Laden'. Thats a labour whips note book! Everything about Corbyn stinks. What a shambles Labour is...
When you have to resort to quoting an alleged note by an anonymous whip 13 years ago, don't you think you're getting a bit desperate? It makes my chat about what individual members said to me last week look like scientific opinion polling. :-)
I certainly agree with Nick that the smearing of Corbyn, both by Tories and by the Labour Right, has been disgraceful.
As far as I can see, Corbyn has behaved gracefully under very unreasonable attacks. I certainly admire him for that.
I think he's responded gracefully, for the most part, or ignored, attacks which in some instances may be reasonable and some instances not. I have not, however, seen that he has been smeared in any way - people have reported what he has said or believed, and they have also said if they like him or not. To my mind, smearing would involve untruths being spread about. There seems plenty about his views which are on the record which people in Labour and without do not like, so they haven't needed to smear (on the whole - a supposed note from the whips office is inconsequential, but hardly typical of the general attacks on Corbyn, which have been 'the man thinks this, he admits that, i don't agree)
Unless we are using the modern definition of smear - people saying things the other side disagrees with.
Hasn’t Corbyn been explicitly accused of being an anti-semite (by e.g., Ivan Lewis). That looks to me like smearing.
Isn’t referring to him as Jeremy Cor Bin Laden (which was in the comment I responded to) an example of smearing ?
There have also been claims from the Labour Right that there will be mass de-selections if he is leader. As far as I am aware, Corbyn has not proposed any such thing. That looks like smearing.
Neither makes up the most common of attacks against Corbyn, ie that he is unelectable and his ideas idiotic. Some level of smearing happens in politics, the idea he has been subjected to a disgraceful level of mainstream smearing is without foundation.
It"s amusing that Corbyn is repeatedly described as unelectable by three people who he's crushing in an election.
No, but you could join the ever increasing number of PB members who have met me, who know my personal email and phone numbers. I am a real person who posts under my own persona and have done on this site for about 8 years now.
People are in the mood for a different approach and I think Tories are gloating too soon
If enough are sensible they should be ok - I think it notable Mr Herdson recognises that Corbyn could cause Cameron problems simply by virtue of being different to what he isused to - but it's too early to say if in general the Tories will get complacent. The more certain they think a victory is, the greater the chance they will make a mistake.
If millions of voters in marginal seat's across England refused to vote for Ed Miliband they are not going to vote for Jeremy Corbyn in a million years.
What's far more likely is that millions of Labour voters who stuck with Labour despite Ed Miliband will conclude they are being taken for fools by the Labour Party and abandon the party leading to the kind of collapse across England and Wales that we saw in Scotland.
Labour is playing a very, very dangerous game with the voters and frankly I think the party has literally lost the plot (Dr Palmer included I'm afraid to say)
It's going to be tremendously fun to watch though.
Plus I think parliament would have been very dull with Yvette or Andy in as LOTO for the next 5 years.
The plots and scheming going on behind Jezza's back with a PLP and membership at war with one another will require bundles of popcorn.
As Mr. Yeodethur is not here Mr. Flaming Picky will have to do duty as PB's pendant for the time being, and he says:
You cannot bundle popcorn. The essence of a bundle is that it a collection of things that are tied or wrapped together. One cannot, at least in any meaningful sense, tie bits of popcorn together.
You've not made a popcorn necklace before??
edit: I see Miss @Plato beat me to it. And with an wiki link and everything!
I most certainly have not made a popcorn necklace. I was brought up not to play with my food! Actually food in the Llama household was regarded as something of a special if not sacred item, no doubt as a result of rationing, but I digress.
Creating a popcorn necklace involves threading bits of it onto a string, that is very different from tying bits of it together. Threading != Bundling. If the OP had said "... threads of popcorn..." then Mr. Flaming Picky would not have come down from his watchtower.
Although, once threaded, you then bundle the threads together...
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
There is a massive difference between funding small-scale projects to investigate new and untried technology (such as White Rose), and - as Ed did - banning any new coal-fired power stations unless they used the new and untried technology.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
Funnily enough, the old coal board back in the 60's and 70's was a world leader in cleaning and scrubbing coal fumes. The governments then didn't want to use the technology as it would increase the cost of the coal fired power stations. Believe it or not, the cost was peanuts compared to the price of the building of the power stations.
I understand that the by products of the scrubbing process would have been able to offset the costs to the extent of making a decent profit .
Might be interesting to see what updating the technology solutions could do today.
I worked (in an exceptionally small way) on the flue gas desulpharisation scheme at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. ISTR it recalls one or two trains of limestone a day to operate - hardly peanuts in terms of cost.
Mr. Llama, you may have missed it yesterday, but, at the risk of being immodest, it's a brilliant historical reference so I'll make it again.
Is Labour's leadership choice the worst since the Macedonians had to choose between someone mentally underdeveloped and a foetus?
Even their regents couldn't be first choices (Hephaestion had died and Craterus had been sent west shortly beforehand).
[NB this is not an allegorical comparison. That would suggest Ed Miliband were Alexander the Great].
Nice allegory, Mr. D., but it could be condensed and made more "accessible" by saying none of the candidates of the Leadership of the Labour Party are good enough.
The problem becomes if, as a member of that Party, you are expected to swallow 90% of your principal opponent's agenda. The question then becomes whether it's just about power or is there more to it than that ? One argument states that without power there's no point because you can have all the good ideas in the world but if you're never in a position to see them enacted, what's the point ? The counter to that is sometimes the good ideas are picked up by other parties and enacted and while you'd like to be the ones enacting and taking credit for them, if the ideas are good and they work, does it matter who has implemented them ? The other argument says if the only aim is power and the only way to achieve that power is to agree with all the things your opponent has done, whether you agree with them or not, what's the point of the power if you simply perpetuate the policies of your opponent ? The point then becomes it's better to be damned for who you are than for who you aren't. I look at Corbyn and his followers and see an attempt to try to articulate a different political and social path - I look at Burnham, Cooper and Kendall and see an almost complete acquiescence with the policies of the Coalition and even (in Kendall's case) with the Conservative majoritarian Government. The point is not entirely whether such a path is credible - many, especially the Conservatives, will and are ridiculing it - but that a Party of Opposition needs to have an alternative vision to offer - to simply offer a watered-down version of current orthodoxy seems futile. We don't yet have the full shape of that path or policy programme - why should we, the election is four and three quarter years away - but for those who wish and want to oppose the Government, the starting point cannot be an implicit or explicit acceptance of vast tracts of the Government agenda including the principles of austerity. Labour, from 2010-15, completely failed, in my view, to elaborate or articulate an alternative approach - one could not envisage a Miliband Government because there was nothing to envisage. At least with Corbyn there will be something - it may lack credibility, it will be ridiculed but at least there will be an alternative on offer for the electorate to consider.
An excellent post, Mr Stodge. I find that very helpful in sorting out my own thoughts.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
It is doable. In fact I remember back in the eighties somebody suggesting a rather ingenious plan whereby you could use the carbon captured from burning coal as a fuel source itself, thus extracting even more energy from the coal or oil. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the only drawback with coal mining. It makes more sense to develop completely new technologies.
Just been watching the BBC news channel and before it cut away to the VJ commemoration at Horseguards their was an interesting Click programme, part of which was on the automation of coal mining using 3d mapping.
We still a lot of coal under the UK and it might be a a way to go.
PS : What was Cameron doing at the parade. He looked a complete pratt, and that was before he tried to march between Charles and the other officer. Under other circumstances, it would have been hilarious. Expect the clip to go viral on YouTube.
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
Didn't you miss Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA... can't think why...
His list is absurd. Ceaucescu was a best mate of Labour funder, string puller and and MP Robert Maxwell. Saddam Hussain ? He's is just kidding there. Suharto? Ha. We fought a 'confrontation' over 4 years to prevent communist subversion and takeover of the Malaysian Federation. It ended when Sukarno was replaced by Suharto. t was a confrontation which went from 63 to 66 -- ie under a Labour government. Good luck with trying to pin Suharto on one political party. Desperate stuff.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
It is the current Tory government that has earmarked billions to support carbon capture and storage. Guess they must be loony left greenies too.
There is a massive difference between funding small-scale projects to investigate new and untried technology (such as White Rose), and - as Ed did - banning any new coal-fired power stations unless they used the new and untried technology.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
Funnily enough, the old coal board back in the 60's and 70's was a world leader in cleaning and scrubbing coal fumes. The governments then didn't want to use the technology as it would increase the cost of the coal fired power stations. Believe it or not, the cost was peanuts compared to the price of the building of the power stations.
I understand that the by products of the scrubbing process would have been able to offset the costs to the extent of making a decent profit .
Might be interesting to see what updating the technology solutions could do today.
I worked (in an exceptionally small way) on the flue gas desulpharisation scheme at Ratcliffe-on-Soar. ISTR it recalls one or two trains of limestone a day to operate - hardly peanuts in terms of cost.
We are doing an Environmental Risk Assessment and a Cost Benefit Analysis on a coal-fired power station that was due to close, but that closure has been stayed due to the UK's slim generating capacity margins.
Included in this study is the reduction of Nitrogen and Sulphur oxides, but the capture of CO2 is not economically viable - especially at current hydrocarbon prices.
I once had the chance to stand at the PM's Dispatch Box [very late night drunken tour by even drunker Lord] and it's the most intimidating place, even when empty.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
OchEye there is a massive amount of coal under the British Isles..unfortunately some of the seams are too thick..over six feet high..and deep to mine..
I don't think the issue with Clarke was ever his potential popularity with the electorate. The problem began and ended simply with the question of whether he could hold the party together. (The latter probably overblown because he was/is a highly intelligent policitican). Although it would have been a picnic compared with the task that would face Corbyn. I find it incredible that NickP acknowledges this as an issue/concern without giving any answer as to how he can possibly manage a party within which he has almost no support, has no personal record of loyalty in parliament, and with little evidence that people will be clamouring to associate with his team.
There I do claim specialist knowledge. MPs are, like it or not, primarily motivated by wishing to retain their seats, closely followed by hoping their party will win. Whether they like the leader, went to his wedding or voted with him on nationalisation of fish fingers is entirely secondary. If Corbyn is seen as leading the party to success, he won't have any problem with 90% of the PLP. If he's seen as leading it to disaster, he'll struggle.
I'm beginning to think that Mr Wisemann is yet another OGH nom de plume when he's feeling bored.
There are those on this site, Miss P, who are posting under new names. There are those who post under false pretenses i.e. pretending to be a person or of age etc. that they are not.. Then there are those who are real people, who can, and sometimes have been, met in person. It is only the last group that are worth engaging with.
Here's a good article on the Clinton email controversy and why it will dog her campaign for a while yet. It avoids the over-certitude of Hillary's wrong-doing of many right wing articles and the ridiculous denials and contortions of her campaign's talking points:
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
It is doable. In fact I remember back in the eighties somebody suggesting a rather ingenious plan whereby you could use the carbon captured from burning coal as a fuel source itself, thus extracting even more energy from the coal or oil. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the only drawback with coal mining. It makes more sense to develop completely new technologies.
There's a possible project being considered in the Firth of Forth:
OchEye there is a massive amount of coal under the British Isles..unfortunately some of the seams are too thick..over six feet high..and deep to mine..
What is the problem with a seam being six foot high? To an ignoramus that sounds like an advantage.
Yes it is quite amazing how compact each of the Houses are. Even more so it must be when most of the standing room is occupied. Of course the HoC was not built for 650 MPs and the HoL has even more members.
If one may ask, where do you and your drunker Lord friend end up? Was that before Portcullis house was built?
I once had the chance to stand at the PM's Dispatch Box [very late night drunken tour by even drunker Lord] and it's the most intimidating place, even when empty.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
I wonder if Corbyn will be a bit disconcerted by having to speak from the front bench? Has he spent his entire time in Parliament sitting and speaking from the back bench (against the back wall) on either side of the chamber? I can imagine that speaking from the front bench might feel very different, in a physical sense, and potentially far less comfortable, especially for someone who has got so used to where he is.
It is very difficult to imagine any of this gang of four having the statesmanship or 'stateswomanship' to negotiate with Merkel et al, and that lack of capability includes Farron.
Why do we have so few people of that vital quality in politics today? Is it lack of quality education, family background or just lacking leadership qualities (or perhaps that experience from youth).
Because people with that sort of talent and capability can succeed in any walk of life and now that politics has become such a miserable and public endeavour they have no wish to put their families through the wringer.
So has politics become the profession of the losers/those seeking power but are not capable of using it? There lies a dangerous opportunity path for dictators and similar maniacs.
Christ, someone get the smelling salts. SO is hysterical.
.
Corbyn has stood shoulder to shoulder with enemies of this country for decades. He has observed minute silences for the murderers of British troops. If you are comfortable with that, so be it.
But there have been times when our Armed Forces have been used as instruments of evil. When that has happened - Iraq in 2003 for example - human decency would have been best served by their being defeated.
Common decency would have it that British mother's lost their sons, British wives their husbands and British children their fathers because you feel that they were used as an instrument of evil? What an interesting view! I suppose you burn guns rather than jail murderers as well ? Meanwhile it would have made precisely no difference to the overall outcome, but might salve your conscience a bit ?
...
...
The true traitors are those who turn a blind eye to evil when committed by their own country. Doubtless had you been a German you would have seen Stauffenberg as a traitor and heartily approved of Freisler's People's Court verdicts.
You don't have to be German to see that von Stauffenberg was a traitor.
But he was a good brave man - being a traitor when faced with evil is a label to be worn with pride. Far better that than be an accomplice to evil by one's own country. I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
The US were not defeated in Vietnam. They successfully bombed North Vietnam, if not back to the stone age, then back to the Paris Peace Conference Table. They 'Vietnamesed' the South's army and withdrew. It was only thanks to a Democrat controlled Congress which banned any other land sea and air involvement that encouraged the North to mount a full army invasion which broke the terms of the peace treaty and defeated the Souths army. The North of course then commenced murdering anybody of an official nature they could lay their hands on - including vietcong. I'm sure these people and the boat people that survived these massacres, fully appreciated this US 'defeat' which you describe.
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Is carbon capture and storage doable? I mean is it actually doable, not just doable whilst still producing electricity at some reasonable price. The theory is there, as it is for cold fusion, but can it actually be turned into practice?
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
It is doable. In fact I remember back in the eighties somebody suggesting a rather ingenious plan whereby you could use the carbon captured from burning coal as a fuel source itself, thus extracting even more energy from the coal or oil. But carbon dioxide emissions aren't the only drawback with coal mining. It makes more sense to develop completely new technologies.
There's a possible project being considered in the Firth of Forth:
What enemies of the UK has he stood shoulder to shoulder since the end of hostilities in Northern Ireland nearly two decades ago? (I dispute that he stood shoulder to shoulder with the IRA anyway, but accepting your definitions for now.)
Do you count the dictator Hugo Chavez?
Oooh, er! Let's see now, Thatcher was friends with Pinochet, Ceaușescu and many others that both you and I wouldn't like to live under. Blair was friendly with GWB and Muammar Gaddafi both of whom some people consider war criminals and guilty of crimes against humanity.
Some times, politicians have to befriend people to influence some sort of dialogue, whether they think the person is insane, evil or stupid is beside the point.
Do two wrongs make a right?
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Pinochet - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0 Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
Didn't you miss Hamas, Hezbollah, the IRA... can't think why...
His list is absurd. Ceaucescu was a best mate of Labour funder, string puller and and MP Robert Maxwell. Saddam Hussain ? He's is just kidding there. Suharto? Ha. We fought a 'confrontation' over 4 years to prevent communist subversion and takeover of the Malaysian Federation. It ended when Sukarno was replaced by Suharto. t was a confrontation which went from 63 to 66 -- ie under a Labour government. Good luck with trying to pin Suharto on one political party. Desperate stuff.
Trying to remember which PM got Ceaucescu a Royal Banquet? Or which Government had ministers selling arms to both sides in the Iraq/Iran war?
As for Robert Maxwell, puhleeze, he was loyal to the only person he trusted, himself.
Also there was the little problem in the late 60's when the Indonesians were trying to take over the Malaysian part of the island and Brunei. Yes, the British army, SAS, Ghurkas and RAF were there and were, ahem, strictly prohibited from crossing the border into Indonesia.
And to quote that famous quiz on Radio 2 in the morning, you are a year out, Labour got into power in 64.
The emergency in Malaya started well before then.
Oh! Nearly forgot, it was Wilson who kept us out of Vietnam, and he was under great US pressure to commit.
Listening to Andy Burnham on Any Questions. Labour might just have dodged a bullet. Utterly awful. Good when he plays to the gallery around renewables and the evil tories, but ripped apart from the left by people like Germaine Greer.
I was always amazed that Burnham was readily touted as the likely winner. Labour have no credible leader, but then again the entire party is barely credible. It strikes me that if Corbyn had not been nominated then Cooper would have emerged as winner. The great weakness of Labour was laid bare however by the vitriol heaped on Kendall, this was the red carpet laid out for Corbyn to make his entrance on.
Lefties prefer Corbyn to Burnham but Burnham polls best with Tories while Cooper polls poorly with both
Comments
Correlation shows that marriage causes murder...
http://tylervigen.com/view_correlation?id=1233
Or is that the other way round?
There would no wasteful arguments between me and SO: JFDI is my motto. And the bankers would get their just deserts. What's not to love!!
Jezza is fully behind AGW, and as Dr P says, he's not a man who will have his mind changed.
I've no problem with his opinion, but if new facts are discovered he won't change. He'll want to spend all our GDP on remedial measures even if the earth starts cooling.
That's why I worry about him.
But it doesn't matter, the Labour party, minus Nick and Jezza, will come to their senses
However, Corbyn has been quoted as saying he would like to reopen the coal mines. He has also been shown in photographs to be a supporter of green energy. What his actual beliefs are and, more importantly, what he would do if, by some miracle, he had to make a choice is anyone's guess.
A real Alice in Wonderland Through the Looking Glass mad mad world.
I hope you have a better eye for detail in your work.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-china-33945293
I have been pleasantly surprised by China's openness about this disaster. It hasn't always been so, and they should be congratulated for the change.
"... organization to undermine our soldiers and give aid and succor to the enemy"
http://order-order.com/#:scApI400mhrTsA
I'd forgotten that Jezza is a coal mine man. But he'd manage to combine both views happily by spending billions on making coal burning green - it's do-able.
Isn’t referring to him as Jeremy Cor Bin Laden (which was in the comment I responded to) an example of smearing ?
There have also been claims from the Labour Right that there will be mass de-selections if he is leader. As far as I am aware, Corbyn has not proposed any such thing. That looks like smearing.
Includes some interesting findings on the Labour leadership election.
@JohnRentoul: Poll alert: We have our first post-election ComRes opinion poll in The Independent on Sunday tomorrow, shared ... http://t.co/m1ueVgiVQp
Private Eye will have good natured fun
I honestly can't think of any where his position has changed.
Another article by David H (for which many thanks), with which I am broadly in disagreement. If you are in a political party, as I have been for many years, you accept the changes to Party policy, some of which you may not support and if it's a fundamental for you, you have the option to leave said Party.
The problem becomes if, as a member of that Party, you are expected to swallow 90% of your principal opponent's agenda. The question then becomes whether it's just about power or is there more to it than that ?
One argument states that without power there's no point because you can have all the good ideas in the world but if you're never in a position to see them enacted, what's the point ? The counter to that is sometimes the good ideas are picked up by other parties and enacted and while you'd like to be the ones enacting and taking credit for them, if the ideas are good and they work, does it matter who has implemented them ?
The other argument says if the only aim is power and the only way to achieve that power is to agree with all the things your opponent has done, whether you agree with them or not, what's the point of the power if you simply perpetuate the policies of your opponent ?
The point then becomes it's better to be damned for who you are than for who you aren't. I look at Corbyn and his followers and see an attempt to try to articulate a different political and social path - I look at Burnham, Cooper and Kendall and see an almost complete acquiescence with the policies of the Coalition and even (in Kendall's case) with the Conservative majoritarian Government.
The point is not entirely whether such a path is credible - many, especially the Conservatives, will and are ridiculing it - but that a Party of Opposition needs to have an alternative vision to offer - to simply offer a watered-down version of current orthodoxy seems futile. We don't yet have the full shape of that path or policy programme - why should we, the election is four and three quarter years away - but for those who wish and want to oppose the Government, the starting point cannot be an implicit or explicit acceptance of vast tracts of the Government agenda including the principles of austerity.
Labour, from 2010-15, completely failed, in my view, to elaborate or articulate an alternative approach - one could not envisage a Miliband Government because there was nothing to envisage. At least with Corbyn there will be something - it may lack credibility, it will be ridiculed but at least there will be an alternative on offer for the electorate to consider.
That alone will be healthier for democracy than two parties engaging in a 21st century version of Butskellism.
Nice to see another beautiful female engineer!
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Ceaucescu - thousands
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Saddam Hussein - hundreds of thousands
Political killings at the hands of Tory dictator friend Suharto - millions
Political killings at the hands of democratically elected Chavez - ~0
Tory ignorance of the real world - priceless.
Probably, in the context of Corbyn's bid for the leadership it doesn't matter. After all it will be impossible for enough dwellings to be built in five years to solve the UK's housing problem. Yet that is what he said he wants to do. Believing someone who promises the impossible is, I understand from this site, a new approach to politics that will be wildly popular.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_capture_and_storage#Industrial-scale_projects
We're in a very different situation (both in terms of geology, geography and scale) to these projects. But IANAE ...
It is do-able in the sense it is possible. And I'm in favour of anything which makes us self-sufficient in energy. Not sure that it's the best way to spend money though and it's a bit late for the big mines now.
Oh, and I've never voted Tory in my life. I even voted Labour in 1983 when Foot was leader (I got better). But as everyone who disapproves of Jezza is a Tory, I suppose I've been suppressing my inner baby-eater for all my life.
That said Cameron seems to have no more idea about a sensible energy policy now that he is free of the Lib Dem excuse.
It was absolute madness, and the fact he did it after being harangued by a z-list celebrity shows why we had a lucky escape from him being PM.
I am sure there are many Americans who were happy to see the US defeated in Vietnam.
- Get rid of John McT and any remaining Murphy staffers lurking around at SLAB HQ.
- Be brave enough to not only publish the SLAB leadership voting %s, but the numbers who voted and while she is at it how many members does SLAB have.
- Abandon the various barmy GE2015 policies of the McMurphy boys and admit that SLAB were trying to take the Scottish electorate for a bunch of numpties.
- Push to establish SLAB as a truly independent party and for UK Labour to adopt a Federal structure along the lines of the LibDems.
- Clampdown on party infighting e.g. Glasgow City Council - be prepared to sack and kick out of the party those who refuse to play ball.
- Be prepared to criticise the UK party when they mess up e.g. Welfare Bill.
- Move quickly to align SLAB with Corbyn.
I'm not a big fan in general of blame by association, you could list similar numbers of deaths at the hands of the USA for example. And let's not forget lefty support for the Soviet Union and gushing admiration of Mao.
Heath might have broken the spell of Butskellism had he had the courage but instead it was the political collapse of Labour that opened the door to a new political direction.
That new direction had always existed on the margins - the 1950s Liberals were in many ways the proto-Thatcherites.
The government want to see an expansion in shale gas exploration. Do labour?
Thing is, can they outdo themselves again? After Corbyn is deposed in 2017, could they possibly go one step further and find someone less electable still?
SpongeBob SquarePants seems the only possibility. An animated kitchen sponge. But he'd need to get into Parliament first.
Lucy Powell is there already. Ready and waiting.
1.36 is available for Corbyn at Betfair. Annoyed I didn't take the 1.39 available last night.
Hamas, Hezbollah and the PIRA have committed war crimes - specifically torturing and murdering prisoners. Deliberate and carefully planned murders of civilians as well.
And before anyone starts wibbling, the Hague Convention (the original one) was quite clear that non-official/national armies/resistance movements etc were covered by its provisions.
I always find it interesting when people sell the line "We must talk to x". But strangely all their condemnation is for y. And then pretend to be neutral and fair.
We don't know if Corbyn's campaign is superficial and everything will fall apart once he gets elected. We don't know if he'll make a poor leader. We don't really know if Corbyn's past associations will harm him- they don't seem to have made much of an impact on the Labour core.
Burnham thought Corbyn an irrelevance and look where that got him.
Commentators are speculating on the Corbyn effect through the prism of 1980's politics- this may well still be relevant, or it may not be. We don't know.
Corbyn may well fail. The Labour Party may well split. We don't know, and there are enough supporters like myself who think "what the hell, let's give him a go"
I understand that the by products of the scrubbing process would have been able to offset the costs to the extent of making a decent profit .
Might be interesting to see what updating the technology solutions could do today.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3198865/Life-long-bachelor-Andrew-Neil-weds-secret-BBC-broadcaster-66-commits-glamorous-Swede-44.html
Mr. Llama, you may have missed it yesterday, but, at the risk of being immodest, it's a brilliant historical reference so I'll make it again.
Is Labour's leadership choice the worst since the Macedonians had to choose between someone mentally underdeveloped and a foetus?
Even their regents couldn't be first choices (Hephaestion had died and Craterus had been sent west shortly beforehand).
[NB this is not an allegorical comparison. That would suggest Ed Miliband were Alexander the Great].
We still a lot of coal under the UK and it might be a a way to go.
PS : What was Cameron doing at the parade. He looked a complete pratt, and that was before he tried to march between Charles and the other officer. Under other circumstances, it would have been hilarious. Expect the clip to go viral on YouTube.
Ceaucescu was a best mate of Labour funder, string puller and and MP Robert Maxwell.
Saddam Hussain ? He's is just kidding there.
Suharto? Ha. We fought a 'confrontation' over 4 years to prevent communist subversion and takeover of the Malaysian Federation. It ended when Sukarno was replaced by Suharto. t was a confrontation which went from 63 to 66 -- ie under a Labour government. Good luck with trying to pin Suharto on one political party.
Desperate stuff.
Still, best wishes to them both.
Included in this study is the reduction of Nitrogen and Sulphur oxides, but the capture of CO2 is not economically viable - especially at current hydrocarbon prices.
It's such a tight space/surrounded by massed ranks of seats within just a few feet. I can imagine the roar being deafening and those stood behind it feeling the soundwaves.
Makes the Mastermind black chair look comfy.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2015/08/15/seven_reasons_hillarys_email_problems_wont_go_away.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-29987033
Still, it's well-known the girls go wild for a morris dancer, so it's only natural, I suppose.
If one may ask, where do you and your drunker Lord friend end up? Was that before Portcullis house was built?
I can't imagine what sort of incredibly dull/short poppy life wouldn't attract attention these days.
As for Robert Maxwell, puhleeze, he was loyal to the only person he trusted, himself.
Also there was the little problem in the late 60's when the Indonesians were trying to take over the Malaysian part of the island and Brunei. Yes, the British army, SAS, Ghurkas and RAF were there and were, ahem, strictly prohibited from crossing the border into Indonesia.
And to quote that famous quiz on Radio 2 in the morning, you are a year out, Labour got into power in 64.
The emergency in Malaya started well before then.
Oh! Nearly forgot, it was Wilson who kept us out of Vietnam, and he was under great US pressure to commit.