Support NeoGAF

[Deleted member 231381]

And it seems like we are heading that way. Everything else is just posturing for the inevitable election. I find it hard to be angry at MPs for going against the leadership in order to try and swing the inevitable election the way they want when Corbyn made being an uncontrollable rebel a key part of his election strategy.

A challenge can't even be brought against Labour until the next Labour Party Conference in August, 2016. Writing off the open refusal of shadow cabinet members to accept the direction of the leader of the opposition and yet also refuse to resign as just pre-election manoeuvring almost a year away from even the opportunity to have an election at all is grotesque. Corbyn was a rebel from the backbenches; if you want to make that part of your strategy, go join the backbenches.

 

[CCS]

A challenge can't even be brought against Labour until the next Labour Party Conference in August, 2016. Writing off the open refusal of shadow cabinet members to accept the direction of the leader of the opposition and yet also refuse to resign as just pre-election manoeuvring almost a year away from even the opportunity to have an election at all is grotesque. Corbyn was a rebel from the backbenches; if you want to make that part of your strategy, go join the backbenches.

I have to confess to a certain degree of buyer's remorse. I voted for Corbyn, now I want him gone ASAP.

Why oh why did he have to put McDonnell as fucking shadow chancellor?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

I have to confess to a certain degree of buyer's remorse. I voted for Corbyn, now I want him gone ASAP.

Why oh why did he have to put McDonnell as fucking shadow chancellor?

I supported Burnham, as this thread attests. However, I have the common decency to know that Corbyn won. Breaking the rules just because you dislike Corbyn is an invitation to anarchy and the destruction of the party, because it sets the precedent that any time a particular Labour Party faction dislikes the status quo, they can therefore do whatever they like no matter the duties that are placed upon them. You cannot run a political organization on that basis.

 

[CCS]

I supported Burnham, as this thread attests. However, I have the common decency to know that Corbyn won. Breaking the rules just because you dislike Corbyn is an invitation to anarchy and the destruction of the party, because it sets the precedent that any time a particular Labour Party faction dislikes the status quo, they can therefore do whatever they like no matter the duties that are placed upon them. You cannot run a political organization on that basis.

True. I've never made any pretense to consistency though

 

[Coriolanus]

Should also keep in mind that open disruption and actively working to undermine your leader will almost always benefit neither your constituents nor the party. Is kind of why one should stop at (somewhat) polite dissent.

Corbyn's been at the helm for a bit more than two months. Dudes need to stop panicking. Not like you can get rid of him, so might as well try to make it work.

A party in disarray benefits no one but the opposition.

 

[Moosichu]

Should also keep in mind that open disruption and actively working to undermine your leader will almost always benefit neither your constituents nor the party. Is kind of why one should stop at (somewhat) polite dissent.

Corbyn's been at the helm for a bit more than two months. Dudes need to stop panicking. Not like you can get rid of him, so might as well try to make it work.

A party in disarray benefits no one but the opposition.

But the Labour party is the opposition

 

[popo]

The whole obsession with "U turns", while accurate, is super dumb.

Someone announces policy, it is debated - as it should be - either in the house or, more frequently, the media. Opponents demands the policy be scrapped.

The policy maker is convinced by the argument - be it truly convinced or for their own selfish reasons - and backs down. Opposition and media declare it a "U turn", mock the turnee and calls them weak for caving in.

Insures that the foremost thought on the policy makers mind is not reasoned argument but how they will look in the press.

 

[Coriolanus]

But the Labour party is the opposition

Weird bit is that the party in power can be called the situation in my language. Drives me up a wall, for some reason.

 

[War Peaceman]

Atm no one has said what the plan for Syria is except for bombing targets of opportunity. Is there a strategy? Is there a reason why it will suddenly be more effective now than in the past? Any reason to think this won't make the UK less safe from the blowback?

Also the Tory aide who bullied a person into suicide had been reported to party HQ, despite them lying earlier and saying they had no idea. Blood on their hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...bullying-youth-wing-warsi-grant-shapps-letter

I met Elliott Johnson a few times, hell of a character. I hope they are successful in punishing those responsible.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Should also keep in mind that open disruption and actively working to undermine your leader will almost always benefit neither your constituents nor the party. Is kind of why one should stop at (somewhat) polite dissent.

Corbyn's been at the helm for a bit more than two months. Dudes need to stop panicking. Not like you can get rid of him, so might as well try to make it work.

A party in disarray benefits no one but the opposition.

This is more-or-less a mirror of the "I'd rather we lost with Corbyn with the Labour party undergoing a left wing transformation than win as Tory-lite" argument, no? Not that many people think Corbyn could delivery Labour a majority (or anything other than a Tory majority tbh) but some think it's worth it because the *next* Labour leader - who might actually be a competent politician - will inherit a more left-wing Labour that can go on to win in its own terms (rather than the "neo-liberal" terms of the Tories or, say, Ed Miliband.) I disagree with this argument but I understand it.

And surely the same can be said for the counter-revolutionary White Russians within the Labour party (and also the Eurosceptic Tories though they're wrong too) who *know* that civil war and in-fighting is a bad look but think it's the lesser of two evils and a prerequisite of getting back onto the path to Downing Street.

 

[Saiyar]

BBC

Grant Shapps has resigned over the bullying scandal.

Who would have thought a Tory cabinet minister would be the first to go this weekend.

 

[pulsemyne]

BBC

Grant Shapps has resigned over the bullying scandal.

Who would have thought a Tory cabinet minister would be the first to go this weekend.

hahaha he should have been fired a long time ago. Really scumbag of a man.

 

[Jezbollah]

BBC

Grant Shapps has resigned over the bullying scandal.

Who would have thought a Tory cabinet minister would be the first to go this weekend.

Sounds like he had no other choice. Warsi warned him, something he denied. People like this need to be fucking accountable for incidents like this.

 

[War Peaceman]

Good riddance to the piece of shit.

Though he's been in the bad books of the party since the Michael Green, hence his demotion post-election.

 

[Vaddon]

Atm no one has said what the plan for Syria is except for bombing targets of opportunity. Is there a strategy? Is there a reason why it will suddenly be more effective now than in the past? Any reason to think this won't make the UK less safe from the blowback?

Also the Tory aide who bullied a person into suicide had been reported to party HQ, despite them lying earlier and saying they had no idea. Blood on their hands.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...bullying-youth-wing-warsi-grant-shapps-letter

Knew Elliott pretty well from university, we were in the same year. He was a great guy, a sad event all round. Good riddance to Shapps.

 

[Jackpot]

BBC

Grant Shapps has resigned over the bullying scandal.

Who would have thought a Tory cabinet minister would be the first to go this weekend.

He should have quit after he denied he had a second job and tried to sue one of his own constituents over it. Corrupt to the core.

 

[CyclopsRock]

He's my MP. Pretty safe seat and this is his third term, so it'll be interesting to see if they try to rehabilitate him over the next 4 years or just let him rot.

 

[Par Score]

BBC

Grant Shapps has resigned over the bullying scandal.

Who would have thought a Tory cabinet minister would be the first to go this weekend.

Of all the shit that could have brought Michael Green Grant Shapps down, it ends up being this.

I'll admit I'm much less familiar with this scandal than others, so am I right in thinking that he was informed of bullying within the Tory Youth, did nothing, and then one of those bullied committed suicide?

Suppose he had to go in that case.

 

[Jezbollah]

Of all the shit that could have brought Michael Green Grant Shapps down, it ends up being this.

I'll admit I'm much less familiar with this scandal than others, so am I right in thinking that he was informed of bullying within the Tory Youth, did nothing, and then one of those bullied committed suicide?

Suppose he had to go in that case.

Youre right in a nut-shell. Shapps was informed a number of times by Baroness Warsi that things were going on but did sweet FA.

 

[mr-paul]

I think Corbyn did very well on Andrew Marr today. I think he definitely put the stronger argument on Syrian airstrikes forward over Fallon, whose main argument to me seems to be that we should do it because we can and we've got super duper weapons and it'll somehow make us safer.

Bombing Syria really won't stop any potential terrorist attack here. If there is an attack here, it'll be done by a Brit. They aren't all planned in Raqqa!

 

[Jezbollah]

Bombing Syria really won't stop any potential terrorist attack here. If there is an attack here, it'll be done by a Brit. They aren't all planned in Raqqa!

They might not all be planned in Raqqa, but I would speculate that a lot of influence and guidance comes from that vicinity. In addition, attacks like what we saw in Paris has to be logistically aided (think: resources, weapons etc) has to come from external locations to the various cells.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

They might not all be planned in Raqqa, but I would speculate that a lot of influence and guidance comes from that vicinity. In addition, attacks like what we saw in Paris has to be logistically aided (think: resources, weapons etc) has to come from external locations to the various cells.

Usually Belgium, which is has become the premier European black market for smuggled arms, usually from Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Getting weapons from Syria to France is not really very easy; much easier to buy them from the Belgian mafia.

 

[Uzzy]

Usually Belgium, which is has become the premier European black market for smuggled arms, usually from Eastern Europe or the Balkans. Getting weapons from Syria to France is not really very easy; much easier to buy them from the Belgian mafia.

So as the Private Eye said, if we want to attack ISIS we better bomb Brussels.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

So as the Private Eye said, if we want to attack ISIS we better bomb Brussels.

Then we can invade France again for old time's sake.

 

[Moosichu]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that more and more people are coming out of the woodwork with a strong case against joining the bombing campaign in Syria. Does anyone think the tide is turning on this debate?

 

[War Peaceman]

I might be wrong, but it seems to me that more and more people are coming out of the woodwork with a strong case against joining the bombing campaign in Syria. Does anyone think the tide is turning on this debate?

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks saying anything but statesmanlike bravado would have looked weak so people kept quiet. As we get further away a more reasoned discourse can occur.

 

[Moosichu]

In the aftermath of the Paris attacks saying anything but statesmanlike bravado would have looked weak so people kept quiet. As we get further away a more reasoned discourse can occur.

It's really ironic that the bravest thing to do as a politician after attacks like that make you look 'weak'.

Also, I think Corbyn has managed to catch up on some sleep and is able to verbalise his thoughts in interviews better because of it.

 

[Calabi]

They might not all be planned in Raqqa, but I would speculate that a lot of influence and guidance comes from that vicinity. In addition, attacks like what we saw in Paris has to be logistically aided (think: resources, weapons etc) has to come from external locations to the various cells.

So people really do believe bombing some country over there is going to stop or curtail terrorism over here, as opposed to encouraging it? It's really amazing.

 

[Jezbollah]

So people really do believe bombing some country over there is going to stop or curtail terrorism over here, as opposed to encouraging it? It's really amazing.

Do you believe the ISIL cells around the world run on their own independence under their own resources?

 

[Coriolanus]

This is more-or-less a mirror of the "I'd rather we lost with Corbyn with the Labour party undergoing a left wing transformation than win as Tory-lite" argument, no? Not that many people think Corbyn could delivery Labour a majority (or anything other than a Tory majority tbh) but some think it's worth it because the *next* Labour leader - who might actually be a competent politician - will inherit a more left-wing Labour that can go on to win in its own terms (rather than the "neo-liberal" terms of the Tories or, say, Ed Miliband.) I disagree with this argument but I understand it.

And surely the same can be said for the counter-revolutionary White Russians within the Labour party (and also the Eurosceptic Tories though they're wrong too) who *know* that civil war and in-fighting is a bad look but think it's the lesser of two evils and a prerequisite of getting back onto the path to Downing Street.

No, not even remotely. It's merely that your next election is a *very* long time off, and i've seen this song and dance where the population is initially horrified by a leader that is perceived as being too much to the left, but over time, due to the combination of right-wing fuckups and the dude projecting a calm and collected image, come to realize that, hey, He Might Not Be Satan.

What you say would be a scenario that i could see as more viable if his victory had happened considerably closer to the next election, but this far off? psh. Time, posture and how labour react to him are the greatest factors.

And no, the same cannot be said for your drink alternative, simply due to there being no path to enact that change. The only recourse (for now) is to let him implode. The current course of action strikes me as something quite similar to all that rudd-gillard nonsense.

Do you believe the ISIL cells around the world run on their own independence under their own resources?

Completely? obviously not. Partially? Yes. Large part of why they're called cells.

Is there reason to believe that adding your bombs to that region would have any significant impact on their ability to function?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Do you believe the ISIL cells around the world run on their own independence under their own resources?

They largely do, yes. Transferring resources from Syria to Europe is not in the slightest bit easy. At best, ISIS cells in Europe get information and contacts, but bombing ISIS in Syria doesn't stop that; all you need to pass on information is a cell phone.

 

[Jezbollah]

Is there reason to believe that adding your bombs to that region would have any significant impact on their ability to function?

Well the answer to that question is what you believe ISIL do in Raqqa, let alone the greater region they have under control. If the aim is degradation of their ability to operate (either militarily or financially), even temporarily, is that not a good thing?

 

[Moosichu]

They largely do, yes. Transferring resources from Syria to Europe is not in the slightest bit easy. At best, ISIS cells in Europe get information and contacts, but bombing ISIS in Syria doesn't stop that; all you need to pass on information is a cell phone.

Well the answer to that question is what you believe ISIL do in Raqqa, let alone the greater region they have under control. If the aim is degradation of their ability to operate (either militarily or financially), even temporarily, is that not a good thing?

Not if the bombs hit a lot of civilians, radicalising the next generation.

(Not saying this would happen, but just that it's a valid argument to make.)

 

[Coriolanus]

Well the answer to that question is what you believe ISIL do in Raqqa, let alone the greater region they have under control. If the aim is degradation of their ability to operate (either militarily or financially), even temporarily, is that not a good thing?

Depends entirely on the cost and the benefits you intend to gain.
Which then brings us to the question: what were the benefits for the UK's involvement in iraq and afghanistan?

 

[2700]

Do you believe the ISIL cells around the world run on their own independence under their own resources?

Difficult question to answer, the only answers to this question that have any serious credibility will be from terror cells or those who work in the intelligence services, in both cases it is not in their interest to provide information.

There has only been one terrorist attack claimed by ISIS in Europe, the alleged mastermind Abdelhamid Abaaoud had been in ISIS territory at some point in the past and been trained to use assault rifles. Furthermore he was involved in 4 foiled terror attacks which the French interior minister Bernard Cazeneuve said have a common theme, "planning from abroad of a violent act by jihadists (was) from European countries, trained in the use of weapons and then sent to our territory to carry out the attacks". A further two foiled French terror attacks were also of this nature.

I don't believe they are as completely independent as some would suggest in this thread.

 

[Jezbollah]

Not if the bombs hit a lot of civilians, radicalising the next generation.

(Not saying this would happen, but just that it's a valid argument to make.)

It is indeed a valid argument. Only today the Russians bombed a market in a Rebel held city and killed 40 civilians.

Saying that, I did read that as of 30th September the MOD had claimed that they had held at least 324 airstrikes without a single civilian fatality. I guess it's not just who you target, but how you do it..

 

[Uzzy]

Well the answer to that question is what you believe ISIL do in Raqqa, let alone the greater region they have under control. If the aim is degradation of their ability to operate (either militarily or financially), even temporarily, is that not a good thing?

The coalition has been doing that, since August 2014. As of November 25th, there's been 5,312 air strikes in Iraq and 2,748 in Syria against ISIS.

That didn't stop Paris, did it? Nor has it led to a significant degradation of their ability to operate, at least in Syria. There's been gains in Iraq, because the Iraqi Security Forces can actually retake ground. Similarly, there's been gains in Northern Syria, because the Kurds can retake ground there.

There's only one force capable of taking back Eastern Syria, where ISIS are based, and that's the Syrian Army under Assad.

The rebels are busy fighting Assad, and under heavy bombardment from our Russian friends in the process. There's no way that Cameron's magic 70,000 moderate rebels can just abandon that fight and go fight ISIS.

 

[Jezbollah]

That is an illuminating indication of what I think we all know are the Russian's true motives in their military action :/

 

[Deleted member 231381]

That is an illuminating indication of what I think we all know are the Russian's true motives in their military action :/

Indeed. They don't care about ISIS, they care about maintaining the Assad regime so they can keep their Mediterranean bases.

 

[Calabi]

Do you believe the ISIL cells around the world run on their own independence under their own resources?

Idea's dont require any resources, the create and get their resources where can. And bombing some random people in another country will just radicalise more of them everywhere.

 

[CyclopsRock]

No, not even remotely. It's merely that your next election is a *very* long time off, and i've seen this song and dance where the population is initially horrified by a leader that is perceived as being too much to the left, but over time, due to the combination of right-wing fuckups and the dude projecting a calm and collected image, come to realize that, hey, He Might Not Be Satan.

But when was the last time one of these people won an election? Closer to the end of Ww2 than now, surely?

Still, perhaps you're right - unless their actions are all just agitating to facilitate his implosion rather than more for.al attempts at a coup. Dunno if he needs much help, mind.

 

[phisheep]

But when was the last time one of these people won an election? Closer to the end of Ww2 than now, surely?

François Hollande in 2012 springs to mind.

 

[JesseEwiak]

François Hollande in 2012 springs to mind.

Hell, if you described Barack Obama's stated political positions and background to the average Democratic primary voter in 2004, they'd probably think the guy would lost a 40 state landslide.

By the same token, even as late as 1980, people thought Reagan was unelectable.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Yeah but taking lessons from elsewhere is only of vague usefulness (especially with Obama who, whilst massively popular, was participating in a post-Bush Jr election) - across Europe we have had left wing parties win in some areas, right in others, and we all have different experiences of, basically, socialism (for example I always cringe a little when I see someone on GAF or Facebook from the US go on a pro-Bernie rant involving the phrase "I'm not afraid to call myself a Socialist!" having the luxury of never having lived in a country where you can't get a new phone line for 6 months, but that's another topic entirely!). It's why we can't just take policies from Scandinavia and slot them into the UK, of why we can't predict UK elections based on what happens in France, Germany, Spain etc, even though we can learn from both of these things. In short, if we are still taking about Jezza, we have to go back a long way before we find someone that fits the description of "Scary left winger who won people over".

 

[phisheep]

Yeah but taking lessons from elsewhere is only of vague usefulness

It's probably more useful than taking lessons from elsewhen though - because Zeitgeist, and ever-closer-union, and Global Village, and common threats, and Twitter etc etc. Chances are there are better parallels to be drawn 300 miles away than there are 50 years away.

 

[kmag]

Do we need to use them up? Do they go off, like milk?

Sorry about the delay but if you're interested the main issue is that only the Tornado can use both Brimstone 1 and Brimstone 2, the Typhoon F2's and the F-35b will only be compatible with Brimstone 2. The Reapers can use 1, and presumably will be getting 2 as well.

Since the very latest the Tornadoes will be flying is 2019 with a couple of squadrons finishing up in 2017 if we don't want to be left a stock of unusable Brimstone 1's we'll have to use them up.

There's not that much difference between the dual-mode upgraded brimstone 1 and brimstone 2

 

[Jezbollah]

Looks like a free vote on Syria for Labour, folks.

 

[Kuros]

Yes free vote, and calling for a delay making clear that "The Labour Party Policy" is against strikes.

Can kicked until the next shit fight. I expect the vote to be this week.

 

[QuicheFontaine]

Sorry about the delay but if you're interested the main issue is that only the Tornado can use both Brimstone 1 and Brimstone 2, the Typhoon F2's and the F-35b will only be compatible with Brimstone 2. The Reapers can use 1, and presumably will be getting 2 as well.

Since the very latest the Tornadoes will be flying is 2019 with a couple of squadrons finishing up in 2017 if we don't want to be left a stock of unusable Brimstone 1's we'll have to use them up.

There's not that much difference between the dual-mode upgraded brimstone 1 and brimstone 2

I was mainly joking, but that's actually quite interesting. Thanks!

 

[ruttyboy]

Sorry about the delay but if you're interested the main issue is that only the Tornado can use both Brimstone 1 and Brimstone 2, the Typhoon F2's and the F-35b will only be compatible with Brimstone 2. The Reapers can use 1, and presumably will be getting 2 as well.

Since the very latest the Tornadoes will be flying is 2019 with a couple of squadrons finishing up in 2017 if we don't want to be left a stock of unusable Brimstone 1's we'll have to use them up.

There's not that much difference between the dual-mode upgraded brimstone 1 and brimstone 2

I know you're just stating the facts of the situation, but the very idea that 'using them up' is a consideration in whether to kill people is pretty sickening. I'm sure the government would deny it of course.