Blah Blah

What does that matter? It's all fossil fuel and all adds to greenhouse emissions. There is growing evidence of the environmental damage of fracking in some areas. It is not ignorant to point those out, nor is it ignorant to challenge the authorities that allow fracking companies for example to keep secret the cocktail of chemicals they force into the shale to extract the oil and gas. It's all bad and requires a shift of thinking away from it.

And therein I think is the real thinking behind Corbyn's decision to give a free vote. He has a strong conviction of where it's going to lead and is pretty much saying 'be it on your own head' if you vote for it. The other thing as well is the short memories of the Blairites, because it was the failed outcomes of the Iraq invasion that did for Tony Blair.

Completely agree Uncle. We all have a part to play from the top down.

:D ????. I think you may be right. I'm inclined to agree rahrah. Have never liked the whip thing. Cameron is whipping his party although I think there will be rebels for him too.

How can fracking be cleaner than coal when the aim of it is to extract a fossil fuel? It's end game is still to add to greenhouse gas. There are also environmental concerns. The cocktail of hundreds of chemicals, and the pollution of ground water. We really should be moving away from all kinds of fossil fuels.

We can add to that fracking, and even beefburgers! I was reading about the carbon footprint of beef production yesterday. It's something to behold. Truth is that it will take a radical shake up of pretty much everything we consume, too much of a shake up for the corporate billionaires facilitating most of the damage, and governments are beholden to them. The only question is when will we reach the 2 degree tipping point, not if.

I think he's spot on rahrah. Is Corbyn right to not use the whip? Cameron has no such qualms.

Today I read Stop the War Coalition's response to Cameron's speech on Syria this week. I think it makes some very valid points worthy of discussion. *Stop the War Coalition's response to David Cameron's case for bombing: *Stop the War believes that David Cameron's incoherent proposals for action in Syria will do nothing to weaken Isis but will instead inflame the civil war, deepen the misery of the Syrian people and increase the terrorist risk. We are urging MP's to consider carefully before voting to take Britain into our fourth war in fourteen years. *1) Strategy.* David Cameron failed completely to outline a coherent strategy to defeat Isis. He was unable to explain why British bombing will be any more effective than that which has been conducted by the much larger US forces with their allies over the last 13 months. The US admit that in that period Isis has been recruiting steadily and that it has gained territory in Syria. Cameron also failed to explain where ground forces might come from. Kurds will not fight outside their own territories. As Julian Lewis MP suggested, the estimate of 70,000 'moderate' Free Syrian Army troops appears to have been snatched out of the air. Al Jazeera estimates a figure of half that and reports that FSA forces are fragmented and demoralised. In their view the FSA 'has seen its power wane dramatically this year amid widespread desertions.' *2) Legality. *Cameron appears to accept that the fact that last week's UN resolution didn't have Chapter 7 status means it cannot be used to legitimise foreign attacks on Syria. He falls back on the self-defence argument. This is inapplicable. The right of self-defence applies to a foreign state invasion, not reported attempts at attacks by handfuls of terrorists. *3) Civilian casualties. *As before every new war David Cameron tells us that modern weapons have 'extraordinary precision' and will cause 'minimum collateral damage'. As ever these claims are belied by facts. The available research confirms hundreds of civilians have already been killed by coalition bombs. There are numerous individual reports of deaths caused by bombing, including one recent estimate of twenty killed by coalition raids on a Raqqa suburb. Despite the propaganda, drone attacks lead to high levels of civilian deaths. Recently a leading US general, Mike Flynn, pointed out that 'drone strikes have created more terrorists than they have killed.' Raqqa , which Cameron wants to be at the centre of British attacks, is a city already half devastated, with a population of 200,000 people. *4) Transition and negotiations. * There is a glaring contradiction between Cameron's claim to be prioritising a 'ceasefire' on the one hand and advocating military intervention on the other. Military action will complicate and hinder not hasten existing negotiations. The chaos of civil war is creating the conditions in which Isis can thrive. A political solution is necessary for people of the region to be able to tackle Isis. Adding fuel to the flames of that war makes such a solution more distant. *5) Dealing with terrorism.* David Cameron failed to answer questions about whether bombing Syria will make terrorist attacks in Britain more likely. The record of our interventions so far has not been good. The fourteen years that encompassed the invasion and occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq and the bombing of Libya have seen the spread of jihadi terrorism from small pockets of Central Asia through a massive arc stretching from Lahore to Lagos. Now attacks are spreading to Europe. In the opinion of Eliza Mannigham-Buller, Director General of MI5 during the period of the invasion, Britain's involvement in Iraq, 'increased the terrorist threat by convincing more people ... that Islam was under attack'. If Britain embarks on a war against a fourth Muslim country, threat levels will rise. * **6) A safer world.* The Prime Minister claims that differences between the various forces intervening in Syria are closing, making co-operation easier. This is a fantastic claim impossible to reconcile with the recent shooting down by Turkey of a Russian plane and the subsequent attack on a Russian helicopter by Syrian rebels. David Cameron is asking MP's to vote to plunge Britain into a maelstrom of competing powers centred on Syria without any apparent co-ordination or plan. Russia, in particular, is apparently attacking the very forces with which Cameron wants us to co-operate. *7) The alternatives.* Bombing is not the only available foreign policy. Among the many positive measures that could be taken are isolating Isis and other jihadi groups by ending arms sales to the most reactionary and authoritarian regimes in the region, including Saudi Arabia and Qatar. These are countries that sponsor terrorist networks in Syria. We should also pressure Turkey to stop allowing its borders to be used for the supply of arms and fighters into Syria. Crucially Britain and the US should pursue rather than impede peace negotiations.

Pointless yes. What is the aim of these people? Most people are anonymous on forums. That's accepted. At best they are now trolling, at worst bullying, behind their own anonymity. That's the irony. Nothing to do with me, or my family.

I think that's how things may play out John. Corbyn will go. If the party find a way to keep him off the new ballot paper there will be a revolt from the membership, so they'll have to put up a candidate from the left that they think they can work with.

'The more you drift away from the economic centre-right and the social centre-left the less chance you have of being elected. It's a problem that afflicts both the left and right in this country. Osborne's about turn on tax credits can be nailed down to this. ' This is spot on Loz. Interesting speculation too on what the result in Oldham might be. Apparently UKIP might be stealing some ground, although it would take a pretty major swing to take that one from Labour. ????, just where are all of Labour's left supporting terrorists? I know McDonnell made that comment about the IRA, but genuinely curious as to how that can be applied to the rest.

No it's not aimed at Sue. The message I received was from someone pointing at something started by that chilli type name in another thread, none of which I understand and don't see as being anything to do with me. I just post to pass time (while getting admin done at work - shift worker). It's not a big deal, I just don't want to be pulled into what seems to be a dispute between other people. Maybe I'll give the forum a miss for a couple of days, plenty of time for my favourite character ???? to run amok. Having said that, I hear tonight's Question Time was a feisty one, so I might not hold out! :D

What? It's just dawned on me that I had a message from someone you seem to be singling out on another thread. Pretty poor behaviour, even for a forum. I'm not getting involved. I told her the same. I post here to pass the time. I like politics, but can just as easily not be bothered. If your intention is to drive people from a forum that should be for everyone to use, then keep going. I'm not interested.

It's a stamp duty increase, so designed to disincentive people from purchasing buy to let. We are arguing that they will still buy anyway but charge higher rents. Osborne did however increase tax on BTL landlords in the Annual Budget as well. So again that may force rent increases or sale.

I agree Jeremy, but even with fines, I think rental on many of those properties would probably be unnaffordable for a lot of people anyway.

You are a broken record ????. All you whine on about is Corbyn and the left. They are not in power and they may never be, who knows. But the people who ARE in power are sending this country to the wall for many people, or attempting to at least. Harmen led the party to abstention on welfare reform. Corbyn has led the party to oppose it and has won in the Lords. This nonsense that only extreme free market capitalism works is just that, nonsense. It IS possible to have a fairer economy. The Tories will never deliver that. No Dave, I don't that that is why Labour lost those elections. My view is that Labour lost under Miliband for two reasons. They allowed the Tories two years of unopposed electioneering on the economy. If you look at the Tories, they all follow a pattern of repeating a core message again and again, whatever the question and they all stick to that same core message. It's that thing of if you say something enough times, even if it is a lie, the public will believe it is the truth. It's a well know psychological tool. And they have been very disciplined in that method. You have to admire that. But secondly Miliband just had no presence. He did have some good policies, some of which the Tories have actually implemented (stolen if you like), but he lacked the presence to get those messages through under the media obsession with the SNP and coalition deals that might be, which turned out to be not relevant anyway. When you are being squeezed by a force of nature like Sturgeon and a party very disciplined at relaying their core messages (after a head start), you have to be an incredibly strong and enigmatic person to cut through that. Miliband just wasn't that. The election prior to that, Gordon Brown, was a combination of things. Aftermath of 2008 crisis, election faux pas etc. The thinking still is that if Brown had gone to election shortly after taking over the reigns, he would have won. He put his own personal ego before political sense imo. I agree on your point about non voters. In the past parties have run shuttle services on election days to transport the non voters. The real question is how many non voters exist in constituencies that are marginal or can be swung by that. I'm not convinced either that they exist in large enough numbers. Assuming non voters would vote Labour anyway is a pretty big assumption. Corbyn will have to win elections on core issues like everyone else at the end of the day.

Yes there's no joined up thinking again. You can't just tweak one aspect of the market and think that'll do it. I agree that the consequences will probably lead to higher rents and a squeeze on avaialble stock. And landlords under no restrictions from mortgages will just follow suit with rents, because it's free money to them.

War has been a tactic for deflecting from issues at home used by many governments. Nothing like a bit of patriotic fervour to whip up votes. That's cynical I know but nobody is talking about what Saudi Arabia are currently doing in Yemen for example. There is no way to bomb and avoid civilian casualties. The revenge bombing by the French after Paris killed 73 civilians, many of them children for example. Yet all but one of the terrorists were European born! You can not bomb an ideology out of existence. This is the disconnect in those for bombing. What you can do however, is shut down routes of funding (swiss banks btw) and the routes for arms smuggling (hard to do when we are one of the four biggest arms traders flooding the world with these weapons). And of course, homeland intelligence is the most effective way of seeking out these cells. Long term, we have to find ways to stop disaffected men and women from becoming radicalised. From a psychological perspective, nationals who subscribe to these ideologies are often 2nd or 3rd generation, migrant descendants, who feel no sense of cultural identity and loyalty, either to the culture of their parents and their country of origin, or to the culture of the country they are born into. THAT is what we have to tackle within our own society. As for Syria, as pointed out above, it is a conflict between four different sides with different aims. There can be no military intervention until NATO and her allies sit down and work out a strategy to which all are signed up, including local leaders and forces on the ground. Without that, any action is doomed to fail and hurt ordinary innocent people most. It will lead to a refugee movement on a scale far bigger than anything we have seen yet. And finally there is the cost of action. Who will be paying for the bombs we drop? I don't want my taxes being used to kill civilians halfway around the world. Iraq was an unmitigated disaster. I see nothing in Cameron that understands that.

I just think that they have no idea of how other people live, people not like themselves that is. They will expect charities to take up the slack no doubt. But refuges are not just about a safe space. They provide a range of services from professionals that have to be paid for.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > the Tory voter on Question Time is the one who did > it really What planet are you on? Labour and the Lib Dems have a majority in the Lords. They exercised that majority with the two amendments Labour presented. Simple as that. Umm I think you might have been joking there :D

Please, let's give Labour peers credit where due. The two amendments voted through the Lords were presented by Labour peers. The legislation had gone through all readings in the house. Tory MPs didn't have the backbone to defy the whip. Every political commentator agrees that Osborne miscalculated. You are swimming against the consensus view ???? and that includes the view of those who work in Parliament and have done for decades. I think the biggest denial is within the Labour right to be honest, who seem unable to grasp why they have lost two elections - unable to grasp why traditional Labour supporters can't stomach their support for cuts. How many people have died because of welfare reforms ????. Do you need me to remind you? Stop apologising for the cruelty of Osborne with this obsession you have with attacking Corbyn and those who support him. Corbyn and his followers are not the people delivering growing inequality. They are not the people selling off the last assets the country has. They are not the people who continue to allow the sell off of social homes whilst building no new ones. They are not the people saddling the young with impossible debts...I could go on, but you get the picture.

It is related because it was Labour and Lib Dem peers who forced the U turn. Osborn wouldn't have changed anything otherwise.

Which comes back to my point of how Osborne operates (setting things in place to alleviate blame from himself). IDS whooped and waved because he's a political thug (and might be on a personal level too for all we know). But the comment about money and not leaving people worrying is a telling one. Ever wonder how government suddenly finds money for giveaways before elections?

That is a good example. It was supposed to run til March 2016 with 40 million allocated. But all the funds were used up by October of this year.

Spot on Ratty. John McDonell reminded everyone of that on the BBC this morning and pointed out that the cuts to Universal Credit amount to the same thing as the tax credit cuts Osborne tried to push through. And the mao book was a pointer to the Tories willingness to sell our assets to the Chinese. It wasn't some hollow attempt at humour. These are things that make us poorer as a nation, and line the pockets of the few.