Blah Blah

But there is a case to be made about the loss of Safer Neighbourhood Teams. They have been very sucessful in community policing, part of which is engaging with youngsters and deterring knife crime. I think she is right to criticise. Less Police is going to mean more crime. That is common sense. The child that committed the crime had been excluded from school (according to reports). A community neighbourhood team would have been made aware of that, making engagement possible if he was seen out and about. That engagement may have prevented this crime. The same can be said for Southwarks warden scheme. Cuts mean less of these people.

I thought Burnham came accross well but agree on the point above about the bickering between him and the Tory woman. She didn't come accross well at all, especially on historical matters around the middle east, which probably helped. I disagree a little on Ed Milliband being the start of the rot in Labour Red Devil. For many it would be the point at which Blair took us into a war with Bush, based on no reliable evidence and in defiance of the UN. Ed Milliband failed because there was no opposition for years after Gordon Brown lost that election. In addition, Ed Milliband has no presence (not that Cameron does much better on that either). Who knows if a David Milliband leadership would have been different? Ed Milliband had some good policies, some of which the Tories have actually adopted. But his lack of presence meant he couldn't break the Tory myth that Labour destroyed the economy. Corbyn is symbolic of a need for a leader that takes the government on. He might not in himself be the right person, but he stood out from the rest and that is what those Tory lite Labour MPs need to understand. Who do they replace him with? I'm perfectly happy with my vote for Corbyn given what this government is doing and given the other options that were on offer. But he is out of his depth. I want to see a candidate that shares some of his principles, but is also a good leader. That is what the Labour party needs to find. The Tory majority is small. Labour should be able to make some ground given the impacts of Tory policies. But right now they are too busy with in fighting. They will still get my vote, but I want to see them in government, before the Tories completely destroy the NHS, welfare state and leave this country completely at the mercy of the free market.

No it didn't to be honest. Dianne Abbot yes, but no-one foresaw John McDonnell. I also hoped that Tom Watson would create the balance. The poorest are being hammered and no-one in opposition is fighting for them. Government cuts are reducing the resources for people like me to do our jobs. My vote switched when Harmen led the party to an abstention on the Welfare Reform Bill. The rot had set in long Before Corbyn's election. And if they don't sort themselves out fast, I won't be voting Corbyn again when the inevitable leadership challenge comes.

He has to take responsibility for the risk he puts people at.

Todays Daily Politics show is depressing. It starts with mad Ken (Livingstone's) poor apology for his disgraceful comment about an MPs mental health, followed by Dianne Abbot trying to find a way out of a picture of John McDonnell holding a letter he'd apparently signed for a left wing group, listing demands including the abolition of MI5. How is the Labour party ever going to be elected under a group of people like that (none of whom I particularly like and never have, it has to be said)? Yes the media are going overboard on Corbyn but with people like that to keep feeding them it's just too easy.

Jeremy Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > If you want to live in a country, you should be able to speak the language - or have the desire and means to learn. Tell that to the millions of expats in Spain who don't speak any Spanish. I'm also against deporting people just because they fail to make the grade in an English class too (although I could support compulsary language lessons in principle) for all the reasons LondonMix points out. We have english nationals who are barely able to hold a conversation or communicate in a reasonable way, and poor language skills is at the heart of that too. How we deal with cultural issues, where women are kept disadvantaged is another matter.

I am sure the recognised authorities and professionals are now invloved.

Define earning English. Au Pairs for example come specifically to learn English here. How would such a requirement have a affected them, along with genuine refugees and asylum seekers? I personally think the high court was right to throw it out. Many people go on holiday unable to speak a word of the language of the country they visit. It is also perfectly possible for someone to go somewhere unable to speak a language and learn it there. Demanding people can speak English before arriving is descriminatory in the sense that only those with certain atandards of education available to them would be eligible to migrate. That's not the kind of workd I want to live in.

I'm not sure they are out of sight-line ED. If you are waking towards the building from the side street opposite they are clearly visible from the artists impressions. That's what drew me to it. Not that I ever look up there having said that :) Agree about the overhang. Are the same company restoring the Khan's frontage? Do you mean the passageway is protected? Can't see how that is the case if it leads only to the Bussey courtyard, unless it's meant to serve only as access to the back of 133 Rye Lane? So many questions :)

I suppose the arrogance of youth is at play there. Looking at the plans, I think the two levels bolted on to the top could be more sympathetic to the architecture of the rest of the building and I wonder how retail units in the passageway will work, as the Bussey use this as their entry point to club night with security at the end of it. I think those might be issues for them as well. Still, at least the two sides are talking now.

That article is a bit of a rant. The crux of which seems to be the authors take on Ukraine vs Milne's view. I thought the Ukraine conflict had started with pro-Russian seperatists? I don't know a huge amount about it but that doesn't sound like 'an uprising by Ukrainians keen to improve their lives.' Similarly I've never read any of Milne's columns so don't know much there either. It's not a well enough written article for me to take it seriously. Something else that is doing the rounds though is this comment from Goring during the Nuremburg Trials. ?Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in America nor, for that matter, in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship. ... [V]oice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.? Food for thought there too.

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/in-what-world-is-corbyn-radical-for-standing-against-more-killing-while-revenge-bombing-is-seen-as-a6737856.html Worth a read.

Quite Miga. Many things are being reported as said when they haven't been said at all, whilst other things are taken completely out of context. Dave, there is now way of knowing how many people envy Milne and his kids etc. Are you suggesting that criticism of the privileged class is mostly envy based? Causes/ impacts of inequality have no part in that criticism? Let's not forget that Cameron employed Andy Coulson, a man who was convicted and imprisoned for phone hacking. Just as Cameron knew that Lord Ashcroft was a non dom when accepting party donations. Errors of personal judgement are everywhere in the Commons. I don't know exactly what Corbyn thinks. I can only look at what he says now and ask if there is any merit in what he says. The world IS corrupt. He's correct on that (and many people agree - dare I even say most). Corbyn may be unmovable on miltary action (I don't know enough about him), but national defence is different to intervening in countries we shouldn't really be in. Most countries in the world are not bombing anyone, and they are doing just fine. And I seriously doubt if faced with a genuine threat to our country, from a declaration of war, that Corbyn would sit and do nothing. Is that you really think?

It doesn't bode well for him does it Otta. Having said that, Cameron won an election without answering direct questions - always deflecting his answer to what he wanted to talk about. It's what politicians do. I'm sure that Corbyn finds this way of doing things difficult (it's not natural to him). You can stick to principles on the back benches. It becomes a totally different challenge on the front. This is the irnoy. People who like him, partly like him precisely because he's not a party machined leader. But that might also be his downfall.

Crossed with Otta's post. It's not a class war thing, just an aknowledgement that too many people feel that MPs aren't like them. You only have to look at the growing divide between the wealthiest and poorest to see why people feel that way. You fail Dave to understand in turn that military action in Iraq and the middle east has been a disaster. I keep making this point and no-one is picking up on it. I also think the hysterical backlash against Corbyn is a reflection of how far public consciousness has shifted to the right. Terrorists if you can capture them and put them on trial is a better option in his view - nothing wrong with that. Privatisation hasn't always been a good thing either, so nothing wrong with being critical of that etc etc. You criticise him as though the opposite what he stands for is good! There are plenty of examples to show it's not. We need to be somewhere in between. Cameron isn't there either. Free markets are playing fields for exploitation when you look at the grossly unlevel playing field of trade for example. To even think poorer eceonomies are not being exploited for resources and labour etc is nonsense. So he's right. The arms trade is another problem. Who opened the pandoras box that is the mess in the middle east now? How far back do you want to go? We are complicit all the way back to the end days of the Ottoman Empire. There is nothing wrong with saying that. Part of the problem with it all is the denial from Western leaders and the US. I've said many times that I don't agree with Corbyn on everything (his views are not necessarily my own), but what I do know is that more of the same is not the answer either. If we want a safer world, we need to stop pretending we have nothing to do with creating any of it.

I think it would be good if the developers met with the Bussey people and perhaps the council too. Maybe there's a solution in there somewhere for all concerned.

There's no doubting he's too much for some Labour supporters, but others have gone back to supporting Labour because of him. So I think it evens out in that case. But I think he is a long way from winning a General Election at present. What is made of Corbyns stance on bombing Syria depends on what you think will sort the situation out. There are many MPs and experts on all sides echoing Crobyns stance - that Syria is a four way war, that bombing without an effective ground operation makes things worse, and that a ground operation without a workable system in place beyond it is also folly. Experts keep pointing out that IS is run by ex ba'ath coomanders, and is essentially a Sunni fascist movement. These are the people that used to run Iraq - Saddam's henchmen. They know how to smuggle arms etc. They are the result of the disastrous exercise of invading Iraq. I think instead of leaping to bash Corbyn, it might be better to acknowledge that western military intervention in the middle east has largely been a failure, understand why and then suggest something that might work instead of more of the same. THAT is why Cameron will not win a vote on bombing in the Commons. Very little to do with Corbyn at all. I think Dave those are just the beginning of the problems with Seamus Milne. He's the son of a millionaire and sends his kids to grammar Schools (and not just any grammar schools) and was himself privately educated at the best schools etc etc. Seems a really odd appointment to me all round.

Geography lessons? Most countries have no nuclear weapons so I don't think that ownership of them is necessary for National security. We are not going to leave NATO either. We do not live in a dictatorship. Corbyn is not going to force his view of nuclear arms on his MPs. He has argued though that money spent on trident would be better spent on our armed forces, which doesn't sound like someone opposed to national defence to me. I am ambivalent on the issue of nuclear arms. I can see the merits in both sides of the argument. But it's getting tiresome, this continuous onslaught against Corbyn. All it is doing is making peole like me, who weren't even in his camp before, more determined to defend him from the ridiculous hysteria of the right.

No-one in their right mind thinks Corbyn is a threat to national security, for goodness sake. There is no army coming from the Middle East to invade us. And many of those committing terrorist attacks are born in, and of the nation they attack. Thoughtful article on this here. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/nov/15/multiculturalism-assimilation-britain-france?CMP=share_btn_tw

Foxy gets a lot of unfair backlash from what I've seen, on many occasions. I'm too am sure he didn't mean to offend anyone.

Lol Miga, put those skewers away. Yes I acknowledge I confused Bosnia with Kosovo. My hands are held up. It doesn't though change the point that bombing in the middle east has achieved nothing. Look at Libya and Iraq now! At the time of 9/11 the only adversary was Osama Bin Laden and his base of Afghanistan. Now the whole region is in disarray and America's ignorant invasion of Iraq is a major reason why. I say ignorant because that is a clear example of why using bombs and troops witout ANY respect for or understanding of local politics, history and culture is disastrous. They learned nothing from Vietnam. Stability has to come from the ground, through the people and their leaders themselves. All that we have done is opened a pandoras box with no end of people now who are willing to kill themselves to do us harm. In fact they will kill anyone who stands in their way, hence the carnage in the middle east that millions of refugees are fleeing from. The situation is not helped by most of the region being ruled by religious dictatorships. And if we didn't need the oil, we'd leave them to it quite frankly. Our whole history of involvement in the region has been one of propping up dictatorship after dictatorship as long as they sell us oil and work for us. The plight of ordinary people and their human rights has never been a priority. You only have to look at the recent visits by the prime ministers of China and India for proof of that. A more interesting discussion to have would be one of how we change our relationship with the middle east in a way that is positive for the region.

You are not comaparing like for like though Fox. We are not facing an army like that of Germany in WW2. No-one is trying to invade us after invading half of Europe.

I agree with Loz. Terrorists want us to be afraid and affected. In reality they are small in number and can never really threaten our way of life. They don't have an army big enough. That doesn't help those who are murdered of course, but containment is the only defence we have at home. Sadly some plots are always going to get through, but in reality more people die in car accidents every year than do from attrocious attacks like those in Paris. We need to keep a sense of perspective and make sure the security services have everything they need to keep us as safe as possible.

I know the difference ????. Bombing from Nato achieved nothing. It took negotiators on the ground and a dramatic gain by Croat fighters to force a final negotiated solution, negotiations that had gone on for a long time with Milosevic's lack of co-operation. When the Croat push came, those well developed negotiations gave a way out. Had they not been in place, the Croat offensive would have continued. The UN peacekeeping force were in, as you rightly point out, the ridiculous situation of having no mandate but to stand by and watch massacre. But the point remains the same. Bombing does nothing but destroy infrastructure. The people who suffer most are innocent civilians. It's almost as though we've learned nothing from Stalingrad as a tactic of war. The ONLY way any of these conflicts will stop is when those on all sides get together and agree to stop. And Syria has highlighted perfectly the problem for the West when neither side is a democracy. There needs to be a change in direction in how we tackle these things, because bombing just polarises the extremists hatred for the West. Totally agree Otta. We need to find ways to stop people being brainwashed by these terrorists in the first place.

You are a character ????. I enjoy sparring with you :D