Blah Blah

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

Here you go..... http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/kosovo/etc/cron.html Tell me what part of that shows that bombing stopped the war in Kosovo. The truth is that there is NO solution to what is going on in the middle east unless the warring factions decide to stop warring. It doesn't matter who is in government. No one has a solution to any of it. Edited to add, that now the US have announced (with Russian help) moves to achieve a ceasefire in Syria and get talks going between the two sides. There is no other way.

Tut tut ????. You really don't know much about Kosovo do you? It wasn't military intervention that stopped the massacres, the UN troops there were a peacekeeping force and not allowed to intervene in conflict. Bombing did nothing. That is well documented. It was actually diplomacy through the Dayton Accord that ended that conflict.

I accept your points Red Devil, but nothing we are doing or have done for the last 100+ years has brought stability or democracy (whatever our version of demacracy is) to that region, nothing. It's no good jumping up and down and claiming someone has no quality to be a prime minister just because they don't say that more of the same is the solution. Emotions are running high today and for understandable reasons (as Otta says). But yesterday I saw a photo of about 15 dead Syrian children. No-one knows if they were killed by ISIL crossfire, or American or Russian actions. Just on Jihadi John, I was simply making the case that to some, his pain free and instant death would not have been any kind of retribution at all (and that's what I beieve Corbyn was saying too). And in the culture he was operating within, he would be seen as a martyr anyway. These people are brainwashed into seeing death as a reward. That's what makes them so dangerous. France does have a complicated history with Algeria, Morocco and terrorism. It has also bred resentment from migrants for generations (anyone of colour is regularly stoppped in Paris to have papers checked) and there is a migrant underclass pushed out to the suburbs. That's before we even get into their laws on the wearing of a hijab. All of those things conspire to create the prefect recruiting gound for the kind of cells that want to inflict the kind of harm they did yesterday.

???? Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Talk me through resolution of the conflict and > defeating ISIS via the UN Blah rather than the > touchy freely peace loving concept? Meanwhile > yesterday military action by the Kurds supported > by air strikes from the US liberated 1000s from > the tyranny of ISIS Only if you talk me through how bobming and invasion has brought about any stability in the Middle East.

Interesting ed_pete. I wonder how people manage the noise in those flats? I take your point about the ventilation Londonmix. I still think people like fresh air though. Maybe they will appeal to young people who won't mind the noise.

Just to give you a different perspective ????, what Corbyn actually said was this..... ?It appears Mohammed Emwazi has been held to account for his callous and brutal crimes. "However, it would have been far better for us all if he had been held to account in a court of law. ?These events only underline the necessity of accelerating international efforts, under the auspices of the UN, to bring an end to the Syrian conflict as part of a comprehensive regional settlement.? I don't think many people could disagree with any of that. He knows as well as we do that it is logistically impossible to extract people like Jihadi John from the ground. What he was expressing, was a view on what is achieved by this kind of assassination. The truth is that Jihadi John has already been replaced. The murder of Westerners does not stop. And as for Jihadi John himself - he had a quick death that he probably didn't know much about. So what has been achieved? Absolutely nothing, bar one pain free death of an easily replaced ISIS executioner. The current government, just like Blair, have no answer to terrorism, or the refugee flight, or the conflicts in the Middle East. Cameron wants to bomb Syria. That is exactly why last nights terrorists attacked Paris apparently - because the French are bombing Syria. Now ask yourself, who is more likely to keep us free from attack? The man who wants to bomb Syria? Or the man that wants to try and find an international resolution via the UN.

Good point Dave. I just think, given that Rye Lane is a retail business area, that buisness space throughout the building would be more appropriate. Instead of flats there could be affordable office rental space. I'll admit that I don't know anything about rents and space availability in Rye Lane from a business perspective, so don't know if it's a daft idea or not.

Thanks for pointing that out LondonMix. Mechanical ventilation is what exactly? It's just a fan isn't it? And what that seems to say is that the noise of a fan will mask external sound? In the heat of summer, that won't be enough to ventilate I think.

That was what I meant when I said it's not the right location for flats - being right on the doorstep of the Bussey. I take the point about flats being elsewhere around the venue, but most of those are not right on the doorstep. Maybe soundproofing the flats will work, but what happens in summer when people want to have their windows open?

There's a lot of sense in his comments and a reality check too. If the public want decent public services taxes will have to go up. But what party making that case will be electable? I think this is a hole that both the Conservatives and New Labour have dug for themselves. It's all very well moving to an individualistic competitive public consciousness, but there are consequences. Demographically we are changing and there will have to be a collective shift to recognise the reality of that. It's going to mean more tax, or a higher workforce (which means imigration and developing an economy to support that). Many people will just not be physically able to work to 75. Political parties need to be more forward thinking instead of clawing to keep things working as they are. Or as Ken warns, the backlash will come.