Labour Leadership

[Jah Lush]

A new low for Murdoch's Sky network. Comparing Jeremy Corbyn to Jihadi John is a revolting and disgusting slander.

http://news.sky.com/story/1587369/jihadi-jez-under-fire-from-his-own-side

[Earl Aelfheah]

.

[????]

Jah Lush Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> A new low for Murdoch's Sky network. Comparing

> Jeremy Corbyn to Jihadi John is a revolting and

> disgusting slander.

>

> http://news.sky.com/story/1587369/jihadi-jez-under

> -fire-from-his-own-side

They're saying that's what his critics are calling him Jah (although clearly some intent on their part). Still,at least only one of them offers a threat to Britain's security now.

[Blah Blah]

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

[????]

I don't know. People who think we should be in NATO and like the fact we have a nuclear deterrent might for instance. For goodness sake.

How are the geography lessons going?

[Blah Blah]

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.

[????]

???? Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> I don't know. People who think we should be in

> NATO and like the fact we have a nuclear deterrent

> might for instance. For goodness sake.

>

>

If i could also add people who think a shoot to kill policy against terrorists makes sense to those who are a tad worried about Corbyn's views being a threat to our security now.

[Loz]

I don't think Corbyn could ever be a threat to national security. He'd have to be elected as PM to be able to do that.

[Otta]

I'm all for NATO, but nuclear deterrents are so 1980s. I just don't believe it's a good use of a massive wedge of dosh which could be tar better used, even if 100% went back in to defence (although I'd use half for other stuff).

[uncleglen]

It seems that the PM's plans to increase involvement in thwarting IS are being scuppered by Corbyn and the Lib Dems and some conservatives), although I wonder if the Paris horror may change some minds- although Corbyn will not allow a free vote..

[DaveR]

Below a letter written to Corbyn by Tory MP and ex-soldier Tom Tugendhat - worth reproducing in full:

"Dear Jeremy,

I am writing today with regards to reported comments made by the Labour Party?s Director of Strategy and Communication, Seumas Milne. The Sun newspaper reported this morning that Mr Milne had dismissed well-founded and valid concerns about equipment shortages as a ?red herring?, instead suggesting that British soldiers themselves were to blame for dying in Afghanistan ?because they are occupiers in another Muslim country where they?re not wanted?.

Not only are these remarks ignorant and ill-informed, they are deeply disrespectful to those who served in Afghanistan at the time and to the friends and families of those who lost their lives in the conflict. Furthermore, and perhaps most absurdly, they recognise the authority of the Taliban, violent extremists who murdered thousands across the country, as more valid than the lawful government of the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, the UN recognised, democratically elected government of the Afghan people. More sadly still, it ignores the courage of our allies in the Afghan Armed Forces alongside whom we served and in support of whom too many died.

This is not an isolated incident. Not only has Mr Milne suggested 9/11 was America?s fault and appeared to support armed resistance against British troops in Iraq, he is also on record claiming that the murder of Lee Rigby, an innocent man murdered on a London street, wasn?t ?terrorism in the normal sense? because Mr Rigby was a member of the Armed Forces. By extension, am I to understand that this means that Mr Milne believes that I and other former servicemen and women on both sides of the House are also valid targets because of our records of military service?

You have spoken eloquently about wanting to see a ?kinder politics? and I welcome this. It would make our county a more inclusive democracy. This is your opportunity to lead by example. As the leader of the Labour Party and Her Majesty?s Opposition, I urge you to consider the implication of having people on your team whose views support violent extremists rather than democrats. Our history is littered with despots whom British soldiers, sailors and airmen have fought against to secure the liberties we enjoy today, it seems sad that such anti-democratic elements should find voice in one of our important national political parties. I know that many on all sides of the House wish it were not so.

I hope you will take this opportunity to condemn Mr Milne?s remarks. To stay silent would be wrong and may be seen as endorsing the views of those who choose violence instead of political debate. Neither we, nor the Afghan servicemen I was proud to serve alongside, were occupiers. We were both doing what I know you would support ? serving the lawful wishes of the democratically elected governments of the countries we each served. To forget that would be an insult to the memories of our brave serviceman and women and to treat democracy as an inconvenience when it is, in truth, the sole legitimate source of power.

I would appreciate a response at your earliest convenience indicating what steps you intend to take.

Yours,

Thomas Tugendhat MBE MP"

Tugendhat served in Afghanistan with Dan Jarvis MP (Labour)

[????]

or this from the BBC

One moderate shadow minister told me, as Corbyn struggled to answer questions on Syria and security, "I am trying to respect the mandate he has but I felt physically sick, I just couldn't stand it", going on to say, "He is not fit to be our leader or in any senior position in this country".

[apbremer]

Corbyn The Clown.

[????]

the first leader of a party effectively elected by Social Media....and look what it produces.

Still given the mess Ed has left the Labour Party in thank god he didn't get to run the country

[red devil]

That was exactly what I was about to say re. Social Media.

I'm a lifelong Labour voter and consider myself left of centre, but I will never vote for Labour while he's leader...

[Blah Blah]

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.

[DaveR]

"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."

It's revealing (and laughable) that your concerns about Milne are all about class war/identity politics, rather than the fact that he is an unreconstructed Marxist. It mirrors your failure to understand what is really objectionable about Corbyn - he is not concerned with whether military action against IS will work because he is opposed in principle, just as he is opposed to shooting terrorists, and, for that matter, privatisation, and immigration control. Any policy that Corbyn supports has to fit with a doctrinaire hard left intellectual world view, where terrorists are victims of western oppression and free markets are playing fields for capitalist exploitation. he appointed Milne because they share those core beliefs. Moderate Labour MPs know that they either have to keep him quiet or loudly and publicly disagree with him, or else they are toast.

[Otta]

I agree with Blah Blah's post on this. Corbyn should distance himself from Milne, and I think that the threat of being seen as "endorsing the views of those who choose violence instead of political debate" would be a real concern to him.

Although if a tory MP is concerned about "well-founded and valid concerns about equipment shortages" he should probably have a chat with George Osborne.

I'm not supporting Coybyn exactly, but I am finding the constant press attention quite unfair. I think he stands no chance at all, but I think part of the reason for that is the press, and part of the reason is that the Labour party is now full of "New Labour" torylite MPs who don't understand loyalty and doing things behind closed doors.

[Blah Blah]

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.

[Otta]

BBC Take on Jezza's current hardships.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34844762

Personally I wonder what he's actually thinking. Whether he's thinking "Jesus, this is shit, I wish I could just slip back to the back benches", or whether he's got a plan and Believes he'll transform the Labour Party in his image...

From a personal standpoint, my view when he was elected was "none of the others have remotely convinced me they are worth voting for, let this bloke stir things up a bit, and then get a new, sensible but slightly left of New Labour leader". But I'd underestimated just how nasty things could get WITHIN the party (I was only 5 in 1983).

[Blah Blah]

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.

[DaveR]

"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."

You, Blah, miss the point entirely. You have a pop at Milne for sending his kids to grammar school when the vast majority of ordinary folks either envy him or at least accept his right to choose, whilst ignoring the fact that he says British troops in Afghanistan (essentially) deserved to get killed. You try to defend Corbyn on the facts and evidence, conveniently ignoring that they are irrelevant - Corbyn would never, under any circumstances, whatever the facts, support UK military action in Syria (or anywhere else) because opposition to it is hard wired into him and his very narrow political class. Corbyn thinks he is pure and the world is corrupt, and you don't get much more divorced from ordinary people than that.

[miga]

DaveR Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> choose, whilst ignoring the fact that he says

> British troops in Afghanistan (essentially)

> deserved to get killed.

I just did some googling and couldn't find where he says that - is there a source?

[Blah Blah]

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?

[Otta]

miga Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> DaveR Wrote:

> --------------------------------------------------

> -----

> > choose, whilst ignoring the fact that he says

> > British troops in Afghanistan (essentially)

> > deserved to get killed.

>

> I just did some googling and couldn't find where

> he says that - is there a source?

Yeah I've been doing some reading, and I think that letter from Tom Tugendhat takes some pretty big leaps of context.