General Discussion: random news stories


Show original post
Hello World
Hello World avatar

12170 posts since 7/3/05

2 Dec 2015 23:41
The cops in the US have insane toys.
-DiscoTits-
-DiscoTits- avatar

952 posts since 26/11/07

3 Dec 2015 01:54
Can someone tell me the point in the Labour party and Jeremy Corbyn after tonight? There's more tories in the Labour party than I first thought. All the fucking same. Lost the little bit of respect I had for Corbyn tonight.
Crackajack
Crackajack avatar

8008 posts since 21/4/05

3 Dec 2015 09:04
He's been damaged, but to what extent depends on your views on party politics.

Free vote was the right decision, but in terms of his influence it doesn't look good.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

posted 3 Dec 2015 13:04, edited 3 Dec 2015 13:04
it could be argued that it was a clever political move - if public opinion is as strongly against airstrikes as he claims it is you can bet that voters won't forget which labour MPs voted for them when election time comes around.

even more so if ISIS manage to carry out an attack in the UK in response to us bombing syria. pro-war MPs will be all but unelectable, strengthening corbyn's position.
Dee
Dee avatar

12052 posts since 22/11/07

3 Dec 2015 13:28
is public opinion strongly against airstrikes, from experience it seems to be the opposite.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

posted 3 Dec 2015 13:37, edited 3 Dec 2015 13:37
it's impossible to say for sure but corbyn seemingly believes it is - think he sent out an email canvassing opinions of labour party members and it came back 75% against.
burny
burny avatar

6032 posts since 25/5/06

3 Dec 2015 13:57
james_fox wrote: it could be argued that it was a clever political move - if public opinion is as strongly against airstrikes as he claims it is you can bet that voters won't forget which labour MPs voted for them when election time comes around.

even more so if ISIS manage to carry out an attack in the UK in response to us bombing syria. pro-war MPs will be all but unelectable, strengthening corbyn's position.

Laughing out loud
andymakesglasses
andymakesglasses avatar

20613 posts since 26/1/06

posted 3 Dec 2015 14:03, edited 3 Dec 2015 14:03
james_fox wrote: it could be argued that it was a clever political move - if public opinion is as strongly against airstrikes as he claims it is you can bet that voters won't forget which labour MPs voted for them when election time comes around.

It'll be tricky to form a government with 152 MPs.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

3 Dec 2015 14:24
burny wrote:
james_fox wrote: it could be argued that it was a clever political move - if public opinion is as strongly against airstrikes as he claims it is you can bet that voters won't forget which labour MPs voted for them when election time comes around.

even more so if ISIS manage to carry out an attack in the UK in response to us bombing syria. pro-war MPs will be all but unelectable, strengthening corbyn's position.

Laughing out loud

?
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

3 Dec 2015 14:29
woke up this morning to the news of bombs having already being dropped and immediately felt safer.

burny
burny avatar

6032 posts since 25/5/06

3 Dec 2015 14:32
As Andy said, the overwhelming majority was pro strikes. Also, the very fact that you think Corbyn would let bombing happen in Syria purely for political points scoring is insanely ludicrous.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

3 Dec 2015 14:52
that's not what i'm saying, what i'm suggesting is that perhaps it influenced his thinking in terms of allowing a free vote as opposed to enforcing the whip. the fact that he showed how the opinion of labour members was strongly against airstrikes seemed to be a warning to the PLP that although they can vote as they feel they are standing against the majority of labour party members and ultimately there may be consequences when it comes to their reselection.

as i recall corbyn made a big deal about how the PLP needs to be more accountable to the wider party membership as part of his election campaign.
DuffMan
DuffMan avatar

14389 posts since 21/2/07

posted 3 Dec 2015 15:15, edited 3 Dec 2015 15:15
If half the PLP weren't going to rebel he would have whipped them, regardless it's bizarre to blame Corbyn for standing up for a principle he has held for decades, in fact the recent insults of him are irrational particularly given everyone supposedly wanted politicians who actually held views, believed in them and stuck by them.

General population seems to be roughly 50/50 split on airstrikes and this is the period of most public willingness, give it 2 years, a few disastrous missions, X dead civilians and no real progress etc and you can bet public opinion might not be so kind
bill
bill avatar

4930 posts since 5/8/09

posted 3 Dec 2015 15:45, edited 3 Dec 2015 15:45
I find it amazing that public opinion was 50/50 given recent history.

I've had arguments with people over this subject, it's pointless and massively frustrating. Seems like some people genuinely believe that if we don't 'fight them over there' they'll be soon beheading us in our living rooms and installing sharia law in every council in Britain.

And anyone who thinks this doesn't make us a bigger target is a fucking moron imo and I hope when the attacks do come it's you who gets your fucking legs blown off not some poor cunt who laid down on the streets on London in protest.
-DiscoTits-
-DiscoTits- avatar

952 posts since 26/11/07

posted 3 Dec 2015 16:01, edited 3 Dec 2015 16:01
Can someone show me non bias polls which suggested that public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of airstrikes? I couldn't find any non biased reporting on this fact. But judging by the trends on twitter and certainly other forms of social media etc the majority of people I saw were very much against it. I totally agree with Bill above on the sentiment of bombing them makes us more of a target if anything. This country has a government which does not listen to it's people and only serves to represent it's own interests. A destabilised middle east is good for this bunch of mindless billionaires only caring about trade and profit.
ShaneB
ShaneB avatar

908 posts since 28/11/10

posted 3 Dec 2015 16:05, edited 3 Dec 2015 16:05
I agree with DuffMan, they've capitalised on the anger in the wake of Paris so people are little more receptive to the warmongering.

They're talking about boots on the ground now - so wait for a few more dead soldiers (naturally, cunts like Hillary Benn won't see any action) and the mood will change.

Completely pointless activity.

-DiscoTits- wrote: Can someone show me non bias polls which suggested that public opinion was overwhelmingly in support of airstrikes? I couldn't find any non biased reporting on this fact. But judging by the trends on twitter and certainly other forms of social media etc the majority of people I saw were very much against it. I totally agree with Bill above on the sentiment of bombing them makes us more of a target if anything. This country has a government which does not listen to it's people and only serves to represent it's own interests. A destabilised middle east is good for this bunch of mindless billionaires only caring about trade and profit.

It's not, it's roughly 50/50 in England, in Scotland it's 3/4 against.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

3 Dec 2015 16:07
hilary benn completely changed his mind in the past two weeks, very odd:

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/hilary-benn-shadow-foreign-secretary-says-labour-wont-back-air-strikes-on-syria-a6734651.html
burny
burny avatar

6032 posts since 25/5/06

3 Dec 2015 16:09
-DiscoTits- wrote: judging by the trends on twitter and certainly other forms of social media etc the majority of people I saw were very much against it.

There's your problem.
ShaneB
ShaneB avatar

908 posts since 28/11/10

posted 3 Dec 2015 16:12, edited 3 Dec 2015 16:12

Just another posh boy bellend. Careerist.

I don't believe a word these guys say - fantastic speech? Yeah right.
james_fox
james_fox avatar

541 posts since 1/8/10

posted 3 Dec 2015 16:21, edited 3 Dec 2015 16:21
he's trying to come across as statesmanlike so he can become next labour leader if corbyn is ousted - press already jumped on it

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/could-hilary-benn-saviour-labour-6945915
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/03/hilary-benn-speech-syria-labour-mps-war