CORBYN, McDONNELL AND LIVINGSTONE.

[JC Footy Genius]

With the debate being led, largely, by the right wing media, the military and others I'm not surprised that the publics support is changing towards war.

I'm certain that the world must stop ISIS and throw out Assad but a few brimstone missiles is not the solution. If we mean business we have to commit soldiers, a LOT of soldiers. That means a LOT of dead British soldiers. It's harsh but true.

I thought the media debate has been relatively balanced and thoughtful excluding the red tops of course.

Agree with you about the need for boots on the ground. The 70,000 moderate rebels recently mentioned by the PM are unlikely to be a cohesive, effective fighting force if they exist at all. The air strikes are a sticking plaster on an open wound at some point someone is going to have to go in but considering the myriad of different interests I can't see how. One helluva mess but anything that degrades and disrupts ISIS control is better than doing FA.

 

[mona]

If any of the ****tards in the House of Commons had any interest in the wellbeing of our country and its people, they would put party politics aside and sit down together and thrash out a solution that, actually, benefits the nation as a whole, rather than sitting making goat, sheep and donkey noises at each other. They're all just a bunch of self important, self interested ********s. I'm sick of hearing how wonderful Corbyn is, and about the Satan Cameron, they're both incompetent twats, totally out of their depth. That's it, I've had enough of pondering on why our country is run and opposed by a bunch of tossers who have no interests other than their own political futures, I'm going to ignore the social media binfests and concentrate on the important issue of the Albion getting promoted, this season.

Well said.

 

[drew]

You seem to be operating under the misapprehension that the general public are against air strikes in Syria. Just in case you missed it last time ..

Following your argument any MP who votes against air strikes 'must expect to be considered for de-selection at some time.'

Surely depends on what his/her particular constituents want. The same percentages probably won't apply to every constituency across the whole UK!.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

Surely depends on what his/her particular constituents want. The same percentages probably won't apply to every constituency across the whole UK!.

True there will be some variation but the point I was making was there seems to be some strange idea that the public are against bombing in Syria. If as the poster I replied to suggests MP's should go with the will of their constituents most should be supporting the government.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

and so it should be, I am hoping that each individual MP has been and asked his constituants their opinion and will vote accordingly ......................its called democracy.
my worry is that they have not consulted their constituants and get it wrong if this is the case they must expect to be considered for de-selection at some time.
I also wonder how many of the tory MP's consulted their constituants?

You seem very keen on deselection of MPs that disagree with Corbyn.

He never seems to compromise either - it really is 'his way or the highway', I guess.

 

[beorhthelm]

Surely depends on what his/her particular constituents want. The same percentages probably won't apply to every constituency across the whole UK!.

while thats true, unless they have been particularly selective in the areas polled, it would be a rare constituency that didnt follow the trend, 59 is a substantial rate in favour. a few urban, demographically skewed seats would maybe have under a majority in favour, though very unlikly anywhere would be majority against. the point is that on the basis of polling most Labout MPs should be voting for or abstaining.

however... we arent really talking about constituents being consulted, its really about active party members being asked, and there the response in many Labour seats would be wildly different. this is the problem, Labour is apparently to be run by informal plebisites, but only paid up plebs count.

 

[drew]

True there will be some variation but the point I was making was there seems to be some strange idea that the public are against bombing in Syria. If as the poster I replied to suggests MP's should go with the will of their constituents most should be supporting the government.

Wouldn't say I agree that there is an idea that the public are against action. What is coming across from Corbyn and Abbot is that the labour party membership are aligned with Corbyn. Bearing in mind that is only about 350k people that isn't a great proportion of the population.

 

[glasfryn]

The party I support won an increased majority at the last general election just six months ago (you know, democracy and all that) and have around four and a half years left to govern, but if your shower of imbeciles continue in their current vein that could easily be nearly 10 years. They really don't seem to need much sorting out in their endeavours to improve the economy right now, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility found the 27 billion windfall for them.

You guys have been crying into your Morning Star ever since the election result, all bitter and twisted. Stop whinging and whining, to coin a phrase 'man up', sort your rabble out and come up with a credible alternative to the Tories, not some dreamer with a utopian vision of what the world COULD be like IF it were a nicer place. It ain't, get used to it.

whatever

 

[glasfryn]

It might be a good idea not to post at all instead of such nonsense. Why would a Labour MP be more likely to knock on your door than a Tory? Surely this would be down to the individual irrespective of any party loyalties.

because no matter how I voted she is still my MP ................or is she only MP to the tories

 

[glasfryn]

Wouldn't say I agree that there is an idea that the public are against action. What is coming across from Corbyn and Abbot is that the labour party membership are aligned with Corbyn. Bearing in mind that is only about 350k people that isn't a great proportion of the population.

50k have joined since september...............since JC became leader
and just heard on newsnight that 75% are against the bombing

 

[Hampster Gull]

The party I support won an increased majority at the last general election just six months ago (you know, democracy and all that) and have around four and a half years left to govern, but if your shower of imbeciles continue in their current vein that could easily be nearly 10 years. They really don't seem to need much sorting out in their endeavours to improve the economy right now, the independent Office for Budget Responsibility found the 27 billion windfall for them.

You guys have been crying into your Morning Star ever since the election result, all bitter and twisted. Stop whinging and whining, to coin a phrase 'man up', sort your rabble out and come up with a credible alternative to the Tories, not some dreamer with a utopian vision of what the world COULD be like IF it were a nicer place. It ain't, get used to it.

Hmz. I think you are right WQW

 

[drew]

50k have joined since september...............since JC became leader
and just heard on newsnight that 75% are against the bombing

Still not a big proportion of the population.

 

[Hastings gull]

50k have joined since september...............since JC became leader
and just heard on newsnight that 75% are against the bombing

And therein lies your problem. 75% of the dinner party luvvies may well be against the bombing, but given that 60% of the electorate would seem to be in favour, it gives an idea as to how out of touch the luvvies are. The membership of the Labour Party may well have increased impressively under JC, but they are not necessarily representative of the electorate, and this will blight the party for years. The many worried MPs, who live in this world, know that.

 

[Buzzer]

50k have joined since september...............since JC became leader
and just heard on newsnight that 75% are against the bombing

John Rentoul was reporting earlier that people who sent JC their opinions weren't asked for their membership numbers, that there would have been a natural skew towards JC for this type of response and that from the 1900 replies a sample of just 100 was taken by Saemus Milne.

It may well be 75% but it would be dangerous and foolish to infer it from those email responses.

 

[Surf's Up]

If any of the ****tards in the House of Commons had any interest in the wellbeing of our country and its people, they would put party politics aside and sit down together and thrash out a solution that, actually, benefits the nation as a whole, rather than sitting making goat, sheep and donkey noises at each other. They're all just a bunch of self important, self interested ********s. I'm sick of hearing how wonderful Corbyn is, and about the Satan Cameron, they're both incompetent twats, totally out of their depth. That's it, I've had enough of pondering on why our country is run and opposed by a bunch of tossers who have no interests other than their own political futures, I'm going to ignore the social media binfests and concentrate on the important issue of the Albion getting promoted, this season.

Couldn't have put it better myself!!

 

[glasfryn]

And therein lies your problem. 75% of the dinner party luvvies may well be against the bombing, but given that 60% of the electorate would seem to be in favour, it gives an idea as to how out of touch the luvvies are. The membership of the Labour Party may well have increased impressively under JC, but they are not necessarily representative of the electorate, and this will blight the party for years. The many worried MPs, who live in this world, know that.

John Rentoul was reporting earlier that people who sent JC their opinions weren't asked for their membership numbers, that there would have been a natural skew towards JC for this type of response and that from the 1900 replies a sample of just 100 was taken by Saemus Milne.

It may well be 75% but it would be dangerous and foolish to infer it from those email responses.

both clutching a little there
we are going to war, without a thought as to what will happen afterwards

 

[Don Quixote]

Abbot should be no where near the front bench. As for JC, well he'll be gone soon enough. He has to. Labour stand no chance with him whatsoever.

 

[glasfryn]

Abbot should be no where near the front bench. As for JC, well he'll be gone soon enough. He has to. Labour stand no chance with him whatsoever.

another one clutching

 

[Don Quixote]

another one clutching

How am I clutching, and at what? He will never win an election and I think most of his supporters must know that. I'm glad I never voted for him.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

And therein lies your problem. 75% of the dinner party luvvies may well be against the bombing, but given that 60% of the electorate would seem to be in favour, it gives an idea as to how out of touch the luvvies are. The membership of the Labour Party may well have increased impressively under JC, but they are not necessarily representative of the electorate, and this will blight the party for years. The many worried MPs, who live in this world, know that.

Very true

The lunatics really have taken over the asylum.