Hilary Benn

[alfredmizen]

We were wrong to send troops in to the illegal war in Iraq. How Blair got the Commons to believe his lies is beyond me, even now.
Now, because of that, we find it impossible to send troops in against an enemy that really does need confronting on the ground, wherever they are.

Because of sexed up dossiers smudge, The former head of MI6 was fairly culpable in that respect if i remember correctly?

 

[Deleted member 22389]

I have only heard sound bites, but I can't see what the fuss about his speech was. Was on the news all this morning, online, what am I missing here?

 

[Seagull58]

Shameful opportunist and a total embarrassment to his late, great father.

I don't get this opportunist insult at all. How was he being opportunist? What was he trying to achieve, other than a vote to bomb ISIS in Syria?

 

[hoveboyslim]

I have only heard sound bites, but I can't see what the fuss about his speech was. Was on the news all this morning, online, what am I missing here?

You've answered your own question.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I don't think he's shameful opportunist. It was a heartfelt, passionate speech which articulated his position very well. I happen to disagree with what we're doing it but as a politician once said, will defend his right to say it. I think it's a mistake to compare ISIS with the Nazis, the threat, as dangerous as it is, is nowhere near the 1930's levels. And he ignored the end game issue. What is the long-term plan and exit strategy? It seems we have learnt very little from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But more broadly its time the sniping and bullying inside the Labour Party stopped. If people did vote for action, they should not immediately be branded as "war mongers." It's not true and deeply insulting to many people who have dedicated their working lives to try and help others perhaps less fortunate then themselves.

If someone like Stella Creasy, a hard-working and thoroughly decent person, is facing deselection because she's not left-wing enough, then Christ alive, we may as well all pack up and go home. Personally, I think Corbyn is right on Syria but he must stop the shameful bullying of people who disagree with him on that and other issues.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Personally, I thought it was a laughable summary of the whole event. A career politician making a bold and impassioned plea without actually saying aything. Down with facism! Obviously. He didn't specifically say he supports the bombing efforts, and he probably doesn't because what difference is it really going to make bombing them to hell and back again? None. You can't resolve this conflict with bombing, France have proven that for however long their campaign has been ongoing for.

Were diplomatic options discussed, or was it just easier for the career politicians to line up behind bombings because it makes it LOOK like action is being taken and it appeases their consitituencies? Is that a good enough reason to commission a bombing campaign which will probably end up miserably backfiring? In my opinion, no. And in my opinion, the speech of Benn was no more than a man positioning himself well with the pro-bombing MPs and the portion of the public who just want the UK to look like it's doing something tangible.

 

[Curious Orange]

Were diplomatic options discussed, or was it just easier for the career politicians to line up behind bombings because it makes it LOOK like action is being taken and it appeases their consitituencies?

What do you think the diplomatic options are out of interest?

 

[Bakero]

I would be interested to know what would then qualify something to be profound?

Something that goes beyond tugging at the heart strings. A semblance of understanding of the conflict, the strategy and the long term plan.

Chaos currently reigns across the region and I fail to see how our bombs, added to those of numerous other countries, will bring stability. It's another whack-a-mole war that won't solve the problem.

 

[Buzzer]

I don't get this opportunist insult at all. How was he being opportunist?

Because that's the orthodoxy according to Corbynistas.

If Corbyn goes against his party then he's a man of principle. If Hilary Benn is given a free vote and chooses the option that 65 of his (including some very senior and well-respected) colleagues agree with and has full UN backing but Corbyn disagrees with, then he's a shameful warmongering Tory. It doesn't matter that Benn put passionately his reasons for doing so. He's wrong, it's not a matter of conscience if he votes differently.

No Labour MP who disagrees with Corbyn has principles. It's very clear from many on this thread. And now look how silly things have got when there are serious calls to de-select the likes of Frank Field, Tom Watson, Keith Vaz and Margaret Beckett. If Momentum and the malcontents on the hard left carry on with the way they are then they are in serious danger of ripping Labour apart. Great news for Tories, great news for the hard left - bad news for everyone else.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

What do you think the diplomatic options are out of interest?

There are always diplomatic options, and there are always options prior to just randomly bombing targets and then flying away. Does it not feel like the easy option? And what longer term good is it going to do, if any?

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

What do you think the diplomatic options are out of interest?

You would probably start with Saudi Arabia. Get them back on board.

 

[Blue Valkyrie]

Because that's the orthodoxy according to Corbynistas.

If Corbyn goes against his party then he's a man of principle. If Hilary Benn is given a free vote and chooses the option that 65 of his (including some very senior and well-respected) colleagues agree with and has full UN backing but Corbyn disagrees with, then he's a shameful warmongering Tory. It doesn't matter that Benn put passionately his reasons for doing so. He's wrong, it's not a matter of conscience if he votes differently.

No Labour MP who disagrees with Corbyn has principles. It's very clear from many on this thread. And now look how silly things have got when there are serious calls to de-select the likes of Frank Field, Tom Watson, Keith Vaz and Margaret Beckett. If Momentum and the malcontents on the hard left carry on with the way they are then they are in serious danger of ripping Labour apart. Great news for Tories, great news for the hard left - bad news for everyone else.

I had noticed that it's only Corbyn who is 'allowed' to be a 'man of principle'.

No one else is allowed to follow their principles without being threatened with deselection.

Deselect away, I say. Axe enough of them and they can split into a new party - the center left red tory alliance [emoji38]ol: - or whatever other name is dreamed up - it is clear the labour party can't go on like this.

The deselected MPs are not kicked out of Parliament. They are totally free to group together as another party - if there were enough of them, they could even be the second largest party in the House of Commons.

 

[Gwylan]

I don't think he's shameful opportunist. It was a heartfelt, passionate speech which articulated his position very well. I happen to disagree with what we're doing it but as a politician once said, will defend his right to say it. I think it's a mistake to compare ISIS with the Nazis, the threat, as dangerous as it is, is nowhere near the 1930's levels. And he ignored the end game issue. What is the long-term plan and exit strategy? It seems we have learnt very little from Iraq and Afghanistan.

But more broadly its time the sniping and bullying inside the Labour Party stopped. If people did vote for action, they should not immediately be branded as "war mongers." It's not true and deeply insulting to many people who have dedicated their working lives to try and help others perhaps less fortunate then themselves.

If someone like Stella Creasy, a hard-working and thoroughly decent person, is facing deselection because she's not left-wing enough, then Christ alive, we may as well all pack up and go home. Personally, I think Corbyn is right on Syria but he must stop the shameful bullying of people who disagree with him on that and other issues.

I could have written this myself:agree with every word. I certainly wouldn't have voted for the bombing but the denigration of those who did is disgraceful

 

[Curious Orange]

There are always diplomatic options, and there are always options prior to just randomly bombing targets and then flying away. Does it not feel like the easy option? And what longer term good is it going to do, if any?

Are there diplomatic options though? These people basically want us all to either convert to their version of Islam or die, I'm not sure they are going to take much notice of anyone asking them politely to stop decapitating people.

It seems somewhat inappropriate to quote a line from Red Dwarf here, but I'm going to do it anyway as I think it actually makes a relevant point:

The time for talking is over. Call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard and hit it fast with a major -- and I mean major -- leaflet campaign, and while it's reeling from that, we'd follow up with a whist drive, a car boot sale, some street theatre and possibly even some benefit concerts. OK?

These people are not interested in alternative points of view, so our choice is either to intervene, or do nothing.

The people of Syria, both those that remained and those that have fled, were suffering before last nights vote, and they'd still be suffering today irrespective of the result of that vote. But maybe, just maybe, armed interventions that degrade those terrorists ability to do what they do can foreshorten that suffering.

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Are there diplomatic options though? These people basically want us all to either convert to their version of Islam or die, I'm not sure they are going to take much notice of anyone asking them politely to stop decapitating people.

It seems somewhat inappropriate to quote a line from Red Dwarf here, but I'm going to do it anyway as I think it actually makes a relevant point:



These people are not interested in alternative points of view, so our choice is either to intervene, or do nothing.

The people of Syria, both those that remained and those that have fled, were suffering before last nights vote, and they'd still be suffering today irrespective of the result of that vote. But maybe, just maybe, armed interventions that degrade those terrorists ability to do what they do can foreshorten that suffering.

Is bombing them the only way to intervene? I'm not for ignoring the problem, not at all. I think that they clearly are a significant risk and the time has come to intervene, no question about that - but bombing them and to hell with the actual consequences? I can't support that, not for any idealistic reasons but because it isn't clear what exactly the long term plan is, if there even is one. Or have the MPs rushed into this so foolheartedly that the plan will be made up as it goes along.

 

[carlzeiss]

Is bombing them the only way to intervene? I'm not for ignoring the problem, not at all. I think that they clearly are a significant risk and the time has come to intervene, no question about that - but bombing them and to hell with the actual consequences? I can't support that, not for any idealistic reasons but because it isn't clear what exactly the long term plan is, if there even is one. Or have the MPs rushed into this so foolheartedly that the plan will be made up as it goes along.

Maybe we could have sent Peter Mandleson as a peace envoy out to Syria to negotiate with ISIS .

 

[Ninja Elephant]

Maybe we could have sent Peter Mandleson as a peace envoy out to Syria to negotiate with ISIS .

I would have thought Piers Morgan would be a candidate for that sort of a mission as well.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

I had noticed that it's only Corbyn who is 'allowed' to be a 'man of principle'.

No one else is allowed to follow their principles without being threatened with deselection.

Deselect away, I say. Axe enough of them and they can split into a new party - the center left red tory alliance [emoji38]ol: - or whatever other name is dreamed up - it is clear the labour party can't go on like this.

The deselected MPs are not kicked out of Parliament. They are totally free to group together as another party - if there were enough of them, they could even be the second largest party in the House of Commons.

Remember what happened the last time the Labour Party split? It didn't win power for a generation. No, the leadership needs to stop the bullying and fast. It needs to come up with some policies and ideas which broaden its appeal, making a persuasive case for Labour. A split would be a disaster.

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

On an unrelated note - in my mothers declining years she said that Hilary was a name they considered for me ...........................

In my case it was Susan. Given our vintage, I think we both escaped lightly . . . .

 

[Harry Wilson's tackle]

Remember what happened the last time the Labour Party split? It didn't win power for a generation. No, the leadership needs to stop the bullying and fast. It needs to come up with some policies and ideas which broaden its appeal, making a persuasive case for Labour. A split would be a disaster.

Jezza has made noises to ssuggest that the broad church will leave the likes of Benn alone. But if so he needs to reign in all the three quid members and the larger swathe of unwashed agit prop wankers with the same determination that Kinnock had when dealing with Militant. If he fails to do so, he is dead to me, as they say.