Hilary Benn

[Chicken Run]

As posted on Facebook this morning by The People's Republic of Brighton & Hove...

I would of thought that the red side of the "republic" would also be spinning seeing as their chosen one backed the action.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

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

 

[1066familyman]

No surprise his speech was passionate and very eloquent, his father taught him well there.
The major difference between his speech and his dad's is the attention to detail. Tony Benn could do all that Hilary has just done but so much better. The issue here is not so much that Hilary holds a different view to his dad, as has been pointed out, Tony would have had no problem with differing views. No, the point for me is that Tony Benn's speeches were chock full of uncomfortable historical fact that the establishment didn't like to hear. Listening to Tony Benn was like having a history lesson from a learned gentleman. He would deliver speeches with great emotion and eloquence but they never realied on emotion alone as they were so full of detail.

Unfortunately Hilary's speech, as impressive as it was, relied solely on well expressed emotion and little else, their was no historical context to it and so for me he's no where near the great orator that his father undoubtedly was.

 

[Guinness Boy]

It was an excellent speech and finally convinced me that air strikes are the right thing to do. It also made Corbyn look like the political lightweight that he is.

He summed up exactly why I now think we should bomb Daish in Syria. They DO represent medieval fascism. They DO represent crucifying kids. They DO represent willing the genocide of non-fundamentalist muslims and Shia's in particular, the slavery of Christians and the hastening of the apocalypse. They DO represent the cold blooded murder of restaurant goers and people going to a Friday night gig.

i have been on the fence up to now. Against bombing there is a fairly convincing argument that we have royally screwed the Middle East with previous interventions, that there are no supportive ground troops and that there isn't even a proper coalition against them. All that is true. BUT re-read the paragraph above. Doing nothing against that is to appease fascism.

Of those speaking against Caroline Lucas gave a far better account of herself than Corbyn but she did not convince me as Benn did. Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

 

[JCL666]

No surprise his speech was passionate and very eloquent, his father taught him well there.
The major difference between his speech and his dad's is the attention to detail. Tony Benn could do all that Hilary has just done but so much better. The issue here is not so much that Hilary holds a different view to his dad, as has been pointed out, Tony would have had no problem with differing views. No, the point for me is that Tony Benn's speeches were chock full of uncomfortable historical fact that the establishment didn't like to hear. Listening to Tony Benn was like having a history lesson from a learned gentleman. He would deliver speeches with great emotion and eloquence but they never realied on emotion alone as they were so full of detail.

Unfortunately Hilary's speech, as impressive as it was, relied solely on well expressed emotion and little else, their was no historical context to it and so for me he's no where near the great orator that his father undoubtedly was.

Totally right. It was an emotive speech but nothing substantive.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

It is not being Chamberlains. Not bombing is not appeasing. The question is whether it the right strategy (and actually whether there is a strategy, and an objective etc). Or should we just go and put our troops in ?

 

[JCL666]

It was an excellent speech and finally convinced me that air strikes are the right thing to do. It also made Corbyn look like the political lightweight that he is.

He summed up exactly why I now think we should bomb Daish in Syria. They DO represent medieval fascism. They DO represent crucifying kids. They DO represent willing the genocide of non-fundamentalist muslims and Shia's in particular, the slavery of Christians and the hastening of the apocalypse. They DO represent the cold blooded murder of restaurant goers and people going to a Friday night gig.

i have been on the fence up to now. Against bombing there is a fairly convincing argument that we have royally screwed the Middle East with previous interventions, that there are no supportive ground troops and that there isn't even a proper coalition against them. All that is true. BUT re-read the paragraph above. Doing nothing against that is to appease fascism.

Of those speaking against Caroline Lucas gave a far better account of herself than Corbyn but she did not convince me as Benn did. Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

Caroline Lucas questioned the strategy and the current course of action. She did not say that nothing should be done.

 

[Dick Knights Mumm]

Caroline Lucas questioned the strategy and the current course of action. She did not say that nothing should be done.

As did Alex Salmond. Bombing is easy. But one question will remain hanging even after the decision. Is it effective or even counter-productive ?

 

[Not Andy Naylor]

I don't agree with air strikes but he made more of a case for voting for them than our flabby faced wanker of a prime minister

Perfectly put. You are the Hilary Benn of NSC.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Caroline Lucas questioned the strategy and the current course of action. She did not say that nothing should be done.

We're specifically talking about bombing which she is against. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

That's not to say I don't like Caroline. I do and I'd vote for her if I lived in Pavillion.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

It was an excellent speech and finally convinced me that air strikes are the right thing to do. It also made Corbyn look like the political lightweight that he is.

He summed up exactly why I now think we should bomb Daish in Syria. They DO represent medieval fascism. They DO represent crucifying kids. They DO represent willing the genocide of non-fundamentalist muslims and Shia's in particular, the slavery of Christians and the hastening of the apocalypse. They DO represent the cold blooded murder of restaurant goers and people going to a Friday night gig.

i have been on the fence up to now. Against bombing there is a fairly convincing argument that we have royally screwed the Middle East with previous interventions, that there are no supportive ground troops and that there isn't even a proper coalition against them. All that is true. BUT re-read the paragraph above. Doing nothing against that is to appease fascism.

Of those speaking against Caroline Lucas gave a far better account of herself than Corbyn but she did not convince me as Benn did. Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

Well exactly, Daesh are awful, they need to be got rid of. Spraying a few bombs around won't achieve that though, which is the point of a lot of people voting no.

I think all Benn's speech shows is that people will support anyone who can make a good speech. Its good politics, but its not necessarily good governance.

 

[Guinness Boy]

Well exactly, Daesh are awful, they need to be got rid of. Spraying a few bombs around won't achieve that though, which is the point of a lot of people voting no.

I think all Benn's speech shows is that people will support anyone who can make a good speech. Its good politics, but its not necessarily good governance.

Well just letting them get on with it isn't going to get rid of them either so what's the answer? Troops on the ground? That's EXACTLY what they want. They are operating to a prophecy that ends in the "Troops of Rome" engaging them in the Caliphate. Well directed bombs cutting off their funding and shrinking the Caliphate do not fit in to that prophesy and do severely harm them. They would not have attacked Paris if they were happy about it.

 

[Monsieur Le Plonk]

Well just letting them get on with it isn't going to get rid of them either so what's the answer? Troops on the ground? That's EXACTLY what they want. They are operating to a prophecy that ends in the "Troops of Rome" engaging them in the Caliphate. Well directed bombs cutting off their funding and shrinking the Caliphate do not fit in to that prophesy and do severely harm them. They would not have attacked Paris if they were happy about it.

This is exactly where I am too.
I back the decision of targeted bombing as long as it is just that, targeted. I just hope that this DOES NOT subsequently lead to another vote down the line that will put boots on the ground as that will start to bring ISIL dreams to fruition and will end in slaughter.

 

[Kalimantan Gull]

Well just letting them get on with it isn't going to get rid of them either so what's the answer? Troops on the ground? That's EXACTLY what they want. They are operating to a prophecy that ends in the "Troops of Rome" engaging them in the Caliphate. Well directed bombs cutting off their funding and shrinking the Caliphate do not fit in to that prophesy and do severely harm them. They would not have attacked Paris if they were happy about it.

There are troops on the ground, these 70,000 or so people that cameron mentions plus the Syrian army. Cutting off the supply of arms from Saudi Arabia and other places; cutting off their supply of funds by not buying their oil; cutting off their propaganda by closing down their websites, cutting off their supply of fighters by closing their borders; continuing unmanned drones targeting their leaders; continuing to support the Iraqi government; providing better humanitarian support to the refiugees so they can return and rebuild their country in time; providing positive support to British mosques and imams to counter the terrorist propoganda; targeting development funding to deprived parts of the UK where homegrown jihadis are being bred.

For me, these are all better uses of the millions that we're otherwise spending on adding our bombs to those of the French, the Syrians, the US, the Russians. It actually gets us thinking about the issues and not just taking the easy route out by saying bombing is the answer.

The Germans bombed Britain for years but it didn't win them the war.

 

[dazzer6666]

After listening to his speech I was highly impressed in how eloquently he spoke. I don't agree with air strikes but he made more of a case for voting for them than our flabby faced wanker of a prime minister

Anyone know how to get tea out of a keyboard?

 

[Igzilla]

It was an excellent speech and finally convinced me that air strikes are the right thing to do. It also made Corbyn look like the political lightweight that he is.

He summed up exactly why I now think we should bomb Daish in Syria. They DO represent medieval fascism. They DO represent crucifying kids. They DO represent willing the genocide of non-fundamentalist muslims and Shia's in particular, the slavery of Christians and the hastening of the apocalypse. They DO represent the cold blooded murder of restaurant goers and people going to a Friday night gig.

i have been on the fence up to now. Against bombing there is a fairly convincing argument that we have royally screwed the Middle East with previous interventions, that there are no supportive ground troops and that there isn't even a proper coalition against them. All that is true. BUT re-read the paragraph above. Doing nothing against that is to appease fascism.

Of those speaking against Caroline Lucas gave a far better account of herself than Corbyn but she did not convince me as Benn did. Let's not be Chamberlains again eh?

Poor Liam

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

Do you think so? I would not have said this was an opportunist move. If he was truly an opportunist positioning himself to replace Corbyn he would have whispered against him in the shadows whilst backing the leader in public, wouldn't he? His father was certainly not an opportunist and he strikes me as a "conviction" politician.

Absolutely. I think he shares his father's sincerity, conviction and eloquence. Whether you agree with him or not, his speech yesterday was enormously intelligent and thoughtful.

Having seen the "his father would be spinning in his grave" stuff, I think it is rubbish. I think it would be very difficult to call which way Tony Benn would have voted yesterday - probably against, but only after serious thought. But the fighting against fascism/defence of our democracy stuff was brilliant.

 

[DavidinSouthampton]

No doubt his speech was delivered eloquently and it appeared heartfelt but it was nothing more than emotive rhetoric. It was as profound as a Sun editorial.

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

 

[JCL666]

We're specifically talking about bombing which she is against. To suggest otherwise is disingenuous.

That's not to say I don't like Caroline. I do and I'd vote for her if I lived in Pavillion.

I'm not saying she isn't against bombing, the point was that the airstrikes are taking place without any coherent strategy.

I thought we were talking about Hilary Benn and his speech, which was vacuous. We all think ISIS are twats and should be stopped, I haven't heard anything that suggests protracted air strikes without a coherent strategy achieves that.

 

[Uncle Buck]

Somewhat barbed comments from the Shadow Chancellor;

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34993438