Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pennsylvania result – What happens when you try to take aw

SystemSystem Posts: 5,841
edited March 15 in General

imagepoliticalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Pennsylvania result – What happens when you try to take away publicly funded healthcare

The US pollster Public Policy Polling carried out an on the day survey during Tuesday’s special Congressional election in Pennsylvania District 18.

Read the full story here


«1345

Comments

  • TheScreamingEaglesTheScreamingEagles Posts: 64,284
    edited March 15
    Well well well, you can see why voters here love the NHS.
  • I'm less sure that Trump's going to win in 2020 now.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    edited March 15
    Turd.

    (Oim in Chelt'num mode....)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195
    edited March 15
    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Absolutely right.
    We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.

    I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.

    Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
    I agree, if this is all we are doing.

    However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.
    The time is now. Just for starters and by no means an exhaustive list :

    1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the embassy to be engaged in verifiable humanitarian activities.

    2 Advise the FA to withdraw from the World Cup. Place a case to FIFA that we cannot compete in a tournament hosted by a state attacking us. Albeit 3 months away propose Germany host the tournament and Italy replace Russia.

    3. Formally declare the Russian Federation government a rogue state and criminal enterprise.

    4. Place all evidence from all sources of world wide Russian criminal activities in the public domain.

    5. All filmed intercepts of Russian military incursions into UK airspace to be placed in the public domain

    6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.

    7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.

    8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.

    9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.

    10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!

    We hold all the cards!!
    Putin is playing Russian roulette against us with all chambers filled. Mrs May responds by playing the card - Mrs Bun the baker's' wife from "Happy Families".

    Frankly next to useless and only surpassed by the craven incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Short of nuking Moscow or sending an invasion force to Russia which would obviously be totally disproportionate, May's combination of sanctions and expulsions is the best response
    Mrs May's response has been weak and there are, as I noted earlier, a large number of actions short of your cataclysm that may be employed.

    Dear god even Ted Heath expelled 105 Russians in response to cold war Soviet spying. Putin deploys chemical weapons and previously nuclear materials on UK soil and Mrs May huffs and puffs and be sure the Russian state will come for us again.
  • Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.
  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860
    FPT

    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardleybbc: Alex Salmond says RT should not be shut down, arguing it’s not a propaganda station and he’s never been told what to do on show

    Well he doesn't need to be told what to say when he can be relied upon to take a Russo-sympathetic line.

    banning RT makes me think of the 1988/9 prohibition of Sinn Fein being allowed to speak on radio & TV, it didnt work then and I cant see what it will achieve now....
    Better ignored than banned. The one item from Jack W's list of suggested actions that I would emphatically endorse is the beefing-up of BBC's Russian language service. That would be the most effective counter-move.
    That has somewhat patronising overtones of "If only they could hear in RP Russian what a shower that Putin and his cronies are, they'd jolly well do something about it!". Russians that care know full well; it's just that the people they would like to vote for as an alternative to Putin end up in jail on trumped up charges - or end up dead.
    Agreed, but where the BBC Russian service does play a very useful role is in providing employment opportunities to Russian journalists who would prefer not to have to make a choice between compromising their integrity and outright opposition to the government.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,393
    There's clearly an enthusiasm gap at play here - which might well play the same way at the midterms: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-enthusiasm-gap-could-turn-a-democratic-wave-into-a-tsunami/

    And the Democrats picked a candidate far better suited to this district than Hillary Clinton was. On balance I'd say Trump is still just about on course for re-election, but there's a very long way to go.
  • augustus_carpaugustus_carp Posts: 205

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    (Why? What have I missed?)
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    Looks like Corbyn is going to need a new Shadow Defence policy. Sub-contracting the defence of the realm to the Red Army appears to have some drawbacks....
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    edited March 15
    If the Democratic Special election gain foretells a Democratic House gain in November we are heading for Speaker Pelosi and a version of Obamacare rather than Trumpcare.

    Remember Obama only got Obamacare through when the Democrats controlled both Chambers of Congress and before the 2010 midterms
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    FPT

    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardleybbc: Alex Salmond says RT should not be shut down, arguing it’s not a propaganda station and he’s never been told what to do on show

    Well he doesn't need to be told what to say when he can be relied upon to take a Russo-sympathetic line.

    banning RT makes me think of the 1988/9 prohibition of Sinn Fein being allowed to speak on radio & TV, it didnt work then and I cant see what it will achieve now....
    Better ignored than banned. The one item from Jack W's list of suggested actions that I would emphatically endorse is the beefing-up of BBC's Russian language service. That would be the most effective counter-move.
    That has somewhat patronising overtones of "If only they could hear in RP Russian what a shower that Putin and his cronies are, they'd jolly well do something about it!". Russians that care know full well; it's just that the people they would like to vote for as an alternative to Putin end up in jail on trumped up charges - or end up dead.
    Agreed, but where the BBC Russian service does play a very useful role is in providing employment opportunities to Russian journalists who would prefer not to have to make a choice between compromising their integrity and outright opposition to the government.
    Er, is that what the licence fee is for?
  • HYUFDHYUFD Posts: 39,676
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Absolutely right.
    We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.

    I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.

    Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
    I agree, if this is all we are doing.

    However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.
    The time is now. Just for starters and by no means an exhaustive list :

    1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the

    6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.

    7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.

    8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.

    9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.

    10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!

    We hold all the cards!!
    Putin is playing Russian roulette against us with all chambers filled. Mrs May responds by playing the card - Mrs Bun the baker's' wife from "Happy Families".

    Frankly next to useless and only surpassed by the craven incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Short of nuking Moscow or sending an invasion force to Russia which would obviously be totally disproportionate, May's combination of sanctions and expulsions is the best response
    Mrs May's response has been weak and there are, as I noted earlier, a large number of actions short of your cataclysm that may be employed.

    Dear god even Ted Heath expelled 105 Russians in response to cold war Soviet spying. Putin deploys chemical weapons and previously nuclear materials on UK soil and Mrs May huffs and puffs and be sure Russian state will come for us again.
    So it is really just a degree of expulsions then which would really make little more difference to Putin.

    23 expulsions is still the most since 1985
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    Looks like Corbyn is going to need a new Shadow Defence policy. Sub-contracting the defence of the realm to the Red Army appears to have some drawbacks....
    Titter .... :smile:
  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,262
    JackW said:



    Mrs May's response has been weak and there are, as I noted down thread, a large number of actions short of your cataclysm that may be employed.

    Dear god even Ted Heath expelled 105 Russians in response to cold war Soviet spying. Putin deploys chemical weapons and previously nuclear materials on UK soil and Mrs May huffs and puffs and be sure Russian state will come for us again.

    Hindsight. I am pleased and relieved by the level of world support for May's position, and overdoing things too soon could have prejudiced that. Give it a week and see where we are then.
  • The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


  • Ishmael_ZIshmael_Z Posts: 5,262

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    I like Nia; learning of her existence was one of the better side effects of GE 17.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806

    FPT

    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardleybbc: Alex Salmond says RT should not be shut down, arguing it’s not a propaganda station and he’s never been told what to do on show

    Well he doesn't need to be told what to say when he can be relied upon to take a Russo-sympathetic line.

    banning RT makes me think of the 1988/9 prohibition of Sinn Fein being allowed to speak on radio & TV, it didnt work then and I cant see what it will achieve now....
    Better ignored than banned. The one item from Jack W's list of suggested actions that I would emphatically endorse is the beefing-up of BBC's Russian language service. That would be the most effective counter-move.
    That has somewhat patronising overtones of "If only they could hear in RP Russian what a shower that Putin and his cronies are, they'd jolly well do something about it!". Russians that care know full well; it's just that the people they would like to vote for as an alternative to Putin end up in jail on trumped up charges - or end up dead.
    Agreed, but where the BBC Russian service does play a very useful role is in providing employment opportunities to Russian journalists who would prefer not to have to make a choice between compromising their integrity and outright opposition to the government.
    Er, is that what the licence fee is for?
    The World service used to be funded by the Government. The cost was handed to the licence fee payer as part of Foreign Office savings in 2010, but I think that’s been at least partially reversed.

  • williamglennwilliamglenn Posts: 17,860

    FPT

    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardleybbc: Alex Salmond says RT should not be shut down, arguing it’s not a propaganda station and he’s never been told what to do on show

    Well he doesn't need to be told what to say when he can be relied upon to take a Russo-sympathetic line.

    banning RT makes me think of the 1988/9 prohibition of Sinn Fein being allowed to speak on radio & TV, it didnt work then and I cant see what it will achieve now....
    Better ignored than banned. The one item from Jack W's list of suggested actions that I would emphatically endorse is the beefing-up of BBC's Russian language service. That would be the most effective counter-move.
    That has somewhat patronising overtones of "If only they could hear in RP Russian what a shower that Putin and his cronies are, they'd jolly well do something about it!". Russians that care know full well; it's just that the people they would like to vote for as an alternative to Putin end up in jail on trumped up charges - or end up dead.
    Agreed, but where the BBC Russian service does play a very useful role is in providing employment opportunities to Russian journalists who would prefer not to have to make a choice between compromising their integrity and outright opposition to the government.
    Er, is that what the licence fee is for?
    You think we should go back to funding it directly from the Foreign Office budget?
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819

    There's clearly an enthusiasm gap at play here - which might well play the same way at the midterms: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-enthusiasm-gap-could-turn-a-democratic-wave-into-a-tsunami/

    And the Democrats picked a candidate far better suited to this district than Hillary Clinton was. On balance I'd say Trump is still just about on course for re-election, but there's a very long way to go.

    Agree there's a long way to go but why do you think he is on-track?
    He's running behind other 1 term presidents in approval like Ford, Carter, and Bush Snr.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Sandpit said:


    Indeed, we don’t want to start a war but we have to react to an extreme provocation or else they will just keep poking.

    Just catching up on yesterday in Parliament, with the one obvious exception pretty much unanimity for the government’s actions, and a huge amount of international backing from them too. Obviously a lot of work gone on behind the scenes in the past few days. Some of the harshest responses will be convert or investigatory in nature and weren’t announced yesterday.

    I suspect sanctions/financial restrictions/clamp down on tax havens is the way to go.
    Not too provocative in terms of international norms - but will be painful for some powerful people near Putin.

    Boycotting the World Cup would be a powerful statement - especially if we could get other European nations to do it as well. That might carry some domestic political risks though.
    Certainly we need to follow the money, there’s billions of roubles in London and other British territories and friendly nations, which would make a difference to a lot of people close to Putin if it were frozen.

    WC boycott needs to be properly organised, with at least a dozen nations involved and announced at the last minute for maximum effect. The negotiations for this are probably going on at a diplomatic level behind the scenes - for example the FA and TV companies will need looking after if England withdraw, and similar considerations will also be the case in other countries. I think that, deep down, a number of Western nations would rather not go to Russia or Qatar, and a good opportunity to facilitate that has just presented itself.
    I don’t know that announcing a boycott at the last minute is a good idea.
    In any case I doubt that any of this is going to happen.
    A world cup boycott would be effective if the UK could call on other European nations - Germany particularly - to join. Unfortunately, the self-harming decision to wilfully diminish our influence in Europe has clearly ruled that out as a possibility.
    You are seriously suggesting that our allies would do it, but because of leaving the EU they won't, even though we are still allies? What kind of fair weather friends are they then? And so much for the idea the EU has noble aims if they would react like that. Once more sometimes supporters of it seem to have a very low opinion of it.

  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    Perhaps Corbyn could expel a number of the Shadow Cabinet. 23 would provide a certain symmetry.
  • Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    (Why? What have I missed?)
    From Tom Newton Dunn's twitter feed.

    Nia Griffith did not ask @LOTOcomms permission to go on @BBCr4today now. In its self, a hefty act of rebellion.

    Nia Griffith now dictating foreign policy to Corbyn, that Russia is to blame for #Salisbury: “I can assure you that is very strongly our front bench position now” @BBCr4today

    Nia Griffith now sticks it to Corbyn’s Director of Comms and closest aide: “I cannot speak for Seumas Milne. He has to speak for himself” @BBCr4today

    This is a direct challenge to Corbyn from Nia Griffith: either distance yourself from Seumas Milne’s skeptical briefing, or sack me.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    edited March 15

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    We need to ask? In fairness to labour mps unhappy with their leader, at least they tried several times to get rid of him, even if they are stuck with him now, whereas tory mps just moan.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Welcome back, Mr. Carp :)
  • JackWJackW Posts: 13,195
    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Absolutely right.
    We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.

    I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state. If this is "robust" then I dread to think what a weak response would look like.

    Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
    I agree, if this is all we are doing.

    However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.
    The time is now. Just for starters and by no means an exhaustive list :

    1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the

    6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.

    7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.

    8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.

    9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.

    10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!

    We hold all the cards!!
    Putin is playing Russian roulette against us with all chambers filled. Mrs May responds by playing the card - Mrs Bun the baker's' wife from "Happy Families".

    Frankly next to useless and only surpassed by the craven incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Short of nuking Moscow or sending an invasion force to Russia which would obviously be totally disproportionate, May's combination of sanctions and expulsions is the best response
    Mrs May's response has been weak and there are, as I noted earlier, a large number of actions short of your cataclysm that may be employed.

    Dear god even Ted Heath expelled 105 Russians in response to cold war Soviet spying. Putin deploys chemical weapons and previously nuclear materials on UK soil and Mrs May huffs and puffs and be sure Russian state will come for us again.
    So it is really just a degree of expulsions then which would really make little more difference to Putin.

    23 expulsions is still the most since 1985
    Not just numbers but intent. The effective closure of their embassy (perhaps the Syrian embassy will take up some slack) will be a clear message.

    23 expulsions against Russian deployment of chemical weapons on UK soil seems a poor trade off.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465

    FPT

    alex. said:

    Scott_P said:

    @nickeardleybbc: Alex Salmond says RT should not be shut down, arguing it’s not a propaganda station and he’s never been told what to do on show

    Well he doesn't need to be told what to say when he can be relied upon to take a Russo-sympathetic line.

    banning RT makes me think of the 1988/9 prohibition of Sinn Fein being allowed to speak on radio & TV, it didnt work then and I cant see what it will achieve now....
    Better ignored than banned. The one item from Jack W's list of suggested actions that I would emphatically endorse is the beefing-up of BBC's Russian language service. That would be the most effective counter-move.
    That has somewhat patronising overtones of "If only they could hear in RP Russian what a shower that Putin and his cronies are, they'd jolly well do something about it!". Russians that care know full well; it's just that the people they would like to vote for as an alternative to Putin end up in jail on trumped up charges - or end up dead.
    Agreed, but where the BBC Russian service does play a very useful role is in providing employment opportunities to Russian journalists who would prefer not to have to make a choice between compromising their integrity and outright opposition to the government.
    Er, is that what the licence fee is for?
    You think we should go back to funding it directly from the Foreign Office budget?
    Last night's Panorama suggests that being a BBC journalist doesn't give you the quiet backwater existence you're seeking to promote.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    alex. said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    Perhaps Corbyn could expel a number of the Shadow Cabinet. 23 would provide a certain symmetry.
    Arf!
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

  • augustus_carpaugustus_carp Posts: 205

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    (Why? What have I missed?)
    From Tom Newton Dunn's twitter feed.

    Nia Griffith did not ask @LOTOcomms permission to go on @BBCr4today now. In its self, a hefty act of rebellion.

    Nia Griffith now dictating foreign policy to Corbyn, that Russia is to blame for #Salisbury: “I can assure you that is very strongly our front bench position now” @BBCr4today

    Nia Griffith now sticks it to Corbyn’s Director of Comms and closest aide: “I cannot speak for Seumas Milne. He has to speak for himself” @BBCr4today

    This is a direct challenge to Corbyn from Nia Griffith: either distance yourself from Seumas Milne’s skeptical briefing, or sack me.
    (Thank you - I am having trouble keeping up these days!)
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    Looks like Corbyn's going to need a new Shadow Defence Secretary.

    (Why? What have I missed?)
    From Tom Newton Dunn's twitter feed.

    Nia Griffith now sticks it to Corbyn’s Director of Comms and closest aide: “I cannot speak for Seumas Milne. He has to speak for himself” @BBCr4today

    An interesting Quote given milnes job is to not to speak for himself, but for the leader.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660
    kle4 said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    We need to ask? I'm fairness to labour mps unhappy with their leader, at least they tried several times to get rid of him, even if they are stuck with him now, whereas tory mps just moan.
    They (some) said they can't possibly work with the leader, the members reconfirmed the leader and if anything his popularity with party members has probably grown since then and any new members since the his reelection are probably pro Corbyn.

    The idea of any kind of successful rebellion without some massive event taking place is a bit far fetched.
  • MarqueeMarkMarqueeMark Posts: 17,465
    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    That tweet suggsts that in the four hours since he stood up to respond to Theresa May, he may have endured a sustained beating around the head with an enormo-haddock....
  • If the shadow cabinet are about to resign en masse can they please not do it at 1am in the morning again, please.

    I still have nightmares about that night/day.
  • Tissue_PriceTissue_Price Posts: 7,393
    rkrkrk said:

    There's clearly an enthusiasm gap at play here - which might well play the same way at the midterms: https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-enthusiasm-gap-could-turn-a-democratic-wave-into-a-tsunami/

    And the Democrats picked a candidate far better suited to this district than Hillary Clinton was. On balance I'd say Trump is still just about on course for re-election, but there's a very long way to go.

    Agree there's a long way to go but why do you think he is on-track?
    He's running behind other 1 term presidents in approval like Ford, Carter, and Bush Snr.
    But he started behind too; his rating has actually been very stable. (see e.g. the graphs on Wikipedia).
  • AndyJSAndyJS Posts: 21,403
    edited March 15
    If the Russian crisis doesn't damage Corbyn's ratings, nothing will. (Fully expecting a double digit Labour lead in the next opinion poll).
  • Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    kle4 said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    We need to ask? I'm fairness to labour mps unhappy with their leader, at least they tried several times to get rid of him, even if they are stuck with him now, whereas tory mps just moan.
    They (some) said they can't possibly work with the leader, the members reconfirmed the leader and if anything his popularity with party members has probably grown since then and any new members since the his reelection are probably pro Corbyn.

    The idea of any kind of successful rebellion without some massive event taking place is a bit far fetched.
    Indeed so. They tried, failed, continued to whinge, then had to shut up or start singing his praises when he did much better than expected in the GE. They might start grumbling again over things like this, but he's safe as houses from proper defiance.
  • alex.alex. Posts: 2,806

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    That tweet suggsts that in the four hours since he stood up to respond to Theresa May, he may have endured a sustained beating around the head with an enormo-haddock....
    But has he said if he think the Govt response has been decisive and proportionate? Unless he backs or repudiates the Govt, and states why, it’s all just words.
  • AndyJS said:

    If the Russian crisis doesn't damage Corbyn's ratings, nothing will. (Fully expecting a double digit Labour lead in the next opinion poll).

    I don't think it will either.

    If the IRA stuff didn't shift votes then this will not.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    If it's merely the usual suspects of PB making a meal out of nothing why the reports of Labour MP issues? They have been quiet for a long time. What are they complaint about if you believe Corbyn's position is no different than May's?
  • Sean_FSean_F Posts: 20,730
    AndyJS said:

    If the Russian crisis doesn't damage Corbyn's ratings, nothing will. (Fully expecting a double digit Labour lead in the next opinion poll).

    I expect it will weaken his own ratings, but make little difference to voting intention.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
    Haters gonna hate.

  • Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
    Haters gonna hate.

    I love Jez, thanks to him I can keep on saying that Dave's the only Tory to have won a majority this century.
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,097
    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    But that still doesn't say that he accepts the evidence points to Russia.
  • SandyRentoolSandyRentool Posts: 5,792

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    I'm sure there's a smutty joke in there somewhere, but I'll let it pass.

    Will the Shad Cab be able to force Jezza into line this time? Could be an interesting day...
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
    Haters gonna hate.

    So there's nothing to complain about in his presenting of his position, it's all nonsense from people who already hated him. Why would they do that? Despite your jokey response the MPs have not been up to much trouble for a while, why would they choose to make up an issue to undercut him now? We all have a low opinion of them, but why would they see an opportunity to attack if his position is indeed the same as the government?

    It makes no sense.
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    Corbyn is the real threat!

    ;)
  • tlg86tlg86 Posts: 8,097
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    He's a privy councillor. If he has been denied access to the evidence, he should say. If he's refused to look at it...
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    It's worth noting in the recent Ipsos-MORI issues poll, the NHS was one of two items registering above 50% in the public's top three concerns (along with Brexit matters). So the thread header might well be relevant to Britain too. If the Conservatives can't reduce the salience of health matters, that could well be a big problem for them at the next election.
  • SouthamObserverSouthamObserver Posts: 26,082
    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:



    He could have said that in the Commons. He didn’t. It seems, though, that even Corbyn has realised how damaging his perennial and knee-jerk anti-UK positioning is to Labour’s electoral chances. The damage has been done though.

  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    If it's merely the usual suspects of PB making a meal out of nothing why the reports of Labour MP issues? They have been quiet for a long time. What are they complaint about if you believe Corbyn's position is no different than May's?
    The PB Tories have been enjoying the little cold war a bit too much. They love a bit of jingoism .
  • TheJezziahTheJezziah Posts: 660
    edited March 15
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
    Haters gonna hate.

    So there's nothing to complain about in his presenting of his position, it's all nonsense from people who already hated him. Why would they do that? Despite your jokey response the MPs have not been up to much trouble for a while, why would they choose to make up an issue to undercut him now? We all have a low opinion of them, but why would they see an opportunity to attack if his position is indeed the same as the government?

    It makes no sense.
    Nia Griffith stands out here, but aside from her I might call the rest of them the usual suspects, some had made mildly negative comments about Corbyn before this and since the election. Haven't seen anything directly from Thornberry...

    Edit: She did resign in the coup but certainly not one of the more anti Corbyn lot.
  • rkrkrkrkrkrk Posts: 3,819
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    I think where the difference is:
    "But he left open the possibility – as Theresa May did on Monday – that the nerve agent could have been used by someone else other than the Russian state."

    https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2018/mar/14/jeremy-corbyn-under-fire-over-response-to-pms-russia-statement
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,419
    Do any kremlinologists want to speculate what Putin's next move will be? Obviously quite a few FCO geeks are going to get turfed out of their Smolenskaya Embankment redoubt and fucked off back to the UK but what else?
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    Foxy said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Except people are judging him on his performance in the Commons this week and the spin by Milne?

    If there's no discernible difference why are several shadow cabinet ministers socking it to Jez?
    Haters gonna hate.

    This is a lot more than that. Did you watch the debate live in the HOC yesterday because it was the most astonishing attack on Corbyn I have ever witnessed with labour mp after labour mp publicly humilating him . Furthermore Ian Blackford and Vince Cable were statesman like in fully endorsing TM.

    Your man is out of step and is a Putin apologist
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,860
    edited March 15
    Re Corbyn. I came across this 5 minute vox pop from Wigan. If these people are representative of Corbyn's Labour base (God help us) I cant see that he's got a chance (Peter Kay eat your heart out!)

  • CharlesCharles Posts: 19,188
    JackW said:

    HYUFD said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    JackW said:

    rkrkrk said:

    Absolutely right.
    We don’t want to start a war - but we have to come up with responses that deter them.

    I regret to say that the government response will not deter the Russian state

    Our nation will continue to be attacked by Russia until we grow a pair.
    I agree, if this is all we are doing.

    However, this may just be a first stage, and things may also being done that the Great British Public cannot be told about.
    The time is now. Just for starters and by no means an exhaustive list :

    1. Expel the Russian ambassador and all but a skeleton staff at the embassy to be engaged in verifiable humanitarian activities.

    2 Advise the FA to withdraw from the World Cup. Place a case to FIFA that we cannot compete in a tournament hosted by a state attacking us. Albeit 3 months away propose Germany host the tournament and Italy replace Russia.

    3. Formally declare the Russian Federation government a rogue state and criminal enterprise.

    4. Place all evidence from all sources of world wide Russian criminal activities in the public domain.

    5. All filmed intercepts of Russian military incursions into UK airspace to be placed in the public domain

    6. Putin's wealth to be openly scrutinized by House of Commons Select Committee.

    7. All tools of of the City of London to be utilized against Russian assets.

    8. Beef up Russian section of the BBC World Service.

    9. Advise our trading partners and allies that preference will be given to nations/companies not trading with Russia.

    10. Stop the cuts to the UK military NOW !!!!!!!!!

    We hold all the cards!!
    Putin is playing Russian roulette against us with all chambers filled. Mrs May responds by playing the card - Mrs Bun the baker's' wife from "Happy Families".

    Frankly next to useless and only surpassed by the craven incompetence of Jeremy Corbyn.
    Short of nuking Moscow or sending an invasion force to Russia which would obviously be totally disproportionate, May's combination of sanctions and expulsions is the best response
    Mrs May's response has been weak and there are, as I noted earlier, a large number of actions short of your cataclysm that may be employed.

    Dear god even Ted Heath expelled 105 Russians in response to cold war Soviet spying. Putin deploys chemical weapons and previously nuclear materials on UK soil and Mrs May huffs and puffs and be sure the Russian state will come for us again.
    Heath expelled 10% of the 1000+ Russian officials here

    I suspect that May has expelled a higher proportion
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Roger, that's from 2016, back when Corbyn was still doing terribly in the polls and widely mocked. Alas, Labour are polling very well right now.
  • OldKingColeOldKingCole Posts: 10,768
    On Topic, £350m for the NHS on the side of a bus appaers to have amade a significant difference in our referendum.
    Only trouble was it was for the Trump-like that time.
  • RogerRoger Posts: 8,860

    Mr. Roger, that's from 2016, back when Corbyn was still doing terribly in the polls and widely mocked. Alas, Labour are polling very well right now.

    But what a base to have to depend on. You'd feel ashamed if these pople voted for you
  • kle4kle4 Posts: 29,678
    Jonathan said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:

    If it's merely the usual suspects of PB making a meal out of nothing why the reports of Labour MP issues? They have been quiet for a long time. What are they complaint about if you believe Corbyn's position is no different than May's?
    The PB Tories have been enjoying the little cold war a bit too much. They love a bit of jingoism .
    Maybe some do. But where actual MPs who have long been keep schtum finally break ranks again, they aren't going to do so without perceived cause. Dr Foxy is in essence saying they have no reason to justify, even as a pretext, kicking off...but have done so anyway. Ergo there is no reason for theit action, ergo they are irrational. Let's give them an ounce of credit rather than as certain LDs do and pray at the altar of Jez.
  • felixfelix Posts: 7,230

    Foxy said:

    The Shadow Cabinet is revolting, is it all fart and no follow through though?


    While I appreciate that the Two Minutes Hate against Jezza is a perennial PB favourite, it is hard to pick out a real difference between his statement and Mrs Strong and Stable:



    He could have said that in the Commons. He didn’t. It seems, though, that even Corbyn has realised how damaging his perennial and knee-jerk anti-UK positioning is to Labour’s electoral chances. The damage has been done though.

    Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788
    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
    I am not a huge Corbyn fan (My £3 was to vote Kendall), though he has grown on me over the last couple of years.

    Just pointing out that his public statement is nearly indistinguishable from May's one.

    It is the impotence of the government, and some Labour MP's, that makes it rage and displace the anger onto Corbyn. He is not the villain here.
  • AlastairMeeksAlastairMeeks Posts: 19,184
    In case anyone missed it, here's a former Labour official arguing explicitly in favour of reorienting that party to become Young Labour:

    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/mar/14/labour-focus-voters-party-target-young-remainers?CMP=share_btn_tw

    Agree or not, these are arguments that Labour needs to work through and come up with a settled position on.
  • Dura_Ace said:

    Do any kremlinologists want to speculate what Putin's next move will be? Obviously quite a few FCO geeks are going to get turfed out of their Smolenskaya Embankment redoubt and fucked off back to the UK but what else?

    I'm assuming they'd just keeping poisoning the defectors.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Dr. Foxy, I think that's utter tosh. Corbyn criticised the Conservatives for reducing the budget for diplomatic staff in his response at the dispatch box, as if a few more diplomats would've magically stopped Russia from attempting murder with chemical weapons.

    Corbyn's become better at bullshitting. He's still an absolute wretch, happy to snuggle up to Russian bears, even when one paw's dripping with blood and the other's holding a vial of nerve agent.
  • Dr. Foxy, I think that's utter tosh. Corbyn criticised the Conservatives for reducing the budget for diplomatic staff in his response at the dispatch box, as if a few more diplomats would've magically stopped Russia from attempting murder with chemical weapons.

    Corbyn's become better at bullshitting. He's still an absolute wretch, happy to snuggle up to Russian bears, even when one paw's dripping with blood and the other's holding a vial of nerve agent.

    Indeed, all those extra diplomatic staff didn't stop Litvenko getting murdered.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,207
    felix said:

    Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.

    The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
    I am not a huge Corbyn fan (My £3 was to vote Kendall), though he has grown on me over the last couple of years.

    Just pointing out that his public statement is nearly indistinguishable from May's one.

    It is the impotence of the government, and some Labour MP's, that makes it rage and displace the anger onto Corbyn. He is not the villain here.
    O yes he is as is Milne, McDonnell and others.

    And on his public statements did you listen to the whole debate in the HOC yesterday which showcased his public statement
  • another_richardanother_richard Posts: 10,194

    AndyJS said:

    If the Russian crisis doesn't damage Corbyn's ratings, nothing will. (Fully expecting a double digit Labour lead in the next opinion poll).

    I don't think it will either.

    If the IRA stuff didn't shift votes then this will not.
    I don't think many people are bothered by this story.

    The only comments I've heard are jokey suggestions about sinking Abramovich's yacht and sending Jamie Carragher to the WC to spit on Putin.
  • JonathanJonathan Posts: 7,960
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
    I am not a huge Corbyn fan (My £3 was to vote Kendall), though he has grown on me over the last couple of years.

    Just pointing out that his public statement is nearly indistinguishable from May's one.

    It is the impotence of the government, and some Labour MP's, that makes it rage and displace the anger onto Corbyn. He is not the villain here.
    We seem to be in a position where criticise Russia for being a one party/man state and then criticise disunity at home.

    Whilst Corbyn got the tone of his remarks wrong, we are stronger as a nation when the opposition holds the government to account. Even if that might make some people uncomfortable.
  • SandpitSandpit Posts: 17,417

    Dr. Foxy, I think that's utter tosh. Corbyn criticised the Conservatives for reducing the budget for diplomatic staff in his response at the dispatch box, as if a few more diplomats would've magically stopped Russia from attempting murder with chemical weapons.

    Corbyn's become better at bullshitting. He's still an absolute wretch, happy to snuggle up to Russian bears, even when one paw's dripping with blood and the other's holding a vial of nerve agent.

    He inherently thinks that every problem can be solved with more money or more staff. It’s just a shame that he has no idea of where the government’s money comes from.
  • Big_G_NorthWalesBig_G_NorthWales Posts: 13,179
    Jonathan said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
    I am not a huge Corbyn fan (My £3 was to vote Kendall), though he has grown on me over the last couple of years.

    Just pointing out that his public statement is nearly indistinguishable from May's one.

    It is the impotence of the government, and some Labour MP's, that makes it rage and displace the anger onto Corbyn. He is not the villain here.
    We seem to be in a position where criticise Russia for being a one party/man state and then criticise disunity at home.

    Whilst Corbyn got the tone of his remarks wrong, we are stronger as a nation when the opposition holds the government to account. Even if that might make some people uncomfortable.
    Why can't you just say he was wrong - that would be honest
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Mr. Jonathan, could you explain how more diplomatic staff would've prevented attempted murder by chemical weapons in Salisbury?
  • glwglw Posts: 4,207
    Jonathan said:

    Whilst Corbyn got the tone of his remarks wrong, we are stronger as a nation when the opposition holds the government to account. Even if that might make some people uncomfortable.

    He wasn't holding the government to account. On Monday he made overtly political points. On Wednesday we got whataboutism and parroting the Russian BS.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:

    BBC's Norman Smith reporting that Emily Thornberry and Nia Griffirh very concerned by the position that Corbyn has taken.

    All lies, clearly, since his position is the government position apparently. Odd that even previously loyal labour mps don't see that and are briefing journalists.
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    The tone is slightly different, and it seems the LoTO has not seen the evidence, but no real difference.

    Its almost as if Tories are displacing their feelings of powerlessness in the face of Putin onto their perennial target.
    For the tories read labour mps, reportedly. Your underlying premise makes no sense. It's all Tory nonsense. ..but people with no guts in the MPs have decided to join with that tory nonsense because?

    We need to consider more than individual statements, we have to consider the context, previous statements etc. I can accept many labour mps woukd seize an opportunity to criticise Corbyn, but your position as a huge Corbyn fan that they woukd do so without there even being a pretext for their doing so, such that anyone of them to express concern must be an outright liar by implication, suggests they are downright irrational.

    Why pretend he has a different position, or not adequately made his clear, and attack him on it, when there's genuine issues on which that is the case? That would simply undermine them.

    An argument which relies on assuming the other side are irrational is not very compelling.
    I am not a huge Corbyn fan (My £3 was to vote Kendall), though he has grown on me over the last couple of years.

    Just pointing out that his public statement is nearly indistinguishable from May's one.

    It is the impotence of the government, and some Labour MP's, that makes it rage and displace the anger onto Corbyn. He is not the villain here.
    O yes he is as is Milne, McDonnell and others.

    And on his public statements did you listen to the whole debate in the HOC yesterday which showcased his public statement
    Nah, I had appointments in the afternoon and evening, so just saw bits on the news.

    The cuts to the FCO are just an example of how austerity has hollowed out our international effectiveness, along with the new rounds of Tory defence cuts.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Dr. Foxy, you're attacking the Conservatives for Defence cuts whilst supporting Corbyn?

  • CarlottaVanceCarlottaVance Posts: 27,693
    Beth Rigby:

    But on Salisbury and Russia, Mr Corbyn cut an isolated figure in the Commons as he regressed to his former role of contrarian backbencher from his vantage point of the front bench.

    In a moment that called for statesmanship, Mr Corbyn reverted to being parsimonious and partisan.

    His political opponents will be quietly hoping that the public have taken note.


    https://news.sky.com/story/sky-views-the-populist-misjudges-the-people-11290237
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Russia to shortly expel some British diplomats:
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-43412702
  • Dura_AceDura_Ace Posts: 1,419
    glw said:

    felix said:

    Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.

    The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
    If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Dr. Foxy, you're attacking the Conservatives for Defence cuts whilst supporting Corbyn?

    I support Corbyn on some issues, not others, just as I support Hammond on some issues but not others.

    The latest round of Tory defence cuts reduces the Army another 10 000 and 2 battalions of Royal Marines as well as any amphibious capability.

    I was advocating increased military expenditure, if you saw my posts last night, but would also happily scrap Trident to help finance more conventional capability.
  • PulpstarPulpstar Posts: 43,050
    felix said:

    Trident would all be in critical danger.

    One upside to a Corbyn premiership then.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Dr. Foxy, I agree we should spend more on Defence, but think scrapping Trident is insane.

    Corbyn wants to scrap the lot. In a speech some time ago he advocated an ambition to imitate Costa Rica and simply do away with the armed forces altogether.
  • roserees64roserees64 Posts: 193
    Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material. The response of the government and health agencies has been woeful. Telling people to 'wash their clothes' is a comic response in the face of the toxicity of the materials. Boris was so poor on the radio this morning, he should be removed for his inadequacies and replaced with a serious foreign secretary.
  • TykejohnnoTykejohnno Posts: 6,957
    Not a fan of corbyn's stance on Russia but the guy might be on to something, the phone-in's and comment sections of newspapers have plenty supportive of what he is saying.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,207

    Not a fan of corbyn's stance on Russia but the guy might be on to something, the phone-in's and comment sections of newspapers have plenty supportive of what he is saying.

    Of course they are, Russian disinformation is highly effective especially when about 40% of the population want to believe Corbyn is right.
  • FoxyFoxy Posts: 1,788

    Dr. Foxy, I agree we should spend more on Defence, but think scrapping Trident is insane.

    Corbyn wants to scrap the lot. In a speech some time ago he advocated an ambition to imitate Costa Rica and simply do away with the armed forces altogether.

    Trident is insane itself. It is a weapon system designed for the strategic imperatives of a half century ago. It is now merely a giant and very expensive willy.

    Any use of strategic nuclear weapons inevitably involves millions of civilians dead.
  • Morris_DancerMorris_Dancer Posts: 41,900
    Dr. Foxy, the genie can't be put back in the bottle. A world where North Korea has nukes and the UK doesn't is not a safer world than today.
  • CyclefreeCyclefree Posts: 9,713
    Foxy said:

    kle4 said:
    Could you point out the substantive differences beteen Jezzas statement and the Government position.

    It’s not this statement which people have a problem with. It’s the fact that he &his official spokesman have been repeating, almost word for word, what the Russian authorities have been saying (about the unreliability of our intelligence, how our investigation has got it wrong, how it might have been Ukraine which did it, how a sample should be given to the Russians when the government has already said it will provide evidence to the OPCW, etc) and that this gives the very strong impression that he does not believe what the British government has said but does believe what the Russian government is saying.

    He has given the impression that he will do almost anything to excuse the Russians & that the most important thing to say about this incident is the criticism to be made of the Tories for cutting our diplomatic service & taking money from Russians (however justified this crtiticism might be).

  • glwglw Posts: 4,207

    Macron has made comments which are identical to Corbyn. International rules deems it necessary to have proof before taking measures. Russia should be allowed to test the material.

    Sadly Russia has a long track record which says they can not be trusted to fairly investigate things they are accused of. All you would get is Russia stalling, and then either presenting a conspiracy theory or blaming a state they are in conflict with. Having the OPCW investigate is a much better path for confirmation.

  • HHemmeligHHemmelig Posts: 572
    Dura_Ace said:

    glw said:

    felix said:

    Quite. With Corbyn as leader and Milne behind no Labour government would be pro West - NATO, Trident would all be in critical danger.

    The Baltic states would be imperiled by a Labour government. Russian tanks could cross the border and Corbyn would by parroting Russian lines about "NATO provocation" and "defending Russian nationals".
    If the Russian army rolled into Estonia tonight what do you think May's response would be? It wouldn't be16 Air Assault dropping into Tallinn. The language would be different to Corbyn but the outcome would be exactly the same: fuck all.
    And there speaks a military man who knows what he is talking about, probably the only one on here. Always great to see you responding to the Captain Mainwaring armchair generals which compose 70% of this site at times like this. I'm looking forward to SeanT calling you a coward and a traitor.

    The public aren't stupid, they know we can't do anything of real substance to hit back at Putin and that whatever May and Corbyn says on the matter, it can't amount to any more than empty, meaningless sabre-rattling.

    May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.
  • Not a fan of corbyn's stance on Russia but the guy might be on to something, the phone-in's and comment sections of newspapers have plenty supportive of what he is saying.

    That’s Russian bots.
  • glwglw Posts: 4,207
    HHemmelig said:

    May sounds tough but can't do anything, Corbyn sounds weak and won't do anything, the end result is the same.

    Do nothing sounds like a great plan.
This discussion has been closed.