Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[hullefc]

Hillary Benn et al accused the 'leave' campaign of using the 'blame game' against all and sundry. Now he and his opportunist fellow traveller careerist MPs are doing exactly the same 'blame game' and blaming sections of the working class for Brexit. When are they going to do the honourable thing and resign as MPs.

 

[Boss_Blue]

We bombed cities in World War 2. Not all those we bombed were Nazis, but it had to be done. If we sat passively by, you know what the outcome would be.

Disagree.

Fighting the war had to be done but some of the actions on both sides of the conflict were deplorable.

Sometimes, aggression must be met with aggression. War is sometimes the answer, because if you don't do it, you condemn millions more to death. It's never black and white, and complete pacifism is almost always the wrong answer, because it's idealism over pragmatism

Actually agree with this.

You say the death of children is never acceptable - but what if you're considering the death of many more children as a result of inaction?

In the example of ISIS and the wider issues of the middle east I think it's safe to say that many more children would have lived had we taken a different approach in the past.

As said in the speech, if ISIS are at the gates of Baghdad and mass murders are the next outcome, then if precision bombing helps turn that tide, it's the correct answer

Agreed.

However if you actually believe that this would be the only scenario in which precision bombing would be used then you are incredibly naive.

 

[magicjuan]

As said in the speech, if ISIS are at the gates of Baghdad and mass murders are the next outcome, then if precision bombing helps turn that tide, it's the correct answer.

If you believe violence is never the answer, that's your prerogative - but I believe it sometimes is, and it's determining that "sometimes" which is the tricky part. It doesn't make me "evil" for considering the greater good.

When you base your economy on doing clandestine arms deals with irreputable characters then you cannot complain when they bite you on the backside. So where do you start to prevent it? You start by wanting to prevent it, not by accepting it as an option or a choice depending on circumstance.

And exactly how precise is 'precision'? Is the use of depleted uranium 'precise'?

 

[Tubey]

When you base your economy on doing clandestine arms deals with irreputable characters then you cannot complain when they bite you on the backside. So where do you start to prevent it? You start by wanting to prevent it, not by accepting it as an option or a choice depending on circumstance.

And exactly how precise is 'precision'? Is the use of depleted uranium 'precise'?

Precision weaponry detailed here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/uk-attacks-islamic-state-iraq-revealed-drones

The wrongs of the past shouldn't dictate decision making in the here and now, because you'd be paralyzed into doing anything. You judge the merits of action on the facts in front of you - again, whatever decision you come to doesn't make you evil if they're made in good conscience.

Nuclear weaponry should never be the answer; however, deterrence via possession of them is a big answer.

 

[magicjuan]

Precision weaponry detailed here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/uk-attacks-islamic-state-iraq-revealed-drones

The wrongs of the past shouldn't dictate decision making in the here and now, because you'd be paralyzed into doing anything. You judge the merits of action on the facts in front of you - again, whatever decision you come to doesn't make you evil if they're made in good conscience.

Nuclear weaponry should never be the answer; however, deterrence via possession of them is a big answer.

And the wrongs of the past shouldn't be repeated. It isn't a complex issue, you either believe innocent people can die to ease your conscience or you don't.

 

[Bluerover]

Precision weaponry detailed here.

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/may/11/uk-attacks-islamic-state-iraq-revealed-drones

The wrongs of the past shouldn't dictate decision making in the here and now, because you'd be paralyzed into doing anything. You judge the merits of action on the facts in front of you - again, whatever decision you come to doesn't make you evil if they're made in good conscience.

Nuclear weaponry should never be the answer; however, deterrence via possession of them is a big answer.

Interesting debate. I still cannot agree with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

 

[rascal]

Then you need to revisit the representative part of the party. You elect people to represent your views. You don't allow them to select from among themselves who will further the careers of the PLP. They just want to further the gravy train. I mean, Hodge? Really?.A tax avoider. Calling for greater leadership. Great, when we all earn enough to afford not to pay tax I'll vote for her. But we don't and the labour movement needs to look at itself and remember it is supposed to care about and for,all people. Not just the guardianistas and the latte swilling new labourites.
If we need a split, so be it, been too long kow towing to moneyed careerist opinions in labour for too long.
It isn't about 'getting elected' it's about representing the people first
If we did that we wouldn't be in this mess now.

You nailed it, just not for the reason you think.

 

[rascal]

That speech was actually evil.




Give him a General Election. Miliband had one, so did Brown. They lost. Corbyn deserves one crack too.

If the General Election was to be held soon then fair enough, but we can't afford to wait for another four (nine) years of Tory cuts destroying our lives and engineering a society where everyone turns on each other.

 

[tsubaki]

The last death ride of the Blairites this, charging gamely into the massed artillery ranks of reality.

They are bringing a fight on when they don't have a candidate, don't have any chance of winning the leadership election (unless it is a complete fix), and have even less chance of winning an election than Corbyn-led Labour does. It is one giant attempt to gain legitimacy for when they all strop off and join the Cameron wing of the Tories.

 

[Tubey]

And the wrongs of the past shouldn't be repeated. It isn't a complex issue, you either believe innocent people can die to ease your conscience or you don't.

It really is though. Telling that you don't think it is. Again, no black and white, only shades of grey.

 

[Tubey]

Interesting debate. I still cannot agree with Nagasaki and Hiroshima.

Which is fair enough.

All I can do is reason why I think, long term, the decision to drop those bombs has benefited the world immensely. It's weird saying that given how many innocent people died, but that's why such things are complex; people put importance on different aspects and come to different decisions.

 

[magicjuan]

You nailed it, just not for the reason you think.

How very clever of me

Explain?

 

[rascal]

How very clever of me

Explain?

My worry is that we need to be a credible opposition, working for the good of the country as a whole, and not just ourselves. I do not see that with Corbyn.

 

[tsubaki]

My worry is that we need to be a credible opposition, working for the good of the country as a whole, and not just ourselves. I do not see that with Corbyn.

This is the Blairite campaign slogan is, but it is nonsense.

For a start, Labour under his leadership have opposed the Government far more, and far more successfully, than Miliband did or a shadow Opposition run by any of the other 2015 candidates would have. Secondly, we have just had a major referendum in which Corbyn's long-held position (rather than the one the PLP made him take) received more votes than those of the Blairites - and yet he is apparently the one that is out of touch. Then you have the evidence of what they did when they were in power - agency Labour, privatization, pro-big business, PFI, toleration of tax avoidance; they are not going to be coming up with things that are good for the country. Finally you have the most troubling of their beliefs, that he isn't "a leader" - which in this context means that he is not willing to lie to the electorate.

 

[rascal]

This is the Blairite campaign slogan is, but it is nonsense.

For a start, Labour under his leadership have opposed the Government far more, and far more successfully, than Miliband did or a shadow Opposition run by any of the other 2015 candidates would have. Secondly, we have just had a major referendum in which Corbyn's long-held position (rather than the one the PLP made him take) received more votes than those of the Blairites - and yet he is apparently the one that is out of touch. Then you have the evidence of what they did when they were in power - agency Labour, privatization, pro-big business, PFI, toleration of tax avoidance; they are not going to be coming up with things that are good for the country. Finally you have the most troubling of their beliefs, that he isn't "a leader" - which in this context means that he is not willing to lie to the electorate.

I don't vouch for the Blairite's either but the painful truth is Corbyn is an open goal. He's had two big tests now, and failed at both. We've failed to make any headway in Scotland, indeed we've gone backwards, and we've failed to make headway in English and Welsh councils. Funnily enough, my council was one of two that we won.