Hilary Benn Sacked From The Shadow Cabinet - wider political debate

[Milk]

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.

What it did do was to demonstrate the power (& remoteness) of atomic weapons. Perhaps it was this demonstration that has stopped any more atomic weapons being fired in anger since?

 

[Tubey]

What it did do was to demonstrate the power (& remoteness) of atomic weapons. Perhaps it was this demonstration that has stopped any more atomic weapons being fired in anger since?

Yes. Also, there's a difference between being fearful of something theoretical and something that's been actually seen in action. In that way, the Cold War ended without an actual war because of the deterrence a nuclear holocaust gave. Without those bombs dropped in Japan, the public wouldn't have been quite so terrified by the possibility of it, and a war between the USA and the USSR post-1945 would have been somewhat inevitable, with much more horrifying consequences than the proxy wars such as Korea and Vietnam.

The demonstrated power also meant the policy of non-nuclear proliferation came about etc. etc. So yeah, as weird as it sounds, I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki did more for world peace than anything else since WW2.

 

[tsubaki]

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.

How has he failed, though? The Council elections were far, far less bad than they were going around saying beforehand and ended up keeping almost all of the seats won in what was previously described as a high water mark election.

The European referendum was lost because the Tory vote voted by a big margin to leave, the Labour vote in the North voted by a significant minority to leave based on their economic circumstances and their estrangement from Labour, and because Cameron called it in the first place. The first two things did not come about as the result of Corbyn, and its hard to see how the Labour vote would have been less estranged if its leadership lied to it so openly (which is what the Blairites and Watson were saying, when they suggested immigration reform was a possibility if we stayed in the EU).

 

[Tubey]

How has he failed, though? The Council elections were far, far less bad than they were going around saying beforehand and ended up keeping almost all of the seats won in what was previously described as a high water mark election.

The European referendum was lost because the Tory vote voted by a big margin to leave, the Labour vote in the North voted by a significant minority to leave based on their economic circumstances and their estrangement from Labour, and because Cameron called it in the first place. The first two things did not come about as the result of Corbyn, and its hard to see how the Labour vote would have been less estranged if its leadership lied to it so openly (which is what the Blairites and Watson were saying, when they suggested immigration reform was a possibility if we stayed in the EU).

The leadership did lie to them. Corbyn wanted out, let's face it.

As for his failure, it's his lack of ability to actually lead his own party and his lack of widespread appeal. He has policies, such as Trident, that will mean large swathes of the country will never vote for him.

And if you have a party that is unelectable, it makes no odds if you're sticking to your ideals, because they'll never be implemented in a position of power. And that's the problem - Labour has many decades of not being hard left, and the UK population isn't hard left, so that's why you get the anger at Corbyn, because he's not representative of anything substantial.

I have no doubt he's a nice man - but he's a natural protester; a left wing conscience - not a leader.

 

[tsubaki]

The leadership did lie to them. Corbyn wanted out, let's face it.

As for his failure, it's his lack of ability to actually lead his own party and his lack of widespread appeal. He has policies, such as Trident, that will mean large swathes of the country will never vote for him.

And if you have a party that is unelectable, it makes no odds if you're sticking to your ideals, because they'll never be implemented in a position of power. And that's the problem - Labour has many decades of not being hard left, and the UK population isn't hard left, so that's why you get the anger at Corbyn, because he's not representative of anything substantial.

I have no doubt he's a nice man - but he's a natural protester; a left wing conscience - not a leader.

Corbyn didn't lie to them, he came up with a Remain case that was honest and that was in line with his beliefs.

As for Trident, its true that his unilateralism is not something that is widely shared by most of the population. However I am not sure that many people would support spending north of forty billion on three or four submarines that we will only use to send out and hide away when soldiers, airmen, matelots and their equipment keep being binned off to cut costs by successive governments who also ask them to do ever more work with what remains.

Finally I would question whether he is actually hard left; he is one of an admittedly dying-off group of Bennites but most of his policies - council housing, ending the internal market in the NHS, nationalizing rail etc - would actually result in less spending, not more.

 

[bizzaro]

Corbyn didn't lie to them, he came up with a Remain case that was honest and that was in line with his beliefs.

As for Trident, its true that his unilateralism is not something that is widely shared by most of the population. However I am not sure that many people would support spending north of forty billion on three or four submarines that we will only use to send out and hide away when soldiers, airmen, matelots and their equipment keep being binned off to cut costs by successive governments who also ask them to do ever more work with what remains.

Finally I would question whether he is actually hard left; he is one of an admittedly dying-off group of Bennites but most of his policies - council housing, ending the internal market in the NHS, nationalizing rail etc - would actually result in less spending, not more.

So you're admitting he was half arsed then.

 

[bizzaro]

The leadership did lie to them. Corbyn wanted out, let's face it.

As for his failure, it's his lack of ability to actually lead his own party and his lack of widespread appeal. He has policies, such as Trident, that will mean large swathes of the country will never vote for him.

And if you have a party that is unelectable, it makes no odds if you're sticking to your ideals, because they'll never be implemented in a position of power. And that's the problem - Labour has many decades of not being hard left, and the UK population isn't hard left, so that's why you get the anger at Corbyn, because he's not representative of anything substantial.

I have no doubt he's a nice man - but he's a natural protester; a left wing conscience - not a leader.

I could never ever vote for him on the basis of Trident and his views on the British military.

This European Union thing - has proven he is UNRELIABLE and really quite mad.

I voted Labour and Blair btw.

 

[tsubaki]

So you're admitting he was half arsed then.

The EU is an organization that should attract half arsed support from anyone.

 

[bizzaro]

The EU is an organization that should attract half arsed support from anyone.

Not really. Needs some changes. But its not been helped having arrogant policiticans like Juncker involved.

 

[tsubaki]

Not really. Needs some changes. But its not been helped having arrogant policiticans like Juncker involved.

So your position that the EU is not perfect and in need of reform is sane, whereas Corbyns position that it is not perfect and in need of reform is quite mad?

 

[bizzaro]

So your position that the EU is not perfect and in need of reform is sane, whereas Corbyns position that it is not perfect and in need of reform is quite mad?

Corbyn's faux position is mad both on the EU and on a range of issues.

 

[magicjuan]

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.

Has he been afforded an opportunity? Since he was elected, similarly as a rail against the established westminster elites, he has had every comment, opinion, proposal, (jeebus even his clothes), analysed, theoretically dissected, ridiculed and targeted way beyond any politician that I can remember.
He hasn't been allowed to develop credibility, even by his own party members.
He deserves a chance free from the constraints of the blairites and their meeja chumz....

 

[rascal]

Has he been afforded an opportunity? Since he was elected, similarly as a rail against the established westminster elites, he has had every comment, opinion, proposal, (jeebus even his clothes), analysed, theoretically dissected, ridiculed and targeted way beyond any politician that I can remember.
He hasn't been allowed to develop credibility, even by his own party members.
He deserves a chance free from the constraints of the blairites and their meeja chumz....

Trouble is, you're not going to win a general election if you can't appeal to the middle classes as well as your traditional support.

 

[magicjuan]

I could never ever vote for him on the basis of Trident and his views on the British military.

This European Union thing - has proven he is UNRELIABLE and really quite mad.

I voted Labour and Blair btw.

Which basically shows you are unreliable and quite mad too

 

[magicjuan]

Trouble is, you're not going to win a general election if you can't appeal to the middle classes as well as your traditional support.

You can if you can get enough off their arses