UK Politics IV: Disraeli Gears

[Elepis]

but apparently the voters do

No, they don't. Labour voters think that Theresa May would make a better PM than Corbyn and they want Corbyn to step down (can't find the Saving Labour poll to support that, but the moment I do, I'll post it).
.

Labour members I meant, and as they are elected to represent Labour members, they should respect them and back Corbyn rather than whining.

[Wolfmanne2]

No, they don't. Labour voters think that Theresa May would make a better PM than Corbyn and they want Corbyn to step down (can't find the Saving Labour poll to support that, but the moment I do, I'll post it).
.

Labour members I meant, and as they are elected to represent Labour members, they should respect them and back Corbyn rather than whining.

Wait, what? Forget swing voters, because with Corbyn as Leader they're out of the picture - you're saying we should ignore our core and tribal support, which we as a party are already heavily detached from and just follow the unyielding wishes of the selectorate? 'Solid Labour voter' is a whole different kettle of fish from 'Labour-Tory swing voter'. At the end of the day, turning principles into power should be predominant aim of any Labour Leader, not mollycoddling the selectorate and we should be striving to be able to provide a government to look out for the interests of 'Solid Labour voters'. If Attlee, Wilson and Blair just did whatever the selectorate wanted, they never would have been elected.

Also, MPs aren't elected by Labour members. They are selected to stand by members of the local CLP, which may be soft left, or Old Right, or Corbynist, to stand. They get elected by constituents.

[Lamadia III]

You know, it's very easy to call for ground troops to be deployed when you have no personal experience of war yourself. Such a decision is not to be taken lightly and I do not think I could support deploying ground troops in the region as I think a campaign in the region would be long and bloody, though we would win. So would you support he deployment of British forces in the region.

I am not suggesting deploying the British Army to the Middle East, or at least not yet; I would support an international coalition of forces being sent to Turkey to help secure the Turkish border & prevent the spread of ISIL fighters in or out of the territory, to train Kurdish forces in their war against ISIL, and to act as an emergency measure for deployment should the situation require it.
I really do not wan to see British soldiers executed on television, however I think we need to take action as an international community against ISIL.

[Wolfmanne2]

You know, it's very easy to call for ground troops to be deployed when you have no personal experience of war yourself. Such a decision is not to be taken lightly and I do not think I could support deploying ground troops in the region as I think a campaign in the region would be long and bloody, though we would win. So would you support he deployment of British forces in the region.
I am not suggesting deploying the British Army to the Middle East, or at least not yet; I would support an international coalition of forces being sent to Turkey to help secure the Turkish border & prevent the spread of ISIL fighters in or out of the territory, to train Kurdish forces in their war against ISIL, and to act as an emergency measure for deployment should the situation require it.
I really do not wan to see British soldiers executed on television, however I think we need to take action as an international community against ISIL.

Ok, that's reasonable.

[Lamadia III]

Certainly if we had international backing, I would like to deploy direct military action against Islamic State in Iraq, which would include coalition forces, including tanks & artillery, used by coalition troops destroy ISIL. However this requires the support of the US & the EU, neither of which have the stomach for it.

[Wolfmanne2]

Reminder that the Labour Representation Committee was formed by Keir Hardie and others to advocate the interests of trade unionists through parliamentary means - trade unionists that overwhelmingly (at a margin of about 75%-20%, with the rest being 'don't knows') think that Corbyn't can't win the next election: https://scontent-lhr3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/t3 ... 2162_o.png

[Questers]

I am not against sending the boys in and finishing off ISIS. Britain, the Kurds and £100 billion could do it. Would be a waste of money and lives at this point though because ISIS is on the run on all fronts.

[Ifreann]

Certainly if we had international backing, I would like to deploy direct military action against Islamic State in Iraq, which would include coalition forces, including tanks & artillery, used by coalition troops destroy ISIL. However this requires the support of the US & the EU, neither of which have the stomach for it.

Why would you require the backing of the EU?

[Questers]

Personally, in this whole Falklands thing, I'd be much more concerned about the fact we won't have any ships, or that they might not work.

so basically we have live fire target practice for the Argentine navy?

the argentine navy today is in a much, much, much worse shape than the british navy. their fleet can barely put to sea. they had a destroyer that was stuck in south africa for years because they didnt have the money for a critical engine repair. they don't have any amphibious capability anyway so they literally cant invade LoL

[Lamadia III]

I am not against sending the boys in and finishing off ISIS. Britain, the Kurds and £100 billion could do it. Would be a waste of money and lives at this point though because ISIS is on the run on all fronts.

Either way we need a greater NATO presence in the Middle East, to support the Iraqi Government, to support Israel, and to protect our economic & trade interests in such an unstable world. And then of course there is the subject of President Assad, who we have to remove as a threat of peace or risk further violence. This can be done surgically, or far more forcefully, if necessary.

[Questers]

on the other hand we dont have a great track record of middle east intervention sooo

[Questers]

I am not against sending the boys in and finishing off ISIS. Britain, the Kurds and £100 billion could do it. Would be a waste of money and lives at this point though because ISIS is on the run on all fronts.

Either way we need a greater NATO presence in the Middle East, to support the Iraqi Government, to support Israel, and to protect our economic & trade interests in such an unstable world. And then of course there is the subject of President Assad, who we have to remove as a threat of peace or risk further violence. This can be done surgically, or far more forcefully, if necessary.

NATO's remit is to defend NATO members so... it's nothing to do with stabilising the middle east. turkey is not threatened at all by ISIS

[Lamadia III]

on the other hand we dont have a great track record of middle east intervention sooo

Which is why we must learn from our mistakes & work to remove Assad & ISIL, but to maintain a strong & constant presence, creating a strong & constant government system with democratic protocol and the ability to protect this idea. That was where we failed in Iraq; the period after we won, not the period when we took down one of the world's foulest tyrants.

NATO's remit is to defend NATO members so... it's nothing to do with stabilising the middle east. turkey is not threatened at all by ISIS

I am aware of the duties of NATO- my grandmother worked for the organisation for decades- but that does not exclude the fact that it is one of the strongest, if not the strongest, military alliances in the world. We have to modernise NATO to suit the modern world; and, bearing in mind that this is really all rhetoric, this is an important modernisation tactic. Making it work for protecting world peace, and tackling terrorism.

[Questers]

if france wants to it could call article 5 frankly

[Ifreann]

on the other hand we dont have a great track record of middle east intervention sooo

Which is why we must learn from our mistakes & work to remove Assad & ISIL, but to maintain a strong & constant presence, creating a strong & constant government system with democratic protocol and the ability to protect this idea. That was where we failed in Iraq; the period after we won, not the period when we took down one of the world's foulest tyrants.

What you're describing is basically conquering Syria for the Emparh.

[Questers]

muh league of nations mandate

[Wolfmanne2]

muh league of nations mandate

RESPECT THE FRENCH MANDATE FOR SYRIA AND LEBANON!

[Vassenor]

Jeremy Corbyn can stay on Labour leadership ballot, High Court rules

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm kind of laughing over how Smith is now pushing further left than Corbyn.

[Souseiseki]

I'm kind of laughing over how Smith is now pushing further left than Corbyn.

unelectable desu yo

[Questers]

i dont mind smith

corbyn is an activist and not statesman material (ive thought this since day one ok so nobody go on like MEDIA !111)

[Ostroeuropa]

I'm kind of laughing over how Smith is now pushing further left than Corbyn.

unelectable desu yo

He's also got less sense than corbyn, and is saying shit like;

"Cold-eyed, practical, socialist revolution." in his speeches. Which is going to send the Tories into hysterics. If he becomes leader, never mind the context, that's the part of his speech going to be played over and over and over.

He's also pushing the nationalism and less immigration thing. (Good.)

But in combination with his other policies, the Tories have their job done for them.

[Souseiseki]

unelectable desu yo

He's also got less sense than corbyn, and is saying shit like;

"Cold-eyed, practical, socialist revolution." in his speeches. Which is going to send the Tories into hysterics. If he becomes leader, never mind the context, that's the part of his speech going to be played over and over and over.

surely our noble media would report the full context of the speech, thereby confounding their politics and frustrating their knavish tricks?

[Ostroeuropa]

He's also got less sense than corbyn, and is saying shit like;

"Cold-eyed, practical, socialist revolution." in his speeches. Which is going to send the Tories into hysterics. If he becomes leader, never mind the context, that's the part of his speech going to be played over and over and over.

surely our noble media would report the full context of the speech, thereby confounding their politics and frustrating their knavish tricks?

He's also pushing the nationalism and less immigration thing. (Good.)

But in combination with his other policies, the Tories have their job done for them.

SOCIALISM. - Check
"Closing the borders" - Check

"Oh hey, by the way, are you still in favor of mass surveillance and such?" - Yes

"And um... you like nukes, right?" - Yes

SOVIETSOVIETSOVIETSOVIET

[Wolfmanne2]

unelectable desu yo

He's also got less sense than corbyn, and is saying shit like;

"Cold-eyed, practical, socialist revolution." in his speeches. Which is going to send the Tories into hysterics. If he becomes leader, never mind the context, that's the part of his speech going to be played over and over and over.

He's also pushing the nationalism and less immigration thing. (Good.)

But in combination with his other policies, the Tories have their job done for them.

It's fine. Our choice was either we become more economically protectionist but socially conservative, or we become more economically and socially liberal. Smith is going to do the prior. We need to hold the North and we need to hold Wales to prevent UKIP and the Tories to making gains from our tribal supporters.

Individual left-wing policies can also be popular with the public (i.e. mansion tax) and running on a left-wing program is feasible if we can appear capable of forming a government and also economically credible. Plus we have a whole lot of things to hit the Tories with from Brexit to their management of the NHS.

According to a recent poll, Smith is seen as a better potential PM by the public than Corbyn, so if you're a leftist you'd be mental not to support Smith as he is probably the best chance Labour has at having a left-wing PM since Wilson. From my Labour Right POV, at best I think I'll think he'll propel Labour into a position to win in 2025 or 2030 without winning himself, but hey, Bill Shorten surprised in Australia too by overperforming massively.

EDIT: He is also a very, very intelligent man, which I wish his team could emphasise a bit more. Like ridiculously intelligent. I can attest to this having met him once.