[Update] Jeremy Corbyn wins Labour Leadership

[Osem]

Well after all these years, the odious Jim McDonnell suddenly decides he's sincerely sorry for remarks he made about the IRA and Margaret Thatcher.

Shadow chancellor John McDonnell has apologised for saying in 2003 that IRA members should be "honoured".

The MP, appointed by new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn, said the comments had clearly caused offence and apologised "from the bottom of my heart".

He said he had been urging both sides of the conflict to "lay down arms".

Speaking on BBC Question Time, he also said he was sorry for an "appalling joke" about former Conservative Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher.

In 2010, he said that if he could go back in time he would "assassinate Thatcher".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-34285308

I don't suppose he'd be too ready to accept a similarly offered apology given by an evil Tory MP in the same circumstances but there we are.

Anyway I'm sure his sudden change of opinion really does come from the bottom of his heart and has nothing whatsoever to do with his recent change of employment...

[Ramrod]

Jeremy Corbyn appoints convicted arsonist Mike Watson as his education spokesman

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Jeremy Corbyn appoints convicted arsonist Mike Watson as his education spokesman

being caught drunkenly setting fire to a set of curtains during the Scottish Politician of the Year ceremony 2004

Sounds like he deserves a medal

[Ramrod]

[Ramrod]

Interesting article: link

Time and again, Mr Corbyn spots a genuine problem only to respond with a flawed policy. He is right that Britain sorely lacks housing. But rent controls would only exacerbate the shortage. The previous Conservative/Liberal Democrat coalition government should indeed have been less austere. It could have boosted demand by spending more on infrastructure. But Mr Corbyn’s notion of “people’s QE”—getting the Bank of England to print money to pay for projects—threatens to become an incontinent fiscal stimulus by the backdoor....... To see where Mr Corbyn’s heart lies, you have only to look at the company he has kept. He admires the late Hugo Chávez for his legacy in Venezuela. No matter that chavismo has wrecked the economy and hollowed out democracy. He indulges Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian kleptocracy in Russia and blames NATO for provoking its invasion of Ukraine. He entertains Hamas, which has repeatedly used violence against Israel and admires Syriza, the radical left party that has governed Greece with almost unmatched incompetence. Yet he is stridently anti-American, anti-Israel and anti-NATO and quietly anti-European Union . He even scolded China’s Communist Party for its free-market excesses.

To argue that Mr Corbyn’s ideas will improve the quality of political discourse in Britain just because they are different is about as wise as Mr Corbyn’s refusal this week to sing the national anthem at a service to commemorate the Battle of Britain. Policies this flawed will crowd out debate, not enrich it.



Perhaps that doesn’t matter. Mr Corbyn had no expectation of winning the leadership, and for a man who has never had to compromise, the drudgery of party management, media appearances and relentless scrutiny must be a hardship. Even if he is not pushed, he may not choose to stay for long.

Yet the leader of the opposition is one Tory meltdown away from power. Even if Mr Corbyn fails ever to become prime minister, as is likely, he will still leave his mark on the Labour Party. The populism and discontent that brought him the leadership will not just subside. The loathing of Westminster that he represents and the fantasies that he spins will make the task for the next centrist Labour leader all the harder. There is nothing to celebrate about Mr Corbyn’s elevation. For Britain, it is a grave misfortune.

[nomadking]

Originally Posted by Ramrod

Jeremy Corbyn appoints convicted arsonist Mike Watson as his education spokesman

The 20 month sentence means he is ineligible to be an MP. Not unreasonable to expect the same eligibility rule to be applied to Ministers.

[ianch99]

Instead of attacking JC, you should be applauding him:

Iraq vote: the 43 rebel MPs

Who voted against the Iraq War? A certain Mr Corbyn ...

Who voted for the war? A certain Mr Blair and who supported it? A certain Mr Cameron .. who both were observed to sing the National Anthem

Never let us also forget the House voted on the evidence* supplied by the in situ government, later found to be 'sexed up*'....

Corbin didn't vote against the Iraq war because of lack of evidence, he voted that way because he was/is anti-American and pro-anyone who the Americans are against....

*made up stuff up supporting the Bush/Blair revenge on Saddam

[TheDaddy]

Originally Posted by ianch99

Instead of attacking JC, you should be applauding him:

Iraq vote: the 43 rebel MPs

Who voted against the Iraq War? A certain Mr Corbyn ...

Who voted for the war? A certain Mr Blair and who supported it? A certain Mr Cameron .. who both were observed to sing the National Anthem

That's the crux for me, actions speaking louder than foe patriotism or sound bites

Originally Posted by TheDaddy

That's the crux for me, actions speaking louder than foe patriotism or sound bites

Corbyn is opposed to foreign military intervention as a matter of principle. If he had some great insight into events and voted based on them, then fair dos - but he didn't. He voted against it because he always does. That's a fine exercise of principle for a single-minded activist but it won't wash if he wants to be PM.

I'd rather a person of principle than one without.It's a shame that being a politician these days means you can't be principled.

[denphone]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

I'd rather a person of principle than one without.It's a shame that being a politician these days means you can't be principled.

Indeed.

[ianch99]

Originally Posted by Hugh

Never let us also forget the House voted on the evidence* supplied by the in situ government, later found to be 'sexed up*'....

Corbin didn't vote against the Iraq war because of lack of evidence, he voted that way because he was/is anti-American and pro-anyone who the Americans are against....

*made up stuff up supporting the Bush/Blair revenge on Saddam

Does the Leader of the Opposition have access to the MI5 files supporting proposed foreign conflicts?

I have this mental image of Tony receiving the "Saddam" file from MI5, getting out his big red pen and changing various entries. He then gives it to Leader of the Opposition saying " Look! He is a really bad man, honest! Just sign .. here .. here .. and .. here"

[nomadking]

If Saddam was such a "nice man", why were there UN sanctions and a no-fly zone? Did the super-gun, scud missiles fired upon Israel, chemical weapons programmes with their use on the Marsh Arabs all not exist?

For such a "cute and fluffy" kind of guy he sure killed a lot of people and was intent on killing even more. Bit like the IRA, ISIS, Al-Qaeda etc, all "supported" by Corbyn.

Originally Posted by ianch99

Does the Leader of the Opposition have access to the MI5 files supporting proposed foreign conflicts?

I have this mental image of Tony receiving the "Saddam" file from MI5, getting out his big red pen and changing various entries. He then gives it to Leader of the Opposition saying " Look! He is a really bad man, honest! Just sign .. here .. here .. and .. here"

Meanwhile, back in reality....

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2010/j...ossier-inquiry

In a keynote speech to the UN on 12 September 2002, Bush claimed: "Should Iraq acquire fissile material, it would be able to build a nuclear weapon within a year." This contradicted the first draft of the British dossier, drawn up two days earlier, which stated that it would take "at least two years" for Iraq to get the bomb.

The Cabinet Office has disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act that those who drafted the dossier were immediately asked to compare British claims against the US president's speech. The next day the dossier's timescale was halved to claim Iraq could get the bomb in a year.....

.....A new draft of the British weapons dossier virtually eliminated the difference between the US and UK positions. When Blair presented the dossier to parliament 11 days later, he said that Iraq might get the bomb in "a year or two".

The JIC, which prepares formal intelligence assessments, considered the scenario so unlikely that it did not estimate how long it might take.

They didn't use a big red pen, they just rewrote it - but I'm sure you knew that aleady....