Labour ?

Hungryhalibut posted:

wenger2015 posted:

According to one of the latest polls, labour are now 19% behind the Conservatives.....

Can it actually get any worse for labour? 

Corbyn could eat too much at an Islington mueslifest and spontaneously explode. That would be bad. Or as Trump would say, BAD. 

Would that be bad or good, not sure to be honest

Just seen some TV footage of Corbyn leaving his house, if he could spare some time, instead of systematically destroying the Labour party he should turn his attention to his front garden....unsurprisingly it's a mess

Don Atkinson posted:

dayjay posted:

Yes, they could win something with Corbyn and prolong the agony, or, even worse, win an election with him and cause chaos.  For the first time ever I would not want to see Labour in power.  Sad times. 

c) If a General Election took place within the next 3 months, my guess is that the Conservatives would win with a stonking majority and Labour would loose about half its seats, all because of Jeremy !

Don, I'm not doubting your prediction that Labour would loose many seats, but I don't think you can blame it completely on Jeremy.  Labour lost their way and (in my opinion) no longer represent (i.e. have the support of) many of their core voters because they saw what the Blair/Brown era did; but also no longer can convince the middle ground that they would be better off under Labour than under Conservatives - and this is despite the efforts of Cameron and now May.

Labour are still seen (perhaps correctly) as the party who will tax and pay social welfare without regard ... it is a moral position, but one the middle ground are no longer willing to support when they feel they are struggling themselves.  Its a balance between what they feel is intellectually right ... but can they afford the moral position when they are struggling?

So Jeremy is as much a reflection of the Labour Party woes as he is a cause.

The other problem for Corbyn is the growing dislike and contempt  for Blair .....which rightly so, seems to be gathering momentum 

wenger2015 posted:

The other problem for Corbyn is the growing dislike and contempt  for Blair .....which rightly so, seems to be gathering momentum 

Well we always remember the worst especially in politicians... 

I wonder when Blair is going to get the message he is bad news & its time he just disappeared.   OK he is obviously not smart enough to read the public opinion, thick skinned or just thick in the head,  who knows.   But who in the Iraq & Afghanistan war memorial unveiling organising and/or political circle(s) did not have the sense to see his presence as unwise.  To allow him a seat in the VIP section was offensive.

Mike-B posted:

I wonder when Blair is going to get the message he is bad news & its time he just disappeared.   OK he is obviously not smart enough to read the public opinion, thick skinned or just thick in the head,  who knows.   But who in the Iraq & Afghanistan war memorial unveiling organising and/or political circle(s) did not have the sense to see his presence as unwise.  To allow him a seat in the VIP section was offensive.

Mike ... don't you think the response would have been the same (that he was showing disrespect / disregard for the service men and women) if he hadn't been there though?  

Eloise,  yes in part,   but probably less offensive to the majority than him being there.   

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

I wonder when Blair is going to get the message he is bad news & its time he just disappeared.   OK he is obviously not smart enough to read the public opinion, thick skinned or just thick in the head,  who knows.   But who in the Iraq & Afghanistan war memorial unveiling organising and/or political circle(s) did not have the sense to see his presence as unwise.  To allow him a seat in the VIP section was offensive.

Mike ... don't you think the response would have been the same (that he was showing disrespect / disregard for the service men and women) if he hadn't been there though?  

Good point. He would have been criticised whatever he did. And for what its worth (and at risk of diverting this thread to an emotive topic like Iraq), I'm still inclined to believe that he went into that conflict with good intentions. History has judged it a bad move because (a) the weapons of mass destruction weren't found and (b) the lack of a plan, post Saddam's removal, to put the country and its political structures on a sound footing was neglected or ignored.  For the latter I tend to blame Bush & co rather than Blair.    

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

I wonder when Blair is going to get the message he is bad news & its time he just disappeared.   OK he is obviously not smart enough to read the public opinion, thick skinned or just thick in the head,  who knows.   But who in the Iraq & Afghanistan war memorial unveiling organising and/or political circle(s) did not have the sense to see his presence as unwise.  To allow him a seat in the VIP section was offensive.

Mike ... don't you think the response would have been the same (that he was showing disrespect / disregard for the service men and women) if he hadn't been there though?  

Good point. He would have been criticised whatever he did. And for what its worth (and at risk of diverting this thread to an emotive topic like Iraq), I'm still inclined to believe that he went into that conflict with good intentions. History has judged it a bad move because (a) the weapons of mass destruction weren't found and (b) the lack of a plan, post Saddam's removal, to put the country and its political structures on a sound footing was neglected or ignored.  For the latter I tend to blame Bush & co rather than Blair.    

To put the lives of British troops on the line, I am inclined to think Blair new exactly what he was doing....because if that isn't the case in makes his actions so much worse.....possibly liable for some kind of redress... 

wenger2015 posted:

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

I wonder when Blair is going to get the message he is bad news & its time he just disappeared.   OK he is obviously not smart enough to read the public opinion, thick skinned or just thick in the head,  who knows.   But who in the Iraq & Afghanistan war memorial unveiling organising and/or political circle(s) did not have the sense to see his presence as unwise.  To allow him a seat in the VIP section was offensive.

Mike ... don't you think the response would have been the same (that he was showing disrespect / disregard for the service men and women) if he hadn't been there though?  

Good point. He would have been criticised whatever he did. And for what its worth (and at risk of diverting this thread to an emotive topic like Iraq), I'm still inclined to believe that he went into that conflict with good intentions. History has judged it a bad move because (a) the weapons of mass destruction weren't found and (b) the lack of a plan, post Saddam's removal, to put the country and its political structures on a sound footing was neglected or ignored.  For the latter I tend to blame Bush & co rather than Blair.    

To put the lives of British troops on the line, I am inclined to think Blair new exactly what he was doing....because if that isn't the case in makes his actions so much worse.....possibly liable for some kind of redress... 

I'm sure he did. When you're PM such decisions come with the territory. A decision to deploy the military inevitably carries the risk of loss of life to the deployed troops.  However, the benefit of hindsight is a wonderful thing and I think it worth reflecting on what might have been.  If Saddam had and used WMD as part of terrorist activity and, say, managed to deploy chemical weapons somewhere in Europe causing many horrible deaths what would have been the cry then? Blair (and other European leaders) would have been pilloried for a lack of action. It sometimes the easy option to sit on your hands.

Blairs problem was no one was convinced Saddam had WMD,  including the UN people on the ground that were hunting for it.  Public opinion at the time was very strong, rallies, protests & was it 83% (?) against invasion.  Then as the truth came out over time it was clear that there was indeed no real proof.      I sat next to him once on a flight from Belfast,  he was some sort of junior shadow at the time & in the typical inflight chat he said all the great PM's had a great war, Churchill & Thatcher were mentioned.    It just comes to mind everytime I think about the Iraq invasion.

Mike-B posted:

Blairs problem was no one was convinced Saddam had WMD,  including the UN people on the ground that were hunting for it.  Public opinion at the time was very strong, rallies, protests & was it 83% (?) against invasion.  Then as the truth came out over time it was clear that there was indeed no real proof.      I sat next to him once on a flight from Belfast,  he was some sort of junior shadow at the time & in the typical inflight chat he said all the great PM's had a great war, Churchill & Thatcher were mentioned.    It just comes to mind everytime I think about the Iraq invasion.

According to YouGov ... https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015...03/remembering-iraq/ ... there was actually a 54% to 38% support FOR the Iraq invasion (average across 21 polls March to December).

Eloise posted:

According to YouGov ... https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015...03/remembering-iraq/ ... there was actually a 54% to 38% support FOR the Iraq invasion (average across 21 polls March to December).

OK time dulls memory functions,  or maybe I'm remembering what I read in the press at the time - must be false news or alternate facts

Mike-B posted:

Blairs problem was no one was convinced Saddam had WMD,  including the UN people on the ground that were hunting for it.  Public opinion at the time was very strong, rallies, protests & was it 83% (?) against invasion.  Then as the truth came out over time it was clear that there was indeed no real proof.      I sat next to him once on a flight from Belfast,  he was some sort of junior shadow at the time & in the typical inflight chat he said all the great PM's had a great war, Churchill & Thatcher were mentioned.    It just comes to mind everytime I think about the Iraq invasion.

I'm not sure about that statement either Mike (though the reply to that is more opinion) ... I think a lot of people were convinced he did have WMD (and WMD capability) despite the UN weapon's inspectors not finding any evidence.  

Now obviously I'm relying on memory and perhaps biased reporting, but as I recall the general impression was that Saddam wouldn't just give up on everything (following the 1990/91 war); that he was just managing to give the inspectors the run around.  As I recall (my memory is by no means perfect) the weapon's inspectors never said (at least publicly) "Saddam doesn't have any WMD"; they only said "there is no evidence".

Now I'm not suggesting Blair wasn't complicit in pushing forward Bush's agenda; but we shouldn't forget he had full support of most of parliament as well as the backing of a majority of the population (according to opinion polls I mentioned above).

The war was wrong (I'm not arguing against that) and has lead to a much more volatile world. But most of the anti-war opinion is hindsight more than predictions coming true.

Mike-B posted:

Eloise posted:

According to YouGov ... https://yougov.co.uk/news/2015...03/remembering-iraq/ ... there was actually a 54% to 38% support FOR the Iraq invasion (average across 21 polls March to December).

OK time dulls memory functions,  or maybe I'm remembering what I read in the press at the time - must be false news or alternate facts

Well as the editors of major newspapers at the time were all (except Piers Morgan) pro-war or at least following a pro-war line...

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

Blairs problem was no one was convinced Saddam had WMD,  including the UN people on the ground that were hunting for it.  Public opinion at the time was very strong, rallies, protests & was it 83% (?) against invasion.  Then as the truth came out over time it was clear that there was indeed no real proof.      I sat next to him once on a flight from Belfast,  he was some sort of junior shadow at the time & in the typical inflight chat he said all the great PM's had a great war, Churchill & Thatcher were mentioned.    It just comes to mind everytime I think about the Iraq invasion.

I'm not sure about that statement either Mike (though the reply to that is more opinion) ... I think a lot of people were convinced he did have WMD (and WMD capability) despite the UN weapon's inspectors not finding any evidence.  

Now obviously I'm relying on memory and perhaps biased reporting, but as I recall the general impression was that Saddam wouldn't just give up on everything (following the 1990/91 war); that he was just managing to give the inspectors the run around.  As I recall (my memory is by no means perfect) the weapon's inspectors never said (at least publicly) "Saddam doesn't have any WMD"; they only said "there is no evidence".

Now I'm not suggesting Blair wasn't complicit in pushing forward Bush's agenda; but we shouldn't forget he had full support of most of parliament as well as the backing of a majority of the population (according to opinion polls I mentioned above).

The war was wrong (I'm not arguing against that) and has lead to a much more volatile world. But most of the anti-war opinion is hindsight more than predictions coming true.

I seem to remember that there was compelling evidence that Saddam had used gas against his own people, the Kurds, if my memory serves me, and I think poison gas is categorised as WMD. But this is all getting a bit dated and off topic (my fault). The essential point is that the brand of Blair is pretty toxic these days so what he now says, even if it makes sense, tends to be discounted.  

MDS posted:

Eloise posted:

Mike-B posted:

Blairs problem was no one was convinced Saddam had WMD,  including the UN people on the ground that were hunting for it.  Public opinion at the time was very strong, rallies, protests & was it 83% (?) against invasion.  Then as the truth came out over time it was clear that there was indeed no real proof.      I sat next to him once on a flight from Belfast,  he was some sort of junior shadow at the time & in the typical inflight chat he said all the great PM's had a great war, Churchill & Thatcher were mentioned.    It just comes to mind everytime I think about the Iraq invasion.

I'm not sure about that statement either Mike (though the reply to that is more opinion) ... I think a lot of people were convinced he did have WMD (and WMD capability) despite the UN weapon's inspectors not finding any evidence.  

Now obviously I'm relying on memory and perhaps biased reporting, but as I recall the general impression was that Saddam wouldn't just give up on everything (following the 1990/91 war); that he was just managing to give the inspectors the run around.  As I recall (my memory is by no means perfect) the weapon's inspectors never said (at least publicly) "Saddam doesn't have any WMD"; they only said "there is no evidence".

Now I'm not suggesting Blair wasn't complicit in pushing forward Bush's agenda; but we shouldn't forget he had full support of most of parliament as well as the backing of a majority of the population (according to opinion polls I mentioned above).

The war was wrong (I'm not arguing against that) and has lead to a much more volatile world. But most of the anti-war opinion is hindsight more than predictions coming true.

I seem to remember that there was compelling evidence that Saddam had used gas against his own people, the Kurds, if my memory serves me, and I think poison gas is categorised as WMD. But this is all getting a bit dated and off topic (my fault). The essential point is that the brand of Blair is pretty toxic these days so what he now says, even if it makes sense, tends to be discounted.  

I think that sums it up nicely Mike.

I consider Blair made a very poor decision to support Bush with (IMHO) an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. However, my memory suggests that Sadam was known to have WMD but had agreed to de-commision them and accept UN inspections of this process. He was giving the UN Inspector, Blix the run-around. The USA and others (not just the UK) got fed up with both Blix and the run-around and............the rest is history !

Funny how memory seems to align itself with wishful thinking ?

I consider Blair made a very poor decision to support Bush with (IMHO) an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. However, my memory suggests that Sadam was known to have WMD but had agreed to de-commision them and accept UN inspections of this process. He was giving the UN Inspector, Blix the run-around. The USA and others (not just the UK) got fed up with both Blix and the run-around and............the rest is history !

Funny how memory seems to align itself with wishful thinking ?

Do you not think, we were told Sadam had WMD.

In hindsight we now know, was not true.

But just to confuse everybody, Sadam actually agreed to de-commission something he didn't have in the first place? 

wenger2015 posted:

I consider Blair made a very poor decision to support Bush with (IMHO) an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. However, my memory suggests that Sadam was known to have WMD but had agreed to de-commision them and accept UN inspections of this process. He was giving the UN Inspector, Blix the run-around. The USA and others (not just the UK) got fed up with both Blix and the run-around and............the rest is history !

Funny how memory seems to align itself with wishful thinking ?

Do you not think, we were told Sadam had WMD.

In hindsight we now know, was not true.

But just to confuse everybody, Sadam actually agreed to de-commission something he didn't have in the first place? 

He DID have WMD at one point.  As MDS commented he used gas against the Kurds in the north.

After the 1990/91 Gulf War he was forced to agree to discontinue his WMD programmes, but later used gas to put down a popular uprising. UN inspectors repeatedly were sent to 

At some point after that, the WMD programmes were discontinued and the required equipment fell into disrepair.  However many in the West didn't believe that Saddam had given up on WMD programmes despite the inspectors failing to find evidence of WMD violations.

PS. For clarity I'm not defending Blairs decision to take the UK to war in support of the US, just a bit fed up of everyone conveniently forgetting the level of support and the context at the time.

Eloise posted:

wenger2015 posted:

I consider Blair made a very poor decision to support Bush with (IMHO) an unnecessary invasion of Iraq. However, my memory suggests that Sadam was known to have WMD but had agreed to de-commision them and accept UN inspections of this process. He was giving the UN Inspector, Blix the run-around. The USA and others (not just the UK) got fed up with both Blix and the run-around and............the rest is history !

Funny how memory seems to align itself with wishful thinking ?

Do you not think, we were told Sadam had WMD.

In hindsight we now know, was not true.

But just to confuse everybody, Sadam actually agreed to de-commission something he didn't have in the first place? 

He DID have WMD at one point.  As MDS commented he used gas against the Kurds in the north.

After the 1990/91 Gulf War he was forced to agree to discontinue his WMD programmes, but later used gas to put down a popular uprising. UN inspectors repeatedly were sent to 

At some point after that, the WMD programmes were discontinued and the required equipment fell into disrepair.  However many in the West didn't believe that Saddam had given up on WMD programmes despite the inspectors failing to find evidence of WMD violations.

PS. For clarity I'm not defending Blairs decision to take the UK to war in support of the US, just a bit fed up of everyone conveniently forgetting the level of support and the context at the time.

On reflection, You may well be right.

I do find it somewhat difficult on occasions to remember fact from fiction... 

wenger2015 posted:

On reflection, You may well be right.

I do find it somewhat difficult on occasions to remember fact from fiction... 

Of course much of the technology to develop WMDs was like obtained from USA (maybe via CIA) to help him defeat Iran...

(or that may just be paranoia talking)

I thought this piece discussing Labour's predicament was an interesting angle, especially from the point of view of those on the left who might nonetheless have lost patience with Corbyn. Worth reading all the way through, agree or disagree.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.c...yn-in-power.html?m=1

(Not a profiteering link, so hopefully ok by forum rules).

Dave***t posted:

I thought this piece discussing Labour's predicament was an interesting angle, especially from the point of view of those on the left who might nonetheless have lost patience with Corbyn. Worth reading all the way through, agree or disagree.

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.c...yn-in-power.html?m=1

(Not a profiteering link, so hopefully ok by forum rules).

Very interesting article..... Which I mostly agree with.

I believe the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn is an effective opposition but you wouldn't notice from the coverage of the mainstream media. further the LP would be even more effective if the undemocratic and dictatorial Blairites accepted grass roots democracy and stopped engineering these splits and attacks on its own membership.
Under JC the LP membership has swelled, particularly amongst younger people and I understand the LP is now the third largest political party in Europe.