The election 2015

Grasshopper said:
John McDonnell apparently quoting direct from Mao's Little Red Book, in his response to the Chancellor's autumn statement.

You couldn't make it up.
Click to expand...

Given that politicians are supposed to be possessed of 'nous' they can be unbelievably naiive at times, such as the numerous undercover, hidden-camera stings they've fallen for, and McDonnell has now joined the lengthy dim-list. During an interview, the rather good Frank Field was asked for his opinion and his reply was along the lines 'politicians should realise that their attempts at humour have a tendency to be ridiculed or more often than not misinterpreted'. One does assume McDonnell was joking of course

It was Chris Bryant's turn to look distinctly uncomfortable during this episode today, following Maria Eagle the other day, seated behind shifty Jeb during his exchanges with Dave. Watching the body language of Labour MPs in the Commons when their supreme leaders mouth-off is fine entertainment

You've got 5 years on a free rein Dave, George, Theresa etc...Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition has ceased to exist
 
Frank field smart as ever and very good point. aftually how many politicians were genuinely funny? When they quote healeys dead sheep insult as hilarious I think...what? Healey fancied himself as witty but clever as he was ...he wssnt

oddly enough I have heard the odd excllent bit of humour from Obama. he has a sly dark humour at times which I like

there was one genius though. Someone who's words and humour were unparalleed.

In the commons "if you were my husband I would poison iyou"

"madam ... If you were my wife I would drink it"
 
Last edited:
It may be apochryphal but it's damn good anyway:

Lady Astor "Winston, you are drunk"

Churchill "My dear, you are ugly but tomorrow I shall be sober and you will still be ugly"
 
WSC was informed that a Con*ser*v*a*tive MP was stand*ing for a by-election as a Liberal.
Churchill: “The only instance of a rat swim*ming toward a sink*ing ship.” —1905
 
I think this one about Stanley Baldwin was my favourite:

"He occasionally stumbled over the truth, but hastily picked himself up and hurried on as if nothing had happened".
 
The far left are well known for having zero sense of humour and when an unfunny person tries to make a joke then it all goes wrong. in fact ibecause his "Advisors" must have had a hand in this it is further proof that they are as funny as cancer. They are a bit thick of course but really no one could see it coming

Talking of far left advisors the sinister public schoolboy guardian editor seamus milne pops uo in private eye this week. the stalinist is corbyns press advisor

When at a briefing he was asked about jihadi john he refused to answer unless the subject was addressed under his proper muslim name.. mohammed enema or whatever it was

show some respect eh?

dear oh dear...
 
Corbyn has written to his MPs stating he 'cannot support UK air strikes in Syria', which according to the BBC hack tasked with analysing this, will cause several resignations on the Labour front bench. May be so, but if the majority of his MPs - or even a significant minority - vote for strikes next week I'd have thought it more likely (and proper) that JC would (should) resign, thus ending a short, failed experiment they can all put down to experience

Hobson's choice isn't it?

If he doesn't go and his front bench haemorrhage members there isn't anyone of worth to replace them, is there?
 
It looks like a deliberate ploy to drive through resignations. He immediately went back on his word in the meeting. He must be held in more contempt by colleagues than any leader at any time

reading the reports it seemingly a case not just corbyn but a cabal forming around him with his extremist "advisors" in the meeting. The next stage is that momentum group intimidating at local level and deselections

Extraordinary
 
Last edited:
Alternatively he might just say 'back me or sack me!' in which any waverers will be killled in the stampede. It would allow him the chance to martyr himself though without necessarily being Labour's own suicide bomber

I would imagine that ultimately some sort of reproachment with the liberals and an SDP will emerge
 
Last edited:
Agree entirely . But are they really manufacturing this? If he insists the vote is whipped through then that's it surely
 
Ms Abbott, the shadow international development secretary, warned that those who supported air strikes - said to be the overwhelming majority of the shadow cabinet - could expect to come under pressure from local activists when they return to their constituencies at the weekend.
"I am sure that people will go home, they will talk to their friends, they will talk to their constituents and we'll make the final decision on Monday. I am confident that it will be the right decision," she told Channel 4 News.
She added: "He (Mr Corbyn) is the one with the electoral mandate, he appoints the shadow cabinet - not the other way round. I know what views party members will take if MPs ignore the views of the people at the grassroots and try and take this issue to the brink."
 
Surely they should pick a better issue than this though? There are good reasons for opposing Cameron's position and Labour voters are split.
 
Last edited:
The last poll I saw emblazoned all over a war rag had a headline of 60% in favour. It wouldn't be massively out of line with the typical 66/33 split in favour of the Iraq war. I don't know if the 'don't knows' were counted in the 40% against (I'd doubt it), whether they were removed from the sample, or just left unreported

If it is 40% then clearly its Labour plus, as one thing no one is going to accuse Jeremy Corbyn of having, is 40% of the electorate voting for him
 
It's the right issue to pick. The way he went about it. The veiled threats and the obvious appeasement of terrorists.

i am sure the majority of labour voters are for the strikes. Even so if the shadow cabinet members want to resign on what Hilary benn the most important decision of this parliament then I admire them for that. 15 to 3 ( Abbott doesn't count) is overwhelming

The electorate see him as terrible on security and even sympathetic towards jihadists. Aside from their own beliefs the cabinet rightly think he's useless.

i don't see how anyone can be against attacks on isis in any form . It would be shameful not to help France at this time.
 
Last edited:
Coming back to the "very good post" does it really need pointing out that the last two republican candidates were anything but extreme? There is no comparison at all with labours current disaster.
 
clivex said:
i don't see how anyone can be against attacks on isis in any form . It would be shameful not to help France at this time.
Click to expand...

At the risk of spinning the thread into another ISIL one (having said that the original title long ago lost its relevance) I think the issue of what? and how? are critical too. I'm not necessarily in favour of aerial bombing, but would instead prefer to do something meaningful. If we do go down the aerial bombing then I tend to the view that we should throw evrything we have at it (which isn't a lot). ISIL have many more pick up trucks than we do Brimstone missiles. We'll run out, we were heavily depleted after Libya

Just on the subject of France and our loyalty to them, you might like to recall Clive that in 1982 the French sent Aerospatial engineers to Argentina in order to rig up and arm exocet missiles for them so they could be fired against British shipping. If you want a definition of shameful, I'd suggest that better fits? We lost HMS Sheffield and Atlantic Conveyor as a direct result of this, and indirectly about 50 killed at Bluff Cove due to the loss of Chinooks on board the latter. The French caused the loss of about 75 British lives - Merci. Other European partners such as Spain and Italy tacitly supported Argentina too by forever trying to get sanctions lifted. The French did really well out the Falklands though. The word exocet went into the language, and quite a few order books of foreign governments too as Britain struggled to defend against it

My own sense is that Corbyn might have stumbled into the right decision for the wrong reasons, whereas Cameron is blundering into the wrong decision for the right reasons (albeit I don't buy this issue of national prestige - that's largely in the imagination of the political classes to whom it is important). You can only get the correct answer if you're asking the right question. I'm not sure Cameron is asking it. This isn't about aerial bombing (or shouldn't be)

There's a hell of a lot of moving parts in this, and massive capacity for it to go very badly wrong, medium term (history suggests you can achieve a short term success). To my mind at least, the critical gap in his analysis is his failure to link up an aerial bombing campaign with a ground offensive. Who exactly is he bombing in support of? He's hinted at this, but one of his own MP's who had access to intelligence information from the select committee politely blew him out the water when he explained that the FSA figure that Cameron was using (70,000) was not one that was remotely close to what they'd been briefed (it's much smaller) and also reinforced this by pointing out that a significant percentage of the FSA have demonstrated a penchant for defecting (principally to Al Nusra).

Just as a side observation, you might have noticed how our own commentators have subtly stopped referencing the Free Syrian Army but have instead started to apply a broader 'catch all' umbrella of "the rebels". I'm increasingly less convinced that a distinct FSA actually exists anymore, and if it does, it's perhaps no bigger than 10,000 - 15,000. Also, am I the only one who finds the BBC's prefix of Islamic State with the phrase "so called" just a tiny bit silly. It exists! Get real. It's not so called. It's as if the BBC are trying to prevent us referring to their existance by suggetsing that they're not really real you know (so called Santa Claus)
 
Last edited:
Warbler said:
Also, am I the only one who finds the BBC's prefix of Islamic State with the phrase "so called" just a tiny bit silly. It exists! Get real. It's not so called. It's as if the BBC are trying to prevent us referring to their existance by suggetsing that they're not really real you know (so called Santa Claus)
Click to expand...

It's silliness akin to muting 'interviews' with Gerry Adams et al way back when, though that may have been a silly government directive rather than a silly decision by the BBC, I forget

'Daesh' would seem the most appropriate, neutral and anodyne description as it's an Arabic acronym and apparently pejorative as it resembles other (in context) derogatory words in that language

The name Da'ish is often used by ISIL's Arabic-speaking detractors. It is based on the Arabic letters Dāl, alif, ʻayn, and shīn, which form the acronym (داعش) of ISIL's Arabic name al-Dawlah al-Islamīyah fī al-ʻIrāq wa-al-Shām.[57][58] There are many spellings of this acronym, with "Daesh" gaining acceptance. ISIL considers the acronym Da'ish derogatory because with the appropriate grammatical conjugation it sounds similar to the Arabic words Daes, "one who crushes something underfoot", and Dahes, "one who sows discord".[36][59] ISIL reportedly uses flogging[60][61] and the cutting out of tongues[62] to punish those who use the term in areas under its control. In 2015, over 120 British parliamentarians asked the BBC to use the name Daesh, following the example of John Kerry and Laurent Fabius

It seems to be gaining favour here in the West - reckon I'll use it from now on - though Frank Gardner and/or Hilary Benn decided to use something like Daesh-stroke-ISIS-stroke-so called Islamic State the other day which is even sillier
 
clivex said:
Coming back to the "very good post" does it really need pointing out that the last two republican candidates were anything but extreme?
Click to expand...

I'm sure American voters looked at the ageging John McCain with a sense of reassurance knowing that Sarah Palin was waiting in the wings to be their next Commander and Chief
 
Warbler said:
I think we should call them 'Susan'
Click to expand...

Nah, 'Jeremy' would be more appropriate, and certainly better than 'Isis', poor misunderstood girl

170px-Egypt.IsisHorus.01.png
 
Back
Top