Hilary Benn's Dreadful Speech

[RickyM]

I don't get it.

 

The government is doing exactly what the UN asked us to do.

With Iraq, there was no such request. We were taking down a stable government in the hope of getting something better in its place. The 2 situations are not comparable.

 

To those who object to us carrying out the explicitly stated will of the UN, and doing our part to stop these butchers, I must ask under what circumstances you would support military action?

There can be few cases when the need was clearer.

 

Whom amongst us voted for the UN exactly?

[999tigger]

Whom amongst us voted for the UN exactly?

 

Do you mean the people on Sheffield forum or the world in general?

[unbeliever]

Whom amongst us voted for the UN exactly?

 

Under what circumstances would you support the UK taking military action?

[Bob Arctor]

There are no party divisions between Tory and New Labour, they represent the political wing of the hedge fund industry, working both sides of the so-called political divide.

 

I think the problem Corbyn's Labour have is that "electable" essentially now means being a neoliberal centrist, and handing over as much of the state to private enterprise as possible.

 

If being electable required an act satanic fellatio, some politicians would do it at the drop of Lucifer's Y-fronts. Others would take convincing with some rhetorical tosh/false dichotomoies to make themselves feel less soiled, but would kneel all the same in the end. Surprisingly, a few politicians would not do it at all.

 

They're usually easy to spot by their almost complete absence from the media, but Corbyn is flouting that convention, and it's clearly sticking in peoples' throats here and there.

 

Which, regardless of Corbyn's ultimate political fate, is always a good thing.

 

---------- Post added 08-12-2015 at 16:38 ----------

 

 

Hence the big rush to get it through Parliament because oilfields are notoriously small, well camouflaged, and can move extremely quickly over difficult terrain.

 

Very true, I think, and very well articulated. I agree with the OP, it was full of fine sentiment but totally lacking in any clear strategy. Crucially, even despite the disaster of Iraq, it failed to address the question of 'what happens afterwards?'. This is always the biggest question - it went unanswered.

[JFKvsNixon]

There are no party divisions between Tory and New Labour, they represent the political wing of the hedge fund industry, working both sides of the so-called political divide.

 

I think the problem Corbyn's Labour have is that "electable" essentially now means being a neoliberal centrist, and handing over as much of the state to private enterprise as possible.

 

If being electable required an act satanic fellatio, some politicians would do it at the drop of Lucifer's Y-fronts. Others would take convincing with some rhetorical tosh/false dichotomoies to make themselves feel less soiled, but would kneel all the same in the end. Surprisingly, a few politicians would not do it at all.

 

They're usually easy to spot by their almost complete absence from the media, but Corbyn is flouting that convention, and it's clearly sticking in peoples' throats here and there.

 

Which, regardless of Corbyn's ultimate political fate, is always a good thing.

 

Looking at it very roughly, I've always seen New Labour as representing "new money" and the Tories as looking after "old money's" interests.

[betterman]

Very true, I think, and very well articulated. I agree with the OP, it was full of fine sentiment but totally lacking in any clear strategy. Crucially, even despite the disaster of Iraq, it failed to address the question of 'what happens afterwards?'. This is always the biggest question - it went unanswered.

 

It probably went unanswered because no one knows what will happen afterwards.

[Bob Arctor]

It probably went unanswered because no one knows what will happen afterwards.

 

Yeah, that's what makes it seem such a bad idea.

[Ridgewalk]

Well in my view, if it quickly destroys Corbyn`s leadership, so the Labour party can get someone electable in and get rid of the Tories, that`s a very positive side effect.

 

 

Oldham by-election. Increased majority. The long trumpeted UKIP breakthrough foiled again. And still Nigel bleats, "unfair"

[Phanerothyme]

Looking at it very roughly, I've always seen New Labour as representing "new money" and the Tories as looking after "old money's" interests.

I know what you mean.

 

But those interested have converged into simply "money", and the "third way" political ideology that serves it.

[unbeliever]

Corbyn and his new old Labour lot are not going to help you.

If they ever get elected, they're going to wreck the economy and make every poor.

That's exactly what happened when they were last in government in the '70s and even in the 00's under 'new Labour' mask.

 

Yes, it would be a nicer kinder and in some ways fairer world if human affairs could be organised according to these ideas. But they can't. We and various other states have tried it so many times already and it reliably ends in ruin.

 

You have to give up on these ideas and look for ways to make things better that actually work. We need a credible opposition. We deserve a genuine alternative. There are nowhere near enough people in the country foolish enough to vote for these pathologically pacifist, Trotskyist nutters and the Conservatives know that.

Edited December 14, 2015 by unbeliever