In the news

Corbyn wrote to all the Labour MPs demanding they vote against military action. He hasn't given them a free vote at all! That's why he is facing a mass rebellion.

My problem: I agree that bombing people isn't going to make this go away. Bombing and actual ground war hasn't really solved the problem in the last 40 years.
Doing something other than war will make you look weak to some people.

John McDonnell fucked things up. His point was lost in a shit joke, like there's no money left , its going to come back each and everytime.

I'm happy that someone is not just accepting the other sides view point and is challenging it. I wish the BBC and other news would stop focussing on the "in fighting" rather than the current government being a sack of cunts.

This is the weakness of a democracy though- the majority can be wrong. Look at the current government for proof.

Or maybe the Mytilenean revolt(!).

I don't understand Cameron's drive to bomb Syria - is it peer pressure? I reluctantly accept that military intervention may be something that is necessary (that is, a debate is necessary), but I don't see what good bombing is going to do.

where people who disagree with you are called Tory scum or that you wish they would die

if i had suggested that people on this forum can 'die' i'd have been banned yonks ago. now that you mention it: you can certainly fuck off with your weaselly accusations. you reek of tory apologism.

Again, you're not reading my post. I said:

"your other posts in this thread where people who disagree with you are called Tory scum or that you wish they would die and other such things".

At no point did I say that you have told other posters that you want them to die. You have, however, on multiple occasions said that people who vote in a different way to you should die.

Also I have never apologised for the Tories. I am however interested in having a debate about what Labour is up to, and how it is going to beat the Tories in the next election. However, unsurprisingly, has been met with accusations of being a Tory. You have shut the debate down again.

I genuinely believe that people with that kind of approach would do less harm to the causes they supposedly support if they just stopped talking and voted Tory. There is a party that is synonymous with nasty people. You'd probably fit right in!

plenty of people vote in a different way to me, i don't wish any ill on them - just those that support a party that habitually victimises and denigrates those it deems less worthy than them in the name of an ideology predicated on the notion that some are born more equal than others. i spent my life surrounded by people who held similarly noxious views albeit 6500 miles away - i see very little difference between that shower of entitled cunts and this lot. so yeah, fuck em.

Tory scum

2 words that fit together so beautifully

like a tiny poem.

Die
everything dies
the penultimate fate of ungrammatical crudities.
But genital warts save the day
while waiting for that pathetic winger to die
who may run and cry, but will ultimately lie.

2 words that fit to
gether so beautifully
like a tiny poem.

It's the right syllable count for a haiku, anyway. :)

In Whitehall there are Tory scum,
From their mouth spurts the same as their bum,
Don't care for you or me,
Only super wealthy,
And those who make crude by the drum.

This is such a sad story, worth reading in full:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/27/elliott-johnson-young-tory-destroyed-by-party-he-loved-mark-clarke

And Shapps has finally resigned, but he'll be back ...

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/nov/28/grant-shapps-resigns-over-bullying-scandal

I don't understand Cameron's drive to bomb Syria - is it peer pressure? I reluctantly accept that military intervention may be something that is necessary (that is, a debate is necessary), but I don't see what good bombing is going to do.

I am a cynic but one reason may be because poll data shows it to be so popular

I don't understand Cameron's drive to bomb Syria - is it peer pressure?

I'd say peer pressure is a very apt summary.

The US are bombing, they are our no1 political allied. France is bombing, they are the 2nd most powerful state in mainland Europe and we need their support for renegotiation in Europe. Russia are bombing, which means us and Germany are basically the only traditional major powers not. Everyone accepts Germany never want to get involved in military conflicts.

At home being strong on foreign policy is often goes down well if done right, and is always a good distraction.

Fundamentally Cameron is very pragmatic. No one actually has a fucking clue how to deal with the issue, so it's turing into a classic case of it being "better" to do something, even if it's the wrong thing, than it is to do nothing.

I guess one blessing is at least this time it isn't God telling our PM to do it!

Everyone accepts Germany never want to get involved in military conflicts.

Germany is sending warplanes to fly reconnaissance missions.

It's the third major military conflict in which Germany has become involved since the traditional non-involvement doctrine was broken in the 90s over Kosovo. They then became involved in Afghanistan, which was a shrewd move as it meant they could afford not to get involved in Iraq.

Fair enough you're right.

I guess what I was driving at is that politically, Germany has less pressure to enter conflicts.

If you think about the flack France gets, internationally everyone is a lot more sensitive in relation to Germany and there isn't the same domestic* pressure.

*or from the little I know there doesn't appear to be the same domestic pressure.

I've just read up more on this. Germany is also sending army trainers to train Kurdish troops and sending 650 soldiers to Mali.

I guess what I was driving at is that politically, Germany has less pressure to enter conflicts.

It's not only about pressure. Germany has very restrictive constitutional (well, it doesn't have a constitution, but that's a different story) provisions against entering conflict. There has been a slippery slope in which this has been changed since the 1990s, but it's still substantially in place.

If you think about the flack France gets, internationally everyone is a lot more sensitive in relation to Germany and there isn't the same domestic pressure.

There is obviously the historical background. However, there has been quite a lot of pressure placed on Germany in the recent past because its defence spending is relatively lower than that of other NATO countries.

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/466167/20151006-KE-International_defence_2015_FINAL.pdf

What the map on page 4 doesn't show is that Germany has the largest population of any country in Europe, at about 80 million, and is apparently now accepting up to a million Syrian refugees.

I don't know much about Italy, but it is interesting that it appears to have a similar level of spending to Germany. Perhaps this is likewise quite low because of its history of alliance with Nazi Germany.

This is the weakness of a democracy though- the majority can be wrong. Look at the current government for

Except of course that the majority of people didn't vote for this shower of cunts.

The majority of people who weren't the majority did, though.

That's all really interesting.

I think historical context has a huge impact, but it will deminsh with time.

No one actually has a fucking clue how to deal with the issue, so it's turing into a classic case of it being "better" to do something, even if it's the wrong thing, than it is to do nothing.

Plenty of successful modern countries don't feel the need to get stuck in to bombing shit. We need to take political and economic action against the Sunni state sponsors of IS, and get stuck into reducing our oil dependence which prevents us doing this.

Indeed. It's a farce.

probably comes across a bit more cold and polished.

I think that's probably my point - he's polished, why does he need to be polished? Let's see the craggy bits, let's have someone honest, warts-and-all. If you're polished you're hiding something.

I've said this before on here - I don't think 4m people really agree with Farage, I think they just see him as believable whereas Ed Miliband never was, you had no faith he either knew what he was saying or believed it. He came across as false.

It's like Clarkson and the whole 'he may be a cunt, but at least he says what he thinks' line, I think that's a backlash against polished people, against unbelievable people. If you met Umunna in a pub and he spoke to you like he does on camera or from the benches you'd think he was a bloody weirdo. He's affected and unnatural.

Corbyn ain't. John Major wasn't. Farage isn't. Obama isn't. I don't think I can be accused of thinking that because I agree with those four people, but I do think the public likes them because they are, well, likeable.

Don't underestimate likeable. From the inside political competence, negotiation skills, management ability, leadership and that stuff matters. But from out here, as a shallow lay person, likeable is a real thing. Believable matters. Being fallible and human is more appealing than being polished and word-perfect.

I think the old political guard are wrong. I think the millions of disaffected people, especially young people, could be rallied to get behind someone they believe in. I think if Labour all got behind Jez-Co and got some momentum into the grassroots swell then it might just be a landslide in 2020.

They won't of course, because they are so ensconced inside they can't see it as it's seen from outside.

Still, thefuck do I know? Round here everyone is a comfortably-off middle-class lefty and we've already got a red colour MP so what I hear in the pub won't make a jot of difference. Unless they're saying the same thing in pubs in Corby and Sherwood and Warrington and all the other marginals. They fucking might be.