UK politics - Hamsterwheel
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by Gertrude the Wombat
Not, however, bright enough to appreciate that these days it doesn't cut much ice to try to claim that your anti-Semitic views aren't actually anti-Semitic, just anti-Zionist.
I think he is suffering to some extent from being singled out as a proxy to represent the entire anti-Semitic faction within the Labour party, some of whom may well not be as bright or well educated as Livingstone. It's just one of several internal squabbles they've got going at the moment, along with the one between the Trots and the anti-Corbyn faction. (And, in some parts of the Labour party, the one between the modernisers/feminists/whatever you want to call them and the faction that believes that women belong in the bedroom and the kitchen, and certainly not in the council chamber or on the union management committee.)
I think he is suffering to some extent from being singled out as a proxy to represent the entire anti-Semitic faction within the Labour party, some of whom may well not be as bright or well educated as Livingstone. It's just one of several internal squabbles they've got going at the moment, along with the one between the Trots and the anti-Corbyn faction. (And, in some parts of the Labour party, the one between the modernisers/feminists/whatever you want to call them and the faction that believes that women belong in the bedroom and the kitchen, and certainly not in the council chamber or on the union management committee.)
I suspect the decline in the power of the trade unions has a fair bit to do with the current situation, with the internal balance of power shifting as a consequence.
Ecce Homo! Loquitur...
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: Peripatetic
Posts: 12,528
Got to love Corbyn - having already got into the position of having 80% of his MPs not willing to serve in his shadow cabinet - he's now publicly disagreeing with those that do - including his deputy leader. Still a rebel against official party policy after all these years.....
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...tack-l9mxb7fnh
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues.
The party leader warned that President Trump’s decision to take military action risked escalating a conflict that had already left hundreds of thousands of people dead. His statement ignored the views of his shadow defence secretary, Nia Griffith, and clashed with Tom Watson, his deputy, as he called on Theresa May to “urge restraint” on Mr Trump...... A number of Labour MPs, including the former leadership contender Mary Creagh, John Woodcock and Peter Kyle, also indicated their support for the US action, underlining the depth of Labour’s divisions on foreign affairs.
Mr Corbyn has long been a supporter of the Stop the War Coalition and an opponent of US military action abroad, and his opposition to military action in Syria and elsewhere has caused some of the biggest tensions in the party.
At 11.18am, nearly three and a half hours after the Lib Dems’ support for the action, Mr Corbyn said: “The US missile attack on a Syrian government airbase risks escalating the war in Syria still further. Tuesday’s horrific chemical attack was a war crime which requires urgent independent UN investigation and those responsible must be held to account. But unilateral military action without legal authorisation or independent verification risks intensifying a multisided conflict that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.”
Michael Dugher, the former shadow cabinet minister, tweeted his disdain. One senior Labour figure called the statement “appalling”......
The statement contrasted with that of his deputy, Mr Watson, who told the Birmingham Mail that the strikes ordered by Mr Trump “appear to be a direct and proportionate response” to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, echoing the response of Downing Street. He added: “Indiscriminate chemical weapons attacks on civilians can never be tolerated and must have consequences. It’s clear from the nerve gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun this week that President Assad had retained a chemical weapons capability, contrary to what was agreed in 2013.”
Allies of Ms Griffith denied that she would resign despite privately supporting the strike.......
One critic, the former shadow cabinet minister Michael Dugher, tweeted: “Stop criticising Corbyn’s slow response: it takes time for Seumas [Milne, Labour’s strategy and communications director] to run the draft statement by the Kremlin, Stop the War + the Morning Star.”
Mr Corbyn’s office said that he would not be attending the Stop the War demonstration outside Downing Street last night.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/n...tack-l9mxb7fnh
Labour faced another day of turmoil after Jeremy Corbyn condemned the missile strikes in Syria to the disgust of many of his parliamentary colleagues.
The party leader warned that President Trump’s decision to take military action risked escalating a conflict that had already left hundreds of thousands of people dead. His statement ignored the views of his shadow defence secretary, Nia Griffith, and clashed with Tom Watson, his deputy, as he called on Theresa May to “urge restraint” on Mr Trump...... A number of Labour MPs, including the former leadership contender Mary Creagh, John Woodcock and Peter Kyle, also indicated their support for the US action, underlining the depth of Labour’s divisions on foreign affairs.
Mr Corbyn has long been a supporter of the Stop the War Coalition and an opponent of US military action abroad, and his opposition to military action in Syria and elsewhere has caused some of the biggest tensions in the party.
At 11.18am, nearly three and a half hours after the Lib Dems’ support for the action, Mr Corbyn said: “The US missile attack on a Syrian government airbase risks escalating the war in Syria still further. Tuesday’s horrific chemical attack was a war crime which requires urgent independent UN investigation and those responsible must be held to account. But unilateral military action without legal authorisation or independent verification risks intensifying a multisided conflict that has already killed hundreds of thousands of people.”
Michael Dugher, the former shadow cabinet minister, tweeted his disdain. One senior Labour figure called the statement “appalling”......
The statement contrasted with that of his deputy, Mr Watson, who told the Birmingham Mail that the strikes ordered by Mr Trump “appear to be a direct and proportionate response” to the Syrian regime’s use of chemical weapons, echoing the response of Downing Street. He added: “Indiscriminate chemical weapons attacks on civilians can never be tolerated and must have consequences. It’s clear from the nerve gas attack in Khan Sheikhoun this week that President Assad had retained a chemical weapons capability, contrary to what was agreed in 2013.”
Allies of Ms Griffith denied that she would resign despite privately supporting the strike.......
One critic, the former shadow cabinet minister Michael Dugher, tweeted: “Stop criticising Corbyn’s slow response: it takes time for Seumas [Milne, Labour’s strategy and communications director] to run the draft statement by the Kremlin, Stop the War + the Morning Star.”
Mr Corbyn’s office said that he would not be attending the Stop the War demonstration outside Downing Street last night.
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
I noticed that there seemed to be only two (reported - make of that what you will) outspoken voices against the attack on a Syrian airfield. One was Russia, the other was Corbyn..................
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Cambridge, England, EU
Posts: 3,438
Originally Posted by VP959
I noticed that there seemed to be only two (reported - make of that what you will) outspoken voices against the attack on a Syrian airfield. One was Russia, the other was Corbyn..................
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 74
Posts: 820
Sadly, we need to have more of these outspoken voices. It is depressing when you have the USA claiming Assad broke international law, then go on to do exactly the same, breaking international law. By all accounts, the raid wasn't as successful as claimed either, with a UK based Syrian opposition group claiming that 2 Syrian jets took off from the base this morning.
I have noticed the comments/explanations from experts re the possibility of the Sarin gas having been an ISIS stockpile which was hit by a conventional bomb. The experts say it can't have happened as the Sarin would have been destroyed by the explosion.
I understand that and have no argument with it.
How did the Sarin then survive being loaded into a bomb, dropped from an aircraft and exploded in the town without destroying the gas?
Or did the Syrian air force fly over the town with a huge Right Guard can, spraying the aerosol?
And while we are about it, what is all the fuss about so-called "barrel bombs" ? Surely, if something full of explosives is dropped from an aircraft onto people, houses etc, it hardly matters whether it came in a barrel or a MacDonalds paper bag. It is still nasty.
Is it a class thing? A barrel bomb would presumably cost very little to make whereas a Tomahawk costs in excess of $1Million and so is much more up-market than a barrel bomb!
I have noticed the comments/explanations from experts re the possibility of the Sarin gas having been an ISIS stockpile which was hit by a conventional bomb. The experts say it can't have happened as the Sarin would have been destroyed by the explosion.
I understand that and have no argument with it.
How did the Sarin then survive being loaded into a bomb, dropped from an aircraft and exploded in the town without destroying the gas?
Or did the Syrian air force fly over the town with a huge Right Guard can, spraying the aerosol?
And while we are about it, what is all the fuss about so-called "barrel bombs" ? Surely, if something full of explosives is dropped from an aircraft onto people, houses etc, it hardly matters whether it came in a barrel or a MacDonalds paper bag. It is still nasty.
Is it a class thing? A barrel bomb would presumably cost very little to make whereas a Tomahawk costs in excess of $1Million and so is much more up-market than a barrel bomb!
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: West Wiltshire, UK
Age: 69
Posts: 412
Originally Posted by KelvinD
I have noticed the comments/explanations from experts re the possibility of the Sarin gas having been an ISIS stockpile which was hit by a conventional bomb. The experts say it can't have happened as the Sarin would have been destroyed by the explosion.
I understand that and have no argument with it.
How did the Sarin then survive being loaded into a bomb, dropped from an aircraft and exploded in the town without destroying the gas?
Or did the Syrian air force fly over the town with a huge Right Guard can, spraying the aerosol?
I understand that and have no argument with it.
How did the Sarin then survive being loaded into a bomb, dropped from an aircraft and exploded in the town without destroying the gas?
Or did the Syrian air force fly over the town with a huge Right Guard can, spraying the aerosol?
If you put the stuff in a non-explosive shell, bomb or rocket case, as you might use to deliver something like sulphur mustard or chlorine, then all that happens is that you get a very, very localised effect, with large droplets that hit the ground and then decompose or evaporate. Sarin has an evaporation rate that is similar to water, so it just doesn't stay around long in the sort of conditions in Syria, in fact the only reliable way to detect it's been used is to trace it's products of decomposition.
So, to deliver an agent of this category effectively, you need a mechanism that will turn the payload into a very fine aerosol. Clearly this needs energy, but with a very modest temperature increase. There are obviously ways of doing this, but the technology is more sophisticated than the sort of backyard workshop stuff that the rebels have access to.
FWIW, developing effective dispersal systems was one of the biggest challenges in CW, before we agreed to cease doing it. At the time we stopped work on CW we were still struggling to come up with effective deployment mechanisms.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 64
Posts: 1,941
Poor kids are fat?
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Richard Burtonville, South Wales.
Posts: 2,130
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose
Poor kids are fat?
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
Free school meals: different argument.
CG
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The Luberon
Age: 70
Posts: 928
Around 20% of parents with children in fee paying schools say they would have to put theirs into state schools if Vat was levied. This would not only put further financial pressure on local authorities, the councils would have to pay for even more free meals for those extra children.
There is also the question of all those Labour politicians with children in private education, from MPs such as Abbott and heads of local authorities. The comrades would no doubt find a way to get the taxpayer to continue funding them.
There is also the question of all those Labour politicians with children in private education, from MPs such as Abbott and heads of local authorities. The comrades would no doubt find a way to get the taxpayer to continue funding them.
Join Date: Nov 2015
Location: Here
Posts: 318
Originally Posted by Wingswinger
Thornberry is more than a little overweight herself is she not? Too much champers and port? Too much foie gras?
It's almost as thought she's positioning herself for something ...
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Southwold
Age: 70
Posts: 62
Originally Posted by yellowtriumph
I don't know about that, but have you noticed in the last few months that she will appear on any tv programme and speak on just about any topic?
It's almost as thought she's positioning herself for something ...
It's almost as thought she's positioning herself for something ...
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: West Country
Posts: 1,270
Originally Posted by Seldomfitforpurpose
Poor kids are fat?
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
'Poor children are overweight' - Emily Thornberry defends free school meal plan - BBC News
just barking feckin mad.
Yes - it is barking, because poor kids already get free school meals.
All this proposal does is give free meals to the offspring of parents who can afford to pay themselves..
Resident insomniac
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: N54 58 34 W02 01 21
Age: 77
Posts: 1,870
When were 'Free School Meals' introduced?
I started school in 1949. There were certainly 'undernourished' (and poorly-clothed) children in my class - right up until 1955 (when we 'privileged' children went our way to grammar school and the 'poor' went to secondary modern).
In 1944, the United Kingdom required local authorities to provide school dinners that were consistent with legal nutritional requirements. The government paid the full cost of school meals in 1947.
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Oxon
Age: 64
Posts: 1,941
My experience of grammar School selection was that the 11+ was **** all to do with income and everything to do with intelligence. I failed it and went to the local Comp and my younger brother passed it and went to Grammar School and plenty of others on our council estate did exactly the same.
