Support NeoGAF

[Cromat]

The 'centre left' have been in control of the Labour party for nearly two decades, during which time, to the best of my knowledge, the full-blooded left have never thrown all the toys out of the pram and tried everything in their power to overthrow the leader and replace him with their preference (Blairites vs Brownites I guess is the closest to this, but it's not like Brown, in practice, was very much different to Blair).

Now that the left does have control of the party, the centre-left are doing just that. Every single one of their arguments (we have to have a debate with the Tory party, we have to appeal to the voters, we have to remember the people who need our help) have gone out of the window in favour of trying to overthrow a democratically elected leader to get what they want, with apparently no concern for the fact that it's destroying their party credibility and can only end with Labour being out of power for the forseeable future. Calling them Tory-lite isn't intended as an empty insult; they've demonstrated over the past two months that they really do sit closer to the Tories on a wide range of issues than they do to the actual left wing of their own party.

Did Corbyn vote against his conscience just because Blair was leader of the party? No. So why should the centre-left now act in blind loyalty against their convictions?

If the centre-left of the Labour party are Tory-lite, then perhaps that's what they believe is the right path for the country. What I don't like is the insinuation that each and every one of them is somehow betraying their principles or selling out by being 'Tory-lite'. It's delegitimization of their views.

Yes, Corbyn was elected on unprecedented support from his base, and he is still extremely popular with them. But that core of support is not necessarily identical to Labour voters at large. I think the expectation that Labour MPs who are centre-left should suddenly become Morning Star subscribers because Corbyn was elected is unrealistic and honestly unfair.

 

[twobear]

Did Corbyn vote against his conscience just because Blair was leader of the party? No. So why should the centre-left now act in blind loyalty against their convictions?

If the centre-left of the Labour party are Tory-lite, then perhaps that's what they believe is the right path for the country. What I don't like is the insinuation that each and every one of them is somehow betraying their principles or selling out by being 'Tory-lite'. It's delegitimization of their views.

Yes, Corbyn was elected on unprecedented support from his base, and he is still extremely popular with them. But that core of support is not necessarily identical to Labour voters at large. I think the expectation that Labour MPs who are centre-left should suddenly become Morning Star subscribers because Corbyn was elected is unrealistic and honestly unfair.

I'm not saying they're selling out on their views, only that their views constitute something much closer to the Tory vision of how the country should be than what the left thinks. That's pretty much inarguable, no?

 

[Cromat]

I'm not saying they're selling out on their views, only that their views constitute something much closer to the Tory vision of how the country should be than what the left thinks. That's pretty much inarguable, no?

That's fair. Honestly both parties are more centrist today than they were in the past, that's a common trend among established democracies.

 

[twobear]

That's fair. Honestly both parties are more centrist today than they were in the past, that's a common trend among established democracies.

And what the left have been saying for a while is that the 'centre' in contemporary British politics is actually wildly right-wing; privatisation, low government spending, minimal government involvement in markets, etc.

 

[ultratruman]

'iResigned' is a pretty apt typo, I can see Corbyn announcing his resignation on twitter before telling anyone.

 

[Cromat]

And what the left have been saying for a while is that the 'centre' in contemporary British politics is actually wildly right-wing; privatisation, low government spending, minimal government involvement in markets, etc.

It's true that the Centre doesn't challenge the free market paradigm, but there is still a difference between Keynesian economics, which supports public spending, and neo-classical economics which is more about reducing spending and taxation. Also, the Centre is socially progressive thanks to the Left, whether it's women's rights, gay rights, ethnic diversity and so forth.

 

[CyclopsRock]

And what the left have been saying for a while is that the 'centre' in contemporary British politics is actually wildly right-wing; privatisation, low government spending, minimal government involvement in markets, etc.

Privatisation, low government spending, electable etc.

Edit: Also, New Labour massively increased spending in a lot of key areas, most noticeably health and education. They did what they did, they *got elected* (which is the point of political parties, let's not forget) and used the lovely, lovely tax money to do what they thought was right. They helped a lot of people, all thanks to - tada - being elected.

 

[twobear]

Privatisation, low government spending, electable etc.

This is the part where I point out that the majority of the population actually support renationalising the railways, right?

Edit: Also, New Labour massively increased spending in a lot of key areas, most noticeably health and education. They did what they did, they *got elected* (which is the point of political parties, let's not forget) and used the lovely, lovely tax money to do what they thought was right. They helped a lot of people, all thanks to - tada - being elected.

Again, if this is the argument of the right wing of the Labour party, then do they think that destroying the Labour party, ruining whatever credibility they have, and almost certainly splitting Labour into two parties is the way to go about it? It doesn't take much to see that's probably not a winning strategy. It would seem that 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' is an aphorism they're unfamiliar with.

 

[Quixzlizx]

If ISIS media propaganda tells you the West will come destroy your homeland, but they don't come and start massively bombing every corner of your town or city....then you are less likely to pay attention to it and write them off as being radical nutters.

If ISIS media propaganda tells you the West will come destroy your homeland and then bombs come and take away everything from you and leave nothing, then anger and hate will easily drive you to arms with nothing else left.

A commitment should first be made across the world to give these people aid, education, resources and development before we bomb their homes and then duck out and leave them with nothing.

Otherwise we are making the same mistakes. Corbyn is thinking forward and if people can't see that then it has all gone to shit.

ISIS media propaganda is targeted toward people not in Syria.

 

[Goodlife]

David Cameron had the entire nation talk about that one time when he drunkenly put his dick inside a dead pig's mouth when he was 18, and while that is admittedly hilarious it doesn't really have any relevance to his performance as PM. .

That was mentioned once, in one paper.

Corbyn gets ripped apart and called all kinds of things for the most mundane of comments

EDIT: not even for comments.... Remember when he didn't quite bow low enough etc etc

 

[CyclopsRock]

This is the part where I point out that the majority of the population actually support renationalising the railways, right?

I get the feeling that if Blair had renationalised the railways, your view of him would have been largely the same though. That's a single policy.

Again, if this is the argument of the right wing of the Labour party, then do they think that destroying the Labour party, ruining whatever credibility they have, and almost certainly splitting Labour into two parties is the way to go about it? It doesn't take much to see that's probably not a winning strategy. It would seem that 'cutting off your nose to spite your face' is an aphorism they're unfamiliar with.

Well the question is whether it will split. That would be a disaster for the left but, of all the things you mention (ruining credibility, destroying Labour etc) is exactly what they think Corbyn is doing. They're right too. It's the same as the Eurosceptic back bench Tories who are determined that what the Tories need to do is campaign vigorously for an EU exit, only they're wrong about that. But in all cases, they *do* think they're doing what's ultimately for the good of the party even if not in the short term. And no, none of the other candidates would have lit a bonfire of excitement in the electorate, but this fact doesn't negate Corbyn's problems. I doubt any of them would have split the party, though.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Well the question is whether it will split. That would be a disaster for the left but, of all the things you mention (ruining credibility, destroying Labour etc) is exactly what they think Corbyn is doing. They're right too. It's the same as the Eurosceptic back bench Tories who are determined that what the Tories need to do is campaign vigorously for an EU exit, only they're wrong about that. But in all cases, they *do* think they're doing what's ultimately for the good of the party even if not in the short term. And no, none of the other candidates would have lit a bonfire of excitement in the electorate, but this fact doesn't negate Corbyn's problems. I doubt any of them would have split the party, though.

Okay, but suppose you are, e.g., Chuka Umunna now. You are a genuine New Labour faithful; you believe generally in policies that are somewhat to the left of the centre of public opinion, but you prioritize electability, because failing to be elected means no leftwing policies get implemented and that's bad for the country and vulnerable people. You think you have sufficient reason to believe that Corbyn is unelectable, which means he is bad for the country and vulnerable people. You also know that he is hugely popular with the party membership; the party membership also control who becomes the leader. What do you do?

The most obvious thing you have to do is win over the party membership. They love Corbyn. They approve of him more than they did when he was elected. The more you attack Corbyn in public, the worse you appear to the Labour membership, the less chance you can get a not-Corbyn leader. To win over the party membership, you need to show you understand their concerns. That means renouncing the New Labour/Blairite clique, to proceed you're going to need your own brand. It means moving away from groups like Progress which are now despised by the base. You need to appear like you're putting the party ahead of yourself, which means at least openly being supportive or at least not hostile towards Corbyn.

None of these things are happening. If the concern of the New Labour faithful is that they need to get an electable leader, they're doing 100% of the least helpful things to making that happen.

 

[twobear]

I get the feeling that if Blair had renationalised the railways, your view of him would have been largely the same though. That's a single policy.

Sure, but it demonstrates that support for privatisation and being electable come apart in a way that you don't seem ready to acknowledge.

 

[BriareosGAF]

American here, this stuff is fascinating to watch, and I'm glad to see this discussion in public, frankly. Party politics have always struck me as very unhealthy (and our move towards rank choice voting on the municipal and state level here in the US will hopefully help dismantle that by making third party candidates outside the binary viable), so hopefully we get political decision making here more in line with the wishes of the public.

 

[SomethingInTheSea]

If you'd be so kind as to remind me.. how much voice did the UK get in the strategy and "political solutions" in afghanistan?

...right.



Could you please provide a citation?

I'm mainly thinking of this article;

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nnot-envisage-sending-british-troops-overseas

Asked by Kendall whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy military forces, Corbyn said: “Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment.”

In a Guardian interview last month, Corbyn suggested that the threshold for sanctioning armed intervention by Britain would have to involve a conflict on the scale of the second world war. Asked if he was a pacifist, Corbyn said: “It is hard to define. I am person that has a very high threshold of saying I would not wish to be involved in armed conflict. The question always comes back to the second world war.”

 

[CyclopsRock]

Okay, but suppose you are, e.g., Chuka Umunna now. You are a genuine New Labour faithful; you believe generally in policies that are somewhat to the left of the centre of public opinion, but you prioritize electability, because failing to be elected means no leftwing policies get implemented and that's bad for the country and vulnerable people. You think you have sufficient reason to believe that Corbyn is unelectable, which means he is bad for the country and vulnerable people. You also know that he is hugely popular with the party membership; the party membership also control who becomes the leader. What do you do?

IMO what they need to do is get ready for a glorious, bloody coup whilst getting into place an alternative to Corbyn who they can work with. It's clear that the Labour membership won't vote for a blairite or anyone associated with it, which is fair enough - but there can be alternatives that are far more electable than Corbyn but who are still left of the Umana's and Kendal's whom the membership can take to. Burnham was shit, but Jarvis is fairly left of centre and he's sexy as fuck. Just as an example, but I'm sure Umana and co would be a lot happier with him in charge than Corby. Who wouldn't be though eh?

Sure, but it demonstrates that support for privatisation and being electable come apart in a way that you don't seem ready to acknowledge.

Cause something being supported isn't the same as it being an electoral boon. It's not like Thatcher, Major and then Blair lacked a mandate to do what they did. The public had plenty of opportunities to vote for Party's that would halt and reverse the privatisations of the 80s and 90s and they only time they voted for Labour was to vote for the guy who publicly ripped up Clause 4. Ed offered to kinda-sorta renationalised bits of the railway system but obviously other things were more important to the electorate. Basically I think most people don't give much of a shit whether their train is nationalised or not.

 

[twobear]

Remember that time that the unelectable Corbyn completely destroyed in an election the eminently electable Burnham?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

IMO what they need to do is get ready for a glorious, bloody coup whilst getting into place an alternative to Corbyn who they can work with. It's clear that the Labour membership won't vote for a blairite or anyone associated with it, which is fair enough - but there can be alternatives that are far more electable than Corbyn but who are still left of the Umana's and Kendal's whom the membership can take to. Burnham was shit, but Jarvis is fairly left of centre and he's sexy as fuck. Just as an example, but I'm sure Umana and co would be a lot happier with him in charge than Corby. Who wouldn't be though eh?

They can't launch that coup without popular support though. If Corbyn still has the support of the party membership and a coup is launched, even if Dan Jarvis is the stalking horse, it isn't going to go down well. So "getting ready for the coup" really means shutting up and sitting tight. If Corbyn fails on his own terms, people will be willing to have a coup much faster than if the "moderates" are trying to trip him the whole way. People hate the moderates, so the more they try to trip Corbyn up, the more people like Corbyn.

 

[liquidtmd]

Whether you or I like the guy or not, the attitude of the Party overall is disgraceful, childish, petty and immature

Labours own reaction to JC is far more destructive than anything JC could say or do.

 

[twobear]

Cause something being supported isn't the same as it being an electoral boon. It's not like Thatcher, Major and then Blair lacked a mandate to do what they did. The public had plenty of opportunities to vote for Party's that would halt and reverse the privatisations of the 80s and 90s and they only time they voted for Labour was to vote for the guy who publicly ripped up Clause 4. Ed offered to kinda-sorta renationalised bits of the railway system but obviously other things were more important to the electorate. Basically I think most people don't give much of a shit whether their train is nationalised or not.

So then you agree with me, support for privatisation and electability aren't related.

 

[hohoXD123]

Whether you or I like the guy or not, the attitude of the Party overall is disgraceful, childish, petty and immature

Labours own reaction to JC is far more destructive than anything JC could say or do.

Pretty much my thinking. The fact that it's not even just some backbenchers doing this but people he specifically chose to be in the cabinet makes it look even worse.

 

[nelsonroyale]

The Labour party are a shambles. It is becoming increasingly clear of the contradictions within the party. I kind of hope it tears itself apart and Corby and those with some progressive/equitable credentials leave and form a new party. It seems pretty fucked to me considering how he Corbyn got a firm backing by membership, but the MPs seem to pretty out of wack with the membership.

The media in this country have been a disgrace on this and many other issues. Highly partisan and hysterical reporting on Corbyn.

 

[RobotNinjaHornets]

What's so great about Jarvis, out of interest? The only things I know about him are A) He's a Labour MP B) He's ex-military C) ...no that's it.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

What's so great about Jarvis, out of interest? The only things I know about him are A) He's a Labour MP B) He's ex-military C) ...no that's it.

Son of a teacher and a prison warden, so low-to-middle class backgrounds, from the Midlands, which is electorally the most important part of the UK, genuine lifelong football fan who only narrowly avoided being at Hillsborough as a child, so 'man of the people', didn't go to Oxbridge, so he isn't a hack, joined the military, so obviously a patriot, had extremely successful career and was recognised with honours, so a really fucking good patriot, Labour member since 18, so lifelong Labour background that appeals to the party, only elected in 2011, so no real connections to past fuckups, gave up political advancement immediately after the death of his wife to look after his children, so family man with tragic backstory, has spent most of his political career so far defending the NHS, so good on Labour's key issues, and is somewhat to the left of the PLP (although no way near to the extent Corbyn is), so appealing to the membership.

To quote Tucker, he's unfuckable. The only thing that might sink him is that Progress have being trying to take him under their wing and he's been pretty responsive, which is a career dead-end move for Labour politicians right now. It paints you as a Blairite even if ideologically you aren't really.

 

[Goodlife]

If Jarvis keeps his nose clean, he's got a very good chance of becoming the next Labour leader.
But he doesn't want it at the moment (his kids are still quite young iirc)

Labour need to stick with (and get behind) Corbyn until the election.

If a miracle happens and Corbyn wins, great, serve a term and hand over to Jarvis.

If not, then Corbyn leaves as leader, Jarvis puts his name in the hat and probably gets elected as leader ready for 2023.

There is nobody at the moment who can lead Labour to a guaranteed victory.... Stick with what you've got, offer a real alternative and you never know what'll happen.

 

[peanutbutterlatte]

Ooh a "genuine life long football fan", just what I want in a leader.

 

[liquidtmd]

Ooh a "genuine life long football fan", just what I want in a leader.

Psssh football, David Cameron is a Morrissey fan but What Difference Does it Make?

 

[Souldestroyer Reborn]

Corbyn is nothing short of an absolute joke who should resign with immediate effect unless he wants to drag the Labour Party down with him.

I'd actually go as far to say that if JC was ever elected PM, I would literally leave the country. Not even joking or exaggerating.

 

[Giant Panda]

So the disagreement seems to be over whether Labor MPs should be loyal to the party membership, or the voters at large. I think the voters at large should take precedence, and there is nothing wrong with kicking Corbyn from leadership. Labor's best chance at the next election is ditching Corbyn ASAP and hoping the party has settled down by then. Even the left and far-left refusing to vote labor would probably hurt less than for Corbyn's ideas. Another good alternative is Corbyn voluntarily moderating his views to closer match voters' preferences, but he might never be able to shake the first, and accurate, impression that his views are far-left nonsense.

 

[CyclopsRock]

Remember that time that the unelectable Corbyn completely destroyed in an election the eminently electable Burnham?

And no, none of the other candidates would have lit a bonfire of excitement in the electorate, but this fact doesn't negate Corbyn's problems. I doubt any of them would have split the party, though.

Nope.

 

[phisheep]

So the disagreement seems to be over whether Labor MPs should be loyal to the party membership, or the voters at large. I think the voters at large should take precedence, and there is nothing wrong with kicking Corbyn from leadership. Labor's best chance at the next election is ditching Corbyn ASAP and hoping the party has settled down by then. Even the left and far-left refusing to vote labor would probably hurt less than for Corbyn's ideas. Another good alternative is Corbyn voluntarily moderating his views to closer match voters' preferences, but he might never be able to shake the first, and accurate, impression that his views are far-left nonsense.

I disagree. It is too late for that, because if Corbyn is deposed and replaced by someone more "electable" there remains the ever-present threat that in time he too could be deposed in a sudden lurch to the left. That would leave very many voters nervous.

Labour's best - and I think only - chance in the next General Election is to come to an accommodation between the different wings of the party, something along the lines of the last government's Coalition Agreement, that head-on addresses policy differences and red lines and builds out of them something resembling sensible policy.

If that can be pulled off it will be a good deal for Labour. Heck, if it can even be started it'll be a good deal for Labour.

 

[CyclopsRock]

They can't launch that coup without popular support though. If Corbyn still has the support of the party membership and a coup is launched, even if Dan Jarvis is the stalking horse, it isn't going to go down well. So "getting ready for the coup" really means shutting up and sitting tight. If Corbyn fails on his own terms, people will be willing to have a coup much faster than if the "moderates" are trying to trip him the whole way. People hate the moderates, so the more they try to trip Corbyn up, the more people like Corbyn.

Eh, I disagree. They don't need to replace him, just shoot him in the back of the head in the woods. They need to be Heseltine, not Major.

So then you agree with me, support for privatisation and electability aren't related.

Nope, they absolutely are. People don't care if their trains are nationalised because basically they're fine, but they care that they have a choice of telecoms providers and that stuff isn't totally shit like they were when the government was being constantly raped over a barrel by the unions in the 70s. If stuff was that bad now, I suspect they'd be far more inclined to support nationalisation.

 

[Coriolanus]

I'm mainly thinking of this article;

http://www.theguardian.com/politics...nnot-envisage-sending-british-troops-overseas

Asked by Kendall whether there were any circumstances in which he would deploy military forces, Corbyn said: “Any? I am sure there are some. But I can’t think of them at the moment.”

In a Guardian interview last month, Corbyn suggested that the threshold for sanctioning armed intervention by Britain would have to involve a conflict on the scale of the second world war. Asked if he was a pacifist, Corbyn said: “It is hard to define. I am person that has a very high threshold of saying I would not wish to be involved in armed conflict. The question always comes back to the second world war.”

Both of those show quite well that the threshold is merely Very High, as it should be. Not that it is impossible.

You can currently see what it is with his demands for support of syrian intervention: having a long-term, realistic plan for improvement and UN backing.

One should keep in mind that the alternative is Doing What Has Always Been Done, which has quite the track record of Making The Problem Worse.

Eh, I disagree. They don't need to replace him, just shoot him in the back of the head in the woods. They need to be Heseltine, not Major.

I agree, comrade. Nothing would bring the Red Revolution quicker than a martyr.

I'd actually go as far to say that if JC was ever elected PM, I would literally leave the country. Not even joking or exaggerating.

And what would Czar Corbyn do that scares you oh so very much, my friend?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Ooh a "genuine life long football fan", just what I want in a leader.

I'm not personally giving that as a selling point, I'm just saying these take away avenues attack that the rightwing papers like to use (e.g., "out of touch").

 

[Yen]

Corbyn is nothing short of an absolute joke who should resign with immediate effect unless he wants to drag the Labour Party down with him.

I'd actually go as far to say that if JC was ever elected PM, I would literally leave the country. Not even joking or exaggerating.

You know, I think you might be exaggerating.

 

[Nicktendo86]

Corbyn said on Marr today its the leader who decides on airstrikes.

So much for consensus politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ll-choose-position-on-Syrian-air-strikes.html

 

[RetroDLC]

Corbyn said on Marr today its the leader who decides on airstrikes.

So much for consensus politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ll-choose-position-on-Syrian-air-strikes.html

As he should, as long that it reflects the opinion of the supporters of the party.

 

[funkypie]

I personally find him and his allies a joke. Ones an ira appoloist who thinks its ok to quote Moa. The other Diane Abbott clueless as ever, thinks Moa did something right lol.

It's not just corbyn people dislike, the idiots he surrounds himself with to.

 

[Jezbollah]

As he should, as long that it reflects the opinion of the supporters of the party.

Is the supporters the members of the party or the greater population who voted for Labour?

It's not just corbyn people dislike, the idiots he surrounds himself with to.

I think this is very true.

 

[Nicktendo86]

As he should, as long that it reflects the opinion of the supporters of the party.

Again I ask the question, did he believe the leader should decide when he voted against the whip 300+ times or is it do as he says, not as he does?

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Again I ask the question, did he believe the leader should decide when he voted against the whip 300+ times or is it do as he says, not as he does?

To quote the Telegraph:

Labour leader defiant in TV interview as he tells shadow cabinet colleagues to 'think again' on bombing and warns plotters: '“I am not going anywhere'

Corbyn was a rebel from the backbench. You cannot be a rebel from the frontbench. If you are in the frontbench and you want to rebel, you resign. Then you can do as much rebelling as you like. There is nothing inconsistent about Corbyn's actions.

 

[Nicktendo86]

You don't think it's slightly ludicrous that one of the most rebellious mps ever is now saying his mps should do as told?

The whole thing is a farce.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

You don't think it's slightly ludicrous that one of the most rebellious mps ever is now saying his mps should do as told?

The whole thing is a farce.

He's saying his shadow cabinet should do as they're told. That is an entirely different matter, and an entirely reasonable one at that.

 

[travisbickle]

UK will probably end up bombing Syria because as they say, war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.

 

[Tak3n]

Fallen is such a war monger, loves to go to war, of course there is a chance Paris type attacks can happan in London, just like there is a fucking chance a bus can come crashing through my house....

he is playing bullshit bingo

 

[Lirlond]

UK will probably end up bombing Syria because as they say, war can only be abolished through war, and in order to get rid of the gun it is necessary to take up the gun.

Bombing Syria will do nothing. All the European terrorists are armed in Brussels, any terror attack in the UK will be committed by UK citizens.

 

[Kadayi]

Only answer I have is 'satisfy our lust for revenge' and 'make good headlines as "decisive action"'. Neither passes the test.

What good would airstrikes do? Did you think we were negotiating before and were just holding off on wiping ISIS out? It's a guerrilla movement that's split up into well dug-in cells. Dropping bombs won't cut it.

ISIS are not Al Qaeda. It's a mistake to see them in that manner. They are religious fanatics who are trying to provoke the west into a land war in the region in order to fulfill a religious prophesy that leads to their version of Armageddon. Being carpet bombed into fish paste from on high isn't what the scriptures ordered. That is not a form of war they can win.

http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/03/what-isis-really-wants/384980/

 

[Moosichu]

I personally find him and his allies a joke. Ones an ira appoloist who thinks its ok to quote Moa. The other Diane Abbott clueless as ever, thinks Moa did something right lol.

It's not just corbyn people dislike, the idiots he surrounds himself with to.

You do realise McDonnell quoted Mao because it's been the Conservatives selling our land and assets to China right?

 

[mr-paul]

Corbyn said on Marr today its the leader who decides on airstrikes.

So much for consensus politics.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pol...ll-choose-position-on-Syrian-air-strikes.html

I was watching this, and I believe the question was whether the shadow cabinet or he decides if it's a whipped vote. He said it's his decision. What would the point of there being a leader if it was all done by committee? You're spinning it awfully there by saying it's "him who decides on airstrikes."

Of course, he's made his view clear on the matter, that he's against airstrikes, but he hasn't decided yet how he'll proceed with a vote. I think he'll be sensible and if the majority of the party are for airstrikes he'll give a free vote to avoid embarrassment to his leadership.

I do think more people are coming around to the sensible view that joining in airstrikes wouldn't achieve anything. The government clearly aren't confident of getting a vote through, hence the scaremongering from Fallon.

 

[Kuros]

You do realise McDonnell quoted Mao because it's been the Conservatives selling our land and assets to China right?

Yes and it went down like a lead balloon. Hence why his team edited it out when he tweeted a video of his official response hrs after the autumn statement.

I self proclaimed socialist chancellor brandishing the little red book at the dispatch box. What the fuck was he thinking. There were plenty of ways of making the point about the Chinese buying assets but surely not that one.