Hilary Benn

[1066familyman]

And of course the everything is wonderful under the Tories, who, of course, never change.

Under New Labour, a decline in the NHS was reversed. Minimum wage introduced, etc etc. I could go on but I haven't got all night!

Under New Labour left wingers were sold a pup, simple as that I'm afraid. I only voted for them because anything is better than a Tory for me and I live in a marginal. Corbyn is like a breath of fresh of air for me, and I think you'll be surprised by for how many others he is too.

 

[Igzilla]

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/10/10/middleeast/turkey-ankara-bomb-blast/

Not sure Daesh claimed that one and they're normally quick off the mark. I'm happy to be proved wrong. There was some tin foil hattery about it being the Turkish state getting rid of undesirables, but I don't know. my thoughts were more of around a concerted destabilisation attempt, as they seem to have a few sympathisers there already...

 

[Eeyore]

Agreed. I am just concerned we are sleep-walking into WW3

War is very different these days. It's fought in stock exchanges and aside oil pipe lines. We don't blow people up quite so much, we just make them poor.

 

[drew]

Under New Labour left wingers were sold a pup, simple as that I'm afraid. I only voted for them because anything is better than a Tory for me and I live in a marginal. Corbyn is like a breath of fresh of air for me, and I think you'll be surprised by for how many others he is too.

That's your view. My view is that he left are living in cloud cuckoo land if they think they will ever get into power with Corbyn in charge. He has a majority of the membership behind him and that is about 400,000. That roughly translates into only 615 per constituency out of roughly 100,000.

And that pisses me off because it means we are left with the Tories.

 

[Tarpon]

Couple of weeks ago Mr Benn was against bombing...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-two-weeks-before-voting-for-it-a6758886.html

Extract

Mr Benn was asked whether the Government should bring forward a vote on bombing Isis in Syria, which was at that time not planned. He replied:

“No. They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.


To move position so much in a short space of time is somewhat surprising...some might suggest the platform and opportunity offered had something to do with it...

Apols if fixtures.

 

[drew]

Couple of weeks ago Mr Benn was against bombing...

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-two-weeks-before-voting-for-it-a6758886.html

Extract

Mr Benn was asked whether the Government should bring forward a vote on bombing Isis in Syria, which was at that time not planned. He replied:

“No. They have to come up with an overall plan, which they have not done. I think the focus for now is finding a peaceful solution to the civil war.


To move position so much in a short space of time is somewhat surprising...some might suggest the platform and opportunity offered had something to do with it...

Apols if fixtures.

I'm guessing that was before Paris.

EDIT: Having read the article it seems it was just after the attacks. That said, (and as Buzzer has pointed out, it was before the UN resolution) why can't he, after further consideration, reconsider his position on the matter. Don't forget it would seem the comments were after Paris but probably before the lock down on Belgium.

Alternatively, are JC's supporters now going to claim the rebel Labour MPs voted to send our armed forces into an extension of an existing conflict to merely to score political points and undermine their leader

 

[Buzzer]

I'm guessing that was before Paris.

It was certainly before the UN resolution that Corbyn said was a pre-condition before voting for air-strikes.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

As the Shadow Foreign Secretary he was unlikely to be giving his personal view rather the collective view of the Labour party led by Corbyn at that moment. Once a free vote was announced he could argue his view.

 

[Tarpon]

As the Shadow Foreign Secretary he was unlikely to be giving his personal view rather the collective view of the Labour party led by Corbyn at that moment. Once a free vote was announced he could argue his view.

True & in which case he is not the principled conviction politician some seem to believe him to be.

 

[Tarpon]

I'm guessing that was before Paris.

EDIT: Having read the article it seems it was just after the attacks. That said, (and as Buzzer has pointed out, it was before the UN resolution) why can't he, after further consideration, reconsider his position on the matter. Don't forget it would seem the comments were after Paris but probably before the lock down on Belgium.

Alternatively, are JC's supporters now going to claim the rebel Labour MPs voted to send our armed forces into an extension of an existing conflict to merely to score political points and undermine their leader

No problem with him or others reconsidering their positions. Hell of a shift though and no mention of his change of mind or the need for an overall plan in his much lauded speech. It just doesn't sit well with me on this occasion. Having said that little does with anything from politicians so I need to factor that in I suppose...no doubt Mr Benn will explain all in due course.

 

[Buzzer]

True & in which case he is not the principled conviction politician some seem to believe him to be.

People who change their mind cannot be principled nor have convictions?

So when Corbyn says he might campaign to leave the EU one week and commit himself firmly to it the next; when he supports the fiscal charter and then doesn't,; when he says he'll demand a whip for the Syria vote and then change his mind; when he couldn't support a shooting of armed terrorists one day and the next he's writing to the NEC saying he supports "whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required" this is all different because...it's Corbyn. And he's principled.

Not like other politicians.

 

[JC Footy Genius]

True & in which case he is not the principled conviction politician some seem to believe him to be.

He was prepared to vote against the Leaders position even with a whipped vote which suggests he has principled and deeply held convictions on this issue. On the other hand he wasn't going to resign forcing Corbyn to sack him if he had made it a 3 line whip which is a bit underhand or clever depending on your point of view.

 

[Tarpon]

People who change their mind cannot be principled nor have convictions?

So when Corbyn says he might campaign to leave the EU one week and commit himself firmly to it the next; when he supports the fiscal charter and then doesn't,; when he says he'll demand a whip for the Syria vote and then change his mind; when he couldn't support a shooting of armed terrorists one day and the next he's writing to the NEC saying he supports "whatever proportionate and strictly necessary force is required" this is all different because...it's Corbyn. And he's principled.

Not like other politicians.

Well that's not what I said is it? The reply you quote was responding to the statement below:

As the Shadow Foreign Secretary he was unlikely to be giving his personal view rather the collective view of the Labour party led by Corbyn at that moment. Once a free vote was announced he could argue his view.

My comment is based on the opinion that a principled conviction politician would have a major problem not giving their personal view on such an important issue if it differed from the collective view of their party. If you are only willing to speak your mind when the free vote is announced it implies you would have voted with a hard party whip and against your convictions if you had been required to do so.

The two points of not giving a personal view in certain circumstances and being able to change your mind have been conflated.

 

[Tarpon]

He was prepared to vote against the Leaders position even with a whipped vote which suggests he has principled and deeply held convictions on this issue. On the other hand he wasn't going to resign forcing Corbyn to sack him if he had made it a 3 line whip which is a bit underhand or clever depending on your point of view.

Sorry - you've lost me there.
Anywhen I think I've clarified the reason for my comment in my prior reply to [MENTION=5200]Buzzer[/MENTION]

Overall I'm afraid I struggle with hearing such an impassioned and emotional speech supporting bombing from someone who only a short period before publicly stated they did not back such action & is being held up as a man of principle.

 

[Buzzer]

Well that's not what I said is it?

I read your second response as just further clarification of your first post. I could have quoted either the second or the first such as this:

To move position so much in a short space of time is somewhat surprising...some might suggest the platform and opportunity offered had something to do with it...

and this makes clear to me your opinions on the matter. Corbyn changed his mind even more quickly on all the points I mentioned than Benn did on Syria. Why did he do that? Principles or political expediency? Do you not find it strange that a man who is lauded for his long-held convictions can complete a volte-face on 4 very different subjects so rapidly? And why do you so readily give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt here but look for the very worst in Benn?

And I think you're speculating here that Benn would not have voted against the whip. By all accounts, there were threats of mass resignations and voting against the whip from the shadow cabinet if Corbyn didn't offer a free vote. Given how passionately Benn clearly feels about this issue then I can quite easily believe that he would have defied the whip if it had come to it alongside Eagles and others.

 

[Behind Enemy Lines]

Agreed. But the backbenchers (and some cabinet members) have got to stop sniping at Corbyn. The bullying attacks on pro-bombing MPs are disgraceful but so are the secret briefings and press leaks against the leader. Corbyn is protected by a hefty majority and is going nowhere, the MPs have to realise that and look for a way they can work as a single party. As Benjamin Franklin said, they must, indeed, all hang together or, most assuredly, they shall all hang separately

Agree, it works both ways. People need to give him a chance but he must also cut out the stupid, niaive mistakes. The
problem Corbyn has is that as someone who has rebelled hundreds of times it's very difficult for him to now spearhead a united party line. Now on going to war that's fine, you say it's a matter of conscience, and rightly, but on other more bread and butter issues that's going to mean division and a danger the party lacks clarity.

It's a tricky situation. The party membership seem to back him ( although many are unhappy with the direction of travel) whilst he will never have the support of the majority of labour MPs. It's still early days of course but it's not a happy ship at the moment and right now, it's difficult to see how things can turn round. Who knows how this will end.

 

[Tarpon]

I read your second response as just further clarification of your first post. I could have quoted either the second or the first such as this:




and this makes clear to me your opinions on the matter. Corbyn changed his mind even more quickly on all the points I mentioned than Benn did on Syria. Why did he do that? Principles or political expediency? Do you not find it strange that a man who is lauded for his long-held convictions can complete a volte-face on 4 very different subjects so rapidly? And why do you so readily give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt here but look for the very worst in Benn?

And I think you're speculating here that Benn would not have voted against the whip. By all accounts, there were threats of mass resignations and voting against the whip from the shadow cabinet if Corbyn didn't offer a free vote. Given how passionately Benn clearly feels about this issue then I can quite easily believe that he would have defied the whip if it had come to it alongside Eagles and others.

They were separate responses to different points being raised.
I mentioned that I thought they were being conflated.
You've chosen to link them and made a conclusion on my opinion as a result.
That's your prerogative of course but, despite the repetition and just for the avoidance of doubt:

At no point have I stated that people who change their minds cannot be principled or have convictions.

All I have done is express my doubts about Mr Benn in these particular circumstances.
I believe I have reasonable grounds to do so and it appears you do not. I'm sure neither of us will lose sleep over it.

Lastly, you keep referencing Corbyn in your replies to me, asking on one occasion And why do you so readily give Corbyn the benefit of the doubt here . I'm not sure how you have reached this conclusion or why you keep referring to him. I haven't mentioned him in this exchange or thread (entitled Hilary Benn last time I looked) at all, I'm not aware that I have ever readily given him the benefit of the doubt or why you think I should necessarily look at Corbyn ahead of (m)any others. Your challenges suggest you believe I am an unquestioning Corbyn acolyte. If this is the case you've either mixed me up with someone else or made some lazy assumptions I'm afraid.

Anywho off to bed. I need my sleep as another day of capitalist subjugation awaits! Toodle pip.

PS where have your regular music posts gone?

 

[Castello]

Hopefully his speech will have hastened the resignation of the present incumbent.

and yet the voters of Oldham think differently

 

[Chicken Run]

and yet the voters of Oldham think differently

Yeah good point, less than the general election.

 

[Papa Lazarou]

Is it Red Tory or Blue Labour - you know the phrase labour activists call labour MPs who aren't quite left wing enough, and agree with every view they hold?

e.g. how can we deselect Peter Kyle - the Blue Labour ****? (taken from the People's Republic of Brighton & Hove Facebook Page)

I'd guess he's one of those.