# Parliamentary vote on bombing Syria



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

John Humphrys on BBC's Radio 4 was giving Maria Eagle, the Shadow Sectretary of State for Defence, something of a hard time this morning. He seemed to be of the opinion that we should bomb Syria and seemed to be very annoyed that she wanted to know what the purpose was before saying how she would vote. How dare she refuse to give her opinion before hearing what Dave is proposing? How dare she refuse to give her view on bombing before being told what the purpose of the bombing is!
What is the point of bombing Daesh in Syria anyway? The Directory of the United Services Institute ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_United_Services_Institute ) had said earlier this morning that bombing Daesh in Syria without committing ground troops was a waste of time. Although he argued that Daesh could easily be wiped out by a competent trained army, the political consequences of British or American involvement meant that the troops would have to be Syrian or Kurdish or Iranian. The consequences of Daesh's defeat by any of these armies would be unacceptable to too many countries for it to be feasible. 
So, apart from revenge, which, because of the civilian casualties that this cause, would make us as barbaric as them, what would be the point of bombing them?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Seven countries in five years?

Might take longer now that Russia is active once again.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

I listened to the interview this morning. I think Humphreys may have been irritated by her evasiveness, which seemed like an extension of Corbyn's apparent inability to commit himself to any course of action involving armed force - in fact his apparent preference to lie down and die rather than resort to any form of direct confrontation with terrorists.

I'm surprised by the assessment you quote - recent wars all seem to point to air power quite conclusively being the decisive factor. A more cogent reason against involving the British army is that it may now be too small, having been shrunk to a size fit only for ceremonial and occasional special forces duties.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> I listened to the interview this morning. I think Humphreys may have been irritated by her evasiveness, which seemed like an extension of Corbyn's apparent inability to commit himself to any course of action involving armed force - in fact his apparent preference to lie down and die rather than resort to any form of direct confrontation with terrorists.


Interesting. I didn't think that she was being evasive; I thought that she was repeatedly making a very good point as to why it was a ridiculous question and why she wouldn't answer it, which is hardly being evasive. Why, indeed, how, should a person be able to say which way they will vote on a question when the question has yet to be fully explained. If we are to be bombing Syria, why, how, and to what end? These are questions that need to be addressed before the bombing can be agreed to. Bombing for the sake of it would be both pointless and expensive. Interesting that we are potentially prepared to spend vast sums on pointless bombing of a vast swathe of the Middle East at enormous cost, but won't spend the money necessary to protect us against terrorism at home.



Langham said:


> I'm surprised by the assessment you quote - recent wars all seem to point to air power quite conclusively being the decisive factor. A more cogent reason against involving the British army is that it may now be too small, having been shrunk to a size fit only for ceremonial and occasional special forces duties.


The expert suggested that the air power available was only of use "to prepare the battlefield", ie tactical strikes in support of ground troops, but that it was otherwise pointless.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Interesting. I didn't think that she was being evasive; I thought that she was repeatedly making a very good point as to why it was a ridiculous question and why she wouldn't answer it, which is hardly being evasive. Why, indeed, how, should a person be able to say which way they will vote on a question when the question has yet to be fully explained. If we are to be bombing Syria, why, how, and to what end? These are questions that need to be addressed before the bombing can be agreed to. Bombing for the sake of it would be both pointless and expensive. Interesting that we are potentially prepared to spend vast sums on pointless bombing of a vast swathe of the Middle East at enormous cost, but won't spend the money necessary to protect us against terrorism at home.


She struck me as being ridiculously pedantic in her refusal to answer the question because various technicalities are as yet uncertain. She had the opportunity to say that Labour would support every effort to bomb the **** out of a posse of shifty nihilistic terrorists. Instead she resorted to legalistic obfuscation to avoid giving a straight answer to a simple question.



> The expert suggested that the air power available was only of use "to prepare the battlefield", ie tactical strikes in support of ground troops, but that it was otherwise pointless.


That sounds old hat to me. Drones controlled thousands of miles away can take out individual men with greater ease than a marksman 500 yards away. However, this is pontificating on tactical matters.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

I have to agree with Chouan on this one.

Making a shown of things with just random bombing is pointless and puts our air crews at risk unnecessarily. 

Air power needs to complement a ground offensive. I would further argue that just random, low intensity bombing with rules of engagement designed more for counterinsurgency is dangerous. 

It will lull the public into a false sense of security and score political points. 

Either we fight a war to win or we shouldnt be involved.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> I have to agree with Chouan on this one.
> 
> Making a shown of things with just random bombing is pointless and puts our air crews at risk unnecessarily.
> 
> ...


Indeed. And if we do get involved in a war, what do we anticipate to be the consequence of our winning? Michael Clarke, the Director of the Royal United Services Institute, who is, I'm inclined to think, something of an expert on defence matters, argues that bombing Daesh would only be worth while if it is done as tactical ground support for ground troops. However, as I said above, the only troops capable of defeating Daesh, even with air support, are the Kurds, the Iranians, or Assad. So, if we attack Daesh in support of Assad's troops we will be supporting Assad. If we attack Daesh in support of the Kurds we will be helping the Kurds establish their own state in Iraq/Syria. That will seriously pi$$ off the Turks, who are at war with the Kurds. If the ground troops are Iranian we will seriously pi$$ off Israel. Which of these outcomes do we want? Or is bombing Syria merely to be an expensive and dangerous gesture that will solve nothing?

It looks as if the US has already chosen the Kurds as their cannon fodder. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-very-soon-as-assad-hails-russian-air-strikes Is the US prepared to support the Kurds against the Turks and Iran?


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

^ I honestly don't know why we're in such a hurry to get rid of Assad. 

Syria has been a relatively stable country and we should have quietly backed him from the beginning. Perhaps then we would have had a bit more leverage over him.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

SG_67 said:


> ^ I honestly don't know why we're in such a hurry to get rid of Assad.
> 
> Syria has been a relatively stable country and we should have quietly backed him from the beginning. Perhaps then we would have had a bit more leverage over him.


Given how important stability is in the Middle East and N.Africa why did the West support the rebels in Libya, and Syria, and Egypt? Why did the West destroy Saddam Hussein and de-stabilise the region?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. And if we do get involved in a war, what do we anticipate to be the consequence of our winning? Michael Clarke, the Director of the Royal United Services Institute, who is, I'm inclined to think, something of an expert on defence matters, argues that bombing Daesh would only be worth while if it is done as tactical ground support for ground troops. However, as I said above, the only troops capable of defeating Daesh, even with air support, are the Kurds, the Iranians, or Assad. So, if we attack Daesh in support of Assad's troops we will be supporting Assad. If we attack Daesh in support of the Kurds we will be helping the Kurds establish their own state in Iraq/Syria. That will seriously pi$$ off the Turks, who are at war with the Kurds. If the ground troops are Iranian we will seriously pi$$ off Israel. Which of these outcomes do we want? Or is bombing Syria merely to be an expensive and dangerous gesture that will solve nothing?
> 
> It looks as if the US has already chosen the Kurds as their cannon fodder. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2...-very-soon-as-assad-hails-russian-air-strikes Is the US prepared to support the Kurds against the Turks and Iran?


As you imply, the situation is rather complex. Nevertheless, at the moment the most straightforward and probably most effective way to attack and destroy ISIS seems to be from the air. They rely on income generated from oil traffic - this is in the process of being destroyed from the air. Their tactical weaponry and senior commanders are all under surveillance and when the opportunity arises, are being picked off - from the air.

The fact that none of Syria's neighbours are ever likely to agree on what they would like post-ISIS is unfortunate but inevitable.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Chouan said:


> Given how important stability is in the Middle East and N.Africa why did the West support the rebels in Libya, and Syria, and Egypt? Why did the West destroy Saddam Hussein and de-stabilise the region?


Many will point to what we did in Iraq as a mistake. In hindsight I believe the mistake was trying to institute a democratic system in a culture that has often shown itself to be at complete ease and comfort being led by dictators. We should have instead put in place a strong man who could have held the country together, by whatever means needed, and who was also friendly toward us.

However, given the lessons learned in Iraq, that this administration likes to always bring up, not doing anything and allowing a dictator to be toppled without an apparent transition strategy is as bad as rolling in with the 4th Armored Division and blowing things to smithereens. Inaction is as bad as action sometimes.

The toppling of a dictator and the ensuing chaos carries with it the same risks and outcomes whether we intervened directly or stood aside and let the catastrophe happen.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

The US government seems to be supporting Turkey in their shooting down of a Russian aircraft, even though Turkish backed Turkmen militia then shot the crew as they descended by parachute, which would usually be described as a war crime. At the same time, the US airforce is attacking road tankers taking oil from Daesh to Turkey, https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-19/most-important-question-about-isis-nobody-asking https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-smuggling-to-fund-terror-group-a6746211.html bought by the Turkish President's son, as are the Russians https://www.rt.com/op-edge/322613-russia-isis-anti-terrorism-operation-syria/

Bilal Erdoğan owns an oil tanker business, which is doing very well from oil from Iraq and Syria. https://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke_b_6128950.html


----------



## moltoelegante (Sep 23, 2015)

Bombs are useless against an enemy living in your own cities.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan and Langham, I recently saw something on Twitter from Ch4 about Corbyn's crew sneaking out of parliament right before a debate about UK defense. I don't know how to interpret it, and some of the comments said that it might mean nothing at all and perhaps they were just leaving to catch some other meeting at the same time. Any ideas?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan and Langham, I recently saw something on Twitter from Ch4 about Corbyn's crew sneaking out of parliament right before a debate about UK defense. I don't know how to interpret it, and some of the comments said that it might mean nothing at all and perhaps they were just leaving to catch some other meeting at the same time. Any ideas?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Quite right of them to vacate the room, their views carry little weight at the moment.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Chouan and Langham, I recently saw something on Twitter from Ch4 about Corbyn's crew sneaking out of parliament right before a debate about UK defense. I don't know how to interpret it, and some of the comments said that it might mean nothing at all and perhaps they were just leaving to catch some other meeting at the same time. Any ideas?
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Simple response. They didn't. The Tory dominated press in the UK will use any excuse, no matter how pathetic to attack Corbyn, and those that read the populist press believe everything that they reads about him, because they want to.
In the Remembrance service the other week, the populist press reported that Corbyn didn't bow his head low enough. They didn't report, however, that whilst the other politicians disappeared for their paid for lunch asap, Corbyn stayed until all of the Veterans had gone before leaving.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

^ Corbyn is more a pop-up figure of fun than a hate figure - almost a caricature of a hard-left socialist from the 1970s (which is how he now invariably appears whenever The Times has him cartooned). I think the more serious mainstream commentators and news media are quite happy to see him remain as leader of the Labour party at least until the next general election and so, while happy to poke fun at him, are unlikely to rock his boat too violently - at least not for now.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

BBC Radio 4 was discussing today's Parliamentary vote on Syria. They were offering arguments from various interested parties on both sides of the debate. Curiously, those in favour of bombing Syria gave their views without interruption or challenge. Those who were arguing against bombing were constantly interrupted and challenged by John Humphreys. Again it appears that the BBC is not the impartial service that iot is supposed to be.
Cameron told the Tory MPs last night that they weren't to side with Corbyn and the "sympathisers with terrorism". Name calling of the most immature and dangerous kind! https://www.theguardian.com/politic...accuses-corbyn-of-being-terrorist-sympathiser https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...-for-opposing-syria-air-strikes-a6756731.html
There are also serious doubts about Cameron's view that there are "moderate" ground troops able to take on Daesh https://www.independent.co.uk/news/...merons-70000-moderates-in-syria-a6756486.html

Despite repeated calls for Daesh to have their economic base challenged, by stopping their flow of money, support and oil, of course, our government won't even answer these suggestions.

https://www.theguardian.com/comment...y-cut-islamic-state-supply-lines-erdogan-isis


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> BBC Radio 4 was discussing today's Parliamentary vote on Syria. They were offering arguments from various interested parties on both sides of the debate. Curiously, those in favour of bombing Syria gave their views without interruption or challenge. Those who were arguing against bombing were constantly interrupted and challenged by John Humphreys. *Again it appears that the BBC is not the impartial service that iot is supposed to be*.


The BBC has not been impartial for many years. What is novel is that it no longer (in this instance) opposes the centre-right view.


> Cameron told the Tory MPs last night that they weren't to side with Corbyn and the "sympathisers with terrorism". Name calling of the most immature and dangerous kind!


Gosh - name calling. However, perhaps Cameron would have done better to resist the impulse to call a spade a spade.



> Despite repeated calls for Daesh to have their economic base challenged, by stopping their flow of money, support and oil, of course, our government won't even answer these suggestions.


Recently, bombing has been quite effective in physically stopping the flow of oil, and hence money.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Langham said:


> The BBC has not been impartial for many years. What is novel is that it no longer (in this instance) opposes the centre-right view.


Quite, on both counts. The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation should be privatised and the licence fee abolished. If people wish to subsidise a leftist propaganda machine they can do so by choice.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> The BBC has not been impartial for many years. What is novel is that it no longer (in this instance) opposes the centre-right view.
> 
> Gosh - name calling. However, perhaps Cameron would have done better to resist the impulse to call a spade a spade.
> 
> Recently, bombing has been quite effective in physically stopping the flow of oil, and hence money.


Has it? The Turks have an agreement with the US that they have a no-bomb zone near their border. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/turkey-isis-free-zone-syrian-border-us What do you think they want a region on their border where the US won't bomb for? Why do you think the Turks shot down the Russian bomber for? What have the Russians been bombing near the Turkish border?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Quite, on both counts. The Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation should be privatised and the licence fee abolished. If people wish to subsidise a leftist propaganda machine they can do so by choice.


Oh look, an American criticising British television news reporting. The irony is exquisite!


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> Has it? The Turks have an agreement with the US that they have a no-bomb zone near their border. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/jul/27/turkey-isis-free-zone-syrian-border-us What do you think they want a region on their border where the US won't bomb for? Why do you think the Turks shot down the Russian bomber for? What have the Russians been bombing near the Turkish border?


There have been credible reports of massive damage both to oil installations and to the convoys of tankers exporting oil from those installations. These targets are easily and probably best destroyed by the use of air power.

The Turks' objectives are rather ambiguous but seem to include support for the Turkmen militia in the border region, which could be one reason for having a no-bomb zone. They could be implicated in oil trading, who knows? But I don't really see your point. You said earlier:



> Despite repeated calls for Daesh to have their economic base challenged, by stopping their flow of money, support and oil, of course, our government won't even answer these suggestions.


Well what do you think the bombing is for, if not to impede, if not utterly destroy, Daesh?


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> There have been credible reports of massive damage both to oil installations and to the convoys of tankers exporting oil from those installations. These targets are easily and probably best destroyed by the use of air power.
> 
> The Turks' objectives are rather ambiguous but seem to include support for the Turkmen militia in the border region, which could be one reason for having a no-bomb zone. They could be implicated in oil trading, who knows? But I don't really see your point. You said earlier:
> 
> Well what do you think the bombing is for, if not to impede, if not utterly destroy, Daesh?


Whilst supporting Turkey, who are the people supporting Daesh, attacking the Kurds (the only credible opposition to Daesh in the region) allowing people, money and weapons in to help Daesh. 
All of the military experts, all of them, British and American, argue that Daesh can't be defeated by bombing alone, and that all of the bombing so far hasn't had any significant effect on them. Yet deploying 8 aircraft to bomb Syria, in solidarity with our European allies (who's European Community we are looking to leave next year, some solidarity!) will, apparently, make a difference! 
There is no coherent strategy to combat Daesh. Until there is, how can we beat them?

There's an interesting article on this subject by a Tory MP, John Baron https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/01/vote-syria-airstrikes-david-cameron-libya A former soldier, he rather resented being described as a "terrorist sympathiser". 
"John Baron, an ex-army Tory MP and Foreign Affairs Committee member who is vocally opposed to action, criticised his own leader when asked on BBC's Newsnight how he felt about being described as a "terrorist sympathiser"."I was a platoon commander in Northern Ireland and I do think we must not resort to such language," he said.
"Instead we should look at the actual evidence before us. There is clearly a lack of ground force to take Daesh on and that is one of the key issues we have got to address."


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> There is no coherent strategy to combat Daesh. Until there is, how can we beat them?


Not by standing on the sidelines and watching.

ISIS/Daesh are a danger and a menace to the region and to all of Europe and the UK, and there is a clear case for using whatever forces we have to attack ISIS before they commit any further outrages, there or here. There are currently 8 Tornadoes based in Cyprus but I understand others will be flown out from the UK along with a squadron of Typhoons. There are also some drones, operated from a base in Qatar.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Langham said:


> Not by standing on the sidelines and watching.
> 
> ISIS/Daesh are a danger and a menace to the region and to all of Europe and the UK, and there is a clear case for using whatever forces we have to attack ISIS before they commit any further outrages, there or here. There are currently 8 Tornadoes based in Cyprus but I understand others will be flown out from the UK along with a squadron of Typhoons. There are also some drones, operated from a base in Qatar.


How will bombing in Syria protect us in the UK? How will bombing them in Syria protect us from the terrorists which we are constantly told are already here amongst us?
Is bombing Syria not simply an emotional response to give us a sense of doing something?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

Chouan said:


> How will bombing in Syria protect us in the UK? How will bombing them in Syria protect us from the terrorists which we are constantly told are already here amongst us?
> Is bombing Syria not simply an emotional response to give us a sense of doing something?


Cutting off the Gorgon's head. Bombing in Syria will not protect us from the terrorists who are already in our midst, intent on acts of mayhem. However, there is a clear pattern of would-be Jihadists, already living here, going out to Syria to receive training, funding, weapons and indoctrination from ISIS, before returning. And also, ISIS have to be punished.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Words I never thought I would utter:

Bravo, Hilary Benn.

https://www.itv.com/news/update/201...r-outstanding-speech-in-favour-of-airstrikes/


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Balfour said:


> Words I never thought I would utter:
> 
> Bravo, Hilary Benn.
> 
> https://www.itv.com/news/update/201...r-outstanding-speech-in-favour-of-airstrikes/


It is just foolish grandstanding. Bombing will not achieve anything. It will not eliminate ISIS. It is a nice little earner for the defence industries though.

Better to seal our own borders and weed out and punish the fifth columnists within.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

Kingstonian said:


> It is just foolish grandstanding. Bombing will not achieve anything. It will not eliminate ISIS. It is a nice little earner for the defence industries though.
> 
> *Better to seal our own borders and weed out and punish the fifth columnists within*.


I agree to the extent that I have emboldened your response. But no, we need to stand firm against ISIL and air strikes are a step in the right direction. The tactics are hideous; agreed.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Kingstonian said:


> It is just foolish grandstanding. Bombing will not achieve anything. It will not eliminate ISIS. It is a nice little earner for the defence industries though.
> 
> Better to seal our own borders and weed out and punish the fifth columnists within.


Indeed. Especially when there is no end strategy, indeed, no strategy at all.....


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Balfour said:


> Words I never thought I would utter:
> 
> Bravo, Hilary Benn.
> 
> https://www.itv.com/news/update/201...r-outstanding-speech-in-favour-of-airstrikes/


I have no idea who Hilary Benn is, but his speech was indeed superb.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

A minor diversion, but watching the Labour party tear itself apart over the issue has been a guilty pleasure for some time.


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> I have no idea who Hilary Benn is, but his speech was indeed superb.


He is the shadow foreign secretary. His father, an eccentric man of some integrity who abandoned his title to serve under Harold Wilson's government, was a leading figure of the hard left for many years.

There is a longer version of his speech here:


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Langham said:


> He is the shadow foreign secretary. His father, an eccentric man of some integrity who abandoned his title to serve under Harold Wilson's government, was a leading figure of the hard left for many years.


You mean, Tony Benn?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> You mean, Tony Benn?


Or Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Viscount Stansgate, as he was once known.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Langham said:


> Or Anthony Wedgwood Benn, Viscount Stansgate, as he was once known.


I have no patience for such types. Does the son track closely to the father's politics?


----------



## Langham (Nov 7, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> I have no patience for such types. Does the son track closely to the father's politics?


I believe he is quite similar, but perhaps less barking.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> I have no patience for such types.


In what way?



tocqueville said:


> Does the son track closely to the father's politics?


No, his son is more of a "red Tory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Benn


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> In what way?
> 
> No, his son is more of a "red Tory". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hilary_Benn


Well, because according to Wiki he is a "teetotaller and a vegetarian," of course. 

By "red Tory," I gather you refer to his adherence to "New Labor" and Tony Blair?


----------



## Kingstonian (Dec 23, 2007)

Chouan said:


> Indeed. Especially when there is no end strategy, indeed, no strategy at all.....


And the war promoters come up with the laughable notion that British bombs are somehow more accurate. Damage will be confined to an area the size of a dining table. If you are going to lie you may as well start with a big lie I suppose.

Cameron also has seventy thousand insurgents on the ground ready to leap into action once we show them the way. Of course, he cannot identify each and every one but they are mostly moderate and definitely better than Assad.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Well, because according to Wiki he is a "teetotaller and a vegetarian," of course.


Well, that's good enough for me!



tocqueville said:


> By "red Tory," I gather you refer to his adherence to "New Labor" and Tony Blair?


Exactly, often referred to as "Tory Lite".


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Chouan said:


> Well, that's good enough for me!
> 
> Exactly, often referred to as "Tory Lite".


I just had a conversation today about Sanders vs. Clinton and found myself describing Clinton (and her husband) as bascially New Labor, with Sanders representing an alternative for those on the left who are fed up with what I guess over here one might term "blue Republicans." It works, although I would hesitate to push the Sanders/Corbyn comparison far. Corbyn represents a part of the political spectrum that I don't think exists here in any meaningful way.


----------



## Balfour (Mar 23, 2012)

tocqueville said:


> Corbyn represents a part of the political spectrum that I don't think exists here in any meaningful way.


In that America is truly blessed. But he is not really credible in the UK either. The entire Parliamentary Labour Party are positioning for a post-Corbyn / post-wingnut world, but taking account of the infiltration of their ranks by hard-leftists on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Militant Tendency battles of the 1980s.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Balfour said:


> In that America is truly blessed. But he is not really credible in the UK either. The entire Parliamentary Labour Party are positioning for a post-Corbyn / post-wingnut world, but taking account of the infiltration of their ranks by hard-leftists on a scale that hasn't been seen since the Militant Tendency battles of the 1980s.


Are they? Or are they thinking that the Labour success in the Oldham by election means that Corbyn isn't such a potential liability as they might have been perceiving him as?
No doubt the Right will continue to ridicule him, supported by the usual populist news media. Mind you, the Right can't stand anybody who doesn't subscribe to their self-supporting elitism and sense of entitlement, so there's no surprise there. As they can't argue against his views, they can only ridicule him.


----------

