Psychoactive Substances: Rolling UK Politics in The Neo-Con Era

Corbyn will say that his leadership will be based on three pillars: a new politics, a new economy and the Beatles.

http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/11/16/uk-france-shooting-britain-syria-idUKKCN0T50KG20151116

Has Cameron specified what he wants to bomb that isn't currently being bombed by Russia, France, the US, Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Canada, the Netherlands, Turkey, Qatar, Bahrain, the United Arab Emirates or Australia?

Is there a secret bit of Syria that only we know about?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/54/Shelleydvd.jpg/250px-Shelleydvd.jpg
" the Britain of Mary Wollstonecraft, Shelley..."
For goodness sake Jez, stfu about The Beatles please!

tell Jeremy Corbyn to fuck off

No

Mind boggling at the gall of Osborne lecturing us that 'the internet has become a vector of crime, espionage, attack and harm' weeks after arselicking the world's most prodigious cyber attackers, the Chinese government, and handing them the British nuclear programme on a platter.

Good to see the press, the BBC and Labour MPs united in condemning the single greatest threat to the lives of and limbs of British citizens, at home and abroad, Jeremy Corbyn.

He could make things easier for himself.

You don't have to be evidently armed to be shot dead here but it probably helps.

It's an odd one as there have been no changes to the law, no obvious changes to policy and no apparent disagreement on the interpretation of the law but still enough room for the press to hang him.

Given the Menezes murder Corbyn's views are perfectly reasonable.

Don't trust the reporting of these meetings or the LOL "sources" that keep saying how shambolic all of it is - the reporting of the Monday night PLP meeting is becoming a platform for plenty of juicy gossip and 'journalism'.

I have seen several reports that JC doesn't really respond with challenges - all of this has to be seen in the context that 90% of the PLP don't think JC should be anywhere near the leadership. Hard to tell whether he wants to engage or whether he thinks its a waste of time or what. But isn't that what the right of the party were doing to their members? I am enjoying this reversal of sorts.

Do you think it would be pandering to the press to say 'yes if the same thing that happened in paris were to happen here a shoot to kill policy would be justified'? Or they would crucify him anyway?

That's the law as it stands and he has said he doesn't disagree with it. There's no situation in which police fire guns that they don't shoot to kill.

Wrong. After the Lee Rigby murder the police shot only to maim and incapacitate

I didn't hear the interview but 'a Labour aide clarified that Corbyn was “committed to what the existing law is"' - so someone else shut the stable door on his behalf.

Wrong. After the Lee Rigby murder the police shot only to maim and incapacitate

Yes, this is a bit more nuanced than i suggested. The Rigby killer didn't have a firearm iirc though.

The police officially shoot to neutralise a threat but they are told to fire repeatedly at the torso when someone has a gun or at the head when someone is suspected of having a bomb. This is why they've repeatedly called "shoot to wound" a fiction.

Haven't heard the interview either but yes it was the aide that gave the 'easier' answer. This is all similar to the nuclear 'debate' with JC being cast as a madman for appearing not to be as hawkish or what have you.

Distracts from austerity, where the Tories are not looking so good.

Not sure how Corbyn's approach to this, i.e. to support the law of the land, is different from, errrrrr, the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary etc. Still any excuse for a bit of Corbyn-bashing.

The levels of hatred displayed towards Corbyn by Mad Dan Hodges, Rental et al are really quite astonishing.

For Rental read Johnny 'Psycho' Rentoul.

The sooner we tune this stuff out and talk about things other than how beastly people are being to Corbyn the better imo.

As far as I can see there is basically no reason for the UK to join in with air strikes other than as a symbolic gesture, one that would doubtless increase the risk of an attack here even further. It's not like ISIS are going to stubbornly resist an onslaught from Russia/France/the US only to crumble as soon as plucky Britain gets involved, although propagating that myth is almost certainly why Cameron wants air strikes in the first place.

Honestly I don't know what I would do in Hollande's situation, and I'm deeply suspicious of anyone who claims to know, with 100% conviction, what should be done in Syria, but Cameron's situation is not Hollande's by a long shot.

The whole business is mysterious. I think Russia is clearly privy to intelligence that the others aren't but idk what France, the US, etc are bombing at this stage that they haven't bombed a dozen times before. It's performative, though - the UK needs to be seen to be doing something.

it's almost as if he thinks there's political capital to be made from the threat or occurrence of terrorist attacks

Increased military action in Syria will see the Tories retain a slight majority in 2020. By which point Corbyn will have established a lunar base occasionally waving forlornly.

the UK needs to be seen to be doing something

Hence an extra billion pounds out of nowhere to fite cyberdoom and a proposed increase of 1,900 security and intelligence staff - suggesting these measures were on hold until a new attack could 'justify' them rather than something that could've been introduced to help prevent said attack.

Or that there is actually a lot more money around anyway and the cuts are being carried out on a whim.

Tom D - Rentoul did apologise for that tweet. Blaming it on the social media pressure cooker.

The UK's chances of being attacked are surely the same whether the UK joins in strikes or not - you could say its bigger if the UK don't join in, as ISIS would perhaps want more countries to attack it, increasing recruitment.

A hogpile of lifestyle journos were talking about how Corbyn's intelligence is somewhat limited, possibly to make themselves feel better/clever for disagreeing with him, or thinking themselves somehow 'realist' because they're considering bombs--->Syria and he is not.

It's very telling that these PLP meetings only started being covered by reporters fairly recently, and not during Blair, Brown or Miliband's tenure.

'Realism' seems to be the latest Conservative Central Office endorsed buzzword.

Some idiot on the news yesterday explaining that the Prime Minister has said last week that there was a half-dozen plots already foiled, and someone else (Osborne?) has said at the start of October that there had been five foiled, so reading between the lines there must have been one foiled in the last month.

need one of these for foiled terror plots

http://simpsonswiki.com/w/images/thumb/c/cb/Royal_King_Trailer_Park.png/250px-Royal_King_Trailer_Park.png

Egregious nonsense in the Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/bagehot/2015/11/corbyn-labour-and-paris?fsrc=gp_en%3Ffsrc%3Dscn%2Ftw%2Fte%2Fbl%2Fed%2Fcorbynssensiblesarestartingtopushback

(perhaps, in many cases, as a protest rather than a positive endorsement)

LOL

Stop the War can gtf tho

the patrician tones of the anonymous author make that post particularly infuriating

He could make things easier for himself.

― ledge, Tuesday, November 17, 2015 12:59 PM (3 hours ago) Bookmark Flag Post Permalink

Thing is, I don't think he could. There's not much point worrying too much about Corbyn's presentation etc, when as we've seen this month, even if he does and says all the 'right' things, the media and his enemies within labour- before you even get to the government- will just plain make stuff up.

Pretty sure there's a section in the Economist style guide advising journalists on how to be more patrician and finger-wagging.

They're still running with this - ok they're going to hang him anyway, still think he should let them make the rope rather than hand it over himself.

Was thinking there hasn't been a lot on JC's comments - I suppose because the events in Paris are pushing almost everything else to the background.

For a hanged man Corbyn has kept pushing the lines he was elected for. Don't see him as 'learning on the job'.

Was thinking there hasn't been a lot on JC's comments - I suppose because the events in Paris are pushing almost everything else to the background.

It's because most people outside Westminster, the Labour Party and the media don't actually care either way about them.

Well I am comparing this to the stuff on Trident/would you push the button. Agree most don't care but iirc it would be harder to avoid if you watch the news in passing.

UK media working hard to bring the subject round from something they don't actually care about- dead French people- to something they very much do- pouring shit over Corbyn.

I certainly know that my first reaction upon hearing news of the atrocity was "hmmm, I wonder what Jeremy Corbyn thinks of this?"

Well, John Rentoul certainly wasn't the only one.

http://www.politics.co.uk/news/2015/11/20/zac-goldsmith-would-scrap-all-london-s-bus-lanes

All bus lanes would be scrapped in London under plans being considered by the Conservative London mayoral candidate Zac Goldsmith.

Goldsmith told LBC's Nick Ferrari, that the rise of electric cars means that there will soon be "no point" in having bus lanes.

Only buses, cyclists and black cabs are allowed to use the lanes currently.

However, he said he would first allow electric cars to use the lanes as a perk, before scrapping them altogether.

is this total bollocks? or could electric cars become incredible cheap? i'm finding it hard to see how many more vehicles on the road is a functional solution to anything.

*incredibly cheap

"no point" in having bus laneses.