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

Yes and I'm arguing that he should focus on a clearly "labour value" driven policy but with compromises over the superficialities.

I. E. Singing the vile dirge

Sorry I misread you a bit there

i don't think republicanism is a minor principle that should be tossed aside just like that? i mean it IS a substantive thing to stand firm on. republican gestures in mainstream public life have been sorely fucking needed for some time and it was excellent seeing them from corbyn

every time i think about the pro-bombing labour blairites i get actually angry, imagine using a fucking war for your own careerist internal party political manoeuvring purposes

(i don't get the sense that public opinion is pro-bombing, either)

Unconvinced that royalism is especially strong or deep-rooted as it's routinely made out to be tbh, or that 'large swathes' of the population really give that much of a fuck about the singing of God Save the Queen.

presumably the best selling daily newspapers just spout about the royals non-stop as a provocation to their readerships.

https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/122/MonarchyRoyal-Family-Trends-Monarchy-v-Republic-19932013.aspx?view=wide

Actually I sometimes think they're trying to convince them of their worth and importance, though this always seems more true of the BBC's coverage of the royals.

It's not super-strong in London or in my friendship groups, but the breederish cupcakes-and-bunting generation just below mine are soppy about the Queen and royals their age - and woe betide any republican in a leadership position in British politics who challenges it because the jingo wing (jingo wings! XD) jumps on it and makes it A THING. It's just a wasp's nest you can avoid poking.

Fuck the royals but they are not even in the top fifty things that are wrong with this country at the moment. What they stand for might be, but that's embodied in many other things as well, some of which Corbyn might be in a position to actually do something about.

I don't seriously believe that there can be very many Labour MPs who think that their electoral prospects can be improved by yet another war in the Middle East, unless they think it's going to completely destroy Cameron's premiership, or unless they are complete cretins.

Fuck the royals but they are not even in the top fifty things that are wrong with this country at the moment.

And yet they will always be No.1 with a bullet for me.

Any ideas of % of labour mps would vote yes on this?

estimates started at 100, were subsequently revised down to 60 following corbyn's push back. think the current estimate lies somewhere between 30 and 60.

43% according to Corbyn but likely to be in the high 20s when it comes to the crunch.

Xp

You must admit that Elizabeth II has been exceptionally good at propping up the throne via canny public relations. Hardest working woman in show business?

LOL Lib Dems have also agreed to vote for bombing. xp

Former party leader Nick Clegg told Sky News on Tuesday evening that he and his successor, Tim Farron, felt that “on balance, it is better to take action rather than pursue a course of inaction”.

Statement might as well have read "hey, better to regret something you did than something you didn't do".

Farron was like a wince-inducing vicar on HIGNFY this week

Given that it's highly unlikely to have any impact, positive or negative, Clegg's ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ statement is about as compelling as any in favour.

David Cameron has urged Tory MPs to take a stand on fighting terror on the eve of a vote in Parliament on authorising UK airstrikes in Syria.

The prime minister called on them not to "sit on their hands" and side with Jeremy Corbyn and others he labelled "a bunch of terrorist sympathisers".

gross

hardly becoming of his office to talk shit like that on an issue that seems to have a lot of ppl honestly divided. classic david cameron, however

Behind closed doors but obv leaked on purpose.

Yes, he'll have said that at precisely 7pm so that it leaks just in time to be the lead story in tomorrow's papers. ARSEHOLE.

I would like Jeremy Corbyn to go full-on Demon Headmaster tomorrow. He probably won't, but...

like to think seumas milne & his other attack dogs cd motivate corbyn to ether cameron tomorrow but don't think JC has it in him to be honest

Christ has there ever been such an ineloquent British pm as Cameron? I thought that inept Chamberlain quip was crude enough.

It's the modern Conservative Party, they won't be happy till Corbyn is found lying beside some railway tracks somewhere in Bedfordshire.

might be time for the "i may be a terrorist sympathiser but you fucked a pig" mic-drop. been waiting for a genuinely cathartic moment in uk politics

Having had a Swedish granddad who was mild-mannered to the point of supine, but could go nuclear if it was a matter of principle, I'm hoping for some emotion. Corbyn has the right to defend himself from this bullshit, and it might be a necessity. Standing up to bullies like Cameron is intrinsically British, anyway - and it might benefit Labour if he does.

Corbyn is not a terrorist sympathiser.

Well they've won the vote anyway, all we can hope for is that they are shamed in the debate beforehand.

Corbyn is more for quiet dignity and I am happy if he is not dragged into the mud. Its not only inaccurate but its also branding Tory rebels (the few of them) as "terrorist sympathisers". Just dumb. xp

Standing up to bullies like Cameron is intrinsically British, anyway - and it might benefit Labour if he does.

People said this about Miliband as well, it didn't happen.

This looks like such an obviously ill-thought out and avoidable foreign policy blunder in the making that any blowback could be disastrous for Cameron. Is there even much in the way of overt pressure coming from the US?

Miliband's numbers went up whenever he challenged something unfair, and went down when he did stupid EdStoney things.

Some dickhead on Newsnight hiding behind Chatham House Rules to avoid comment on the 'terrorist sympathiser' insult.

Sir Robin Bogg ‏@robinbogg Nov 30

Have just found out Dan Hodges is Glenda Jackson's son, which is tricky cos I like her, but proves that not all her late 60s output was good

bwahaha

This looks like such an obviously ill-thought out and avoidable foreign policy blunder in the making that any blowback could be disastrous for Cameron. Is there even much in the way of overt pressure coming from the US?

idk how much pressure there is from the US or NATO but it's a status thing. It's virtually consequence free and isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way so the choice is either to sit at the top table with France and the US or risk the perception that the UK isn't a major player in world events any more.

I can't imagine ISIS is going to think 'well, we were ok with you bombing us in Iraq but you've crossed a line with your occasional raids in Syria' and there are almost no targets of value left to hit (France responded to the Paris attacks by bombing a football stadium and a chicken farm) so anything that is attacked by the UK is likely to be hit anyway by someone else.

Unless things radically change on the ground, the whole business is a performance - which makes all the bluster even more embarrassing.

But we've got magic bombs that are more accurate at taking out specific chickens

isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way

If the Magic bombs fail and there are civilian casualties? I know this could probably be covered up with a 'there were ISIS fighters hiding out in that hospital'.

I don't think the UK participating in bombing would necessarily mean an escalation in the amount of bombing being done. That's not an argument in favour of the UK getting involved though.

idk how much pressure there is from the US or NATO but it's a status thing. It's virtually consequence free and isn't going to make the slightest bit of difference to Syria either way so the choice is either to sit at the top table with France and the US or risk the perception that the UK isn't a major player in world events any more.

it is so depressing that people, much less those governing us, think like this

the only effect i can think of this extended campaign having is to kill or maim people where the bombs fall. that's about the only thing that can be said with any certainty.

Yes but would a bomb from the UK kill Syrian civilians - totally get this is no escalation.

The pro-bombing side admit that the UK taking part would make no difference whatsoever, so its pure post-imperial hangover and ego. Just about being there as if France or anybody else really care. xxp

it is so depressing that people, much less those governing us, think like this

Peace induces a boredom to a lot of people. If you don't need a hospital, school, library or many public services government is just taking your money in taxes and you've got to see them doing something.

xp Yes, the UK has been killing civilians in Iraq since the bombing started there. The idea that Tornadoes are more accurate than every other plane on the planet seems fanciful. Whether it's the UK, the US or France bombing the chicken farm isn't going to make a massive amount of difference to the chickens though.

Imperial hangover is otm.

Cameron wants his Falklands

No ground forces.

kind of reminiscent of the whole badger cull fiasco, what with the tories rushing to appease the farming lobby with complete disregard for the evidence that it could actually make things worse by dispersing badgers and spreading infection. except now ISIS are the infected badgers in our midst, BAE cosying up with the MOD is DEFRA being dictated to by the NFU, sensitive bombing is the new humane shooting, and Jeremy Corbyn was formerly the guitar player from Queen