Saturday 5 December 2015

"A Benn - Not A Bennite" - Finally, The Blairites Have Someone To Replace Jeremy Corbyn.

Cometh The Hour ... Hilary Benn's speech in favour of bombing the Islamic State brought the House of Commons to its feet. Finally, the Blairites have someone to replace Jeremy Corbyn.
IT HAS BEEN HAILED as one of the best speeches delivered to the House of Commons in 50 years. Having urged his fellow MPs to support the Prime Minister’s motion in favour of bombing Syria, the Shadow Foreign Secretary, Hilary Benn, resumed his seat to resounding cheers from both sides of the aisle. The Labour Leader, Jeremy Corbyn, his face a picture of both puzzlement and exasperation, did not join in the applause. No one from the Labour Party, himself included, had managed to deliver so passionate a speech on behalf of peace.
The emotion missing from Corbyn’s countenance was fear. It speaks well of the man that Benn’s noisy standing ovation did not frighten him. Someone more steeped in the realities of politics would have heard, behind the cheering of the Commons, the dull rattle of the tumbril. He should have known that his opponents weren’t just applauding the impassioned speech of a bellicose social imperialist, they were applauding the fact that, at last, they had found the person to replace the despised Member for Islington North.
It’s been the biggest problem of the Blairites all along that among their ranks there was no one who could hold a candle to Corbyn. When set against the sincerity and plain-spokenness of the front-runner, the bland contributions of the other three leadership contenders came across as utterly unconvincing. Liz Kendall, the candidate most closely associated with the Blairite rump, attracted just 5 percent support from the party membership. What’s more, in the aftermath of the membership’s resounding endorsement of Corbyn, the Labour Right’s petulant refusal to accept that Blairism had been rejected only added to the new leader’s lustre.
Yes, Labour’s parliamentarians had the advantage of a sympathetic press. United in their disdain for Corbyn the journalists and columnists of the allegedly “left-wing” newspapers – The Guardian, The Observer, and The New Statesman – never missed a chance to tell their readers that Labour could not hope to win with Corbyn at the helm. But, increasingly, the left-wing media’s hostility was being written off by the Labour rank-and-file as yet further proof that the whole “mainstream” political establishment was rotten to the core.
What they needed was a challenger untainted by all the petulance and back-stabbing; someone who cleaved to his or her principles with the same sincerity and passion as Corbyn himself. Someone who had served time in the trade union movement. Someone unafraid to summon-up the ghosts of the men and women of the International Brigade who died fighting Franco’s fascists in Spain. Someone who was a teetotaller and a vegetarian. Someone who never fiddled his parliamentary expenses claims,. Someone whose father was, for more than 50 years, one of the towering figures of the Labour Left. Someone, in short, called Hilary Benn.
That Benn the Younger had made a point of telling his constituents that he was “a Benn – not a Bennite”, and had been an enthusiastic supporter of Tony Blair’s “New Labour” from Day One, serving in the Cabinets of both Blair and Gordon Brown, well, that only made it all the more delicious.
Not that the Blairites will be celebrating too loudly. The more intelligent among them understand that Corbyn has shoved “Overton’s Window” decisively to the left. Indeed, when History assesses the (now almost certainly brief) leadership of Corbyn, breaking the neoliberal stranglehold on the British Labour Party will be cited as his greatest achievement. If Benn wants to be Prime Minister he will have to run on a clear anti-austerity platform and to offer the voters policies that are recognisably social-democratic in tone, content and purpose.
But if Paris, as Henry of Navarre is said to have quipped “is worth a mass”, Number 10 Downing Street is worth the renationalisation of British railways and a sharply more progressive tax system. Hilary Benn has only to signal to Labour’s rank-and-file that Corbyn’s vision (minus the pacifism and all that baggage from the 1980s) is safe in his hands, and the incumbent’s already difficult position will become impossible.
As the Andrew Finney character (played by Ian McShane) says in the TV series Ray Donovan: “If you see a man getting ready to take on the world – bet on the world.” After weeks of relentless media and political assault (not least from his own side) even Corbyn’s staunchest supporters know, deep in their hearts, that the British Establishment is never going to allow their hero to become Prime Minister. One way or the other, Corbyn is going to be driven from the Labour Leadership.
But the United Kingdom is an old and devious state, and both its public and not-so-public protectors know that if they are seen to have taken out one Labour Leader, then it is not in their interest to be seen putting too many restrictions on his replacement. In return for Trident, the “Special Relationship” with the USA, and a light hand when it comes to reforming the financial system (i.e. The City of London), the Left will be given their moment in the sun. The protectors of Britain’s Deep State understand that the Westminster System requires two parties of more-or-less equal strength if it’s to go on working. Allow that myth to fail, and who knows what the long-suffering British people might replace it with?
The King is dead (or soon will be). Long live the King!
This essay was posted on The Daily Blog and Bowalley Road on Saturday, 5 December 2015.


peteswriteplace said...

More advice from Chris for another Labour Party.

Anonymous said...

A brilliant piece of quality journalism, many in the world of politics were looking at this bastion of democracy, the British House of Commons. Your article captured the essence and the drama of politics, very well done.

Anonymous said...

Absolute rubbish Chris.
Fear is what has driven the press into vapours over this Benn speech. Corbyn is not afraid, but irritated mightily. The thought that the Tory and Labour Parties might not speak with one forked tongue terrifies the political establishment, as does the thought of genuine opposition. Just because one invokes just causes does not make one's cause just.
Benn junior voted to invade Iraq in the first place. What next? A series of brave speeches for bombing group after group in Iraq, each less stable than the next, leaving behind more and more angry, seething people who see not the evil Benn read out, but the indiscriminate bombs that kill their families.
Blair is now a toxic name for his part in the creation of this mess. If Benn, H. aims to be his successor in this, well that is a strange ambition indeed.

Anonymous said...

Judging by the Oldham by-election, reports of Corbyn's demise are greatly exaggerated. Not least because it is nearly impossible to roll a UK Labour leader.

Anonymous said...

One day the left will step back a little from Corbymania, and start to look at the performance of Corbyn the man as a leader.

He will fail because he is really rather terrible at the job, not because of some deep state establishment conspiracy to keep him and what he represents from office.

Look at the reports of his chairing of the cabinet meetings before and during the debate on party positioning on Syria, his ridiculous declaration that a collective cabinet decision will be reached - before the cabinet met - and then failure to accept the collective decision when it arrived against his personal will, look at his appallingly bad speech on what should have been his best moment in the house - if Corbyn cannot produce a compelling speech with persuasive rhetoric on bombing Syria with no plan behind it, then what hope does he offer, really?

but hey, the Trots will have set up a powerful cell within the only mainstream political party able to reach across the country, and the far left will have another marker in history to point to and declare, 'we was robbed then too'.

failed in the 80s, failed in the 90s, failing again now - same tactics, same leaders, same mistakes...

Galeandra said...

Interesting prognosis, Chris. As an armchair amateur I have the instinct that the entire West has begun to enter a series of political pinch-points which are likely to smother the traditions of tolerant democracy and to reinforce overt patronage politics, if not outright demagoguery at times. Somehow things are not going to turn out well.

Anonymous said...

What Hilary Benn needed to say was that Britain and the West should support Russia and Assard against Daesh. That he didn't shows Western weakness in the need to kill Daesh totally for this war to be won.

David Stone said...

Hi Chris
I think and hope you are waxing far too pessimistic about Corban's future; and who exactly would you turn to for someone "more steeped in the realities of politics " in the U K?
We watched several of the speeches in that debate live streamed on the Guardian, and any of them on either side of the debate would have been memorable if delivered in our parliament . But since Lange who Muldoon aptly referred to as a buffoon, it has always mystified me how much importance is placed on how people say things and how little on the content and argument.
In the context of all of the debate that I saw Benn's speech was not so outstanding, that's not to denigrate it but all of the speeches were of a very high standard but not so many of them reported here. What was lacking in all of the arguments in favour of bombing raids ,Benn's included, was what to do next. There's no credible strategy to complete the job and everyone knows it, Don McLean described the Isis leadership's reaction with " I heard Satan laughing with delight the day the music died", in the meantime the world leaders are dancing to his fiddle.
To fix Syria needs boots on the ground; hundreds of thousands of them, disciplined boots with full UN authority and co-odination.Not Syrian rebel groups in their hundreds of factions with no common sentiment save an abiding hatred of America and the West, but a neutral international force rolling over the place like a carpet, clearing and securing it town by town and house by house and then staying there for as long as it takes to allow civilisation to develop.
The civilised alternative is to deploy troops only to secure safe passage and a massive evacuation effort to get all civilians out safely at least till the fighting is done , and we will all have to invite a Syrian family to share our home for a year or two. Mostly people would make lifelong friends they would never have known by doing that.
Perhaps both alternatives should be carried out together.
Cheers David J S

David Stone said...

Sorry I meant to add that Corbyn canvased the labour rank and file and got a 75% support for his position . The media are becoming shrill in their denigration of him as they see his progress but unless the Blairites manage to defy the will of their membership Corbyn is there to stay. And if he goes so does Labour.

Sanctuary said...

I listened to Benn's speech and while the high Tories and the rump Blairites and their new Labour media cheerleaders loved it,the British public saw straight through it straight away. Everything - EVERYTHING! - the British media establishment has said about Corbyn has been proved wrong in the light of the reality subsequent events. And so it will prove over Syria. The Blairites have tied themselves to Cameron's policy corpse on bombing Syria. Christ, the West's policy in the Middle East is so batshit crazy that Putin can play hero just by being vaguely sane! When bombing revealed as an exercise in brutal futility it is Corbyn who will reap the electoral rewards.

The Corbyn effect was also going to lose Oldham West, or Labour would hang on by a few hunded votes. The liberal press were all over any Alf Garnett they could find, let alone the Tories who triumphantly announcing the arrival of UKIPs second MP. Actually, Labour won by over 11,000.

In it's fear of Corbyn the political establishment has made the critical mistake of over-playing its hand and to obviously revealing its agenda. The longer Corbyn survives, the more it's hysterical predictions of doom for Labour will be exposed as nothing more than mirrors into their own classist prejudices. I am not sure if the anti-Corbyn cause can sustain anymore high profile "victories" like Benn's speech.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

" kill Daesh totally for this war to be won. "

Have you learned nothing from Vietnam? Sigh..... Killing is not the answer to extremists. They couldn't operate without at least the support of some of the people in the areas they are operating in. Probably the majority. If you provided some form of decent security for these people – which ain't gonna happen – most of them would cease supporting Isis in a flash. And every time your bombs miss and kill innocent people, they gain more recruits. But there is no cure for stupid. So we just keep at it.

Anonymous said...

Guerilla Surgeon, what would you do, reason with them?. Get real.

Robert said...

Both Parties position on Syria is a lot of hollow posturing. Its doubtful if most of them had even visited a warship before entering parliament and any real knowledge of defence would be an infra dig and as unfashionable as going to dog races. The special relationship with the United States is a myth. Japan, Germany and particularly France which has a much more powerful airforce and a genuine aircraft carrier is a much more vital ally of the USA. The British can not be relied on to follow orders and are too given too moral qualms to do much that is useful and effective. The British performance in Iraq and Afghanistan was seen as ill equipped poorly though out gesture by the Americans. The new carriers Prince of Wales and QE2 as yet have no planes and in many respect are simply Invincible jump jet carriers scaled up four times rather than anything equivalent to the USN CVNs. Although one can wonder what would happen if a nuclear powered French carrier was hit by a Syrian anti ship missile.
Britain with a few old Tornados and rather limited Typhoon fighters doesn't wield much of a stick these days. The Cameron defence review calls for the restoral of some ocean patrol capability aircraft after the last review, scrapped the latest and final version of the Nimrod, the final 9 construction versions being burnt and the parts and tools melted down in the long standard practice for cancelled aircraft projects since TRS2 and P1154, every trace is destroyed. It has always been difficult to know if the British nuclear subs have any real capability and whether they would ever use there strategic capabilities. It is difficult to believe even Thatcher would have. Certainly no Labour PM prior to Blair. While JFK gave Britain an option of independent use of Polaris, Dennis Healy insisted the RN SSBNS were operated as just another strategic USN sub. During the cold war Britains attack nuclear subs had no real weapons at all, their a/s torpedoes Mk 20 or Tigerfish never worked and the old WW2 surface torpedoes only appeared to activate against unmodernised WW2 warships like Belgarno and the old Argie carrier was probably the only other target they would have worked against, they bounced off an Argentine Fram 1 destroyers bottom ( modernied to Cubs 62 'Thirteen days' film std). Several attempts by British SSNs to torpedo dangerous wrecked merchant ships during the cold war failed for similar reasons.
Thatcher like Muldoon basically gutted her party of her talents with most of the old Etonians and public school boys remaing on the back bench only long enough to vote Thatcher out. Both parties are now largerly grammar school and comprehensive and without the nightime outlets of sex, gambling and booze for the front bench the Cabinet and Shadow talent is inevitably much less talented and intelligent. Hillary Benn, Corbyn, the Millibrand brothers are not remotely the intellects of Jenkins, Healy, Crossland, Crossman, Brown, Owen et al. Recent Labour leaders like Bair and Kinnock had third class degrees. From the brightest in Britain we have descended to Corbyn and a lot of NZ style union hacks and indentikit women. On the tory ranks, Cameron is about the least interesting old Etonian to make Cabinet in History, Borris Johnstone has at least managed a few scandalous affairs as spectator editor and Osborne appears to have a few coke fuelled dalliances with ladies on rich Russians yachts. Osborne and Cameron are class remnants but hardly equal the magnificently corrupt Hailsham, the neo Nazi, Minister of Munitions Alan Clark who loyally represented Thatcher, after leaving Eton in its worst year, married a 16 year old, latter managed multiple affairs and pointed out the Tory policy on Iraq and Iran was to support one side then the other to maximise the damage. This was seen as cynical, but was the policy in Paris as well. On one occasion the French mirages piloted by French, running in Iranian colours, simply were repainted in Iraq colors and took off in the other direction to bomb Iranian positions.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Jesus anonymous, did you read my post at all? They cannot be reasoned with as you well know. But we can take away their base of support.

Robert, I think I may well agree with much of what you say but I cannot make sense of most of it as usual. Oh, and Cameron might not be particularly interesting in one sense, but he did put his penis into a dead pig's mouth. Which to me makes him a lot more interesting than Boris :-). And you think you could make a LITTLE more of an effort to spell people's names correctly? It is their fucking name after all.

Bushbaptist said...

GS is right. It's called winning the hearts and minds of the people who are under ISIS (a name is a name is a name) and get them onside. Bombing the living crap out of them isn't going to do that.

The days of Continental Warfare is well over and wars are fought guerilla style today. The ISIS personel move amongst the local population so bombing them kills many civilians and turns them against us.

@David Stone; good idea but it won't work. It would need a force of at least 500,000 troops to do it properly. They would need to completely surround ISIS territory and attack from everywhere at once making sure that no-one escapes, a difficult proposition at the best of times.

The best way of smacking them down is to cut off their supply routes. That means Turkey and Saudi Arabia need to be taken in hand. Probably about 25% of Turkey's economy is involved with smuggled oil from its southern border. Putin recognised that and the Russians have been destroying the Turkmen oil convoys heading north. Erdagan shot the plane down as a warning to Russia to stop attacking those convoys. His family is one of the biggest Smugglers in Turkey!

Turkey needs to stop being a conduit for "Holy Warriors" to Syria and the Saudis need to stop supplying arms and missiles to ISIS.

Anonymous said...

Robert, after your rather critical analysis of British politicians and their Navy and Airforce capabilities, I would like to read your opinion of our political parties and our system of MMP with list MPs.
I believe MMP to be a more manageable corrupt political system than First past the Post could ever be.
I do not believe that Daesh can be beaten in Syria / Iraq without 100% western support, including ground troops, being given to Russia and President Assad.

Bushbaptist said...

Anonymous said...

That 75% figure is horseshit.
entire constituencies report never received the email.

One third who responded were not party members, it was self selecting, and less than 2000 of 100 000 were sampled to reach that reported 75%.

Corbybs team stopped using it as soon as the Monday cabinet began, it was so discredited.

Genuine polling puts the figure at 50% opposed and another 10% highly doubtful

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"On one occasion the French mirages piloted by French, running in Iranian colours, simply were repainted in Iraq colors and took off in the other direction to bomb Iranian positions."

Apologies, I've just seen this having not been inclined to wend my way to the bottom of the post. Citation please? And it better not be Alex Jones or I'll tell the lizard people on you :-).

Sanctuary said...

"...That 75% figure is horseshit..."

Oh dear. In the face of mounting evidence that the anti-Corbyn hysteria is largely in the imagination of the Westminster hyperbole driven hothouse and the Murdoch press, his opponents are clutching at that hoary perennial of climate change deniers and are disputing the facts - "It was fixed by the Illuminati, guv'nor!"

Anonymous said...

The members select the labour leader and given Benn voted to follow the USA into Iraq and is now voting to bomb syria I doubt they will ever vote for the guy - even if he chucks them a few economic policy bones like nationalising the railways (which BTW a lot of non lefties favour since the rail service in england sucks).

Labour won Oldham with a big margin, that more than the warblings of Benn a conservative political cuckoo will preserve Corbyns leadership.

With Oldham behind him Corbyn must commence the bloodletting, he cannot allow his shadow cabinet to be split like this, either Jeez goes and a blairite cuckoo ascends and purges the left from the party, or Corbyn and his fellow Trots cleanse the ISIS like remains of Blairs legacy from the party - its war and it must be fought and won before the next election.

Nick J said...

Funny thing Chris, I read this article before reading the result of the Oldham by election in which Labour increased its majority and share of the vote (albeit with fewer votes cast). Do you think that might have scared the Deep State more? Might there be a realisation by the bankers and the establishment that they may be up against a big a challenge as Atlee in 1945? The Tories failed to see that one coming.

Victor said...


I love picking my way through your unique prose style in order to discover what you're actually saying. It's not always easy.

Am I right in interpreting your latest comment as saying that grammar and comprehensive school products are inherently less capable of running the UK than are the beneficiaries of expensive private educations?

If so, I should point out that most of the past Labour paragons you identify and seem to admire either went to state-run grammar schools (Jenkins, Healey, Brown) or to partially state-aided ones(Crosland, Owen). Only Dick Crossman was a real nob and went to Winchester.

Anonymous said...

This article is already completely out of date - it actually looks like the ultimate polished turd with the Oldham result so good for Corbyn he is back on the front foot and is preparing to rinse the party of its light blue counter revolutionaries by deselecting them before 2020 election and using the coming electoral changes which will rinse 10% of all MP's. Theres an excellent write up in the torygraph:

Anonymous said...

Enough, I say let us declare war on the British, why ? because they are British.
Robert, I hereby appoint you as commanding General of our Army, Navy and Air-force.
Stay off the gin.
Best regards, and kiss's to all our lady soldiers with pony-tails John.
PS, Guerilla Surgeon. I appoint you as 2IC, don't forget your medication.

Robert M said...

Victor, I am suggesting the calibre of the current Labour shadow ministers and the Tory cabinet is considerably lower than there predecessors in say 1950-1990. Compare Blair's cabinets with Harold Wilson's or Callaghan's or Cameron' with MacMillan's. The 1960s cabinets of both parties were some of the brightest people in the UK and in their day at Oxbridge were regarded as probably among the very brightest in the Uk, eg Healy, Wilson, Jenkins, MacMillan and Powell.
In terms of your suggestion that I am biased towards the superiority of private school educatioh, I'm not really. In the UK in the twenty first century and even higher proportion of the middle class are privately educated, but far fewer of them or any other definition of the elite, whatever the definition,(IQ, earning,The top 10 or 30 public schools, landholding, Debrets, Eton/Harrow, Guard Reg) go into politics and those that do are certainly not the cream. Its seems unlikely that Cameron and Osborne are intellectually superior to say John Key or Bill English.Its certainly true that the proportion from Oxbridge/ Cambridge is as high as ever, but the present day incumbents are not remotely the cream from the learned colleges and you don't require Greek and Latin for entry now, and it is much more difficult to assess the quality of a degree these days. Although given that Tony Abbott and Max Mosley have a double first from Oxford in Law/Econ an and Law / Physics a first class mind from Oxford might be much less acceptable to Bowalley readers than Bill Clnton B.Litt( failed ).

Robert M said...

A lot of Wilson era Labour Mps and quite a few of the Cabinet were educated at premier public schools, Crosland (Highgate), Tony Benn (Westminister), Micheal Foot (Winchester) et al. Troublemakers like Tam Dayell were certainly products of the worst years at Eton, the late 1940's. Thatchers first cabinet had more Guardsmen and old Etonians than Churchill's. I expect Hillary Benn's education was a lot more exclusive than it might appear. Certainly Tony Crosland's second wife, Susan Barnes in her UK Sunday Times features, always presented, Tony Benn as quite mad.
In terms of the suggestion that political interference with military operational matters is unwise, I would suggest it is necessary and unavoidable in a nuclear and highly politicised age. Thatcher allowed her Admirals and arms salesman far too much scope and never really forgave the Falklands high command for misleading her over the risks, and the high stakes gamble which saw the loss of HMS Coventry.
Winston Churchill was a military genuis. On taking command of Britain and its forces, and belatedly seeing the emerging situation, on the banks of the Meuse, he asked what expendable air resources were available, he was told a 100 Battle bombers. He ordered them to fly as kamikazees straight into the house of the clear leader of the Nazi invasion. General Heinz Guderain, ('We are sailing'-GB). Such was Churchills aweome, bulldog voice and presence, that they did. Twenty hit the house two doors down from Guderains command post. Secondly Churchill ordered, Admiral Cunningham to sink the Vinchy fleet of his former allies in port, a ruthless action which impressed the American Government and Press that he would fight, necessary given the ineffectual performanc of the British Army in France. Thirdly Churchill did everything to back Colonel Wingate ( Later General ) and his 16 year old wife from the time they arrived in Palestine, and they proved a self selecting comb, to the future Isreali high command, stern gang and political.
In terms of Hitler, he had no talent at all,as the left thinks, he was just an agitator the army and big industry, thought expendable. Everything the Nazis said in 1929-1932 was prescripted and at least half of the Nazi supporters thought the Strasser brothers were the real leaders of the Nazi party in 1932. Nobody seriously thought that Hitler could actually lead Germany in politically, economically and war and he proved so clueless in 1933 that, by the end of 1934 real power in Germany rested with Goring and Heydrich. Hitler seised power in the coup of Kristalnight in 1938, which established the criminal nature of the regime and a means of funding the German social welfare state through criminal loot from its victims. The violent anti semitism of 1938 was realy a payoff to the SA louts who neither the SS or German Army would accept on any terms. Still there was no expection that Hitler, 'the bohemian corporal as his generals knew him' could actually lead in war. In reality the military genius credited to Hitler was almost entirely that of Guderain, who actually made the decision to dig in December 1941, rather than advance to fight in the streets of Moscow, when he saw the first flanks Rosanowlskis T34 and well equipped advance units. Although he had no expectation of the forces that would hit the Army and SS on 5-12-41

Guerilla Surgeon said...

"PS, Guerilla Surgeon. I appoint you as 2IC, don't forget your medication. "
Er... I'm not sure I could stumble my way through Robert's written orders thanks all the same. I'm also not quite sure what the point of your comment is. Have you forgotten YOUR meds? Whoever the fuck you are :-).

greywarbler said...

I can't remember which comment I saw this link in. I have searched it out again as it is so amazing to hear the passion in Tony Benn's voice and his humanitarian approach behind his speech against attacking Iraq. And for his son, or some relative, to now back it although the same considerations apply is enough to make you weep. How we have fallen!
And is it Jeremy Corbyn in full beard behind him. He has stayed true to holding onto moral examination of the political decisions to kill by the state.

peterlepaysan said...

Why is Syria making me think of the Spanish Civil War?

Different actors. Familiar scenario.

Why is daesh reminding me of anarchists circa 1914 igniting assorted alliances.

Different actors. Familiar scenario.

I recomend reading "A New History of the World" by Peter Frankopan.

Different actors (several in repeats), even today. Familiar scenario.


Guess that is history, eh Chris?

ABhba said...

Very average speech in my opinion.
"a bellicose social imperialist" to be sure, and also useful idiot for the "regime change" agenda which is the real reason behind western intervention. Defence secretary Fallon said as much in the select committee hearings - asked about the "70,000" you tube clip has him saying "... deserve our support to rid syria of assad and ISIL".
MK Bhadrakumar was very critical of the UN resolution and could not believe Russian acquiescence.
And now we see Turkey moving in to Mosul and US bombing SAA (Syrian govt) forces.
As has been plain from virtually the beginning, ISIS is not just a product of Turkey and SA but has also been supported by US/western interests in their goal of ME hegemony and instability/chaos of Israel's neighbours.
Remember Wesley Clark's in 2001 - "we're going to take out 7 countries in 5 years" - well nothing has really changed.

Bushbaptist said...

The Wolfowitz Doctrine. Remember that Google is your ally.

Andrew Nichols said...

Nothing new in the vilification of Corbyn. The Deep State are terrified of anyone who articulates forbidden alternatives from such a position. If he was in Latin America ' he'd have been assassinated like Allende, deposed like Zelaya. As it is JC's getting the Chavez treatment. What is surprising is just quite how hysterical the Deep State and its useful fools have become. I had no idea the Brits could be so passionate. They really do fear him.

Charles E said...

Boy, talk about getting off track and misreading our host. Chris has not written lauding Benn and dishing Corbinladen. Nor was he writing about Syria or the ME or Islamism ....
He is merely pointing out the realities of Britz Pol Sci and their Labour Party punch up. Benn looks like a candidate to take on the current old lumpen lefty who has sharply divided his party to the extent that I see Nick Cohen has committed apostasy.(The far left would kill him if they could, so that is the right word and parallel). He has announced his resignation from the left because even though he is as he puts it a 'born lefty' the takeover of Labour by the Corbynistas and their foul sexist, anti-Semitic, racist and undemocratic world view has revolted him so much, he's left the left! Wow.(See Spectator 19 Sept & his fine book 'What's Left?')
That is related to what Chris is pointing out: the forces within deep Labour and outside it, including the mildly left Press, are a substantial force & will do in Corby and even if they do not do it soon, the public will, as they will refuse to elect him PM, at least while he refuses to sing God Save the Queen! What a drip.
Although like the Venezuelan Socialists he may well try to rig everything to stay in power in Labour. He's not a democratic socialist, and there's another reason he must, and will be gone in due course.

Guerilla Surgeon said...

Well the Canadians don't seem quite so intimidated by left-wing candidates although Trudeau is probably not tremendously left. But at least they got rid of that awful Harper, who seems to have managed to ruin the country. That stupid austerity crap is on the way out thank God.

Charles E said...

GS I agree but only if Trudeau stops their obscene tar sands mining. Otherwise he will be just another 'all talk and no trousers' liberal as the Texans say.

Bushbaptist said...

Freddy Gray sums it up well;

Guerilla Surgeon said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Guerilla Surgeon said...

When I was in Texas the expression was all hat and no cattle. All mouth and (no) trousers comes from northern England I thought.

Salon sums it up very well as well – Corbyn:

“I’m also concerned about the issues of where the financial support for ISIL comes from,” he later explained. “And so what I’ve done is asked our government, as indeed we ask all governments: look into your banks, look into your banking system. Who is laundering this money? Look at the manufacturers’ labels on those weapons that are used by ISIL. They didn’t all come from nowhere. Somebody’s been selling those weapons.”

“All that I’ve read indicates that the bombing campaigns over the past few months against ISIL — or years, I suppose — has actually increased the number of recruits, has fueled the allure of ISIS,” Corbyn added. “We have to find a different and better way of doing it.”

Unknown said...

Those who do not remember the past are condemned to repeats it. See the link the below for more info.