1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.
  2. Hi Guest, welcome to the TES Community!

    Connect with like-minded education professionals and have your say on the issues that matter to you.

    Don't forget to look at the how to guide.

    Dismiss Notice

Will Corbyn also be a victim of the Paris terror attacks?

Discussion in 'Personal' started by Morninglover, Nov 18, 2015.

  1. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter

    Well, it will either be him or his party, I guess:

    http://www.economist.com/blogs/bage...e/bl/ed/corbynssensiblesarestartingtopushback

    "Arriving home, a resident in a high-vis jacket confesses that he is Labour by habit and UKIP by preference. “He’s an idiot,” he adds matter-of-factly of Mr Corbyn: “his foreign policy is totally out of date.” A couple of houses down an old man in a vest declares himself a convinced socialist, a scion of a “strong army family” and utterly alienated by the unwillingness (as he sees it) of Mr Corbyn, a unilateral nuclear disarmer, to defend Britain"


    And if the Economist is too right wing, what about the Indie:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...n-looks-detached-over-terrorism-a6738156.html

    What very few will understand is Jeremy Corbyn’s response to the events in Paris. I write this with searing regret, because one of the qualities I have admired about him is his refusal to play dumb. He will not spout fatuous gibberish in populism’s cause, or be bullied into parroting nonsense by the confected hysteria of right-wing tabloids. He remains true to himself and the ideals he has held for half a century, which is splendid. It is even a touch heroic.

    Yet there is a borderline between rigorous authenticity and damaging self-caricature. If last week’s ruminations on the execution by drone of Jihadi John took him to its edge, Corbyn strode across it this week when asked if, as Prime Minister, he would operate a shoot-to-kill policy should the nightmare of Paris come to London. The answer is excruciating to quote.

    “I’m not happy with the shoot-to-kill policy in general,” he told a BBC interviewer. “I think that is quite dangerous… You have to have security that prevents people firing off weapons where they can… But the idea you end up with a war on the streets is not a good thing. Surely you have to work to try and prevent these things happening. That’s got to be the priority.”

    The problem with this lies not in what he said, but in what he didn’t say first. No one sane thinks shooting battles desirable, or wouldn’t be thrilled if they could be prevented. Of course the long-term priority must be to tackle the root causes of this psychosis. All of that would have been fine had he begun his reply by addressing the short-term priority: what to do when people with Kalashnikovs in their hands and bombs around their waists are rampaging through a British city.

    To equivocate on that question is to commit suicide by media cop. The only beginning to that reply is on these lines: “Of course I would operate a shoot-to-kill policy – if, God forbid, it were needed. What do you think my policy would be? Send George Dixon in to greet them with a chirpy, ‘evenin’ all, now what’s all this palaver, then?’ and invite them down to the Dock Green nick for a cup of tea and a chat with the sergeant? You insult your audience’s intelligence by asking the question.”

    The specially lethal thing about the answer he gave instead is that it projected a sense of detachment. We do not need more politicians engaging in mortal combat with one another to castigate these killers as more evil, monstrous, vile, despicable, cowardly, etc, etc, than the last MP to bluster the identical self-dramatising verities three minutes earlier. Of those we have a surplus. And we certainly do need more politicians who are prepared to go beyond the purely visceral, by talking about the complexities; the need to deal not only with immediate threats to security, but with the causes of that psychosis.
     
  2. OnlyOneOpinion

    OnlyOneOpinion Occasional commenter

    Possibly. It's hard to say for sure. But I thought this comment in the article was very interesting and indicative of some of the elements influencing the party

    Emma Reynolds asserted that the guilt for the attacks lay solely with the attackers (that this even needs saying in today’s Labour is an indication of the moral depths in which the party now lurks).



    I wonder if the article was published in response to the one in the Indie yesterday with the headline

    Got a French flag on your Facebook profile picture? Congratulations on your corporate white supremacy

    which went on to say

    Euro-centrism - a worldview which centres and places overemphasised importance on the West - reinforces its supremacy through actions like these. And there’s no ignoring the fact that this stems from European colonisation. How deeply ironic, considering that the colonisation of the Middle East and wars carried out in Muslim lands put down the roots for extremist groups such as Isis.


    It’s a dismaying and damaging truth that Westerners care about and empathise with images of white-skinned women grieving in Topshop bobble hats far more than brown-skinned women grieving in niqabs and, when you lend your voice to Euro-centric campaigns such as Facebook’s flag filter, you exacerbate this. When we buy into such easy corporate public mourning, we uphold white supremacy. We’re essentially saying that white, Western lives matter more than others.


    This sentiment, when it washes across the world via Facebook in a sea of blue, white and red, provides a get-out-of-jail-free card for the West’s slaughter of Middle Eastern people in retaliation, causing the very thing we’re supposed to be up in arms over: the loss of innocent lives.


    http://www.independent.co.uk/voices...-your-corporate-white-supremacy-a6736526.html
    [Emphasis added]

    What a lovely person who criticises people's wish to show support for the victims of the atrocity and for France as a whole. Not to mention the racism inherent in the article.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  3. magic surf bus

    magic surf bus Star commenter

    I lost interest in him when he said he'd never use the nuclear deterrent.

    Yes Jeremy, the whole point of deterrence is that you don't use it, but you don't go and announce that in advance to your country's potential enemies. Does the phrase 'poker face' have no meaning for you?

    Principled he may be, but he doesn't seem to grasp that as PM he'd be responsible for protecting a population of whom most don't follow his principles, due to our non-proportional electoral system. I don't want to become a small pile of radioactive ash because Jeremy Corbyn had naive principles, I want protecting by some hard ass who'll stare the opposition out until they think they can't win.
     
    FolkFan and irs1054 like this.
  4. Scintillant

    Scintillant Star commenter

    You may recall the invasion of Iraq. And how well things have turned out.

    Do you feel safer now?


    Mr Cameron is trying to be your "hard ass".

    I'm sure things will go swimmingly and we'll all be even safer very soon.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  5. lunarita

    lunarita Lead commenter

  6. irs1054

    irs1054 Star commenter

    It seems that nobody remembers the "Yes Prime Minister" episode:



    Does anyone seriously think that any PM (of whatever degree of 'hawkishness') would "push the button" in any situation other than 'Britain reduced to a smouldering ruin'? And then what would be the point? Revenge? As Magic Surf Bus says you don't announce that, you pretend it is a viable option.

    Corbyn is a man of principle but there is more to being a politician than that. This situation is Michael Foot all over again. What annoys me is that it is this is effectively letting Cameron off the hook, particularly on domestic policy. Just when we really need an effective opposition we don't have one.
     
    lexus300 likes this.
  7. Morninglover

    Morninglover Star commenter


    Which party entered the war in Iraq...? Oh, yes, it was Jeremy's Labour Government.
     
  8. lanokia

    lanokia Star commenter

    I was always under the impression we only had a nuclear deterrent because we were on the UN Security Council, the other four had them and if we got rid of ours they'd give our seat to Brazil or India.
     
  9. Cliffedge

    Cliffedge Occasional commenter

    Unilateral disarmament now the disarming of the police and the disbanding of MI5.
     
  10. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    Here's a straw in the wind:

    [​IMG]

    By-election result from Kent last night.... Doesn't look good for Labour who lost the seat.
     
  11. Macrinus

    Macrinus Occasional commenter

    Exactly, but let's not let the facts get in the way of his Far Left rant.
     
  12. Weald56

    Weald56 Established commenter

    [​IMG]

    Made me laugh!
     
    Cliffedge likes this.
  13. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    Most do not follow Conservative principles if you look at the voter split.
     
  14. lexus300

    lexus300 Star commenter

    The first was justified, the second not. We did not finish the job the first time and got it all wrong the second time,
     
    Burndenpark likes this.
  15. Cliffedge

    Cliffedge Occasional commenter

    This would still be a PMs job under a proportional system.
     
  16. xmal

    xmal Established commenter

    How can Corbyn call himself a pacifist when he has gone to such lengths to show his support for various terrorist groups? His problem with the Paris attacks is that he has, in the past, supported Islamic terrorists.
     
    Burndenpark likes this.
  17. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    We got the seat 'cos we had nukes, If we gave them up... I don't know, it's unprecedented- no one in the past has ever been daft enough to develop a very big stick to defend themselves with then publicly break it.
     
  18. Burndenpark

    Burndenpark Star commenter

    But it's not really as simple as that is it?
    The last election for that seat coincided with the General Election and there were 1300 votes split between Labour (725) & Tory (592) on a turn out of 53%
    The fact that compared to last time there were 6 candidates this time and about 40% the number of voters shows nothing but for the total apathy
    http://www.ashford.gov.uk/parliamentary-borough-parish-elections---7-may-2015#Aylesford Green
     
  19. cariadwch

    cariadwch Established commenter

    More Meaningless by election results from Gwynedd - looks like Welsh independence is imminent: Although a bad night for Llais who consider that Plaid aren't Nationalist enough. Corbyn and his boyos came nowhere and the Conservative vote suffered dramatically.

    Conwy, Eglwysbach - Plaid Cymru hold

    Party 2015 votes 2015 share 2012 result since 2010
    Plaid Cymru 369 86.8% +14.1% -1.3%
    Conservative 56 13.2% -14.1% +1.3%

    Gywnedd, Llanaelhaearn -Plaid Cymru gain from Llais Gwynedd

    Party 2015 votes 2015 share since 2012
    Plaid Cymru 200 48.7% +36.7% +12.0%
    Llais Gwynedd 112 27.3% -22.6% +0.5%
    Independent Cullen 99 24.1%
     
  20. smoothnewt

    smoothnewt Star commenter

    I'm getting tired of reading about Corbyn being a "man of principle"; the fact of the matter is that someone of his advanced years who is so mentally entrenched as to be still engaging in 1970s student politics in 2015 must be suffering from some kind of arrested development.
    He has no business being in the elevated position he finds himself in, and the sooner he goes, the better.
     

Share This Page