"Defeated Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham is to be shadow home secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's first shadow cabinet."
"Defeated Labour leadership candidate Andy Burnham is to be shadow home secretary in Jeremy Corbyn's first shadow cabinet."
This is good. McDonnell as shadow chancellor I find slightly disappointing - not because I don't think he's got a capable mind, but because it was an opportunity to reach out to all areas of the party and unite with a political compromise.
Chuka Umunna has left the shadow cabinet by mutual agreement.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk - so please excuse any spelling or grammar errors
Shall we expect the announcement soon he has signed for somebody?
McDonnell as shadow chancellor? Fucking Hell!!
Where's Dianne? Ministry for (private for my children only) education?
McDonnell as shadow chancellor? Fucking Hell!!
They are silent - it's labour politicians that are saying he is not up to the job.
This fat girl is the new shadow health minister!
They and the PM now are saying that the Labour party is a threat to national security.
This issue about national security.
There has always been the idea in this that the person with a bigger stick wins. No point having a bigger stick now when the biggest threat to ourselves comes from individuals and not states. Maybe an approach is needed where dialogue is needed with all states to understand our differences. To give you one difference between Western Civilisation and quite a number of eastern states is that they do not hold democracy in the same regard as us. With us it is the lynch pin of all our actions. Leaving the argument of 'if democracy is a good thing' aside, shouldn't we find out why they don't hold democracy in the same esteem as us.
Surely invading countries and trying to set up our style of government in these places is doomed to failure if the people in those countries have a different ethical outlook on life.
Some would go so far as even calling this a war crime.
How dare you call Putin a maniac! My wife says he's a thoroughly nice, caring individual who would never hurt a fly.It would be lovely if this worked, however in practice the world is full of nutters who would take advantage if we left NATO and disarmed. A maniac like Putin or ISIS or even someone we don't yet know would start a war.
Just as frightening is what would happen to the economy with Corbynomics. By hiking tax revenue would reduce. Millionaires will leave rather than pay 70%+ income tax and there would be a flood of companies relocating as corporation tax was hiked. More people would stop working if their income tax & welfare went up significantly. If he prints money inflation goes up and gilt yields rocket meaning that debt repayment costs go sky high. It wouldn't take long before the entire country was in poverty.
No number 10 role for him then?
Piece being a cataclysmic effect? You really are an idiot of the highest degree.
How dare you call Putin a maniac! My wife says he's a thoroughly nice, caring individual who would never hurt a fly.
Sent from my Hudl 2 using Tapatalk
I'm not entering this debate but you really shouldn't throw stones about people being idiots with sentences like that preceding.
I didn't suggest it. I'm arguing the piece process is a good thing rather than a cataclysmic event. Grendull seems to think that the Northern Ireland piece process was cataclysmic, presumably he thinks we should have continued the status quo that would have inevitably led to another Warrington type attack. He can't spell cataclysmic either. I think I'm pretty safe throwing stones on this occasion.
Have you been watching the Producers?I didn't suggest it. I'm arguing the piece process is a good thing rather than a cataclysmic event. Grendull seems to think that the Northern Ireland piece process was cataclysmic, presumably he thinks we should have continued the status quo that would have inevitably led to another Warrington type attack. He can't spell cataclysmic either. I think I'm pretty safe throwing stones on this occasion.
He can't spell cataclysmic either.
Agreeing to surrender to terrorist demands encourages terrorists.
It's what terrorists do. Terrorists create terror to achieve their aims. Appeasement creates more terrorists.
Hardly a surprise.
As I said previously you would no doubt have praised Chamberlain for his appeasement policy and delivering peace.
Really? So there's been an increase in IRA attacks since the good Friday agreement then? No, I didn't think so.
Plus. What have we actually surrendered to the IRA?
Some could argue it was a surrender of sorts. Probably more a compromise really but it surrendered ground and allowed former terrorists into positions of power.
It was probably a price worth paying but it's only a sticking plaster. The fundamental differences between loyalists and republicans aren't really for compromise. The resentment means it will unravel over time.
He's already ruled himself out - but you could argue that the next leader will have distanced themselves from Corbyn.
Sinn Fein were being elected long before the good Friday peace agreement. So that's nothing new. With devolution happening the Northern Ireland assembly was always going to happen. The ultimate goal of the IRA of a united Ireland will never be possible so long as protestants make up the majority of the population and even then it will only be possible through politics not the gun.
The time was right for Northern Ireland and it was the right thing to do by all parties. It's something the UK should be proud of and how anyone says it promotes terrorism when the obvious effect is the opposite is beyond me. When you go to NI know you're not surrounded by armed check points (both official government ones and unofficial IRA ones, I've experienced both a a kid) cities like Derry and Belfast are safe places to visit, tourism is blooming, unemployment has fallen and it's generally a positive place to be. A stark contrast from the dark years of the 70's and 80's into the 90's. It's a change that started from the moment real dialogue happened as well.
I would suggest that the IRA and the current crop of Islamic psychopaths are probably on a different playing field though
Really? So there's been an increase in IRA attacks since the good Friday agreement then? No, I didn't think so.
Plus. What have we actually surrendered to the IRA?
Possibly.
I do agree with the general principle that you definitely don't solve things without talking to people however. That's not to say talking to people automatically guarantees resolution, of course...
FWIW I'd be uncomfortable with the no NATO policy, but am also uncomfortable with the post-empire blues that sees us attempt to be the world's police, and thus do it piecemeal. A fair few problems are because we blunder in without thought to the consequence. Propping up Assad because ISIS are worse would be an unfortunate consequence of destablising the former, for example.
That's not the same, however, as to say there are no times when intervention is required. How that approach happens can be up for debate however.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?