Rayvin

I mean, ignoring for a moment that in terms of creating the environment for this to happen, the West absolutely does share in responsibility here, Stop the War have made the following comments: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2174-syria-ceasefire-no-lasting-peace http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2184-syria-foreign-intervention-and-the-end-of-the-ceasefire They are calling for all foreign intervention in Syria to end. Not just the Russians, all of it. Does that help? They also have this article detailing talking points at a convention, which makes reference to the media calling them pro-Russian: http://www.stopwar.org.uk/index.php/news-comment/2190-a-chance-to-break-with-our-addiction-to-war Excerpt: The conference will reaffirm the centrality of an anti-war movement — the largest and most significant in any Nato country — and the continued need to oppose British imperialism and its allies. This does not mean supporting British imperialism’s opponents. We have repeatedly been accused of being pro-Taliban, pro-Saddam, pro Gaddafi and pro-Assad. We are also accused of being pro-Russia. In fact, we have repeatedly condemned all foreign interventions in Syria and elsewhere, and have condemned all bombing which in every case results in the deaths of innocent civilians and often also helps fuel greater opposition. Those who attack us — and by extension Corbyn — are the same people who want to diminish criticisms of Blair and Cameron (and Brown, who continued a heavy involvement in Afghanistan), and who cheerled every escalation of war, every new intervention. They are the same people who voted for bombing Syria last December and were willing to suck up every one of Cameron’s lies to do so. As a disclaimer - I know very little about this organisation, but from the three articles I've just read and linked to here, it seems that they're an anti-Western imperialism organisation. Not a global anti-imperialism organisation. So they're doing exactly what they should be doing, based on their stated aims, aren't they? I think the last statement is particularly interesting.

Probably because the establishment has it covered? If we were in bed with the Russians and engaging in covering up what they're doing, the left would be up in arms. But we aren't - we're calling them out for what they are through the establishment media outlets. The left picks a bone with Israel and the west because we cover up the shit that we do. It needs to be exposed. There is no cover up of Russian imperialism. It's there for all to see. The only thing the left could arguably do to up the ante at this point is demand some manner of governmental militaristic response (aren't we already sanctioning Russia?). That's not in the lefty phrasebook though, so there's literally nothing to be said here. I think the better question is, why do YOU think they aren't saying anything. Is it because they're all commies? As for Russia - it's not going to come to global war. The West, and I agree with the establishment on this, sadly, is not going to run the risk of a global humanitarian catastrophe that would be world war III for the sake of Syria. Even if the Russians burn it to the ground. I don't even think the Russians would want that. There will be some manner of de-escalation shortly, I'm sure.

How do we stop the Russians exactly? Corbyn has spoken on this back in December last year and made some incredibly wise comments with respect of whether or not the UK should become involved. You seem to be wanting him and the left to virtue signal here more than anything else. I'm left wing, I can assure you that I condemn the Russians. There's no point in him making a statement on this until the government does so. I can't actually recall him making a statement on Israel while he's been leader either, actually. Let's be clear though, Russia may be hitting civilians as collateral, the Israeli army is somewhat more questionable.

True, we weren't involved, thank fuck. Shame about the rest of the Western world.

I see Russia has claimed a new world war could be upon us if the Saudis send troops in. I have no idea why Putin is so confident that he'd win this war, especially with Israel on his doorstep. That said, Russia is one of these stupid countries where they 'can't back down' as nationalism has taken such a strong hold. Much like China. Not sure what the UN is going to be able to do about this really, for all its cries of warcrimes. Russia will just brand it a US mouthpiece. I can't remember who kicked this off now, was it us? Supporting rebels against Assad or something like that? Or did the Russians just respond to the rebels and then we got dragged in?

You've framed this as a left wing issue so at the risk of poking the hornet nest, is Russian carpet bombing of civilians worse than our carpet bombing of civilians? In other words, are they collateral or are they actually being targeted? Remember that we have a track record of blowing up hospitals and red cross outposts which many people on here have argued is unfortunate but, as they're collateral, isn't morally equivalent to murder or terrorism. I disagree with this when you know that these places are going to be hit as part of an action you're taking, but apparently others don't. Have the Russians made clear that they're attacking random civilians on principle or something? Also the coalitions you mention are there to stop our atrocities, not Russia's. I think we can safely assume that they condemn the Russian bombings. That said, Russia seriously pisses me off with all of this nonsense. I can see why they feel the need to present a strong front to the Americans but I thought they'd established a little while ago that their approach of blowing everything up wasn't working. Both sides need to step down from this war, it's become fucking ridiculous. Aren't we all supposedly there for ISIS? Are they even still in Syria? How has this whole fiasco not been resolved yet? Why we or any other country entertain these fucked up wars is beyond me. I agree with gloom that media focus should be put on it though. Pictures of wounded and dead. Same as I think they should do this when we're responsible.

Yes, we can see that. You're more an anti-fan of Sunderland than you are a fan of Newcastle!

Worth a read: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/25/boris-johnson-nhs-extra-funds-after-brexit-andrew-marr-lansley We all know Boris didn't believe in Brexit but this basically confirms it. Utter fuckwit this guy.

Very disappointed to hear that we've forced him of Twitter. What is that going to do for his confidence exactly? Fucking muppets, some people.

How many posts would you have if you'd not made so many accounts

Nicely phrased but I'm not sure it's necessarily true for Labour.

Fucking hell, I bet RTG is amazing atm.

Nice post. The only real collateral damage with this outlook are those who are needy and who are actually voting correctly. That said, you can't win them all.

Oh. That does make more sense.

I dunno, the Tories did pretty well with plugging austerity, and that's now provably economic horseshit. I don't think it needs to be solid, it just needs to be in the favour of the super wealthy. Admittedly, Corbyn is going to fall down there.

That's the statement then. Labour won't get more than 83 seats according to Renton. At least that's a line in the sand that we can come back to and pore over in 4 years time Incidentally, where are those votes going to go? Presumably CT is now right about UKIP? There must be stats for this somewhere? Would be interesting to see if anyone has them.

For the record, I acknowledge that you paid 10 times as much per year as a member than the latest cohort are. I give £10 a month personally and I'm not sure where the falls on your scale, but either way, if there's a lot of people in and around my level, they should be ok.

You and I clearly have different views on what PLP career politicians are prepared to do, but you may be right. As I said, we'll see. And as for the rest, I think Momentum might have it covered...

Because of course, all of the electorate are going to vote against him. And all the additional money which they're raising through having such large numbers won't help at all in campaigning, will it? It's happened, let's just see where it goes. For what it's worth, true to my word, I didn't vote in the end. I abstained. But I can't deny I'm pleased with the result.

I don't think enough of you are leaving that the party won't end up with a net higher number... It's sad of course that you did leave, though with the shambles of the last year I can see why (although I spread blame more evenly than you on this), but the thing that's bothering me is whether or not you are leaving because you just don't agree with his policies, or if it's because you don't think he can win? If the latter, that's a stupid reason to leave. Sorry but it is. That's just tribalism. If it's the policies then fair enough. The Shadow Cabinet will be interesting - it could be great if some of the PLP heavyweights get their heads out of their collective arses. We'll have to see on that front. I think the Party will do fine if it can be stabilised early enough. It all depends on the PLP really.

I'm not sure how statistically relevant it is, but his increased margin doesn't include the 130,000, presumably predominantly Corbyn aligned, voters who couldn't participate. Had they participated, fuck knows how large the margin would have been.

I know what you're saying but that statement seems bizarre given what we've just seen.

http://www.conservativehome.com/platform/2016/07/jake-berry-the-conservative-party-must-double-its-membership-its-time-for-maymentum.html Behold, the Tories being worried: Where Corbyn is effective, and which should concern us as Conservatives, is that in 48 hours this week he inspired more people to join the Labour Party than there are members of the Conservative Party nationally. This has grossed the Labour Party almost £5 million, making an activist-rich, left-wing, Momentum-dominated Labour Party a real threat to the Conservatives.