Comments on Obsolete: "I don't even know your name." "Oh, it's evil death cult, but you can call me Daesh."

That was just it; everyone was telling Harman that...

2015-12-03T22:48:55.650+00:00

That was just it; everyone was telling Harman that this would hand Corbyn the victory, and yet none of them then did the obvious thing and resigned and vote against. And these were the people with the supposed strategic nous to lead Labour to victory!

(To which could also be added: 'can better read the national mood, despite not being able to read the mood of their own party members).

On Cooper: yes her speech was dreadful. 'Here are sll the reasons why this is a bad idea, but I will vote in support anyway'. *facepalm*

Beckett's was another that was touted as one of the best and I could not for the life of me understand why.

Case in point - Andy Burnham towards the end came ...

2015-12-03T22:35:05.713+00:00

Case in point - Andy Burnham towards the end came to the conclusion that if he'd resigned from the shadow cabinet over the welfare vote as he considered doing he would have won. I think he might have too, but of course he didn't as that would have been the "easy" option.

On Cooper - thank goodness she didn't, considering her unbelievably wet speech yesterday which some hilariously had in their list of the best.

Yes that's true, he was at least making a clea...

2015-12-03T21:50:56.386+00:00

Yes that's true, he was at least making a clear case with conviction and without trying to weasel out of the responsibility for it. I expect that, when Benn is leader and Syria blows up in our faces, this speech will be endlessly replayed with the finger of blame pointing at him though ('the speech that took us to war' etc.)...

I have often said that if Cooper, at least, had started the contest the way she finished she would have won. But this does rather expose Labour's problem, at least with the actual moderates in the party. They're capable of making a passionate speech here because it reflects the 'national mood' and makes them look 'credible'; but they can't do it in defence of benefits (at least until the middle classes start weeping on Question Time) because it wouldn't be in the 'national mood' and it would make them look 'uncredible'. They're followers, not leaders. So it goes.

I hardly agreed with a word Benn said, but what ma...

2015-12-03T14:27:39.285+00:00

I hardly agreed with a word Benn said, but what made his speech stand out from the rest was how it was free from the hand-wringing, self-pitying tone of so much of the other speeches, with MPs doing their best as per to make it all about them. Oh, it's so hard to take the decision to bomb - well yes, but it's immensely worse for those about to be in the crossfire. You're right on how it wasn't free from cliche, as whatever IS are they are not fascists, totalitarians or not.

The other thing that annoys is that it takes a debate like yesterday's to see the sort of passion and purpose that Labour so desperately needs, and it's directed towards something that if anything will lose the party votes. If there had been so much as an ounce of similar fervour during the leadership campaign from any of the other three, the party wouldn't be so bitterly divided now. Talk about not knowing which battles to choose.

I pronounce it 'Dah-Esh' myself ;-) Benn&...

2015-12-03T13:18:22.437+00:00

I pronounce it 'Dah-Esh' myself ;-)

Benn's speech was good (though not free of cliche - 'our enemies are fascists' is one of the most overused rhetorical maneuvers), but it did rather illustrate the problem of the pro-war group; bigging up airstrikes to be something much more devastating and decisive than they can be; full of powerful rhetoric about moral duties, but worrying unspecific about how we're actually going to carry out said moral duty.

I also find it odd that our moral duty extends to 'dropping bombs' but not to 'hang around and help guide the resolution', which should surely be an important part of any intervention.