It’s genuinely mental how all the major media outlets try to spin his “in accordance with international law” approach to military intervention as a negative.
“Sorry lads, totally forgot about those luxury flats I owned. Lol.”
“No problem Jeremy, honest mistake. I mean technically it’s money laundering but it happens to the best of us”
Yet they are keen to cast him as a maverick outsider (at best, or someone who doesn’t understand ‘the game’) the rest of the time.
It’s pretty telling that the MP’s register has stronger requirements than the ministerial code, and the media don’t appear to be questioning that.
Surely there’s a Corbyn headline they need to drop instead.
this is from the guardian, and the hostile tone it adopts towards abbott’s anti-war position is actually disgusting, especially for a supposedly left-leaning paper (altho they are liberals so…):
The shadow home secretary, Diane Abbott, has struggled to defend Labour’s call for a UN-led inspection into the Douma attack.
Asked on the BBC Radio 4’s Today programme whether Labour would back intervention if the Organisation for the Prevention of Chemical Weapons confirms chemical weapons had been used she said: “Let’s see what the inspectors come up with. Even in the US there is an understanding that we don’t have all the evidence.”
When it was pointed out that Russia had repeatedly vetoed calls for a UN-led investigation into the use of chemical weapons in Syria, Abbott said: “There has to be a political negotiation. We would press on trying to bring people to the table. We believe more bombing is not the answer to the crisis in Syria.”
“There is a response which falls short of more bombing. We believe there needs to be a coordinated international drive to achieve a ceasefire and a negotiated political settlement.”
Asked about the circumstances in which Labour would support military action, Abbott cited the Second World War. But she repeatedly refused to say what circumstances she would back military action now.
“There is no evidence to show that further bombing in Syria will make the region more stable,” she said.
She was also asked which country posed the biggest threat to world peace: Russia or the US. After trying to avoid the question she eventually said: “It is clear that at this point Russia, its role in Syria, what we believe beyond reasonable doubt its role in the poison gas attack in Salisbury, is a greater threat to world peace than the United States.”
why would radio 4 ask that last question unless they’d decided that trying to trick abbott was more important than having a sober discussion about what, exactly, this government thinks it is doing.
infuriated and worried today, mates.
Pacifict Corbyn murders cabbage
Eco warrior and well known pacifist who wants us to be become Russian, Jeremy Corbyn, was photographed last night ruthlessly tearing up cabbages from his allotment. The leader of the Labour party is well known for his jam making abilities, but his penchant for killing living plants was only reveled late in the evening when he crept out of his home and cycled to his plot with a sharp knife. A spokesman for Corbyn simply said “Jeremy has always been a keen gardener, it’s a well known part of his personality and he enjoys growing his own fruit and veg.”
A leading Labour MP said “This is why we should never have elected Corbyn in the first place. He couldn’t care less about British security, yet when it comes to his own wishes it’s a different story altogether”.
Surprised a ‘Corbyn would pay for free under-25 bus passes with money that would go into bombing Syria’ headline, presented entirely as a negative, hasn’t appeared yet.
Tbf the BBC seems to think being aggressive and attempting to get a ‘gotcha’ moment is the best path to hard hitting journalism whoever they’re interviewing. Paxman has a lot to answer for.
If I’m honest, I don’t think it’s actually an unfair question to ask and it shouldn’t be a difficult one for Abbot to answer. I do agree with you on the state of questioning on Today in general though.
yeah but it just seems so pointless, particularly since giving the right answer would entail having to deal with an absolute shitstorm afterwards.
“Both countries are contributing to a decline in worldwide security at the moment, partiuclarly with their dangerous escalations in rhetoric, but it’s clear that Russia, in their extremely likely role in Sailsbury, in their support for Assad’s forces in Syria and in their actions along their Western border against some of our allies are the greater threat.”
I can’t even remember the point of my argument tbh
That John Humphries should have been put out to pasture years ago?
yes, that’s it!
thanks for the save
Think I’ve said this on here before but since I’ve got a car I’ll on the very rare occasion drive into work. Only got a shitty radio in there so stick Radio 4 on. Never really listened to Today before but having given it a listen I was astounded by how poor it was. I thought it was supposed to be some kind of flagship/gold standard of news and debate. Humphrys is appalling. Justin Webb’s ok I suppose. But I was genuinely surprised about how poor a programme it is.
Maybe its all Humphrys’ doing but, my word. I honestly think you get more insight into the world by listening to Ronan Keating’s breakfast show on Magic FM.
this isn’t bad actually:
"We were speaking to your neighbours today
They think your garden smells of socialism"
Side note: liberal doesn’t mean left anymore? I always thought of myself as liberal, but probably in an A-level history kind of way - power to the people, like the Chartists/suffragettes/other GBOL/Ls of history, as opposed to the Tories/monarchists/reactionaries.
Are ‘liberal’ and ‘centrist’ the same thing now? Is ‘liberal’ just socially liberal but economically still quite right-wing, what is a centrist then and should we all just be socialists now, father?