UKC

Just been asked to sign a petition to deselect Hilary Benn as MP for Leeds Central on the basis that he supported the 'bombing of Syria'. The petition has reached half the 5,000 votes required. I read his speech delivered to the Commons (below) and it is clear that he didn't support the 'bombing of Syria' but the bombing of ISIS/Daesh. In the light of recent outrages supported by ISIS/Daesh what do most people think now? One comment from a petition-signer was that 'Hilary Benn's father would be turning in his grave'. George Orwell must have worn a deep pit in the bottom of his grave.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/syria-vote-read-hilary-benns-...

In reply to Pekkie:

I think this is the end of the Labour Party. I won't give Corbyn credit for that; it was always going to fragment, and the time has now come. There needs to be a new centre-left party that, basically, can accommodate all the warm and fluffy stuff that many (most?) people want to sign up to without the millstones of trades union 'support' and would-be revolutionaries making it unelectable.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:

>There needs to be a new centre-left party that, basically, can accommodate all the warm and fluffy stuff that many (most?) people want to sign up to without the millstones of trades union 'support' and would-be revolutionaries making it unelectable.

'Warm and fluffy stuff'? I for one would support a realistic minimum wage, an end to 'flexible working' and massive investment in infrastructure. Solid, realistic stuff. Ever since I've been old enough to vote I've gone with Labour. Maybe no more.

In reply to Pekkie:


He said the sort of stuff "many (most?) people want to sign up to."

How would you impose "an end to 'flexible working"?

In reply to Pekkie:

These are complicated issues. 'Realistic minimum wages' (which, incidentally, outside of London we now have) actually prices many legitimate part time job opportunities out of the market. 'Flexible working' ... not sure how you legislate against that. 'Massive investment in infrastructure' - well, I agree, but it has to be paid for. And has to make economic sense (unlike HS2.)

In reply to Big Ger:


Pardon me. I meant zero hours working, of course.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


The cash can be easily and cheaply borrowed at the moment. And, as every student of Keynes knows, you have to spend to grow and create jobs. Hang on, I thought that I was going to get flamed as a right-winger...

In reply to Pekkie:

When warm and fluffy stuff is unaffordable, one has to wipe one's arse on cold and crinkly stuff.

In reply to birdie num num:


The Express was only 10p yesterday morning. You have to watch out for bargains these day.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:
HS2 is not just an exercise in improving passenger experience (although it will), it will free up vast sections of track enabling greater freight traffic to be carried which will remove a vast number of lorries from the road network (provided that they can sell the advantages to freight carriers which ought to be easy), this should lead to less maintenance required on motorways and freer flowing traffic (not that the M6 will be any better on a sunday afternoon as much of the general public appears to be incompetent at the use of lanes...

In reply to spenser:
There's the HS3 proposal too, which involves adapting existing track, so we can go without the destruction of some of our irreplaceable natural heritage, countryside and ancient woodlands (there's very little natural and semi natural ancient woodland left in the UK, and HS2 is proposed to go through some of it).

There's an economic case for looking after nature and doing things 'greenly', but I'm only part way through the book, so can't say much about it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/bookreviews/11392035/What-Nature-D...

But here's the book.... what Nature Does for Britain.

In reply to spenser:

https://www.amazon.co.uk/product-reviews/1781253285/ref=cm_cr_dp_see_all_bt...

In reply to spenser:


Why can't the existing rail network be improved ? I seem to remember one of the selling points was faster journey times - although cutting 20 mins off the journey from London to Manchester was ridiculous in my opinion. I agree with Timmd too, I don't want our countryside ruined any further.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


Really, it seems that many employers ( some of them high street names) are finding ways around paying their employees more by their cutting hours. ( but not the workload)

In reply to I like climbing:
They are improving it but the signalling is proving a bottleneck as the vast majority of the older rolling stock isn't capable of utilising ETCS and upgrading the signalling system to gain the extra capacity offered by HS2 would be far more expensive than HS2:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Train_Control_System
http://www.railwaysignalling.eu/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/ERTMS_ETCS_signa...
Those two should help explain some of the issues.
Trains by their very nature move on tracks and can't overtake each other unless there are sidings available, if you've ever been signalled behind a stopping service this will make a little more sense. The major benefit of HS2 in my eyes is that it enables far more freight traffic (max speed 60mph IIRC) to be moved during the day time without causing interference with passenger services.
I haven't looked at the route in detail, however from the perspective of someone working in the industry the need for HS2 is painfully obvious, it's entirely possible the route could be improved but they need to be careful with things such as making the track too curvy as that would limit the linespeed unless tilting trains are used.
Timmd: I'll take a look at the book sometime, looks like my kind of thing anyway.

In reply to Pekkie:

Agreed and all that, but in my nearly 60 years I have never known a government come up with that part of Keynesianism which says, this is the good times, time to tax more and repay the debt.

In reply to spenser:

They could double the capacity though by making double decker trains and making the track suit those instead.

They did it in Switzerland with minimum disruption (somehow), this means that rather than just shortening London to Newcastle by 30 mins, you can take twice as many people. We were being sold this monstrosity on the basis of overcrowding and lack of capacity.

In reply to spenser:

HS2 was sold on speed until it became obvious this was not really advantageous and very very expensive. Then it became all about capacity. If we have £70b to invest in rail I doubt HS2 is the best choice.

In reply to Pekkie: is that cheaper though? And will it actually be any good? And would it allow for more freight transport that Spenser alludes to?

Why is Britainso unwilling to spend money on new infrastructure?

In reply to wbo:

Damn short sighted politicians and bank managers.

Nothing wrong with my proposal for future investment in domestic infrastructure, swimming pool multi functions as fire prevention and hydro therapy. Nor rapid and efficient transportation, Porsche.

Obvious sensible investments at these times of low interest which I am sure that my children and grandchildren will welcome the opportunity to pay for.

In reply to Pekkie: My apologies for bringing this thread back on topic but can I just say that you are an unconscionable shit?

In reply to Mike Highbury:

Oh pray tell, why?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


As it happens, I know Pekkie and 'an unconscionable shit' is the very last thing he is. You, on the other hand, from many previous threads... well I'll be more charitable and (grudgingly) give you the benefit of the doubt.

Mick

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


I'm not sure he knows, Mike specialises in oblique insults. Who knows if he follows some sort of strange logic or just generates them randomly.

In reply to krikoman:


Aren't there quite a lot of low tunnels, bridges, stations, overhead power lines and gantries and stuff?

Part of the problem with being ahead of the game in Victorian times is that we now have a lot of very old infrastructure. I imagine the cost of replacing all this would be huge and, in some cases, undesirable for environmental and cultural reasons.

In reply to Pekkie:


Hang on, this doesn't make any sense.

You can't "deselect" your local MP of either party by a petition. The CLP (Constituency Labour Party) choose their local candidate and you can only vote if youre a fully paid up local member and attend the relevant husting. If its a sitting MP they don't have a husting. The vote for the general public happens every 4 years at the election, not by petition.

So this "petition" might make someone feel better, but is pretty meaningless in outcome.

In reply to Pekkie:

The only consolation is that it has not reached 5,000 votes.Unless they do that the petition will fortunately fail.

In reply to The New NickB:

Like a magic 8-ball, but for bile? A magic hate-ball, if you will.

In reply to Babika:





I wouldn't bring common sense or logic into this, it would just totally confuse them.

In reply to krikoman:


The double decker trains were part of a huge infrastructure project "Rail 2000", which included a lot of new track and tunnels ect, including a new section of trunk line

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rail_2000

Being Swiss, they may have done it with 'minimal' dirsruption, but 5.9 billion Swiss Francs is a lot of money for a country that size. The Swiss also invested heavily in the first half of the 20th century with widespread electrification, earlier than most other countries.

I would say it is a better template for the UK than the current HS2 proposal, but there is no getting round the fact we will need new line. I'd say the London to Crewe phase of HS2 is necessary, though the design speed of 400kmh is too high and should be cut.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Presumably the solution to double-decking railway carriages without altering the loading gauge (realistically impossible) is to drop the lower floor corridor between the chassis rails (rather than atop them as is the norm) with either sideways tube-style bench seating or narrow-body airliner 1+2 seat layout and steps up at each end of the car to clear the bogies (possibly shared between cars like on TGV) beneath the loading/unloading spaces each end of the cars. This seems to be how European double deck trains are constructed. You probably only get 30-50% more seating though and of course some platforms/stations would need upgrades to handle the increase in flow.
jk

In reply to jkarran:

Yes, certainly that's how German and Swiss double-deckers are constructed but they still look taller than our trains!

I'm pretty sure I've heard discussions about this (at least at R4 Today level) and it was dismissed as ruinously expensive. Doubtless this was also partly a political opinion but certainly it would not be trivial.

In reply to Pekkie:


I thought the established rule for Labour now is that the incumbent always gets to be on the balet paper?

In reply to Mike Highbury:


Woah! easy tiger

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Yes there are, but in Switzerland they had mountains to go through as well.


The cost would be huge but, you double your capacity at a stroke and that capacity is there forever. You can still only fit so many trains on a line making them faster only gives a marginal extra capacity, and it's still expensive.

At the very least we should be designing new tack, with the double decker capacity built in.

In reply to krikoman:


Disruption would be huge as well. I live fairly close to London and from memory there are 3-4 tunnels, including some bloody long ones, on the way in. Modifying them to allow taller trains would take a fair while and cripple peoples commute whilst it is going on.

In reply to krikoman:


It's OK. I make it a strict rule not to respond to insults on here. To logical, informed argument, yes. I've even eaten humble pie and admitted I'm wrong when faced with a stronger argument. As Hilary Benn's speech makes clear, the decision to bomb ISIS/Daesh in Syria was not an easy one to make. If you do civilians inevitably suffer. if you don't Yazidis get murdered and enslaved. If ISIS/Daesh had the power they would do the same to us. What I was pointing out was that calling it a decision to'bomb Syria' rather than 'bomb ISIS/Daesh' is not accurate and invites an emotional response.

In reply to krikoman:

Unfortunately you don't because the staircases take up quite a bit of room - you gain about 50% capacity. Not trivial but there are other problems.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


It's hard to see how it would be ruinously expensive. Obviously any new rolling stock is always very expensive but we don't replace it all at once. I suppose a double deck carriage to fit within the GB+ loading gauge would probably have to be a true monocoque structure as opposed to the conventional ladder-frame designs which would presumably add significant cost but compared to the overall cost of designing, building and certifying a more conventional carriage would it really be ruinously expensive? Certainly when weighed against the cost of upgrading big chunks of the network or building new tracks even really expensive double deck rolling stock in high-tech materials has to start looking appealing. In reality we probably need both, more and more flexiable/useful freight capacity plus a lot of our commuter lines need more peak capacity. Will we still be commuting for work like this in 30 years time though?
jk

In reply to Pekkie:

Yes. I too believe that his father will be turning like a top. Hilary Benn has always struck me as a principle-less chancer making profit from his name.

In reply to Rob Exile Ward:


And that has what to do with Hilary Benn being an obnoxious toad?

In reply to Andy Say:

'Principle-less chancer', 'obnoxious toad' and, of course 'unconscionable shit'. I seem to have struck a rich seam of malice.

In reply to Andy Say:

If you have read any of TB's biographies you will know that he was very proud of his son and what he stood for.

So he will not be turning like a top.

In reply to Andy Say:

Alternatively he might be a pragmatic politician who recognises that just about the only two things his Dad achieved were to throw enormous amounts of taxpayer's money at a vanity project that meant very rich people could fly to the US quickly; and secondly, managed to keep the Labour party perceived as unelectable for many years.

But TBH I don't know, because I've never met the bloke. And all the arguments about military intervention in the ME nowadays are pretty nuanced.

In reply to Pekkie:


I am curious as to how you know Andy Say actually wants to harm him? Or are you confusing dislike with actual desire to cause harm.

In reply to Pekkie:

I don't think I am guilty of your third quote.

OK. I will recant. My disappointment with Hilary Benn is that he is where he is purely because of who his father was. Hence my 'chancer' remark. And, compared to his father, he has shown little in the way of principle and integrity.

I will agree 'toad' is unfair. 'Ferret'?

Fair enough, that is simply my judgement and it is every child's right to create their own path in life irrespective of the beliefs and principles of their parents.

In reply to Andy Say:

His principles may be different to those of his father - it doesn't mean he doesn't have any.

In reply to KevinD:


All I'm saying is they managed it in Switzerland, they have a few more tunnels over there, I think they did most of the work over night and somehow had the trains running during the day, god knows how.

I really don't know that much about it, but if they can do it why not us? Are they better than us at anything other than cuckoo clocks, chocolate and hiding Nazi gold?

In reply to krikoman:



Engineering of course.

In reply to Pekkie:
Pekkie,

Isn't the issue 'what he voted for' rather than 'what he would like to do'.

He voted FOR the bombing of Syria?

In reply to Andy Say:



He didn't. He voted for the bombing of ISIS/Daesh military assets in Syria because at the time they were murdering and enslaving Yazidis in Iraq and the border between Syria and Iraq was little more than a line on the map. 'Bombing Syria' makes it sound like terror carpet bombing of Syrian civilians.

In reply to MonkeyPuzzle:


He's currently the only person I can think of who might stand any chance of leading the Labour party to a position where they might win a general election in the foreseeable future.

In reply to Pekkie:


Hair splitting. What was the motion he voted on?

In reply to Andy Say:


“That this House notes that ISIL poses a direct threat to the United Kingdom; welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249 which determines that ISIL constitutes an 'unprecedented threat to international peace and security' and calls on states to take 'all necessary measures' to prevent terrorist acts by ISIL and to 'eradicate the safe haven they have established over significant parts of Iraq and Syria'; further notes the clear legal basis to defend the UK and our allies in accordance with the UN Charter; notes that military action against ISIL is only one component of a broader strategy to bring peace and stability to Syria; welcomes the renewed impetus behind the Vienna talks on a ceasefire and political settlement; welcomes the Government's continuing commitment to providing humanitarian support to Syrian refugees; underlines the importance of planning for post-conflict stabilisation and reconstruction in Syria; welcomes the Government’s continued determination to cut ISIL’s sources of finance, fighters and weapons; notes the requests from France, the US and regional allies for UK military assistance; acknowledges the importance of seeking to avoid civilian casualties, using the UK’s particular capabilities; notes the Government will not deploy UK troops in ground combat operations; welcomes the Government's commitment to provide quarterly progress reports to the House; and accordingly supports Her Majesty's Government in taking military action, specifically airstrikes, exclusively against ISIL in Syria; and offers its wholehearted support to Her Majesty's Armed Forces .”

Calling this "Bombing Syria" is a massively loaded over simplification. To call it hair splitting is stupid.

In reply to Andy Say:

So you mean to tell us you're against Hilary Benn without even taking the trouble to read what he voted for!!!!

Were you too busy or lazy?

In reply to Andy Say:

My local Labour Party district has just had a majority vote in support of Owen Smith.

In reply to Dave Garnett:


I doubt that, I know many trad. Labour voters who now hate him, not for voting against bombing Syria, although that didn't help, but he's seen as a plotter against Corbyn and it's been evident from day one he wasn't going to work with JC.

I think if he'd spoke against Syria as he did but at least made it look like he was up for working with JC it would be different, but I think it's probably too late, and let's face it he's not his dad is he?

In reply to neilh:


Aren't they supposed to be holding off with the CLP meetings? That's what they've been told.

In reply to krikoman:

....... and let's face it he's not his dad is he?

Which is possibly why Dave Garnett said that he might lead the Labour to win an election.
Since there is no way that his Dad or Michael Foot could have and Jeremy Corbyn is just as unlikely to.

In reply to krikoman:


Clearly not

In reply to Dave Garnett:


Dan Jarvis ?

In reply to Pekkie:

"One comment from a petition-signer was that 'Hilary Benn's father would be turning in his grave'"

I somehow doubt that former RAF Pilot Officer Anthony Wedgewood-Benn would be turning in his grave at the thought of his son supporting the bombing of vicious scumbag terrorists by the RAF.

In reply to Pekkie:

The moral of this story is political dynasties are rubbish, the children are always pathetic little worms who should never be selected

In reply to neilh:


The petition will fail even if it gets 10,000 votes. Its just another of these meaningless little petitions that anyone can set up on a whim.

In reply to Pekkie: Political dynasties should never be allowed to exist, the children know nothing of real life, look at North Korea for the best example!

In reply to Removed User:


You think so? I'm not a great fan of Hilary Benn but I'd rather have him than his father. And you've got to have a twisted view of the world to call the son a 'pathetic little worm'.

In reply to Removed User:


Surely you can remember Pitt the Younger?

In reply to ian caton:

It'd be politically their undoing, which could mean that the blames lies with us - the voting public?

A successful guy I know is happy enough paying just over half of what he earns back in tax, towards the common good in theory.

I've heard it said about the UK that we want Scandinavian quality public services for US levels of taxation.

In reply to off-duty:


One day, perhaps. I don't think he has the experience yet, but he has potential.

In reply to m0unt41n:



Indeed. I had a lot of time for Tony Benn, especially in his later years, as an erudite and highly knowledgeable gadfly. He was a lot of things, including a highly entertaining speaker, but a credible Prime Minister he wasn't.

In reply to off-duty:


He has consistently stated that he does not intend to run for leader because of his family. I'd guess you know that he is a single parent/widower. Otherwise, yes.

In reply to spenser:

Thanks for the reply. You've mentioned stuff that hasn't been widely reported

In reply to Removed User:

Correction, D Jarvis is not single.

In reply to Removed User:


And he will run for leader in due course. They all say they're not interested. It doesn't pay to appear ambitious before your time.

In reply to kevin stephens:



Neither. The point I was trying to make was that you can say what you like in the chamber in debate but at the end of the day it is the vote that counts. And the impact of that vote. In this instance the bombing the very next day of oil installations in Syria.

In reply to Pekkie:

At least his father did something before politics although I'll grant you he wasn't that good being too fond of gesture politics but what has his son ever done, has he ever met a proper worker in his council and research career a typical son of a politician, just watch Will Straw for the future of noneties!

In reply to Andy Say:

So what happened was exactly what Benn voted for!

In reply to Dave Garnett:



Winston Churchill also comes to mind.

Martin

In reply to neilh:


That's largely irrelevant - there is OMOV in the Labour Party, the CLP can't mandate.

In reply to Babika:

I know, it was just a passing comment. Any endorsement either way is irrelevant as you say.

In reply to Pekkie:
Isn't it rather relevant if you're going to start discussing the deselction of MP's for being rebellious