'Jihadi Jez' headline by Sky News is a disgrace

[miami]

I am sure that there are more reasons, other than just the atrocity in France, to be considered.

Bombing Belgium...where did that idea surface from?

That's where the attackers came from. I didn't watch Cameron's persuasion of parliament of why we should risk our lives and spend money in a time of austerity for "more reasons".

What other reasons? How will it help our security given the m.o, from July 7 to Paris, is natives and low key attacks.

 

[deltic]

I think, as ever, Jeremy Corbyn can do with a better PR advisor as he is essentially correct about Syria and I'll tell you why.

Has David Cameron yet completed the following sentence: 'After we have bombed Syria, ....'

Without an idea of what to do afterwards, you will continue the conveyor belt of disaffected youths who have seen their families almost destroyed or lost in the chaos of war, no childhood and adolescence where they can learn, make friends, get to know women, etc... who will most likely turn to people fighting those dropping the bombs in spite of the bombs being well-intended. ISIS also have destroyed and caused chaos but sadly before ISIS came the UK/US stay in Iraq which have set the ball rolling.

It all comes down to planning the next step after warfare. Who has the best plan to rebuild hope and infrastructure in Syria?

I do think it is concerning that the Tory Party aren't also debating the issue like the Labour Party is. It is fine and more honest to admit there are different views. Tory Party MPs shouldn't be pressed by the whips and as there is an investigation over bullying leading to a sucide in the grassroots division, I think the Tories may worryingly* have a more well-thumbed copy of the Little Red Book in the library.

*This is hyperbole.

I agree entirely - we never seem to learn - Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya - always the same - no idea what to do after we have bombed them to pieces - killed far more innocent civilians than combatants and then wonder why lots of angry people dont like us and want to hit back.

 

[RichmondCommu]

In the past Jeremy frequently went against the whip and yet he's now demanding that Labour MP's do exactly the opposite. So much for democracy! I'm sorry Jeremy but you are nothing more than a hypocrite who is seemingly hell bent on making the party more and more un-electable as each day passes. Members of Momentum are also now telling moderate party members such as myself that in opposing Jeremy Corbyn we and our donations are no longer welcome in the Labour Party.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

In the past Jeremy frequently went against the whip and yet he's now demanding that Labour MP's do exactly the opposite. So much for democracy! I'm sorry Jeremy but you are nothing more than a hypocrite who is seemingly hell bent on making the party more and more un-electable as each day passes. Members of Momentum are also now telling moderate party members such as myself that in opposing Jeremy Corbyn we and our donations are no longer welcome in the Labour Party.

There are times when the old adage of "Wolves in sheep's clothing" does seem to have a certain ring to it...:roll:

 

[RichmondCommu]

There are times when the old adage of "Wolves in sheep's clothing" does seem to have a certain ring to it...:roll:

Absolutely Paul. Diane Abbott is showing herself to be a nasty piece of work with zero tolerance to anybody who dares to oppose our inept leader.

 

[Johnuk123]

Absolutely Paul. Diane Abbott is showing herself to be a nasty piece of work with zero tolerance to anybody who dares to oppose our inept leader.

The odious Diane Abbott has never been anything else other than a very nasty piece of work.

 

[miami]

The odious Diane Abbott has never been anything else other than a very nasty piece of work.

That may be. Hypocrit too with her schooling choices, but we haven't had a good education policy since John Major's 1997 campaign. I still have my rosette.

However I fail to see how that supports the case for bombing Syria. Could anyone in favour explain, or point to an article explaining, how any bombing of Syria let alone a token bombing, will increase the security for the average British person, or stem the tide of refugees pouring into Europe?

Could they also explain how much it will cost, how many doctors and nurses, or PC plods, or GCHQ spies, will we be unable to employ because we spent the money on weapons?

 

[DynamicSpirit]

In the past Jeremy frequently went against the whip and yet he's now demanding that Labour MP's do exactly the opposite. So much for democracy! I'm sorry Jeremy but you are nothing more than a hypocrite who is seemingly hell bent on making the party more and more un-electable as each day passes. Members of Momentum are also now telling moderate party members such as myself that in opposing Jeremy Corbyn we and our donations are no longer welcome in the Labour Party.

Are they? I've heard lots of vague claims along those lines but - is there any evidence that is happening on a significant scale in the Labour party? In my local party, I'm probably in a minority - most members are Corbyn supporters, whereas I, like you, am distinctly unimpressed by his leadership so far. But at local party meetings etc. I've never experienced anything other than courtesy and an understanding that there are different opinions. I know if you go online and look at social media, you hit a completely different world, full of abuse - but that's the case right across the political spectrum (I've seen stuff on ConservativeHome directed at the left that is totally vile, way beyond anything Corbyn supporters have been accused of). Besides, it's impossible to tell whether the people who send abusive stuff on social media are active Labour members - my hunch would be most of them aren't.

 

[Tetchytyke]

In the past Jeremy frequently went against the whip and yet he's now demanding that Labour MP's do exactly the opposite.

Is he?

So much for democracy! I'm sorry Jeremy but you are nothing more than a hypocrite who is seemingly hell bent on making the party more and more un-electable as each day passes.

Democracy is that the membership of Labour wanted him as leader, and him as leader they've got.

If the PLP don't like this, they have two clear choices:
1. Leave.
2. (and my preference) actually spend some time understanding why the membership voted for Corbyn, and then persuade the membership to change their mind about supporting Corbyn.

As it stands we have the PLP spitting their toys out of the pram, trying to undermine the democractically elected leader of the party.

If they don't agree with the membership then they can either work with the membership to change opinions, or they can sod off. And I'd like to see Simon Danczuk sod off, that's for certain.

Members of Momentum are also now telling moderate party members such as myself that in opposing Jeremy Corbyn we and our donations are no longer welcome in the Labour Party.

Are they? Are they really? Or is it just a few keyboard warriors on Twitter being a bit gobby?

That said, even if you don't agree with the current leadership, there does come a point when you should put up or shut up: support the party against the Tories, or leave. The squabbling is pathetic.

I don't think Tim Farron is the right leader for my party, but squabbling won't get us anywhere so I support him.

As for what caused this mess- Syria- clearly the Blairite wing have learned the square root of naff all since 2004. Blair's meddling in Iraq created ISIS, just as we all said it would cause more harm than good. Mindless bombing created the resentment and anger, not to mention the power vacuum, needed to create ISIS. You'd think they might stop and think about whether yet more mindless bombing will solve the situation in Syria, especially as the other baddy- Assad- only got the power he has because his dad was supported by the CIA.

Here's a nice history lesson from Adam Curtis: http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/adamcurtis/entries/d3921cac-2144-306a-9f6e-712c0c685010

 

[ainsworth74]

So we cease all military activity in Iraq and somehow persuade Russia, the US, France and the others involved in strikes in Syria and Iraq to also cease their own military activities. What happens next because I don't see what ceasing military interventions are going to do much beyond make life easier for Daesh?

 

[Johnuk123]

So we cease all military activity in Iraq and somehow persuade Russia, the US, France and the others involved in strikes in Syria and Iraq to also cease their own military activities. What happens next because I don't see what ceasing military interventions are going to do much beyond make life easier for Daesh?

Leaving them as suggested to simply carry on waging carnage across the Middle East in the somewhat misguided idea they'll just stop when they've had enough is a bit fanciful.

I know more bombing will probably encourage more jihadists but simply trying to forget about it and leave them well alone will be even worse.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

As for what caused this mess- Syria- clearly the Blairite wing have learned the square root of naff all since 2004. Blair's meddling in Iraq created ISIS, just as we all said it would cause more harm than good.

No. The people behind ISIS are the ones who created and are responsible for ISIS. The invasion of Iraq may well have contributed to the conditions under which ISIS was able to emerge, but that is as far at it goes. Many other things also contributed to those conditions - not least of which being the decisions of certain Iraqi politicians to move the Iraqi Government in a sectarian direction, thereby alienating many Sunnis. Let's not get into another round of trying to blame 'the West' or 'Tony Blair' for every evil around. In the end the people to be held responsible for acts of terrorism, and whatever other atrocities ISIS commit are none other than the people committing those atrocities.

 

[miami]

No. The people behind ISIS are the ones who created and are responsible for ISIS. The invasion of Iraq may well have contributed to the conditions under which ISIS was able to emerge, but that is as far at it goes. Many other things also contributed to those conditions - not least of which being the decisions of certain Iraqi politicians to move the Iraqi Government in a sectarian direction, thereby alienating many Sunnis. Let's not get into another round of trying to blame 'the West' or 'Tony Blair' for every evil around. In the end the people to be held responsible for acts of terrorism, and whatever other atrocities ISIS commit are none other than the people committing those atrocities.

Yes the blame lies totally with the fanatic fascists. However how can we fight such ideology, one which uses propaganda to cause our own citizens to kill in their name. Are you able to guarentee every single propagandaist in isis will be killed by the bombing? Of course not. The bombing will lead fuel to that propaganda.

If you want to reduce the number of Paris or London style attacks (and remember ISIS weren't around for July 7th 2005, or the Glasgow Airport, or the underwear bomber, or any number of foiled plots, so even if you wipe ISIS out you're not going to stop the attacks that are "the reason we need to bomb Syria"), how do you do that? I've more sympathy towards Donald Trump's idea to tattoo all Muslim with numbers, it has more chance of succeeding than bombing Syria.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Of course ISIS are responsible for what ISIS do. It's a statement so glib as to be fatuous. But unless you think jihadis grow on trees, perhaps thinking about what gave ISIS their power might be a good idea.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Western powers have been wading in with their bombs and guns for 100 years, each time blowing the Middle East and then being absolutely astounded that democracy doesn't magically grow out of the rubble. Iraq in 2004 was just the most recent example of a pattern of behaviour that has been depressingly familiar for pretty much the whole of the last century.

The whole problem with "bomb ISIS" or "bomb Syria" is that nobody- at least in the West- is stopping to think about what to do after we've finished bombing ISIS and bombing Syria. How are we going to rebuild after we've finished? How are we going to soothe the anger of those who've lost everything under our shelling? How are we going to get both of the main sects to reconcile their differences?

In Iraq we waded in and removed a Sunni dictator, chief of the ruling Ba'ath Party and a man who brutally oppressed the majority Shia population. Success! Except not, the remnants of the Iraqi Ba'ath Party leadership went into hiding and became the power in ISIS, attacking the majority Shia government wherever they could.

In Syria, we're looking to wade in and remove a Sunni dictator, chief of the ruling Ba'ath Party and a man who brutally oppresses the majority Shia population. Oh.

I know more bombing will probably encourage more jihadists but simply trying to forget about it and leave them well alone will be even worse.

I don't think we can ignore ISIS, but I simply don't think that bombing the hell out of Syria is going to do anything other than make the situation worse. Why? Because we don't have a plan other than an instinctive "they bombed us, lets bomb them" retaliation. "He hit me so I'm going to hit him back." It's like dealing with toddlers.

We were happy to go all out to get rid of Assad three years ago, but now if we manage it there'll be a power vacuum that ISIS will fill. But if we fight against ISIS we'll be strengthening Assad, who's the baddy. There's always the Kurds, except we think the PKK are terrorists too and we wouldn't want to change our mind in case it upsets Turkey. We could always support the Shia, except Iran's leadership are Shia, they want control and they're evil too. What a pickle!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

What happens next because I don't see what ceasing military interventions are going to do much beyond make life easier for Daesh?

Except you're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. What will increasing military interventions achieve? Seriously.

The simple fact of the matter is that the only way to get the two sects to live in peace is to give them both something to lose.

That's what happened in the former Yugoslavia, where they were quite happy to knock ten bells out of each other until they realised that if they stopped they could join the EU.

That's also what happened in Ireland, where giving both sides something to lose persuaded them to stop knocking seven shades out of each other too.

The issue goes far beyond ISIS, who are merely a symptom of a sectarian war that's been running for centuries. I don't have the answers, but I know that bombing the hell out of one side hasn't worked for the last 100 years and I seriously doubt it'll start working now.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

That's where the attackers came from.

The 7/7 attackers who actually committed their atrocity in London came from areas in West Yorkshire, so I suppose you will attach the same bombing authority to that area, having made your bombing of Belgium as a precedent...

 

[ainsworth74]

Except you're looking at it from the wrong end of the telescope. What will increasing military interventions achieve? Seriously.

I was asking about the alternative because I'm not convinced increasing the intensity will achieve anything in the long run but neither am I convinced that pulling back and leaving them to it is a good idea for anyone without an alternative.

 

[Tetchytyke]

The 7/7 attackers who actually committed their atrocity in London came from areas in West Yorkshire, so I suppose you will attach the same bombing authority to that area, having made your bombing of Belgium as a precedent...

Bombing Dewsbury would probably achieve more than bombing Syria.

neither am I convinced that pulling back and leaving them to it is a good idea for anyone without an alternative

I don't think we should "leave them to it". I think they need to have their funding starved. The problem is that stopping their funding means us having a very difficult conversation with the Saudis, one that we don't really want to have.

Also, cynic that I am, squeezing their funding doesn't involve us spending billions on guns and bombs, and the directors of BAe need someone to buy them.

 

[ainsworth74]

I don't think we should "leave them to it". I think they need to have their funding starved. The problem is that stopping their funding means us having a very difficult conversation with the Saudis, one that we don't really want to have.

If ever there was a reason for the UK and the West to achieve energy independence from the House of Saud the ability to tell them a running leap off the nearest building when it comes to things like this is surely one of the most appealing.

Also, cynic that I am, squeezing their funding doesn't involve us spending billions on guns and bombs, and the directors of BAe need someone to buy them.

Hmm perhaps but I think the directors of BAe will survive as long as we carry on buying big ticket items like ships, submarines, aircraft and land vehicles from them

Though actually a lot of what we're expending over Iraq at the moment and would expend over Syria are produced by companies other than BAe for instance Raython produce our Paveway guided bombs.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I've seen it said recently that we'll only get peace in the middle east when the oil runs out. There's probably quite a bit of truth in that.

I honestly don't know what the answer is. I just really don't think bombing is it.

 

[miami]

The 7/7 attackers who actually committed their atrocity in London came from areas in West Yorkshire, so I suppose you will attach the same bombing authority to that area, having made your bombing of Belgium as a precedent...

Absolutely. Wrong side of the Pennines you see. We should build a wall at the pennine way.

Either that or im being sarcastic and don't actually propose bombing Ireland, Yorkshire, Brussels or Syria.

One military move I might support would be an oil blockade along the Turkish frontier. Cut off funding.

Trouble is Saudi would still fund them, and they're on "our side" meaning that Isis/Saudi/Europe/America are in one side, and Iran/Syria/Russia/China on the other.

Interesting how low oil prices went in the last few years as America started tapping shake reserves.

I would far rather the uk bought an MRI machine for a hospital than dropped a bomb in Syria, it would save more British lives.

 

[DynamicSpirit]

Of course ISIS are responsible for what ISIS do. It's a statement so glib as to be fatuous.

Well, it's a statement of fact that I would have hoped would be so obvious that it wouldn't need pointing out. However, when people post (and worse, believe) blatantly untrue statements such as;

Blair's meddling in Iraq created ISIS

Then obvious statements probably do need restating

But unless you think jihadis grow on trees, perhaps thinking about what gave ISIS their power might be a good idea.

Sure. But thinking about what gave ISIS their power surely involves seriously thinking about all the factors that were involved in creating the conditions that made it possible for ISIS to grow, not merely pointing the finger at one politician whom lots of people like to hate, and in effect saying 'he did it all'.

The simple fact of the matter is that the Western powers have been wading in with their bombs and guns for 100 years, each time blowing the Middle East and then being absolutely astounded that democracy doesn't magically grow out of the rubble. Iraq in 2004 was just the most recent example of a pattern of behaviour that has been depressingly familiar for pretty much the whole of the last century.

That's a pretty simplistic analysis that I would suggest doesn't do history justice. The reality is, as always, much more complex. I notice, for example, that you are making a huge issue of the relative failure of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, but you have said nothing whatsoever about the success of the previous war by (mostly) Western powers against Iraq. You also have not - so far as I can see - said anything about the way air strikes in Iraq do seem to have saved the Yazidis from genocide and prevented ISIS from capturing more territory than they did (including the Mosul dam).

In truth, Western powers have been intervening militarily in many parts of the World for a long time. Sometimes the motives have been good, sometimes the motives have been bad. Sometimes the result was good, sometimes it wasn't. There are also a number of cases where we chose not to intervene (Rwanda) or not to intervene very much (Bosnia) and the result was also catastrophic. The lessons from these appear to be that military interventions can achieve a lot of good in certain circumstances (although teasing out what those circumstances are is difficult).

The whole problem with "bomb ISIS" or "bomb Syria" is that nobody- at least in the West- is stopping to think about what to do after we've finished bombing ISIS and bombing Syria. How are we going to rebuild after we've finished?

That may well be true. And FWIW one of the main reasons why I personally feel uneasy about air strikes. (Yes, it might surprise you that I'm actually undecided about air strikes in Syria). I waded into this latest round of the debate to correct what struck me as inaccurate and simplistic statements, not to argue in favour of air strikes (Depending what arguments are put about what air strikes in this case can achieve, I might or might not end up supporting them).

 

[Tetchytyke]

The motives behind the Western meddling were usually fairly simplistic too- the Ba'athists in Syria and Iraq got their support during the coups in the 50s and 60s so they wouldn't turn to communism. Again, depressingly familiar.

ISIS grew out of the power vacuum in Iraq, and whose misconceived war in Iraq created that vacuum?

If I thought air strikes would solve anything I'd support them, I'm certainly no pacifist. But not only do I not think that they will achieve anything, I think much of the support is purely about retribution- they hit me so I'll hit them. As we all know, playground fights don't get stopped that way. It's like screwing for virginity.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Interesting you mention Bosnia. The military intervention on Yugoslavia- Blair and Clinton's bombing- achieved fiddly. What sorted the Balkans out was, as I've repeatedly said in this thread, the promise of EU accession. They stopped hitting each other because they had something to lose. And there were military interventions before then, it's just that the Dutch made a complete horlicks at Srebrenica

 

[miami]

Screwing for peace would probably work. I believe the phrase is "for virginity"

The only way to stop Isis and groups like that from getting western followers is to stop the brainwashing. One factor that enables brainwashing is bombing innocent Muslims. Therefore bombing people is playing right into ISISs hands. This is a view shared across the political spectrum by those opposed to ISIS. The only explanation is that those in favour of bombing ISIS actually want ISIS and similar groups to succeed.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Screwing for peace would probably work. I believe the phrase is "for virginity"

That'll teach me to use my phone

 

[NSEFAN]

The 7/7 attackers who actually committed their atrocity in London came from areas in West Yorkshire, so I suppose you will attach the same bombing authority to that area, having made your bombing of Belgium as a precedent...

The point is Paul that it's too simplistic for us to say, "Oh, location X is creating terrorists, so let's bomb it to get rid of them!" My old home town of High Wycombe is where various such nasty pieces of work have come from, but nobody would suggest bombing the town to get rid of them*. Why is it acceptable for us to say "Bomb Syria!", but not "Bomb Belgium!" ?

* Local opinion may vary.

 

[Yew]

I feel the problem is using completely the wrong type of air power, rather than Jets, with guided missiles, we need close support of friendly (whomever they are) troops using helicopters with machine guns and lighter ordinance.

Unfortunately, this involves 'Boots on the Ground', as Cyprus is too far away to realistically use helicopters. Perhaps these could be based in turkey, however considering the view in the Uk seems to be more and more that the Kurds count as 'good guys' that may be difficult politically. I'm not sure if HMS Ocean is currently outfitted with Apaches, however that may be another solution.

 

[Xenophon PCDGS]

The point is Paul that it's too simplistic for us to say, "Oh, location X is creating terrorists, so let's bomb it to get rid of them!" My old home town of High Wycombe is where various such nasty pieces of work have come from, but nobody would suggest bombing the town to get rid of them*. Why is it acceptable for us to say "Bomb Syria!", but not "Bomb Belgium!" ?

* Local opinion may vary.

Can someone explain to an old man of 70 the currently stated difference in bombing Iraq and bombing Syria, as the areas involved are under the control of the entity known as ISIL.

 

[miami]

I feel the problem is using completely the wrong type of air power, rather than Jets, with guided missiles, we need close support of friendly (whomever they are) troops using helicopters with machine guns and lighter ordinance.

There's under a dozen "friendly troops".

https://news.vice.com/article/only-...an-rebels-are-fighting-in-syria-pentagon-says

Earlier this month, the Pentagon admitted that only five out of the over 5,000 fighters trained in the $500-million US program were actually fighting on the ground. The figure was later revised to nine.

We don't really know what to do, we can't afford to do much (and anything we do do means higher taxes or even more spending cuts). There is sadly an opinion "Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done", and anything we do will be a rounding error on what the US and Russia are doing.

 

[RichmondCommu]

Are they? I've heard lots of vague claims along those lines but - is there any evidence that is happening on a significant scale in the Labour party? In my local party, I'm probably in a minority - most members are Corbyn supporters, whereas I, like you, am distinctly unimpressed by his leadership so far. But at local party meetings etc. I've never experienced anything other than courtesy and an understanding that there are different opinions. I know if you go online and look at social media, you hit a completely different world, full of abuse - but that's the case right across the political spectrum (I've seen stuff on ConservativeHome directed at the left that is totally vile, way beyond anything Corbyn supporters have been accused of). Besides, it's impossible to tell whether the people who send abusive stuff on social media are active Labour members - my hunch would be most of them aren't.

Are they? Are they really? Or is it just a few keyboard warriors on Twitter being a bit gobby?

I've received an email from a member of the Momentum group telling me that if I continue to oppose Jeremy Corbyn then myself and any modest donations that I make are no longer welcome. I've also had all this told to my face by someone who I've never met before. No matter what I may think of Jeremy Corbyn I do not believe for one minute that he wishes to kick anyone out of the party who doesn't agree with him and as such I have no intention of leaving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

That said, even if you don't agree with the current leadership, there does come a point when you should put up or shut up: support the party against the Tories, or leave. The squabbling is pathetic.

I don't think Tim Farron is the right leader for my party, but squabbling won't get us anywhere so I support him.

I'm supporting the party to the same level that I have done for the last 30 years but I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn will lead us to anything other than electoral oblivion. The only way that Labour will ever get into power will be to regain support from Middle England and win back support from UKIP. Knocking on doors prior to the election proved to me that we'd lost so much ground to the Tories and UKIP and we won't get that back whilst Jeremy is running the party. Indeed I'm afraid we will only continue to haemorrhage votes.

And in answer to your earlier post the only reason that Jeremy Corbyn didn't impose the whip is because he was talked out of it by the shadow cabinet. Most of the shadow cabinet feel betrayed by the way in which he has behaved and rightly so.

 

[muz379]

I've received an email from a member of the Momentum group telling me that if I continue to oppose Jeremy Corbyn then myself and any modest donations that I make are no longer welcome. I've also had all this told to my face by someone who I've never met before. No matter what I may think of Jeremy Corbyn I do not believe for one minute that he wishes to kick anyone out of the party who doesn't agree with him and as such I have no intention of leaving.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I'm supporting the party to the same level that I have done for the last 30 years but I don't believe that Jeremy Corbyn will lead us to anything other than electoral oblivion. The only way that Labour will ever get into power will be to regain support from Middle England and win back support from UKIP. Knocking on doors prior to the election proved to me that we'd lost so much ground to the Tories and UKIP and we won't get that back whilst Jeremy is running the party. Indeed I'm afraid we will only continue to haemorrhage votes.

I would take anything the momentum group say with a pinch of salt at this moment in time .The attitude of many people who are supporters of it are that the Labour MP's elected in the last GE are there only to serve the interests of the fraction of the party members who are JC supporters . When anybody with any ounce of knowledge knows that the MP's primary responsibility is to their constituents .

My experience at my local party is a roughly 75-25 split in favor of Corbyn . But some of the more veteran members are anti corbyn which helps and everybody is treated with the same respect as before . That being said there have been a few things I have not attended because they have been obvious love ins for the corbynites

agreed 100% with the comments on hemorrhaging votes . I think in all honesty regardless of leaders it is going to take a small miracle to win back UKIP votes from the more working class elements who have shifted over to Farage and his "every day person" politics .I think new Tory voters at the last GE will be sufficiently shocked at the tax credits and junior Dr facade that they will seek another party at the next GE . Labour has to show it is that party or they will loose those voters to UKIP as well