This is why the broad tent Dave and George have erected must continue.
We need to be the natural home for these Red Tories.
Guess what, occupying the centre ground wins elections, that's the reality of it.
Guess what else, Cameron and his sycophants, of which you are one, have no principles or objectives beyond power.
Where does he stand on EU?
Where does he stand on Syria?
What about green issues after posing with huskies?
What about immigration which he continually pledges to reduce yet continually rises?
Cameron's tories are utterly vacuous
May's defeat really stung you didn't it.
You're full of more bitter than a Northern pub.
I think that proves my point perfectly, Mr Runnymede refers to a similarity between Liverpool and Man Utd fans: we won the league you didn't hahahaha.
Infantile
You called me a sycophant and vacuous. Why don't you remove that mahoosive beam from your own eye first.
In the meantime read SeanF's comment at 9am for what The Tories stand for under Cameron
This is where I differ from plenty, I have my ideas as to how we should be governed, I'm aware those views aren't ones that everybody agrees with but I'll never change them or berate those who disagree. And if in the unlikely event Ukip win in Oldham I won't be thumbing my nose at people like a 6 year old.
Indeed I do too.
In an ideal world for the whole country, not just in the image of the minority that voted for you.
You govern for all from the Trots, through Labour Conservatives and to BNP. Not all that you do should be designed to cause euphoria in your supporters and despair in your opponents.
But above all else you should put into action your manifesto pledges.
One of the problems of modern politics is the acceptance of the preeminence of the Manifesto. Situations, times and requirements change.
Manifesto should be limited to a few generalised objectives, the government should then govern on the principle that they are acting in the best interests of the Country while, for example, providing Free Schools.
And your other particular favourites too
Picked at random as it is an identifiable Tory idea.
I think she is probably referring to the "reported attempts at attacks" on Britain rather than Paris. It is still a disgraceful statement.
STW do not want us to take any action at all against the Islamists. International law is irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the right to self-defence is irrelevant. Their arguments about this is just disingenuous chaff, designed to obscure the fact that they are against taking any action at all against IS or, indeed, anyone else who might threaten us.
In a choice between us and the Islamists, STW are not on our side. And that is also the problem with their former chair, one Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe that he is - fundamentally - on our side.
That is why the questions he raises about the bombing in Syria - legitimate questions which some Tories have also raised - are dismissed. He is not making them in good faith i.e. they are not questions he is asking because they might affect his decision. He has already decided, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the legal case, regardless of whether this is in Britain's interests or not. As best as one can tell, there are no circumstances in which Corbyn or STW would take any action against IS or their supporters.
I think she is probably referring to the "reported attempts at attacks" on Britain rather than Paris. It is still a disgraceful statement.
STW do not want us to take any action at all against the Islamists. International law is irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the right to self-defence is irrelevant. Their arguments about this is just disingenuous chaff, designed to obscure the fact that they are against taking any action at all against IS or, indeed, anyone else who might threaten us.
In a choice between us and the Islamists, STW are not on our side. And that is also the problem with their former chair, one Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe that he is - fundamentally - on our side.
That is why the questions he raises about the bombing in Syria - legitimate questions which some Tories have also raised - are dismissed. He is not making them in good faith i.e. they are not questions he is asking because they might affect his decision. He has already decided, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the legal case, regardless of whether this is in Britain's interests or not. As best as one can tell, there are no circumstances in which Corbyn or STW would take any action against IS or their supporters.
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
I think McDonnell is a consummate politician compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is a BELIEVER . There can be No Compromise if you believe. No cause is worth sacrificing your beliefs for: marriage, party, friends will all fall before the sanctity of your beliefs.
If you compromise, you are going against your beliefs. You KNOW you are right. So anyone who disagrees on matters of belief is WRONG. And compromise means accepting those who ARE wrong - are partially right.
It's simple. Just accept Corbyn is RIGHT on everything and all his actions become totally logical. He just cannot do anything which challenge his belief structure. His world of the past 66 years would fall apart.
Criticisms of Labour MPs (the sane ones, I mean) being 'spineless' over the destruction being wrought by Corbyn and his henchmen on the Labour Party are unfair. The problem isn't that they are spineless, it is that, no matter spineful they might be, there isn't any course of action which would actually work to prevent the destruction.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
If so, Labour will claim this as a great victory. They had better hope that there is no Islamist atrocity in the UK or on British citizens though because it will be all too easy for that to be blamed on Labour's failure to support action to counter the IS threat.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
I think she is probably referring to the "reported attempts at attacks" on Britain rather than Paris. It is still a disgraceful statement.
STW do not want us to take any action at all against the Islamists. International law is irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the right to self-defence is irrelevant. Their arguments about this is just disingenuous chaff, designed to obscure the fact that they are against taking any action at all against IS or, indeed, anyone else who might threaten us.
In a choice between us and the Islamists, STW are not on our side. And that is also the problem with their former chair, one Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe that he is - fundamentally - on our side.
That is why the questions he raises about the bombing in Syria - legitimate questions which some Tories have also raised - are dismissed. He is not making them in good faith i.e. they are not questions he is asking because they might affect his decision. He has already decided, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the legal case, regardless of whether this is in Britain's interests or not. As best as one can tell, there are no circumstances in which Corbyn or STW would take any action against IS or their supporters.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
Mr. Madasafish, the Third Reich continued to expand its territory for the first years of WWII.
Plus, air strikes may not be enough by themselves, but where Daesh are pressed, such as by the Kurds, they may be enough to tip the balance to the enemies of Daesh.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
Politically I think this is win win for Cameron and lose lose for Jehadi Jez. Do I detect GO's fingerprints?
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
It is incumbent on those who oppose the proposed tactics of bombing to start suggesting viable alternatives.
Seriously though what's the difference between a whip and a three line whip when Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet as he has? It's quite clear defying him either way is going to bar your place, certainly, in the Cabinet, and most ministers.
Alternatively they could just keep annoying the Scots by celebrating Great Britain winning the Davis Cup instead of awarding the victory where in belongs to Scotland, Dunblane or the Murray Family.
Dublane? I think you meant to type Florida or Cobham, Surrey.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
They are not growing stronger, they are in retreat. Not as much as one would hope, but definitely falling back in key areas. And that is as a result of the rather half-hearted bombing which has so far been done.
Seriously though what's the difference between a whip and a three line whip when Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet as he has? It's quite clear defying him either way is going to bar your place, certainly, in the Cabinet, and most ministers.
Given his inability to form a full shadow team without begging people to join, I can't honestly see there are many on the backbenches who will be dismayed at the prospect of not being promoted by Corbyn
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
I think McDonnell is a consummate politician compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is a BELIEVER . There can be No Compromise if you believe. No cause is worth sacrificing your beliefs for: marriage, party, friends will all fall before the sanctity of your beliefs.
If you compromise, you are going against your beliefs. You KNOW you are right. So anyone who disagrees on matters of belief is WRONG. And compromise means accepting those who ARE wrong - are partially right.
It's simple. Just accept Corbyn is RIGHT on everything and all his actions become totally logical. He just cannot do anything which challenge his belief structure. His world of the past 66 years would fall apart.
That isn't politics. That's a religion. Socialism is his sky fairy.
Seriously though what's the difference between a whip and a three line whip when Corbyn has thrown down the gauntlet as he has? It's quite clear defying him either way is going to bar your place, certainly, in the Cabinet, and most ministers.
Is not the point that it should be a collective shadow cabinet decision to determine both the position and the way to vote? Corbyn is isolated in both his parliamentary party and the shadow cabinet. You can look at this from 360 different directions but its still works out at no way for a political party to behave (unless you are UKIP) and no way to offer to run a country.
The PLP created this mess, its up to them to either live with it or resolve it. But having allowed a crass membership to put him there I don't think they can.
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
It is incumbent on those who oppose the proposed tactics of bombing to start suggesting viable alternatives.
Inactivity is simply not an option.
Correct and its also a wrong headed analysis to suggest ISIS are getting stronger.
If you were still in the HoC how would you vote of the Syria issue?
I'd vote no to the intervention. If Cameron dropped the anti-Assad stuff and said we were purely going to fight ISIS and would leave the other aspects of Syria to negotiation, I'd consider it, but as it stands British policy is fundamentally inconsistent with reality, and I would not vote to kill anyone in its pursuit.
And that's regardless of what formula the Shadow Cabinet and party leadership come up with. I do think it's too important to be a matter of party discipline, and I wouldn't vote to deselect anyone for voting the other way.
Mr. Pulpstar, at certain points there were at least six emperors claiming the Roman Empire, although, obviously, that's a rather larger geographical expanse.
During the weak dynasties in China, the country could be split two or three ways (in an imperial sense) with multiple other independent kingdoms as well, but, again, that's spread over a larger area.
I'm not at all convinced about the recent move of requiring all military action to be approved by the House of Commons in advance. It confuses the role of the executive and the legislature.
Over the past few months I have been interviewing newly-elected MPs for a book that I am writing about how people get into politics and whether we get the wrong politicians. There are many, many problems with the pathways into parliament (but I’ll leave the detail for the book, out in early 2018), but I have not as yet identified being a rising star in the youth wing of either the Tory or the Labour party as being a pre-requisite to getting a seat, safe or marginal
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
When a country has broken down to that level it's just like little tribes consantly at war
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
In the Balkans, probably.
I expect the final outcome will be some carve-up of territory. After all, Syria's boundaries are an artificial construct, stitched up between France and Britain. There's no compelling reason why the country should exist as a single unit on its 1920 boundaries.
I agree - but unfortunately post Iraq, trust is gone here. I was for GW1 and GW2, the lies over the second truly stunned me and rocked my confidence. I think it's just prudent to get x-Party support nowadays, the Rubicon was crossed.
If Cameron dropped the anti-Assad stuff and said we were purely going to fight ISIS and would leave the other aspects of Syria to negotiation, I'd consider it....
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
It is incumbent on those who oppose the proposed tactics of bombing to start suggesting viable alternatives.
Inactivity is simply not an option.
Correct and its also a wrong headed analysis to suggest ISIS are getting stronger.
If Cameron dropped the anti-Assad stuff and said we were purely going to fight ISIS and would leave the other aspects of Syria to negotiation, I'd consider it....
I think she is probably referring to the "reported attempts at attacks" on Britain rather than Paris. It is still a disgraceful statement.
STW do not want us to take any action at all against the Islamists. International law is irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the right to self-defence is irrelevant. Their arguments about this is just disingenuous chaff, designed to obscure the fact that they are against taking any action at all against IS or, indeed, anyone else who might threaten us.
In a choice between us and the Islamists, STW are not on our side. And that is also the problem with their former chair, one Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe that he is - fundamentally - on our side.
That is why the questions he raises about the bombing in Syria - legitimate questions which some Tories have also raised - are dismissed. He is not making them in good faith i.e. they are not questions he is asking because they might affect his decision. He has already decided, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the legal case, regardless of whether this is in Britain's interests or not. As best as one can tell, there are no circumstances in which Corbyn or STW would take any action against IS or their supporters.
I think this raises an important point. STW are definitely disingenuous, their statements and actions (though I retract in part my earlier comments if you are correct they were referrinfg to 'reported attempts' in Britain) make clear they would never, ever support action. I'm not chomping at the bit for action myself, but they hold a position irrespective of the circumstances, and will say anything to back that up, nothing would ever be enough. War is something we engage in, not something forced upon us, so if we are attaked and do nothing, in their eyes that is better than responding, because we are still being 'peaceful'. Lack of nuance or flexibility is a real concern for me when it comes to politicians and political groups, and they lack any.
Corbyn? Right or wrong on various issues though he might be, I'd like to think he was not as close minded as he presents himself (some may object that he presents himself that way, but I do not see the distinction from presenting as close minded and presenting as an ideologically driven and utterly consistent figure), but refusing to change course was one of his core appeals, so it seems likely he is close minded. I hope he gains a little flexibility in future, even if his actions and views do not massively alter.
If Cameron dropped the anti-Assad stuff and said we were purely going to fight ISIS and would leave the other aspects of Syria to negotiation, I'd consider it....
That is his position.
Is it? I thought the other day he was going on about this pipe dream of the "Free Syria Army" overthrowing Assad in the aftermath of air-strikes.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
Corbyn.
with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
Your position assumes that the level of bombing to date has not robbed ISIS of a tier of commanders, bomb-makers, clerics, merchants, etc etc. If they were still alive, in all likelihood ISIS would be an even greater power in Iraq/Syria. Who are you to say that we have not already prevented further organisation of mass murder on the streets of western Europe?
The more kit we have in the air above Syria, the more chances we have of getting lucky. The more of their senior players we take down, the more they have to be replaced by the unskilled, the uncertain, the unready. Imagine if the Germans had taken out Churchill and Montgomery and Harris and the King and Queen in 1940. And then their replacements. And then their replacements. Are you saying that the United Kingdom would have stood as strong?
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
Cameron would, honourable man that he is, like a broad based vote giving support to reflect the general support that is in the country and to show national solidarity to the world. (I would not bother we are entitled to just do it) So a winning vote by 1 would defeat the objective. Frankly I do not give a monkey's wotsit for the stupid labour party. I am however incensed that even half a dozen thicko Tory backbenchers (the usual numbskulls no doubt) are prepared to vote against. Put one in front of me and I would happily spit in his eye.
I think McIRA has more nous, and he's dangerous. I can hear old school Adams and McGuiness talking when he opens his mouth - the same silky tones and appeals to moderation, whilst knee-capping opponents.
I presumed his free-vote stuff was offering cover for Jezza to change his mind - it was coordinated and deliberate, not some principled stand.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
I think McDonnell is a consummate politician compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is a BELIEVER . There can be No Compromise if you believe. No cause is worth sacrificing your beliefs for: marriage, party, friends will all fall before the sanctity of your beliefs.
If you compromise, you are going against your beliefs. You KNOW you are right. So anyone who disagrees on matters of belief is WRONG. And compromise means accepting those who ARE wrong - are partially right.
It's simple. Just accept Corbyn is RIGHT on everything and all his actions become totally logical. He just cannot do anything which challenge his belief structure. His world of the past 66 years would fall apart.
That isn't politics. That's a religion. Socialism is his sky fairy.
Those are words, I am trying to explain - probably poorly and incorrectly - what drives him.
If I am correct, divisions, defeats and disagreements are mainly steps on the road to a "proper" Labour Party. You may think it crazy : he will call it logical - based on his belief structure - which is vastly different to most people's.
@JohnMannMP: To suggestion just made that I should only consult Labour members. No. I always consult all the people of Bassetlaw. It is called democracy.
Is it? I thought the other day he was going on about this pipe dream of the "Free Syria Army" overthrowing Assad in the aftermath of air-strikes.
We are not fighting Assad, or proposing to. Cameron, like everyone else, wants a negotiated settlement, and he'd prefer Assad to go eventually, but it's not actually much to do with us. The proposed military action is against ISIS, which has been directly attacking us and our closest allies, it's not in favour of a particular outcome.
If Cameron dropped the anti-Assad stuff and said we were purely going to fight ISIS and would leave the other aspects of Syria to negotiation, I'd consider it....
That is his position.
Is it? I thought the other day he was going on about this pipe dream of the "Free Syria Army" overthrowing Assad in the aftermath of air-strikes.
He didn't make overthrowing Assad a war-aim. He said that he didn't think Assad could or should be part of the post-war setup. At least, that's how I read it.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
I see The Times is urging Corbyn to impose a whip - not sure they are entirely disinterested and well-willing, though. It's an interesting contrast that McDonnell and Livingstone have both urged free votes while Corbyn is clearly reluctant: they are politicians in the classic mould, used to wheeling and dealing and tactical changes of course, while Corbyn is much more an austere conviction politician, with the advantages and drawbacks that follow. Centrists would actually probably find McDonnell easier to cut deals with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
Cameron would, honourable man that he is, like a broad based vote giving support to reflect the general support that is in the country and to show national solidarity to the world. (I would not bother we are entitled to just do it) So a winning vote by 1 would defeat the objective. Frankly I do not give a monkey's wotsit for the stupid labour party. I am however incensed that even half a dozen thicko Tory backbenchers (the usual numbskulls no doubt) are prepared to vote against. Put one in front of me and I would happily spit in his eye.
With that kind of level, measured reaction to internal opposition you might find surprising common ground with the Corbynistas.
Incidentally, we all tend to forget about the LibDems nowadays, but I presume that in line with their deeply-held principles, they'll now be supporting the UN-backed international action against ISIS?
Criticisms of Labour MPs (the sane ones, I mean) being 'spineless' over the destruction being wrought by Corbyn and his henchmen on the Labour Party are unfair. The problem isn't that they are spineless, it is that, no matter spineful they might be, there isn't any course of action which would actually work to prevent the destruction.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
Labour have much further to fall.
Correct. Their one option perhaps is to openly create a shadow shadow cabinet and appoint a shadow leader to head it. Since Momentum are a party within a party then I suggest the PLP operate on the same basis. I'm sure I can dream up a name for them for a small fee if they want to contact me. They may as well start now and be ready to start a new party, and be open about it since Momentum (real name 'Stopthewar) will get rid of them anyway.
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
Germany (or the Holy Roman Empire, if you prefer) in the Thirty Years War?
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
In the Balkans, probably.
I expect the final outcome will be some carve-up of territory. After all, Syria's boundaries are an artificial construct, stitched up between France and Britain. There's no compelling reason why the country should exist as a single unit on its 1920 boundaries.
Which of course is the IS argument, but they want it all.
Interesting if we are invoking S-P et al in our dealings with the middle-east. It opens up quite some pandora's box of claims and I'm not sure we want to go there.
Incidentally, we all tend to forget about the LibDems nowadays, but I presume that in line with their deeply-held principles, they'll now be supporting the UN-backed international action against ISIS?
John Rentoul thinks they'll be voting against. The desperate search for relevance continues.
I think this raises an important point. STW are definitely disingenuous, their statements and actions (though I retract in part my earlier comments if you are correct they were referrinfg to 'reported attempts' in Britain) make clear they would never, ever support action. I'm not chomping at the bit for action myself, but they hold a position irrespective of the circumstances, and will say anything to back that up, nothing would ever be enough. War is something we engage in, not something forced upon us, so if we are attaked and do nothing, in their eyes that is better than responding, because we are still being 'peaceful'. Lack of nuance or flexibility is a real concern for me when it comes to politicians and political groups, and they lack any.
Corbyn? Right or wrong on various issues though he might be, I'd like to think he was not as close minded as he presents himself (some may object that he presents himself that way, but I do not see the distinction from presenting as close minded and presenting as an ideologically driven and utterly consistent figure), but refusing to change course was one of his core appeals, so it seems likely he is close minded. I hope he gains a little flexibility in future, even if his actions and views do not massively alter.
I do not believe, for instance, that if a second UN resolution had been obtained in 2003 STW would have dropped their opposition to the second Gulf War. They were against it on principle - the principle being that anything which the US and the UK do is wrong and they are against it, a secondary principle being that it is wrong to take any action against a Muslim country regardless of its behaviour.
Corbyn was, for instance, against the intervention in Kosovo. STW have been consistent in being against any intervention to help the Yazidis.
The other myth which needs challenging is the claim that those who are against bombing are so because they are against people - civilians, even - being killed. They are no such thing: they are perfectly content for civilians: Yazidis, Christians, innocent Syrian and Iraqi Muslims, civilians in Europe - to be killed, provided that no-one in the West takes any action against the perpetrators. They are fine with people's blood being shed so long as the killing is not done by the West.
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
Germany (or the Holy Roman Empire, if you prefer) in the Thirty Years War?
How about the Hundred Years War extended to cover the iMuslim Faiths War.. at least 800 years old and going..
I'm still in shock that Jeremy Corbyn is leader of the Labour party. As someone who was just 19 when Tony Blair came to power I only grew aware of politics through the cool Britannia years when Blair seemed to have reformed Labour and stolen the centre-ground forever. I was thinking yesterday of how Corbyn was viewed during those Blair years. A rebel, a maverick, a socialist, a trouble maker, a disloyal figure of irrelevance. It was unthinkable that he'd ever get to lead the party.
There is a lovely Corbyn snippet in Chris Mullins' View From the Foothills book about a PLP meeting from Spring 2001 where the Labour manifesto was discussed. After the usual queries from left wingers about nationalising Railtrack, banning Fox Hunting etc Corbyn "read out a wishlist" of what Labour should do when re-elected, "to which Graham Allen shouted out, 'and what about the second week', to general amusement".
As Cyclefree very shrewdly expressed below, Corbyn's beliefs - to the complete detriment of all other opinions - are sacrosanct to him; akin to religion. That is all very well on the back-benches but politics is about compromise and collective responsibility. So I can't see how Corbyn's intransigent, deeply-held, minority beliefs can ever be suited to leadership of a party which aspires to form a government.
The longer Corbyn continues as leader the worse it will get for Labour. I am 100% sure about that.
Incidentally, we all tend to forget about the LibDems nowadays, but I presume that in line with their deeply-held principles, they'll now be supporting the UN-backed international action against ISIS?
John Rentoul thinks they'll be voting against. The desperate search for relevance continues.
Given that they gained at the ballot box by being against the Gulf War, I can see why that position might tempt them again. However Farron is not the leader to break through with any message.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
Corbyn.
with.
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
And therin is my problem. Despite being bombed, ISIS are growing stronger. So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
Your position assumes that the level of bombing to date has not robbed ISIS of a tier of commanders, bomb-makers, clerics, merchants, etc etc. If they were still alive, in all likelihood ISIS would be an even greater power in Iraq/Syria. Who are you to say that we have not already prevented further organisation of mass murder on the streets of western Europe?
The more kit we have in the air above Syria, the more chances we have of getting lucky. The more of their senior players we take down, the more they have to be replaced by the unskilled, the uncertain, the unready. Imagine if the Germans had taken out Churchill and Montgomery and Harris and the King and Queen in 1940. And then their replacements. And then their replacements. Are you saying that the United Kingdom would have stood as strong?
ISIS cannot be defeated without boots on the ground and stopping external support.
We do not plan to bomb Saudi or Turkey..so failure before we start . ISIS have many supporters with money.
Criticisms of Labour MPs (the sane ones, I mean) being 'spineless' over the destruction being wrought by Corbyn and his henchmen on the Labour Party are unfair. The problem isn't that they are spineless, it is that, no matter spineful they might be, there isn't any course of action which would actually work to prevent the destruction.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
Labour have much further to fall.
Correct. Their one option perhaps is to openly create a shadow shadow cabinet and appoint a shadow leader to head it. Since Momentum are a party within a party then I suggest the PLP operate on the same basis. I'm sure I can dream up a name for them for a small fee if they want to contact me. They may as well start now and be ready to start a new party, and be open about it since Momentum (real name 'Stopthewar) will get rid of them anyway.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
Snip
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
Cameron would, honourable man that he is, like a broad based vote giving support to reflect the general support that is in the country and to show national solidarity to the world. (I would not bother we are entitled to just do it) So a winning vote by 1 would defeat the objective. Frankly I do not give a monkey's wotsit for the stupid labour party. I am however incensed that even half a dozen thicko Tory backbenchers (the usual numbskulls no doubt) are prepared to vote against. Put one in front of me and I would happily spit in his eye.
With that kind of level, measured reaction to internal opposition you might find surprising common ground with the Corbynistas.
My phlegm is metaphorical. The fan speed and volume of my hairdryer treatment criticism would not be. Put me in frot of a raving bonkers true believing Corbynista? Now there is a good question. Where would one go? Sanity would provide a poor hiding place.
McDonnell has more political nous? I'll take your word for it, though I think he has called it right compared to Corbyn's reluctance. Even if a showdown is inevitable, now seems a bit soon to be forcing it.
I think McDonnell is a consummate politician compared to Corbyn. Corbyn is a BELIEVER . There can be No Compromise if you believe. No cause is worth sacrificing your beliefs for: marriage, party, friends will all fall before the sanctity of your beliefs.
If you compromise, you are going against your beliefs. You KNOW you are right. So anyone who disagrees on matters of belief is WRONG. And compromise means accepting those who ARE wrong - are partially right.
It's simple. Just accept Corbyn is RIGHT on everything and all his actions become totally logical. He just cannot do anything which challenge his belief structure. His world of the past 66 years would fall apart.
That isn't politics. That's a religion. Socialism is his sky fairy.
Those are words, I am trying to explain - probably poorly and incorrectly - what drives him.
If I am correct, divisions, defeats and disagreements are mainly steps on the road to a "proper" Labour Party. You may think it crazy : he will call it logical - based on his belief structure - which is vastly different to most people's.
I wasn't disagreeing with you. I think that a belief system which is untethered from the real world and ignores the evidence is more akin to a religion than to politics. The casting out into the outer darkness of anyone who dares question Corbyn, the dividing people into sheep and goats, the outrage at the idea that anyone should dare to question the leader, the view of him as some sort of Messiah who gives people hope and inspiration: all of these seem more akin to the followers of a religion. It's all about faith rather than thought, all about making those who believe feel pure and better than about helping others.
Were I to close my eyes and listen to the sayings of Corbyn, Abbott and others, transpose a few words and add a Northern Irish accent, I could be listening to Iain Paisley speaking to the faithful and ranting about the Jezebel in the Vatican.
On the plus side he has finally started wearing a decent suit.
He faces a big call today. Even McDonnell is urging a free vote on Syria. If that is granted any rebellion loses its sting. If it is not surely even in Labour resignations will follow. My guess is that both Corbyn and the PLP will back off but if I was to choose one of them to precipitate a crisis it would be Corbyn.
Snip
My prediction is that Corbyn will impose a whip (perhaps not three line). Cameron will abort the vote on the grounds that an emphatic majority is not guaranteed, blaming Corbyn. As there will be no vote there will be no Shadow Cabinet resignations. Labour will win Oldham. Life will go on.
I honestly hadn't considered tghe vote might not go ahead. How many Labour rebels does Cameron think he needs to offset the Tory rebels? He is guaranteed a few at least, but if he wants a fair majority, I guess a whip would make that problematic.
I suspect there are far fewer Tory rebels than two years ago. And I'm expecting the Unionists to support Cameron.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
Cameron would, honourable man that he is, like a broad based vote giving support to reflect the general support that is in the country and to show national solidarity to the world. (I would not bother we are entitled to just do it) So a winning vote by 1 would defeat the objective. Frankly I do not give a monkey's wotsit for the stupid labour party. I am however incensed that even half a dozen thicko Tory backbenchers (the usual numbskulls no doubt) are prepared to vote against. Put one in front of me and I would happily spit in his eye.
With that kind of level, measured reaction to internal opposition you might find surprising common ground with the Corbynistas.
My phlegm is metaphorical. The fan speed and volume of my hairdryer treatment criticism would not be. Put me in frot of a raving bonkers true believing Corbynista? Now there is a good question. Where would one go? Sanity would provide a poor hiding place.
I was only teasing, but in fairness some of the awlward squad do seem a bunch to inspire a rabid reaction.
Criticisms of Labour MPs (the sane ones, I mean) being 'spineless' over the destruction being wrought by Corbyn and his henchmen on the Labour Party are unfair. The problem isn't that they are spineless, it is that, no matter spineful they might be, there isn't any course of action which would actually work to prevent the destruction.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
Labour have much further to fall.
Correct. Their one option perhaps is to openly create a shadow shadow cabinet and appoint a shadow leader to head it. Since Momentum are a party within a party then I suggest the PLP operate on the same basis. I'm sure I can dream up a name for them for a small fee if they want to contact me. They may as well start now and be ready to start a new party, and be open about it since Momentum (real name 'Stopthewar) will get rid of them anyway.
Incidentally, we all tend to forget about the LibDems nowadays, but I presume that in line with their deeply-held principles, they'll now be supporting the UN-backed international action against ISIS?
John Rentoul thinks they'll be voting against. The desperate search for relevance continues.
Given that they gained at the ballot box by being against the Gulf War, I can see why that position might tempt them again. However Farron is not the leader to break through with any message.
They gained at the ballot box by being against the Iraq War. But that was because it was a bad war which the country was misled into. The case against ISIS is a different matter. For one thing the war, in Syria and against the wider world via terrorism, is already underway.
Criticisms of Labour MPs (the sane ones, I mean) being 'spineless' over the destruction being wrought by Corbyn and his henchmen on the Labour Party are unfair. The problem isn't that they are spineless, it is that, no matter spineful they might be, there isn't any course of action which would actually work to prevent the destruction.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
Labour have much further to fall.
Correct. Their one option perhaps is to openly create a shadow shadow cabinet and appoint a shadow leader to head it. Since Momentum are a party within a party then I suggest the PLP operate on the same basis. I'm sure I can dream up a name for them for a small fee if they want to contact me. They may as well start now and be ready to start a new party, and be open about it since Momentum (real name 'Stopthewar) will get rid of them anyway.
Lack of Momentum Party?
I will not put my real idea into the public domain, but I suppose Spineless Labour would be a no go. I suppose as long as Mandelson refused to join then Spinless Labour could be a possibility.
The Syrian Civil war looks to me like it could go on for at least another decade. Has there ever been so many different factions in one country all of which control (some) territory ?
In the Balkans, probably.
I expect the final outcome will be some carve-up of territory. After all, Syria's boundaries are an artificial construct, stitched up between France and Britain. There's no compelling reason why the country should exist as a single unit on its 1920 boundaries.
Russia: 1917 until [ongoing...]. Add in India and China and you'll answer the question posited....
Incidentally, we all tend to forget about the LibDems nowadays, but I presume that in line with their deeply-held principles, they'll now be supporting the UN-backed international action against ISIS?
John Rentoul thinks they'll be voting against. The desperate search for relevance continues.
Given that they gained at the ballot box by being against the Gulf War, I can see why that position might tempt them again. However Farron is not the leader to break through with any message.
They gained at the ballot box by being against the Iraq War. But that was because it was a bad war which the country was misled into. The case against ISIS is a different matter. For one thing the war, in Syria and against the wider world via terrorism, is already underway.
I know that - my point was that you can see how they believe that being anti-war helped them in the past and so being anti-war now might bring similar dividends.
They are wrong. And Farron is unable to articulate a message that anyone wants to hear. But you can see how they might hope to profit from being anti-war.
Comments
STW do not want us to take any action at all against the Islamists. International law is irrelevant, UN resolutions are irrelevant, the right to self-defence is irrelevant. Their arguments about this is just disingenuous chaff, designed to obscure the fact that they are against taking any action at all against IS or, indeed, anyone else who might threaten us.
In a choice between us and the Islamists, STW are not on our side. And that is also the problem with their former chair, one Jeremy Corbyn. I do not believe that he is - fundamentally - on our side.
That is why the questions he raises about the bombing in Syria - legitimate questions which some Tories have also raised - are dismissed. He is not making them in good faith i.e. they are not questions he is asking because they might affect his decision. He has already decided, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the legal case, regardless of whether this is in Britain's interests or not. As best as one can tell, there are no circumstances in which Corbyn or STW would take any action against IS or their supporters.
Can't even organise a meeting. I thought that was the Commies key skill?
Corbyn is a BELIEVER . There can be No Compromise if you believe. No cause is worth sacrificing your beliefs for: marriage, party, friends will all fall before the sanctity of your beliefs.
If you compromise, you are going against your beliefs. You KNOW you are right. So anyone who disagrees on matters of belief is WRONG. And compromise means accepting those who ARE wrong - are partially right.
It's simple. Just accept Corbyn is RIGHT on everything and all his actions become totally logical. He just cannot do anything which challenge his belief structure. His world of the past 66 years would fall apart.
Lord Mandelson, the smartest political operator of his generation, was spot-on in his advice:
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/24/mandelson-corbyns-critics-wait-public-negative-view-force-out
Unfortunately from the moderates' point of view, events in Paris, and the resultant increase in urgency in responding to the ISIS threat, have brought the crisis of civil war within Labour forward. The Corbynites are trying to use the crisis to force the sane elements out of even the limited positions of power which they currently have in the party. By appealing, as expected, directly to members and three-quidders, with back-up from the NEC which he already controls, Corbyn in trying to cement his grip on the levers of power within the party. He will succeed in this, because he can't lose: either the rebels fall in line, or they resign from the Shadow Cabinet. Either way they lose influence.
Labour have much further to fall.
I will be genuinely astonished if the Syria vote doesn't pass. Last time, Miliband engaged in sixth-form politics. This time, we have had two years of ISIS atrocities, two years of ISIS getting stronger, gaining ground, taking the fight to our cities. And a Labour Party that will be defined by the number of MPs who vote for and vote against.
So more bombing will not work.
I think it's a crazy policy.. (Corbyn is right - for the wrong reasons)
Plus, air strikes may not be enough by themselves, but where Daesh are pressed, such as by the Kurds, they may be enough to tip the balance to the enemies of Daesh.
Inactivity is simply not an option.
Corbyn is isolated in both his parliamentary party and the shadow cabinet. You can look at this from 360 different directions but its still works out at no way for a political party to behave (unless you are UKIP) and no way to offer to run a country.
The PLP created this mess, its up to them to either live with it or resolve it. But having allowed a crass membership to put him there I don't think they can.
And that's regardless of what formula the Shadow Cabinet and party leadership come up with. I do think it's too important to be a matter of party discipline, and I wouldn't vote to deselect anyone for voting the other way.
During the weak dynasties in China, the country could be split two or three ways (in an imperial sense) with multiple other independent kingdoms as well, but, again, that's spread over a larger area.
I expect the final outcome will be some carve-up of territory. After all, Syria's boundaries are an artificial construct, stitched up between France and Britain. There's no compelling reason why the country should exist as a single unit on its 1920 boundaries.
Corbyn? Right or wrong on various issues though he might be, I'd like to think he was not as close minded as he presents himself (some may object that he presents himself that way, but I do not see the distinction from presenting as close minded and presenting as an ideologically driven and utterly consistent figure), but refusing to change course was one of his core appeals, so it seems likely he is close minded. I hope he gains a little flexibility in future, even if his actions and views do not massively alter.
The more kit we have in the air above Syria, the more chances we have of getting lucky. The more of their senior players we take down, the more they have to be replaced by the unskilled, the uncertain, the unready. Imagine if the Germans had taken out Churchill and Montgomery and Harris and the King and Queen in 1940. And then their replacements. And then their replacements. Are you saying that the United Kingdom would have stood as strong?
Frankly I do not give a monkey's wotsit for the stupid labour party. I am however incensed that even half a dozen thicko Tory backbenchers (the usual numbskulls no doubt) are prepared to vote against. Put one in front of me and I would happily spit in his eye.
If I am correct, divisions, defeats and disagreements are mainly steps on the road to a "proper" Labour Party. You may think it crazy : he will call it logical - based on his belief structure - which is vastly different to most people's.
https://t.co/E53xo2wzHf https://t.co/aiKG74dN41
Their one option perhaps is to openly create a shadow shadow cabinet and appoint a shadow leader to head it. Since Momentum are a party within a party then I suggest the PLP operate on the same basis. I'm sure I can dream up a name for them for a small fee if they want to contact me.
They may as well start now and be ready to start a new party, and be open about it since Momentum (real name 'Stopthewar) will get rid of them anyway.
Interesting if we are invoking S-P et al in our dealings with the middle-east. It opens up quite some pandora's box of claims and I'm not sure we want to go there.
Corbyn was, for instance, against the intervention in Kosovo. STW have been consistent in being against any intervention to help the Yazidis.
The other myth which needs challenging is the claim that those who are against bombing are so because they are against people - civilians, even - being killed. They are no such thing: they are perfectly content for civilians: Yazidis, Christians, innocent Syrian and Iraqi Muslims, civilians in Europe - to be killed, provided that no-one in the West takes any action against the perpetrators. They are fine with people's blood being shed so long as the killing is not done by the West.
Absolutely bloody ridiculous than I'm being patronised and had a go at by people in my own party for just TELLING THE TRUTH for gods sake.
"Work with Jeremy!" I AM WORKING WITH JEREMY YOU MORONS, I'M OUT ON THE DOORSTEP IN HIS NAME WHENEVER I CAN BE
It isn't my bloody fault that I put all my efforts into trying to win people over to him on the doorstep and they still won't have it.
There is a lovely Corbyn snippet in Chris Mullins' View From the Foothills book about a PLP meeting from Spring 2001 where the Labour manifesto was discussed. After the usual queries from left wingers about nationalising Railtrack, banning Fox Hunting etc Corbyn "read out a wishlist" of what Labour should do when re-elected, "to which Graham Allen shouted out, 'and what about the second week', to general amusement".
As Cyclefree very shrewdly expressed below, Corbyn's beliefs - to the complete detriment of all other opinions - are sacrosanct to him; akin to religion. That is all very well on the back-benches but politics is about compromise and collective responsibility. So I can't see how Corbyn's intransigent, deeply-held, minority beliefs can ever be suited to leadership of a party which aspires to form a government.
The longer Corbyn continues as leader the worse it will get for Labour. I am 100% sure about that.
We do not plan to bomb Saudi or Turkey..so failure before we start . ISIS have many supporters with money.
Put me in frot of a raving bonkers true believing Corbynista? Now there is a good question. Where would one go? Sanity would provide a poor hiding place.
Were I to close my eyes and listen to the sayings of Corbyn, Abbott and others, transpose a few words and add a Northern Irish accent, I could be listening to Iain Paisley speaking to the faithful and ranting about the Jezebel in the Vatican.
They are wrong. And Farron is unable to articulate a message that anyone wants to hear. But you can see how they might hope to profit from being anti-war.