Categories
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Commons might be about to vote for Syrian air strikes b
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » The Commons might be about to vote for Syrian air strikes but the public is becoming less convinced
As we come to the crucial Commons vote on Syria there’s new YouGov polling in the Times this morning that suggests that support for British action is declining with, now, fewer than half of those sampled approving. YouGov had this at 48%.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
However I think we should do it.
His back isn't even against the wall.
Its odd.
I've just heard Cameron's remarks about going into the lobby with terrorists....what a piece of work...... Just after I'd thought he'd begun to look like Prime Minister.
First impressions are often the most accurate. A two faced insincere dilettante. His one time membership of the Bullingdon Club told us everything we needed to know......
We should never have gone into Iraq, Afghanistan, or touched Libya.. leave well alone.. Far more die now than ever did under the dictators.
Of course there will be many MPs who have grappled with this sincerely and concluded that bombing is wrong - but I very much doubt Corbyn approached it with anything like an open mind - and in his case, I fear the charge has some justification....
IMHO, a good chunk of people opposed to military action are confusing two things: (1) that targeted military strikes against ISIS, its leaders, and its infrastructure are necessary to degrade its ability to organise and operate against us, and therefore reduce its threat to us in the West, but won't solve the problems in Syria and (2) that war is the solution to Syria's problems.
You can believe (1) - and I do, the allied strikes in Iraq have had great effect and it's madness we can't carry them over the border into Syria - without endorsing (2).
Carlotta
"Terrorist sympathisers - it may be an unpleasant charge, but there is a cornucopia of evidence to back it up.....particularly in the case of Corbyn & McMao......"
I think you might be right about Corbyn and a few others but that doesn't make it any less crass. Any thinking person can see It's a difficult and balanced decision which is why such a brutal and insensitive comment jars so badly.
He has this achilles heel. He can be very crude and fake
He presented seven questions to be answered knowing that even if they were answered, he'd still be against. However, if the violence is against his enemies, he'd approve - in that sense, he isn't like a Quaker, he's just a hypocrite.
Today the situation is different and IS occupy significant territory from where they pose a risk to us.
Corbyn's track record indicates it is not a difficult and balanced decision for him: he is anti-war. His difficulty is in trying to persuade other Labour MPs of his views, which is an entirely different matter.
In fact, if he had a more balanced view on it, he might find it easier to persuade them to vote against. Instead, he has to cast-iron certainty of his own conviction, which is not an argument that particularly wins other people over.
It'd also be easier for him if he had a better and more thought-out alternative plan.
The reality is that Corbyn's opposition is not to this utterly trivial step but to our armed intervention in total. He thinks we can negotiate and reason with these people and that this is a better solution than trying to destroy them. Events have not moved in his favour in recent times.
When this is approved today we will start to bomb targets in Syria. By Christmas the number of bombs dropped in Syria on our very tight rules of engagement may well have reached double figures although my guess is that might be a close run thing.
Will this have made a material difference? Of course not. But we will have shown ourselves to be a faithful ally, to have complied with our duties as a UN Security Council permanent member and we will have marginally more input in the policy going forward without being any more than bit players in all of this.
We really need to get over ourselves. The world is not waiting with bated breath on our deliberations on this. We are making ourselves look more than just a bit silly.
This is what happens when important decisions become politicized. I suspect the same happened in Iraq. Loose words led to suspect decisions which hopefully will be disseminated by Chilcott
To be consistent, we should bomb Isis wherever they are, or not at all. The situation in Syria is fluid and next year, it could be different. But Isis won't be different, we'll still be at war with them..
There are genuine Christian (and other religious groups) who are pacifist on religious principle and very different to Corbyn.
Other than that she is the best political correspondent the BBC has had for a long time asking intelligent, penetrating questions of all the participants, not letting herself be fobbed off and making clear and useful summaries to camera. All whilst avoiding the gratuitous rudeness of the male macho school of journalism. A real step up for the BBC.
I blame Tony for this mess. I was against the Iraq war because Saddam being one dictator out of many didn't seem enough reason to start a war. He wasn't an Islamist as such.
But I sort of hoped that Tony knew more than he was saying, perhaps being inhibited by security issues to say too much. In fact, he knew less than he was saying, and that was unforgivable.
In Syria, there's no obvious end-game but there is a definite threat. It's completely different.
"It wasn't see long ago that Dave attended "terrorist" Nelson Mandela's funeral."
Correct. You can't escape the feeling that he'd have had his chauffeur waiting outside with a change of costume in case the mood changed mid service.
An Iraqi friend told me an interesting old Iraqi saying "It is better to be an enemy of the British than their friend. They buy their enemies and sell their friends". Sadly this is all too true.
Here, we want to degrade and deter IS. Will there be ground forces there to take and hold ground afterwards? Maybe. But the tactical aim remains to degrade and deter regardless.
In Iraq, take away the 45 min/dodgy dossier and there was no cassus belli.
Her (posting 38 Deg 'Please don't bomb Syria' article): "Lets do something if you don't want another war. x"
Me: "There is already another war. It's been going on for four years and last month ISIS and their supporters brought it to Paris and killed 130 people - they would have killed many more had it not been for the vigilance of some brave security guards at the football match. They are no more interested in compromise than were the Nazis, whom they closely resemble: they view it as weakness. They want war and they want to destroy everything we as a society hold dear - freedom of speech, of choice, of religion, of association, of thought; rights of women and minorities, democracy, the right to a night in in front of the TV, and so on. We have a choice: we can either confront them or we can let others do it for us. That to me is an abrogation of our duty as a civilised and powerful country. I do have reservations about the lack of a clear plan for afterwards but that can be sorted out in the weeks and months ahead. In the mean time, I think it would be morally wrong not to take action against this vicious, evil, murderous regime."
Her: "I hear your view David Herdson but I believe we had a part to play in creating Isis by bombing their homes and destroying their lives and families. So will this cycle of revenge and hate ever stop if we keep playing a game of tit for tat. It certainly didn't work in Ireland did it. What about all the innocent families that get killed in our revenge hunt is that irrelevant? Do we become the evil ones then for murdering innovent people in the name of revenge. This is a strong topic and i appreciate we all will feel differently. Allow me my opinion as I allow you yours. xx"
Me: "I certainly 'allow' your opinion - all opinions should be heard and expressed in a democracy; I just disagree with it. (For what it's worth, ISIS wouldn't allow your opinion: as a woman, you wouldn't be allowed an opinion at all). This is not about revenge on the part of ISIS or the West - ISIS and other groups like them want to destroy the West: they hate what we stand for and hate even more the success and power that comes with it. They will never stop while they have the chance; there is no reasoning with them. If there were a political route to peace I would be more than happy to take it but I'd challenge anyone to suggest how it could be done when all the evidence is that they don't want it. On your points, when was ISIS created when we bombed their homes and families? They came first - to the extent that the West has been involved, that came after. Ireland came to peace when the IRA recognised that they could not win the war through violence and the UK government was prepared to enter talks without preconditions; there is no parallel in Syria: no side is prepared to enter talks without the other surrendering. It's always a tragedy when innocent people lose their lives but that is already happening now at the hands of ISIS and other groups; our not being involved won't stop it. Getting involved in WWII resulted in millions of innocent people dying but it was still the right decision. Hitler could not have been stopped any other way and the same is true in Syria. In fact, the crucial distinction is that the West does *not* murder innocent families, unlike ISIS and their followers; the military go out of their way to try to avoid killing innocents and certainly do not do it on purpose (which is the definition of murder). As you say, there are strong emotions on each side and I respect that some, including you, passionately believe in what you say for the best reasons - wanting to save life and minimise hate. If I thought that were possible, I'd be with you - but I'm afraid I don't. Love and respect, David."
Her: "I hear you David Herdson and can tell your passionate about your views. I feel hate and violence breeds more of it. I hope another way becomes clear. xx"
Can't have that in the Labour party, what?
Incidentally, I'd say more paternalist than left wing. I'd vote for her. Can't stand the pay day loan industry.
The chief whip for the LDs ,Tom Brake was still asking for feedback on what they should do when Farron made his announcement. Wonder if he will vote against his own whip?
So I don't agree. The more support we give to local forces from the air the less likely it is for our ground troops to get involved. But why the debate about this proposal is going to take more than half an hour, let alone cause civil war in the Labour party, is still a mystery.
Given that history of distrust, you could argue that GW2 was inevitable, and could easily have occurred in the late 1990s rather than 2003.
Thank you for posting the conversation here, David.
How many more nutters do you suppose us joining in the bombing will create?
What is you evidence for the above, by the way? There is quite a lot of evidence the other way - the amount of ordnance dropped per sortie in Iraq directly contradicts the idea that the RAF is carpet bombing.
Reading Farron's thoughtful analysis I thought he was encouraging the other 7 to vote with him, rather than ordering him, like Corbyn tried....
It wasn't clever of Cameron to use the term 'terrorist sympathisers' even though it is correct for at least a small number at the top of Labour right now.
Was mildly amused by the naivety of some anti-war protesters on the news last night. The implication was that if we don't bomb Daesh, then Daeshland will live in peace and happiness and we can negotiate and make a lasting peace hooray!
As it is, Daeshland is a realm of terror, where industrial scale rape, torture and beheadings are commonplace, and where what passes for a government actively wants to commit genocide locally and terrorism is the official foreign policy. They already want to, and try to, kill us, and sometimes they succeed.
I do think there are legitimate reasons to be for or against action. But to be against on the basis we're 'bringing war' somewhere that would otherwise be peaceful is not so much naive, as plain stupid.
We will see what the sheep think when we are sucked in and the body bags are coming back on a daily basis.
Wonder how the numbers will look this time
If we are serious about defeating IS and fellow travellers like Boko Haram and Al Shabaab then we need to accept that it is going to be costly in terms of both lives and money, and that there is likely to be a lot of civillian casualties. There always are in assymetric warfare. A few bombs from 2 extra Tornados is neither here nor there. You don't tackle a rabid dog with a peashooter.
We should be resolute and forceful in our defence of liberal democracy against Islamo-facists, but we should not delude ourselves that it will be easy or cheap.
Given the difference in numbers, it's perhaps better to consider the proportion than the actual number of rebels. If 139 MPs defy the "this isn't a whipped vote but we know where you live" line whip then Corbyn's trouble deepens significantly.
Presumably the French who have been bombing have answers to these questions.
The only thing I am sure about is that IS needs to be dealt with and fast. Whether this is the right solution is another question.
Anyway off to work. Busy day for me. I have to go to Paris next week for an investigation so plenty of stuff to do here first. There used to be a time when the lead up to Christmas was relatively quiet. Sadly, those days are long gone......
PS: It will for sure encourage them to attack us, we are Satan's lapdog after all.
I suspect the bookies are starting to see the smart money looking for a 25% return. Slightly better Lab odds available on BF, for now.
Politicians abstaining makes me angrier than anything, they're elected and paid to make decisions not sit on the fence.
There is a pro war centre-left vote but I reckon it is tiny. The pro war Labour defectors will not turn out for Labour or the Lib Dems, but head to UKIP.
Or is Cameron getting the parliamentary nod so that we can get involved if necessary? To show we are a fully paid-up member of the huge coalition against ISIS?
I can't see how in reality our involvement is going to lead to much more suffering on the ground. After all, if there is an obvious target out there to be hit, I'd guess the Americans have already hit it.
Amazing how they only attack the easy targets.
1) What threat do ISIS pose to: a) their locality, b) the UK, c) the world
2) For the above, in a) the short term, and b) the long term.
Hopefully.
Do the SNP give you the daily lines to take or do you make them up all by yourself.
It must be absolutely thrilling to live in a world where everything is black and white and you never have to question anything. Death and Taxes. Tories are evil. SNP are great.
Let's not pretend we can bomb anywhere without civilian casualties, to me the only solution is troops, plenty of them, taking ISIS camps. Our soldiers are absolutely up for it and it would terrify ISIS without the propaganda opportunities.
2 b)/c) Loads.
Alot of terrorist groups have readily identifiable aims usually boiling down to getting what they see as invaders out of their 'homeland'. ISIS is a bit different, their aim is to get the Kafiir out of the world, or live UNDER muslims.
While it's good not to be gung-ho, there comes a point when this endless handwringing becomes a vice in itself. It makes us appear an unreliable ally and one that would never provide any really significant aid; also that we would not respond if attacked ourselves.
Humour me: what's your 'intelligent' strategy for dealing with ISIS?
That's also why negotiating with them would be a waste of time at the moment. What we and they want are too far apart.
It's also why we need to beat them ASAP.