Categories
Options
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria – the big debate goes on
politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria – the big debate goes on
Tim Farron backing air strikes. "This is toughest call I have ever had to make, and certainly in this House". Cites UN resolution &refugees.
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
Gisela Stuart: "If this had happened in London, and France when asked to support had said 'no'..." Well said.
"A 50-year-old woman who fears that the passing of her youth and beauty means the end of everything that “sparkles” in life has been granted permission to die by the court of protection. In a highly unusual judgment published this week, King’s College Hospital NHS Trust has been told that the unnamed woman has the capacity to make up her own mind and is entitled to refuse the life-saving kidney dialysis treatment she requires."
http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2015/dec/02/court-grants-impulsive-self-centred-mother-permission-to-die
He would oppose Cameron no matter what.
He's no Michael Foot, is he?
Is there a single MP in the house who is voting against bombing primarily because they sympathise with ISIS?
That is the question raised by Cameron's comments, it seems to me.
Simply standing up and giving a rational opinion based on easily determined truths is not a particularly high bar to pass.
The decision to be made is a sad one but not particularly difficult for people who live in the real world. The previous decision by Labour and Ed Miliband - to play politics - did of course help make the situation worse.
Oh, and that Wedgie was right too - deselections are necessary if you want to retain power, whilst not whipping and having ShCab collective responsibility...it's the only way to make it work.
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/opinion/columnists/article4629477.ece
As a conservative, I have to say the best speech so far has come from Margaret Beckett.
Earlier, Tom Watson's face was an absolute picture. All the nastiness was there for all to see. He looked like he was going to attack the PM. Yes, he and Hilary Benn indicated the PM should stand up and apologise but if you watch Benn then shouts to Tom Watson to "shut up, that's enough." Do watch, it was quite a moment. No one seems to have spotted this. From there on, Tom Watson looked like he wanted to disappear into a big hole.
There is still a way to go but this is not one of Parliament's greatest days. A lot of MPs' being exposed as the poor speakers they are
http://www.bbc.co.uk/weather/2641022
He's no Michael Foot, is he?
ho ho ho
.......The inevitable conclusion is that the paucity of his argument on this case is due to the fact that his position is instead based on his general opposition to all British military intervention, anywhere, any time and for any reason. That was made all too clear when John Woodcock asked him to commit his support for continued airstrikes in Iraq, and he notably failed to do so. Ultimately, Corbyn’s speech will have done nothing to win over Labour MPs who are minded to vote with the government.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/dec/02/david-cameron-jeremy-corbyn-airstrikes-syria
(Though speaking personally, even as someone against these airstrikes, I wouldn't hold this against a potential leader as long as I was persuaded they genuinely thought it was the right thing to do, rather than that they were doing it just to "make a point" about Corbyn.)
A conservative councillor of my acquaintance claimed support for bombing was dropping by the hour, any truth to that?
Cameron was very good last week. The reason that we discuss leaders ageing quickly is when we see days like this, the PM must feel personally the burden of knowing that we put our armed forces in harm's way, in the name of the government he leads.
FPT:
Stella Creasy is not 'out to left' of the Labour party, FGS. I'm not surprised to hear that she's been targetted. There is indeed an underlying sexism in the Hard Left's attacks on Creasy. This is the stupidity of the Hard Left. These people believe they represent the values of Keir Hardie, Clement Attlee et al. And while both of those leaders would have been less than pleased with Blairism, and the modern day Right of the Labour party, they wouldn't have been impressed by a bunch of Hard Left idiots whose contribution to the Labour movement is attending pointless protests/demos and being on twitter all day. The likes of Stella Creasy meanwhile, have genuinely tried to help working people in this country. The fact that someone like Stella Creasy is isolated in the PLP (which is, as the NS article stated one of the main reasons why the Hard Left are going after her - they see her as an easy target) shows how badly Labour have lost touch with their values. And why they won't be winning a GE anytime soon.
But it's no good those MPs kicking up a fuss about Corbyn. They need to plan to replace him or not. I'm sick of this meaningless cowering about him by the PLP. At this stage the unions can also go and do one. They can set up their own party, and watch that flop. After their involvement in the last two leadership elections, I'd actually laugh at their failure.
In fact it's so obviously what was meant that people conflating it with the no to bombing side of the debate are the ones being dishonest/dishonourable.
Her campaign against payday loans was certainly more than most Labour MPs achieved in the last Parliament, and I would've thought most of the more hardcore Blairites (Kendall et al) would've considered that to be "anti-business" or some nonsense.
True. But if even a single MP voted against bombing primarily because they sympathised with ISIS, that is pretty serious stuff.
The debate, at least the little I'm following, seems to be a facile binary do we or don't we? In my view the core of the debate should be if we intervene, why are airstrikes better than boots on the ground, no fly zones, attacking Assad simultaneously, insisting on UN peacekeepers etc. Count me unpersuaded if the debate doesn't get further than saying ISIL are really bad and you clearly don't believe that if you don't supoprt the PM.
George Kerevan
@GeorgeKerevan
Four and a half hours into debate. Only one SNP called in debate so far. Lots of Tories and BOTH Labour parties. @EastLothianSNP
But the more I think about it, the more I don't see how this will achieve anything to actually help defeat ISIL, other than that immediate gratification that we're "doing something". As (I think) Foxinsox said earlier, this feels rather like whacking a hornets' nest a few times, before running away after we've got them all angry.
The next leader of the Labour party needs to be someone who is prepared to make the arguments to the membership and try and persuade them and change their minds and get them to follow him or her. Only someone like that will have the ability to do the same to the country and to Parliament. And of course if you want to persuade people you need to have something you want to say. The biggest problem for the moderates is that they don't, yet, have anything they want to say, anything they really want to say. Talk of likely individuals based on their characteristics (a la Jarvis etc) seems to me to be putting the cart before the horse.
Corbyn was of course a deciple of Benn senior and Hilary must have had a good long vidw of him.
The spin drier on maximum from all sides: as soon as I'd said 50ish, a more leadership loyal source says 70-80 Labour MPs will vote Yes
If Creasy were deselected, and if Labour doesn't split, I wonder if she'd stand for the Women's Equality Party.
350/1...........
Back (Bet For)
Odds
Stake
Profit
Conservative 259.95 £2.00 £498.00
#Hadsomeredtocoverthereanyway
I've not followed the debate as it's not quite pantomime season yet. I did manage to catch up with the Prime Minister's "12 points" - if Wilsonian, more Harold than Woodrow in truth.
"Supporting our armed forces" for example is a platitude - it may be a snide dig at Labour's current leadership but as with his cheap jibe about "terrorist sympathisers", the truth is it's perfectly possible to support the armed forces, be concerned about national security and not be a Conservative.
Where Cameron has moved significantly is to acknowledge the linkage of military action to a) legitimacy via the UN resolution, b) the priority to find a comprehensive political settlement in Syria (and Iraq as well) and c) the humanitarian catastrophe that is the Syrian Diaspora. That renewed emphasis on the non-military was enough to win over the likes of Farron and others and just about convinces me.
It was the three prongs of defence, Europe and internal party selection which triggered the Labour schism in 1981 - I do feel the possibility of a similar schism in the next 24 months has increased in the past week. The emergence of a coherent non-socialist party of the centre or centre-left would be the ultimate nightmare for the Conservatives but we are a long way from that today.
Cameron will have his victory today and it might be by as many as 150 or more but it's not just a mandate for military action - it's a mandate for diplomatic and humanitarian action and while that isn't what Sky and other media outlets are interested in with their obsession with boys' toys, they are vital aspects for the future and it is the progress in these areas to which the Prime Minister should be held to account.
@theSNP: .@AngusRobertson "In normal circumstances we would not be involved" #SyriaVote https://t.co/BtBSZbBERP
Very well put.
If all we do is a bit of bombing and nothing else happens what use will it be? What then?
Still, sometimes the choices are unenviable ones and a decision has to be made.
It would be hilarious if they did win. More realistically, it'll probably just add 1-2% to the tory vote share.
Shadsy's 5/6 on over 12.5% looks alright.
Were there an amendment to vote for, say to degrade all military facilities in Syria to cripple all sides into having to seek a way out, I'd have been minded to support (and I think the Commons made a huge mistake in not supporting action in 2013.) But however awful ISIS are, throwing bombs around will just make Assad's life that little bit easier - and there's no viable strategy on the table for dealing with him or his awful regime.
http://order-order.com/2015/12/02/labour-mps-sent-images-of-dead-children-by-sick-anti-war-campaigners/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islington_North_(UK_Parliament_constituency)#Elections_in_the_1980s
No manager would survive in ordinary practice.
Just cast your mind back to how utterly hapless he was in his brief period of shadow chancellor. Corbyn is toxic, but the postman is just an amiable (and past it) joker.
It really shows how completely bereft of talent Labour are that people are getting excited about Johnson.
To me, the questions posed are, erm, less than optimal. The fact is that we are already bombing ISIS and the vote is to bomb them a bit more.
The vote, to me, is only about doing our job better. Our card is already marked. Arguing against it on the basis of potential retaliation rather misses the point that the revenge boat sailed some time ago.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_O'Halloran_(UK_politician)
It is of course true that "it's perfectly possible to support the armed forces, be concerned about national security and not be a Conservative."
Unfortunately, the Labour party which Corbyn is seeking to remake in his image does not appear to be such a party. That is why the "terrorist sympathiser" jibe - low blow it may have been - was so effective.
Contrast how Corbyn has behaved with how Michael Foot behaved over the Falklands. That's how a real genuine patriotic Left-wing Labour leader behaves.
Not expecting it to win, but would be quite hilarious for a sitting government to take a huge majority from the opposition.
More likely the UKIP win, am on that at the old 8/1 and on Labour at today's 7/2.
Big green book :-)
https://www.rt.com/news/324263-russia-briefing-isis-funding/