Still cogitating on how poor Corbyn was in his speech. This issue is the thing that defines him, that he has worked for all his political life, that made his becoming Leader of the party so important. And then he gives a very poor rambling, almost incoherent speech, hemmed in by refusing to answer basic questions that, with his Stop The War credentials, he should have been happy to confirm.
He's no Michael Foot, is he?
Foot looked strange but had a distinguished career as a writer and journalist before entering parliament and was a very bright man. Corbyn is a dullard who thinks that his banal views are profound.
Foot was an outstanding and principled Parliamentarian from a generation of great orators and thinkers. There are very few in Parliament or outside it today who could match him. And I say that in spite of disagreeing with pretty much everything he stood for in politics.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
"some blanket throwing skill"? For shame, we have the best blanket throwers in the world and I know we are all proud of the vital work they do in keeping us safe.
Our blanket is a bit old and tatty though.
Not true, our blanket was extensively refurbished and we bought some very nice cushions to go with it. Other than the USA nobody has a better blanket.
Indeed our blanket is probably the best anywhere. However, we are now so poor that we can only afford a blanket 2 foot square. Not actually big enough to be of much use to man or beast.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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.
I worry that we don't have a carefully thought out strategy beyond joining in the bombing which may be helpful but is not enough to defeat IS in the way it needs to be defeated.
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.
'we' as in the UK are just one part of a bombing campaign. I hear zero suggestions about hpw to deal with isis.
Bombing is part of what's needed. It is necessary. But not sufficient. Ultimately, for territory to be removed from IS it needs to be retaken by ground troops. And that will be bloody.
Russia presents 'evidence' of Turkey fencing ISIS' oil. Erdogan has claimed he will resign if this is proven - this is the Russian's presentation of that proof. (Video of press briefing)
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
"some blanket throwing skill"? For shame, we have the best blanket throwers in the world and I know we are all proud of the vital work they do in keeping us safe.
Our blanket is a bit old and tatty though.
Not true, our blanket was extensively refurbished and we bought some very nice cushions to go with it. Other than the USA nobody has a better blanket.
Indeed our blanket is probably the best anywhere. However, we are now so poor that we can only afford a blanket 2 foot square. Not actually big enough to be of much use to man or beast.
Margaret Beckett on BBC News Channel talking about abuse. Abuse received by Labour MPs from activists.
Kinder gentler politics. No bullying in the Labour party, everybody is a left wing pacifist now.
The hard left have failed at the ballot box for so long they have to get their point across somehow, direct action is the most self satisfying way to do this; political onanism if you will.
As an old peacenik,my mind is made up on matters such as the syriavote and I aint changing my mind and militarists the same so there's no point in fussin' and fightin'. Key intervention from Owen Jones-Jezza will not be PM,he says. I suggest the next Labour leader market bears scrutiny once more as a result.Accepting there is a majority of Labour party members against the bombing of Syria,what could the effect of those supporting it have on their odds? I'm happy with 16-1 on Keir Starmer,who has a very nuanced against view and I'd be a layer of Dan Jarvis and Hilary Benn,who have maybe scuppered their chances.I only wish the Labour party realised,it's time for a woman and had an all women shortlist for leader though I can't see it coming any time soon.Lisa Nandy is top-priced woman at 10-1 with PP,a small saving bet as insurance perhaps. The abuse going round is really unacceptable.So far as well as being a terrorist sympathiser I am a "leftie conchy bedwetter".C'mon folks,we can do better than that,can't we?
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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.
I worry that we don't have a carefully thought out strategy beyond joining in the bombing which may be helpful but is not enough to defeat IS in the way it needs to be defeated.
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.
'we' as in the UK are just one part of a bombing campaign. I hear zero suggestions about hpw to deal with isis.
Bombing is part of what's needed. It is necessary. But not sufficient. Ultimately, for territory to be removed from IS it needs to be retaken by ground troops. And that will be bloody.
It need not be, Mrs Free. If the nations of the coalition decide to play hardball rather than ponce around then taking the ground could be quite bloodless. What happens after that is another matter, but as no one wants to play for keeps it is all a bit moot.
My best guess is that in a few years the Western Powers will get bored, declare victory and go home.
That is why the "terrorist sympathiser" jibe - low blow it may have been - was so effective.
Corbyn's past makes it difficult to take his opposition to war at face value. Does he really oppose war for the reasons he outlines?
On that note: From 'Love and garbage'
the person who wants to do nothing is pretending that he would be happy to do something if the thing that could be done did not actually amount to anything by setting a series of conditions as to things that he knows are impossible to attain, and consequently amount to nothing. Every observer knows that he always wants to do nothing, and so arguing that he has carefully considered the position and concluded that doing nothing is the answer sits awkwardly with his never wanting to do something, meaning that the things he has said he has considered before deciding that he should not do something but should instead do nothing might actually not have been things at all, and were in fact nothing.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
There are also groups of angry hornets lurking in our own back yard whose nest we will be poking when we grab a corner of the blanket
Russia presents 'evidence' of Turkey fencing ISIS' oil. Erdogan has claimed he will resign if this is proven - this is the Russian's presentation of that proof. (Video of press briefing)
It'll be interesting to see how well it stands up. It wouldn't surprise me; then again, I think the accusations first came about during Erdogan's fall-out with Gulen, so might just be manufactured from that time.
You should remember that Russia aren't exactly impartial in this either.
All in all, it's quite funny. The AKP first came to power because the previous secular DSP government was widely seen as being both incompetent and corrupt. As someone said to me: a government can be incompetent or corrupt, but to be both just makes the country a laughing-stock.
Yet as the AKP has gone on, it seems to be becoming both more incompetent and corrupt. Part of that might be the stonking majorities it has got at most elections; some of it the Turkish system, and some may be untrue.
Let's see their evidence, and how Turkey responds.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
There are also groups of angry hornets lurking in our own back yard whose nest we will be poking when we grab a corner of the blanket
Give up, and become a hornet. It's probably safer than fighting them.
Still cogitating on how poor Corbyn was in his speech. This issue is the thing that defines him, that he has worked for all his political life, that made his becoming Leader of the party so important. And then he gives a very poor rambling, almost incoherent speech, hemmed in by refusing to answer basic questions that, with his Stop The War credentials, he should have been happy to confirm.
Still cogitating on how poor Corbyn was in his speech. This issue is the thing that defines him, that he has worked for all his political life, that made his becoming Leader of the party so important. And then he gives a very poor rambling, almost incoherent speech, hemmed in by refusing to answer basic questions that, with his Stop The War credentials, he should have been happy to confirm.
He's no Michael Foot, is he?
Was is Chesterton who said that when people stop believing in God, they will believe in anything?
Many in the Negative Nationalist group don't know *why* they support/don't support the things they do. Hence the aggressive ranting when asked. To them they are articles of faith. The word of a higher power. Not to be questioned - except unbelievers, of course.
Foot on the other hand had a set of ideas, backed by arguments and completed by a philosophical mind. He could tell you what he believed and why. I think he was wrong on many things, but at least he thought about it.
Corbyn is an indifferent village verger of decayed faith.
Bombing is part of what's needed. It is necessary. But not sufficient. Ultimately, for territory to be removed from IS it needs to be retaken by ground troops. And that will be bloody.
And it won't just be restricted to Syria. We will more of less have to sweep across North Africa, too.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
There are also groups of angry hornets lurking in our own back yard whose nest we will be poking when we grab a corner of the blanket
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
There are also groups of angry hornets lurking in our own back yard whose nest we will be poking when we grab a corner of the blanket
As a beekeeper, the lesson is simple.. Exterminate them all. Ruthlessly.
Leave hornets that are no a problem. But massacre all that attack...
As an old peacenik,my mind is made up on matters such as the syriavote and I aint changing my mind and militarists the same so there's no point in fussin' and fightin'. Key intervention from Owen Jones-Jezza will not be PM,he says. I suggest the next Labour leader market bears scrutiny once more as a result.Accepting there is a majority of Labour party members against the bombing of Syria,what could the effect of those supporting it have on their odds? I'm happy with 16-1 on Keir Starmer,who has a very nuanced against view and I'd be a layer of Dan Jarvis and Hilary Benn,who have maybe scuppered their chances.I only wish the Labour party realised,it's time for a woman and had an all women shortlist for leader though I can't see it coming any time soon.Lisa Nandy is top-priced woman at 10-1 with PP,a small saving bet as insurance perhaps. The abuse going round is really unacceptable.So far as well as being a terrorist sympathiser I am a "leftie conchy bedwetter".C'mon folks,we can do better than that,can't we?
We can get Momentum to picket your house and terrify your family if you want. :-)
Russia presents 'evidence' of Turkey fencing ISIS' oil. Erdogan has claimed he will resign if this is proven - this is the Russian's presentation of that proof. (Video of press briefing)
We are asked to support our friends, but should we do so if our friends are making a gigantic error? I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
Johnny Mercer once again proving why I'm right to have a mahoosive man crush on him.
Really? I though he spoke so badly that I couldn't focus on what he was trying to say.
I agree about him being a poor speaker. He is lost without his notes in front of him. John Baron was almost incoherent. We don't seem to have heard from the "young corbynistas. The best speakers are still the "oldies."
Margaret Beckett and Pat McFadden still ahead for me.
@BBCNormanS: I'm thinking more than half shadow cabinet must be backing Corbyn over r#syriavote #turnaround
Spineless....And no chance they get rid of Corbyn anytime soon. Weak, weak, weak...All they will do is continue to bitch and moan to Guardian and BBC journos in the pub about how disastrous he is, how useless he is, but do nothing to change it.
@BBCNormanS: I'm thinking more than half shadow cabinet must be backing Corbyn over r#syriavote #turnaround
Spineless....And no chance they get rid of Corbyn anytime soon. Weak, weak, weak...All they will do is continue to bitch and moan to Guardian and BBC journos in the pub about how disastrous he is, how useless he is, but do nothing to change it.
We know they are... 10 or 11 declared in favour of Corbyn's view.
Not really surprising though? At most we were talking of 100 rebels, always going to disproportionately backbenchers.
We are asked to support our friends, but should we do so if our friends are making a gigantic error? I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
There are also groups of angry hornets lurking in our own back yard whose nest we will be poking when we grab a corner of the blanket
As you well know, Assad's forces are and were offering the only serious opposition to ISIS, and bombing them (as a form of 'punishment' as it was presented) would have presented a great boon to ISIS.
No. Iran and Hezbollah's forces are now providing the only serious opposition to ISIS in Syria.
As for two years ago: Assad was under so much pressure he used chemical weapons. We should not have ignored that, and it is to our shame we did. The west ignored Saddam when he used them against Iran, and then against his own population, and much of this mess can be traced back to the west turning a blind eye back then.
(And I know you don't agree with me that he did use them)
@BBCNormanS: I'm thinking more than half shadow cabinet must be backing Corbyn over r#syriavote #turnaround
Spineless....And no chance they get rid of Corbyn anytime soon. Weak, weak, weak...All they will do is continue to bitch and moan to Guardian and BBC journos in the pub about how disastrous he is, how useless he is, but do nothing to change it.
"Cameron's got this in the bag. F*ck my principals, I want to an MP in 5 years time so I'm voting no." Not so much jellyfish as slime mould.
Bombing is part of what's needed. It is necessary. But not sufficient. Ultimately, for territory to be removed from IS it needs to be retaken by ground troops. And that will be bloody.
And it won't just be restricted to Syria. We will more of less have to sweep across North Africa, too.
And here is what I think is the most important statement in this thread so far.
If we're to stop ISIS, we need to be looking at Libya, and doing so yesterday. In terms of ISIS, forget Syria - the Russians are sinking their teeth into them there. Libya is a total vacuum, a dinghy ride away from Southern Europe. And ISIS I believe already have a presence. It needs a firm political settlement, a strong Government, and an end to the fighting right now.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
Perhaps our 'friends' shouldn't have been the prime movers in an attempt to remove a Government by means of chucking weapons at anyone in the vicinity with a grudge and a beard. Leading directly to the attack on them.
Perhaps that government shouldn't have tried slaughtering its own citizens and using chemical weapons against them.
We are asked to support our friends, but should we do so if our friends are making a gigantic error? I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
Fair enough. What about the French?
The French are, understandably hitting back hard at someone who hit them. A candid friend should I think urge to stop before the collateral damage is too high.
Before anyone jumps on me, I find ISIL a horrible, barbaric group, preaching a perversion of "religion". They've got to be exterminated, but I can't see that an air war is the way to do it, The dreadful complication is that virtually everyone involved in the Syrian conflict are people who are also horrible, although perhaps not as horrible as ISIS.
Hilary Benn and Dan Jarvis were 36.42% of the market so Betfair told me !
They have no chance if they vote against this.
Andy has no chance either no matter which way he votes. Trying to climb Jeremy's slippery pole methinks.
I know you are firmly of that view Pulpstar but I cannot see the reason for your certainty.
As far as I see it, either Corbyn is overthrown in the next year, in which case will be those well-positioned within the party post-coup who count; or he will resign in 2019-21, in which case Labour might be ready to move to the centre of their own accord.
Either way I am far from convinced their positioning on one of these votes would swing it.
We are asked to support our friends, but should we do so if our friends are making a gigantic error? I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
Fair enough. What about the French?
The French are, understandably hitting back hard at someone who hit them. A candid friend should I think urge to stop before the collateral damage is too high.
Before anyone jumps on me, I find ISIL a horrible, barbaric group, preaching a perversion of "religion". They've got to be exterminated, but I can't see that an air war is the way to do it, The dreadful complication is that virtually everyone involved in the Syrian conflict are people who are also horrible, although perhaps not as horrible as ISIS.
I fear it's becoming ever clearer that the West is weak, and scared, and that ultimately ISIS will win.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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 hornets are already angry, and plan to sting us to death. They also threaten to sting our friends and neighbours to death.
Some of these friends have got hold of a blanket and want to throw it over the nest. It's not ideal, it won't get rid of all hornets, it's risky, some will get stung, but it might subdue the nest or even kill it off. And no one has a better idea, right now.
For it to work, its best if several people take hold of different corners of the blanket - and we all throw it together. Our friends have explicitly asked us to help throw the blanket, they want us to do our bit. We're not vital, though we do bring some blanket throwing skill. We could hide in the corner of the garden and let them take all the risk, instead.
But our friends have asked. And they are waiting.
Perhaps our 'friends' shouldn't have been the prime movers in an attempt to remove a Government by means of chucking weapons at anyone in the vicinity with a grudge and a beard. Leading directly to the attack on them.
Perhaps that government shouldn't have tried slaughtering its own citizens and using chemical weapons against them.
Turkey has also bombed its own citizens in Kurdistan both historically and currently.
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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.
Taking part in a coordinated effort, for the first time, between NATO forces and Russia, to tackle a real threat to our security provides a historic opportunity to fix the fault lines that were left after the Cold War and bring Russia back into the family of European nations. That prize alone is so compelling that whatever the merits of the current strategy against IS, we should not stand aside and leave it to our allies.
What do you think Russia's end game in Syria is? Do you think it is the same end-game as the NATO countries' ? Which, if either, is right?
The answer to the former can be found in the targets Russia has mainly been bombing: they want to preserve Assad's power in his core heartland, which is strategic for Russia. The answer to the second is to banish ISIS.
Turkey has also bombed its own citizens in Kurdistan both historically and currently.
Indeed, and Kurds have been bombing Turkey.
One of the festering sores in Turkey's soul (and I have to be careful saying this) is the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the knock-on effect that has on their relationship with their Kurdish population.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
We are asked to support our friends, but should we do so if our friends are making a gigantic error? I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
Fair enough. What about the French?
The French are, understandably hitting back hard at someone who hit them. A candid friend should I think urge to stop before the collateral damage is too high.
Before anyone jumps on me, I find ISIL a horrible, barbaric group, preaching a perversion of "religion". They've got to be exterminated, but I can't see that an air war is the way to do it, The dreadful complication is that virtually everyone involved in the Syrian conflict are people who are also horrible, although perhaps not as horrible as ISIS.
It can, the argument goes, put pressure on ISIS to make it easier for the 'local' ground forces to retake ISIS territory. It can be argued that such air power is already helping make a difference: whenever ISIS congregate a significant force to take territory, it is vulnerable.
Turkey has also bombed its own citizens in Kurdistan both historically and currently.
Indeed, and Kurds have been bombing Turkey.
One of the festering sores in Turkey's soul (and I have to be careful saying this) is the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the knock-on effect that has on their relationship with their Kurdish population.
But Turkey has not used chemical weapons.
I grant you the point re. CW.
But why shouldn't Turkey "welcome" the rise of The Caliphate? Where was the Caliphate based until 1924?
With Ed M and Burnham, If the polls had been right, today we'd have a Labour/SNP coalition Govt. refusing to act after requests from France and after seeing a UN resolution calling on us to act.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
ISTR reading that they really don't care (I think it was in the review of ISIS's in-house glossy)
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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.
Taking part in a coordinated effort, for the first time, between NATO forces and Russia, to tackle a real threat to our security provides a historic opportunity to fix the fault lines that were left after the Cold War and bring Russia back into the family of European nations. That prize alone is so compelling that whatever the merits of the current strategy against IS, we should not stand aside and leave it to our allies.
What do you think Russia's end game in Syria is? Do you think it is the same end-game as the NATO countries' ? Which, if either, is right?
The answer to the former can be found in the targets Russia has mainly been bombing: they want to preserve Assad's power in his core heartland, which is strategic for Russia. The answer to the second is to banish ISIS.
I'd say our end-game is more vital than Russia's.
What is the UK 's end game in this conflict? If anyone knows they are keeping it a closely guarded secret. Cameron's seven platitudes really aren't good enough because they can mean different things to different people.
So as Russia seems to know what it wants to achieve and we do not, who do you think is going to come out on top?
Edward Leigh talking meaningless drivel. He is unable to take a stand - though the state of his face clearly indicates a strong ability to take a drink.
Edward Leigh talking meaningless drivel. He is unable to take a stand - though the state of his face clearly indicates a strong ability to take a drink.
I find his equivocation very small minded
On the rare occasions like today, we often find out who the real good parliamentarians are and who are the toads, the weasels and the generally useless.
Turkey has also bombed its own citizens in Kurdistan both historically and currently.
Indeed, and Kurds have been bombing Turkey.
One of the festering sores in Turkey's soul (and I have to be careful saying this) is the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the knock-on effect that has on their relationship with their Kurdish population.
But Turkey has not used chemical weapons.
I grant you the point re. CW.
But why shouldn't Turkey "welcome" the rise of The Caliphate? Where was the Caliphate based until 1924?
This goes back to the neo-Ottoman allegation, when neo-Ottoman refers to culture rather than territory. Hence why there's such an argument over the wearing of headscarves.
So why does no-one significant in Turkey want a return to the Ottoman empire? The answer is simple: they have enough trouble with the territory they have without importing new populations. The Turkish memory is also deep: the Ottoman empire became unmanageable and had a slow decline over centuries, nearly destroying the country in the process. Only Ataturk saved it.
But Turkey knows it is in a vital strategic location, both historically and in the present. They do have interests in trying to be the biggest and most influential economic power in the region. And in that, they might come into direct conflict with Russia.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
Does it really piss them off though? People who celebrate how barbaric they are don't like a name?
I have to admit I'm worried about some of the Lab MPs who are supporting the airstrikes. Pretty much all the candidates for a sensible Lab leader before 2020 (Benn, Johnson, Cooper) seem to be supporting it, but I fear this will prove to be a red-line for even many moderate Labour members.
(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.)
Would you be in favour of bombing IS if London, and not Paris was attacked ?
I won't lie, if Britain was attacked then my gut/emotional reaction probably would be that we have to "do something". Hell, that was even my initial reaction a bit immediately after Paris.
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.
Taking part in a coordinated effort, for the first time, between NATO forces and Russia, to tackle a real threat to our security provides a historic opportunity to fix the fault lines that were left after the Cold War and bring Russia back into the family of European nations. That prize alone is so compelling that whatever the merits of the current strategy against IS, we should not stand aside and leave it to our allies.
What do you think Russia's end game in Syria is? Do you think it is the same end-game as the NATO countries' ? Which, if either, is right?
The answer to the former can be found in the targets Russia has mainly been bombing: they want to preserve Assad's power in his core heartland, which is strategic for Russia. The answer to the second is to banish ISIS.
I'd say our end-game is more vital than Russia's.
What is the UK 's end game in this conflict? If anyone knows they are keeping it a closely guarded secret. Cameron's seven platitudes really aren't good enough because they can mean different things to different people.
So as Russia seems to know what it wants to achieve and we do not, who do you think is going to come out on top?
I thought (and might be wrong) it is to remove the threat from ISIS and alN in the short term, and in the long term to support the Vienna peace talks in working towards a transitional government that might be able to bring peace to Syria.
@BBCNormanS: I'm thinking more than half shadow cabinet must be backing Corbyn over r#syriavote #turnaround
It may well be most of the party does, either by voting with him or at least not with the government. Not so different from the members after all, which is good for unity at least.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
Does it really piss them off though? People who celebrate how barbaric they are don't like a name?
Given they'll happily rape and murder a woman for being out on her own, or showing an ankle, I don't think their likes and dislikes are a matter of rationality.
@BBCNormanS: I'm thinking more than half shadow cabinet must be backing Corbyn over r#syriavote #turnaround
It may well be most of the party does, either by voting with him or at least not with the government. Not so different from the members after all, which is good for unity at least.
Given they are opposing a majority government with some rebels an opposition abstention is as good as voting with e government. It is effectively backing action but without putting your head above the parapet.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
Does it really piss them off though? People who celebrate how barbaric they are don't like a name?
Who cares if it pisses them off ffs? I don't get people's need to demonstrate that they are jolly cross with a murderous death cult. It should be a given.
I don't really like the term - I find it confusing and grammatically ambiguous - but it really pisses them off, so I might use it for that reason and that alone.
Does it really piss them off though? People who celebrate how barbaric they are don't like a name?
Given they'll happily rape and murder a woman for being out on her own, or showing an ankle, I don't think their likes and dislikes are a matter of rationality.
They have banned pigeon breeding as they reveals genitals. Tells you all you need to know about rationality.
Comments
Corbyn's past makes it difficult to take his opposition to war at face value. Does he really oppose war for the reasons he outlines?
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/2e/World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg/2000px-World_Navy_Aircraft_carries_chart.svg.png
Key intervention from Owen Jones-Jezza will not be PM,he says.
I suggest the next Labour leader market bears scrutiny once more as a result.Accepting there is a majority of Labour party members against the bombing of Syria,what could the effect of those supporting it have on their odds?
I'm happy with 16-1 on Keir Starmer,who has a very nuanced against view and I'd be a layer of Dan Jarvis and Hilary Benn,who have maybe scuppered their chances.I only wish the Labour party realised,it's time for a woman and had an all women shortlist for leader though I can't see it coming any time soon.Lisa Nandy is top-priced woman at 10-1 with PP,a small saving bet as insurance perhaps.
The abuse going round is really unacceptable.So far as well as being a terrorist sympathiser I am a "leftie conchy bedwetter".C'mon folks,we can do better than that,can't we?
BREAKING: Andy Burnham confirms he will vote for, vote against and abstain on airstrikes.
"I'm from the North, you know," he added.
lol.
My best guess is that in a few years the Western Powers will get bored, declare victory and go home.
Andy "Schrödinger" Burnham.
https://twitter.com/Labourpaul/status/672092837891219456
the person who wants to do nothing is pretending that he would be happy to do something if the thing that could be done did not actually amount to anything by setting a series of conditions as to things that he knows are impossible to attain, and consequently amount to nothing. Every observer knows that he always wants to do nothing, and so arguing that he has carefully considered the position and concluded that doing nothing is the answer sits awkwardly with his never wanting to do something, meaning that the things he has said he has considered before deciding that he should not do something but should instead do nothing might actually not have been things at all, and were in fact nothing.
You should remember that Russia aren't exactly impartial in this either.
All in all, it's quite funny. The AKP first came to power because the previous secular DSP government was widely seen as being both incompetent and corrupt. As someone said to me: a government can be incompetent or corrupt, but to be both just makes the country a laughing-stock.
Yet as the AKP has gone on, it seems to be becoming both more incompetent and corrupt. Part of that might be the stonking majorities it has got at most elections; some of it the Turkish system, and some may be untrue.
Let's see their evidence, and how Turkey responds.
Many in the Negative Nationalist group don't know *why* they support/don't support the things they do. Hence the aggressive ranting when asked. To them they are articles of faith. The word of a higher power. Not to be questioned - except unbelievers, of course.
Foot on the other hand had a set of ideas, backed by arguments and completed by a philosophical mind. He could tell you what he believed and why. I think he was wrong on many things, but at least he thought about it.
Corbyn is an indifferent village verger of decayed faith.
And it won't just be restricted to Syria. We will more of less have to sweep across North Africa, too.
Leave hornets that are no a problem. But massacre all that attack...
Superb, Mr. Malmesbury, quite superb.
I would not trust the Americans to make a sensible decision in an area of this complexity.
Period..
Margaret Beckett and Pat McFadden still ahead for me.
A list of public misconceptions, released today by the polling firm Ipsos Mori https://t.co/ln51959ruy
Not really surprising though? At most we were talking of 100 rebels, always going to disproportionately backbenchers.
They have no chance if they vote against this.
Andy has no chance either no matter which way he votes. Trying to climb Jeremy's slippery pole methinks.
As for two years ago: Assad was under so much pressure he used chemical weapons. We should not have ignored that, and it is to our shame we did. The west ignored Saddam when he used them against Iran, and then against his own population, and much of this mess can be traced back to the west turning a blind eye back then.
(And I know you don't agree with me that he did use them)
If we're to stop ISIS, we need to be looking at Libya, and doing so yesterday. In terms of ISIS, forget Syria - the Russians are sinking their teeth into them there. Libya is a total vacuum, a dinghy ride away from Southern Europe. And ISIS I believe already have a presence. It needs a firm political settlement, a strong Government, and an end to the fighting right now.
Before anyone jumps on me, I find ISIL a horrible, barbaric group, preaching a perversion of "religion". They've got to be exterminated, but I can't see that an air war is the way to do it, The dreadful complication is that virtually everyone involved in the Syrian conflict are people who are also horrible, although perhaps not as horrible as ISIS.
As far as I see it, either Corbyn is overthrown in the next year, in which case will be those well-positioned within the party post-coup who count; or he will resign in 2019-21, in which case Labour might be ready to move to the centre of their own accord.
Either way I am far from convinced their positioning on one of these votes would swing it.
The answer to the former can be found in the targets Russia has mainly been bombing: they want to preserve Assad's power in his core heartland, which is strategic for Russia. The answer to the second is to banish ISIS.
I'd say our end-game is more vital than Russia's.
One of the festering sores in Turkey's soul (and I have to be careful saying this) is the denial of the Armenian genocide, and the knock-on effect that has on their relationship with their Kurdish population.
But Turkey has not used chemical weapons.
http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/01/how-isis-suckered-the-west.html
http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/22/the-most-important-result-on-may-7th/
But why shouldn't Turkey "welcome" the rise of The Caliphate?
Where was the Caliphate based until 1924?
So as Russia seems to know what it wants to achieve and we do not, who do you think is going to come out on top?
I find his equivocation very small minded
Full on rebellion in the Lib Dem party....
So why does no-one significant in Turkey want a return to the Ottoman empire? The answer is simple: they have enough trouble with the territory they have without importing new populations. The Turkish memory is also deep: the Ottoman empire became unmanageable and had a slow decline over centuries, nearly destroying the country in the process. Only Ataturk saved it.
But Turkey knows it is in a vital strategic location, both historically and in the present. They do have interests in trying to be the biggest and most influential economic power in the region. And in that, they might come into direct conflict with Russia.
Scared maybe, weak no.
100,000 well armed well supported Western troops would go through ISIS for a short cut. Add 100,000 Russians and its game over.
I think its more 'feeling guilty' than either of the above.
Any ETA for the vote?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)#Operators