politicalbetting.com » Blog Archive » Syria – the big debate goes on

Tom said:

MarqueeMark said:

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.

oxfordsimon said:

Has Cameron left the chamber since this started? I think it speaks volumes that he is still on the Front Bench four hours in.

He does these moments well. Wouldn't be surprised to see him there all day.

Both Labour Parties http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/syria/12028313/syria-airstrikes-vote-live.html#update-20151202-1600

Johnny Mercer once again proving why I'm right to have a mahoosive man crush on him.

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

oxfordsimon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Yeah, didn't flow too well audio-only, I assume it worked better on TV?

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?

Cyclefree said:

flightpath01 said:

Cyclefree said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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.

Corbyn's achievements.

https://twitter.com/Labourpaul/status/672092837891219456

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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

Cyclefree said:

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.

isam said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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...

volcanopete said:

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. :-)

@BBCNormanS: Labour's @andyburnhammp says won't back air strikes #SyriaVote

"Corbyn is an indifferent village verger of decayed faith."

Superb, Mr. Malmesbury, quite superb.

dr_spyn said:

Corbyn's achievements.

https://twitter.com/Labourpaul/status/672092837891219456

They have been working hard I have to say.

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.

oxfordsimon said:

TheScreamingEagles said:

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.

Scott_P said:

@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.

OldKingCole said:

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?

isam said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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

Well we'll have to deal with them too.

Pulpstar said:

AndyJS said:

Will PB be using the word Daesh from now on?

I'll be using الدولة الإسلامية في العراق والشام

In that case, our hopes have been Daeshed!

Luckyguy1983 said:

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)

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Luckyguy1983 said:

SeanT said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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.

Pulpstar said:

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.

Does anyone know how Harman is voting?

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Has the UKIP block spoken yet in the debate?

That's not very nice, he's a very intelligent man.

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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 time do they vote on this?

BigRich said:

What time do they vote on this?

Scheduled, 10PM for hostile amendment, 10.15 for motion. No idea how realistic that is though.

Sunil_Prasannan said:

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.

Agree with Nawaz on most of this:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/12/01/how-isis-suckered-the-west.html

Scrapheap_as_was said:

FrancisUrquhart said:

Scrapheap_as_was said:

Has the UKIP block spoken yet in the debate?

Mark Reckless lost his seat at the GE don't you know ;-)

Who?

I did a thread about Mark Reckless.

http://www2.politicalbetting.com/index.php/archives/2015/06/22/the-most-important-result-on-may-7th/

GIN1138 said:

Have we had any polling Re. Oldham?

Not any public polling

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

Will PB be using the word Daesh from now on?

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)

JosiasJessop said:

williamglenn said:

Danny565 said:

Pulpstar said:

Danny565 said:

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'm told two @LibDems MPs "struggling" to support @timfarron in opposing airstrikes #syriavote

Full on rebellion in the Lib Dem party....

oxfordsimon said:

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.

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

Will PB be using the word Daesh from now on?

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?

FrancisUrquhart said:

I'm told two @LibDems MPs "struggling" to support @timfarron in opposing airstrikes #syriavote

Full on rebellion in the Lib Dem party....

But Tim Farron supports airstrikes right?

Scott_P said:

@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.

FrancisUrquhart said:

I'm told two @LibDems MPs "struggling" to support @timfarron in opposing airstrikes #syriavote

Full on rebellion in the Lib Dem party....

Brake and Pugh nailed on.

Current operators of Brimstone: UK, Saudi Arabia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brimstone_(missile)#Operators

kle4 said:

Scott_P said:

@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.

Anorak said:

kle4 said:

Casino_Royale said:

AndyJS said:

Will PB be using the word Daesh from now on?

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.

taffys said:

''I fear it's becoming ever clearer that the West is weak, and scared, and that ultimately ISIS will win.''

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.

And do they then just stay forever?

Luckyguy1983 said:

taffys said:

''I fear it's becoming ever clearer that the West is weak, and scared, and that ultimately ISIS will win.''

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.

And do they then just stay forever?

Luckyguy1983 said:

taffys said:

''I fear it's becoming ever clearer that the West is weak, and scared, and that ultimately ISIS will win.''

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.

And do they then just stay forever?

Butcher and bolt.